Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes

Our next steps

I see, the intensity of the dispute is decreasing, and the authors of the recent edits, made with violation of the edit restrictions, stopped to present new arguments and to respond on my counter-arguments. In this situation, my next steps are the following.

1. If no fresh arguments will be presented in close future, I'll revert the changes made with violation of the edit restrictions. If these changes will be restored, the AE request will be filed against the editor who restored them. We already have an opinion of one experienced admin that confirms that the procedure had been circumvented by the users who made this edit, so the request will likely be successful.
2. In close future, I plan to start a discussion about the addition of new chapter devoted to the scale of mass killings (and of the modification of the "Comparison to other mass killings" chapter, because it refers to some figures).
   Everyone is welcome to participate in preparation of the draft.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I would note that making threats is not exactly a means of promoting WP:CONSENSUS especially since you would have no consensus for your edits. I realize that you have opined that many of the"premature deaths" were due to people fighting "agrarian reforms" but that is not going to fly as a means of gaining concensus, Paul. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Usually, a notification that someone has violated editing restrictions and, therefore, may be sanctioned if that will repeat means "notification", and should be treated as such. In addition, one can refer to the policy about consensus only if s/he is genuinely trying to address reasonable concerns of others. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, it is you who would be the "guilty party" by insisting on editing against WP:CONSENSUS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Completely disagree with Paul, completely agree with Collect about Paul's threats
  • Correcting a misrepresentation of a source, where the source is so clear and the misrepresentation so gross, is a minor edit akin to correcting an obvious factual error.
  • The last time the edit was put in there was a clear consensus to include it with 5 editors for and (sometimes) Paul against.
  • Paul proposed the following:

"# I revert last changes to this version. Per 1RR, I can do that. As a result of that, my request for self-revert becomes unneeded, and TLAM, Collect, Smallbones and Peters can ignore it."

• Paul had his chance to document his views on the general question in the "RfC" and completely failed to include any documentation.

given all this if Paul reverts the changes that have been up there now for several days, he would be violating the editing restrictions, as well as intentionally misrepresenting a source. Smallbones (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The only relevant edit restriction in the case if I'll make a revert is a 1RR. Therefore, there will be no violation from my side. If you will accept my revert (will not re-revert it again), everything will be fine, and I will have no formal reason for filing the request. However, if someone will revert it, he thereby will restore the version that has not been properly discussed on the talk page as Sandstein's rule require (see the Ed's notion), and the AE report will be filed. However, I'll request for the sanctions against one person only, about the person, who make the last revert. You can decide by yourself who this person will be (if anyone).

Let me point out, however, that on the top of this thread I proposed a compromise: no exact figures in the lede (in addition to the Valentino's figures that are already there), and detailed discussion of the number of the victims in the new separate section. You seem to be too preoccupied with the desire to see "100 million" in the first sentence.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• There is an obvious consensus that the gross misrepresentation of the source should not stand, if PS reverts against consensus then he himself is in violation of the restrictions on this article and will find an enforcement request filed against him. I for one have had enough of his threats. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I see no signs of such consensus, however, you are free to disagree, and to act accordingly. I explained my future actions and you are free to choose between conflict and collaboration.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Since you guys have gone to the trouble of clarifying the issues and collecting opinions, you should finish what you started. I see the draft of an RfC up above, but it looks like it does not have the formal RfC template yet. So the RfC did not start and is not registered in the RfC system. What is holding that up? EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What concrete RfC you mean, Ed? I initiated a straw poll about the edits mentioned in my AE draft. The second poll was about two possible versions of the lede. Which of these two you mean? If you mean the second one, then I believe we need to start it de novo, because I would like to replace my version with the text that addresses all reasonable sriticism. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. I'll prepare a draft soon.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. I prepared the RcF draft, so TLAM & Co can start it at any moment by adding the description of the alternative viewpoint and by presenting the alternative draft. Removal of "nowiki|" form the template will give a start to the process.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• @Paul. Let me repeat it once again: this talk page exists to discuss improvement of the article, not sanctions against other editors. This is especially the case for articles under editing restriction, like that one. Biophys (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Famine of 1932-1933

Paul writes "If majority single society studies demonstrate that the Great famine was (fully or partially) a result of Stalin's collectivisation policy, which lead to poor harvest and the need of forceful confiscations of food, regardless of the danger of starvation, I fully agree with that. However, almost no not-nationalistic scholarly sources claim that it was a deliberately organised genocide, and most scholars believe that the opposite was true: the famine was a result of the policy of Stalin's authorities, but it was not intentional, so it was not mass killing, at least according to one of few definitions. Therefore, it should be mentioned with reservations, what the article (but not the lede) is doing."

Actually the article doesn't do that at all. A sub-section is listed now under controversies, but the only real controversy in the sub-section is whether the killings should be called genocide, or were merely mass killings, or perhaps just ‘negligent genocide’ or "a series of crimes against humanity." Paul's POV that the famine was completely unintentional is almost completely missing in the sub-section, except for a sentence on the Russian government's view. I think that if he has a reliable source that says the famine was unintentional he should include it (briefly, since it appears to be a minority view). Notice, however, I don't mean to say that if he has sources that don't mention intentions, that he should include this as evidence that there were no intentions. Sources that don't mention mass killings or intentions are simply not evidence against intentional mass killings.

I would like to include a quote and brief explanation of it as the 2nd paragraph of the sub-section. This is from a Chapter by Werth in the Black Book of Communism, previously lauded by Paul. The inserted material would be:

Nicholas Werth states that "the forced collectivization of the countryside was in effect a war declared by the Soviet state on a nation of smallholders.... (The famine of 1932-1933 was) a terrible famine deliberately provoked by the authorities to break the resistance of the peasants. The violence used against the peasants allowed the authorities to experiment with methods that would be later used against other social groups."[1] Werth estimates the total death toll of the famine as 6 million, with 4 million of those being Ukrainians.

We should also move the sub-section up to the Soviet Union section, since there doesn't seem to be much real controversy among the reliable sources. Let me know whether you agree or disagree with making this change in the article. Smallbones (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's separates allegorical statements from serious opinions. Werth's estimates are is agreement with the data obtained by other serious authors. Werth's opinion that the famine was "in effect a war", is also partially correct, because at some point, when the famine became especially acute, Stalin, along with some concessions, took extremely severe measures against the peasants. However, the claim that it was "provoked", or "deliberately organised", as some authors argue, is not supported by many serious scholars. On this talk page, I already quoted the opinion of Michael Ellman, who notes that it is a common historical practice to treat famines separately from repressions ("mass killings", according to others), and that, in that sense, the parallelism between the Soviet Great famine, Bengal famine of 1942, and Irish potato famine is obvious. Note, also, that other famines (Volga famine, WWII famine) are also ascribed to the regime by Rummel and similar writers, however, in this case, we have no ground to speak about intentionality at all, and the authorities took measures (of course, insufficient) to provide a help for starving people.

Therefore, since different opinions about the great famine have been expressed by different authors, we cannot include this particular quote without providing the quotes expressing somewhat different opinions. However, Wikipedia is not a Wikiquote.

Re "the only real controversy in the sub-section is whether the killings should be called genocide" Incorrect. The term "genocide" is more or less well defined and widely used. By contrast, the term "mass killings" is vague, and is used by only few authors. I cannot even claim that there is a significant disagreement on what can be considered "mass killings" and what cannot, simply because, as I already explained, the term is not too popular. Rummel uses "democide" (only for the victims of government), Harf uses "politicide" (as a complement to "genocide", because the former deals with social/political group, and the latter with ethnic), and she does not include Chinese famine in this list (this list starts from 1950, so I don't know her opinion on the Soviet famine), etc. Many scholars use "repressions" as a synonym of "mass killings".

In other words, there is no uniformity in usage of the terminology. In this situation, to speak about "mass killings" as about some well established term (like "genocide") is deeply incorrect.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You are arguing again that a reliable source cannot be included simply because you don't like it. You were asked for a source that says the deaths were unintentional, and you come up with Ellman, who, as far as I can tell would just prefer not to address the question. Finally I have to say that this article is about Mass Killings under Communist Regimes. This title was chosen after long discussion as being the most neutral for the subject at hand. "Killing" differs from mere "Death" because "Killing" is about intention and in a general sense about assigning responsibility. Werth, a reliable source, clearly describes the intention and clearly assigns responsibility by doing so. You say "we have no ground to speak about intentionality at all." If you don't want to edit an article about 'Mass Killing" you may refrain from editing here. Or you might start an RfC about changing the name of the article. However I think the title "People who just happened to die while they were being annoyed by Communist Regimes" would be pretty silly. Smallbones (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Re "You are arguing again that a reliable source cannot be included simply because you don't like it." No. I argue that, since different opinions exist, all of them should be represented.

Re "you come up with Ellman, who, as far as I can tell would just prefer not to address the question" He did. And he concuded that the evidences that this famine was intentional are insufficient. Please, read the source.

Re "If you don't want to edit an article about 'Mass Killing" you may refrain from editing here." I want to edit the article about what all scholars define as "mass killing" (including "genocide", "politicide", "repressions", "classicide", as well as similar terms, because the term "mass killing" is not widely used). And I agree that the events that are seen as mass killings by only some authors should also be included. However, I insist that that should be done with needed reservetions, and in the separate section. Accordingly, the lede should not give undue weight to some opinions at cost of other. One more quote:

"However, whether these two items of evidence can be interpreted as meeting the specific intent criterion is doubtful. An analogy may make the legal problem clear. Was the policy followed in the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, first by the British Empire and then the USA, towards the Native Americans, an example of genocide? Many of them were killed by settlers, their land was expropriated, their population declined, and their way of life ended. A specialist in human rights law has argued (Bassiouni 1979), however, that this was not an example of genocide because of the absence of proof of specific intent. If the deaths were largely just a by-product of the spread of disease and agriculture, the deaths would remain a fact but would not constitute genocide. In addition, it is necessary to take account of the measures discovered by Davies and Wheatcroft to help Ukraine, such as the 11% reduction in the grain procurement quota in August 1932, and the further reduction in October, making a total reduction of 28% (Davies & Wheatcroft 2004, pp. 183- 185). Furthermore, the state allocated Ukraine 325,000 tonnes of grain as seed loans and relief in February-July 1933 (mainly February) (Davies & Wheatcroft 2004, Table 22). If the present author were a member of the jury trying this case he would support a verdict of not guilty (or possibly the Scottish verdict of not proven)." (Michael Ellman. Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932-33 Revisited Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 59, No. 4 (Jun., 2007), pp. 663-693

Note, I even do not use the works of Wheatcroft and Davies, who are reputable scholars working in this area. Ellman's article I quoted is devoted to criticism of the W&D views, so I can safely conclude that Ellman represents a middle of the spectrum.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Smallbones here. Ellman is only discussing whether the famine could be called a genocide or not. There is consensus among the authors that the famine was not entirely natural, but due to some human agency. Killing someone through negligence or incompetence is still a killing. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Please, keep in mind that Ellman considers two questions: firstly, if the famine was directed against some certain ethnic group, and, secondly, if it was designed to kill this group. Although the first question is specific for genocide only, the second question is equally relevant to both genocide and mass killings (for instance, in the Staub's definition). Therefore, the Ellman's conclusion is equally relevant for both genocide and mass killing.

Anticipating your accusations in synthesis (because Ellman does not use the term "mass killings") let me point out that ca 80% of sources used in this article do not use this term (which is not commonly used among historians and geno/politicide scholars). Therefore, to avoid double standards, you should remove these sources from the article and change the text accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

The editors of this article have long been divided into two groups, each having a different concept of how the article should be approached. While the whole article needs extensive work, the difference in concept shows up most clearly in the lede: one group does not want to include more than a couple of numbers in the lede, another believes that the scale of the mass killings needs to be clearly explained there. Rather than continue endless pages of argument on this matter, we've decided to ask the general population of editors on Wikipedia to decide which approach is best. Please make brief comments below.

Paul Siebert (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Smallbones (talk) 13:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Concept 1

"Definition of "mass killings under Communist regimes" is a matter of judgement and heavily coloured by political opinion, so the figures are not separable from the opinions, and should not be provided in the opening sentence. A lion's share of mass deaths under Communists was not a result of repressions or executions, but of famine, disease and similar causes, which are not considered as a mass killings according to the normal historical practice. Most single society studies exclude famine deaths from the mass killings deaths toll, however, most studies devoted to "world Communism" as whole combine all deaths together, hence the astronomic figures of "Communist mass killings" in this type sources. Obviously, that fact should be explained before any figures have been provided, otherwise a reader will be mislead and undue weight will be given to the latter type of sources at cost of the former.

In addition, since the article is primarily devoted not to the deaths toll, its lede, which serves as the article's summary, should provide just a couple of the most general figures. "

Concept 2

"Use of the term "mass killings" requires judgement and we need to rely on the expert judgement published in reliable sources and to document those sources. The scale of the mass killings is very important and summarizes much of what should appear in the body of the article. Reasonable estimates of the scale should be represented in the lede as ranges and in the body of the text in more detail."

Lede 1

"Mass killings of non-combatants occurred under some Communist regimes. Scholarship focuses on the specific causes of mass killings in single societies, though some claims of common causes have been made, including the role of Communist ideology, the totalitarian nature of Communism, the strategic calculations of a small group of leaders seeking to communize the society. The number of comparative studies suggesting causes is limited, and different definitions of mass killings have been proposed. There are scholars who combine deaths as result of executions that took place during the elimination of political opponents, civil wars, terror campaigns, and land reforms, with the deaths as a result of war, famine and disease into a single category "mass killings", or "democide." The estimates of total death toll of mass killings defined in such a way are coloured by political opinion, and sometimes approach to 100 million. The highest death tolls occurred in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, in the People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong, and in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. The estimates of the number of non-combatants killed by these three regimes alone range from a low of 21 million to a high of 70 million, Although most Communist regimes have not engaged in mass killings, according to some evidences, there have also been killings on a smaller scale in North Korea, Vietnam, and some Eastern European and African countries.

Lede 2

Mass killing of non-combatants has occurred under several Communist regimes in the pursuit of the communist ideal of a utopian society Estimates for those killed range from 60 million to 100 million. The term "mass killing" refers not only to direct methods of killing, such as executions, bombing, and gassing, but also to the deaths in a population caused by starvation, disease and exposure resulting from the intentional confiscation or destruction of their necessities of life, or similarly caused deaths during forced relocation or forced labor. Thus starvation deaths in the 1932-1933 Holodomor, and in the 1958-1961 Great Chinese Famine, lethal forced labor in North Korea and ethnic cleansing in Asia, have all been described as mass killings.

The highest documented death tolls have occurred in the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, and Cambodia. Estimates of mass killings in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin range from 15 million to 40 million. In the People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong, mass killings are estimated from 65 to 72 million. And in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge the estimated death toll is between 1.5 and 2.5 million.

There have also been mass killings on a smaller scale in North Korea, Vietnam, and some Eastern European and African countries.

References

While not all these footnotes need to be in the lede, it is important for reviewers to know that these exist and can be included in the body of the text if they are not already.

Bibliography

• Combs, Dick (2008). Inside the Soviet Alternate Universe The Cold War's End and the Soviet Union's Fall Reappraised. Penn State University Press. p. 361. ISBN 978-0-271-03355-6.
• Courtois, Stéphane (editor) (1999). The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. Harvard University Press. p. 858. ISBN 0-674-07608-7. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Translation of Le Livre noir du communisme: Crimes, terreur, répression, published in 1997 by Éditions Robert Laffont.
• Hosking, Geoffrey A. (1993). The first socialist society: a history of the Soviet Union from within. Harvard University Press. p. 570. ISBN 978-0674304437.
• Gellately, Robert (2003). The specter of genocide: mass murder in historical perspective. Cambridge University Press. p. 396. ISBN 978-0521527507. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Kurtz, Lester R. (1999). Encyclopedia of violence, peace & conflict. Academic Press. p. 809. ISBN 978-0122270116. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Naimark, Norman M. (2010). Stalin’s Genocides. Princeton University Press. p. 163. ISBN 978-0-271-03355-6. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• Rosefielde, Steven (2010). Red Holocaust. Taylor & Francis. p. 358. ISBN 978-041577757.
• Snyder, Timothy (2010). Bloodlands: Europe between Hitler and Stalin. Basic Books. p. 524. ISBN 9780465002399.
• Staub, Ervin (2010). Overcoming evil: genocide, violent conflict, and terrorism. Oxford University Press. p. 576. ISBN 978-0195382044.
• Valentino, Benjamin A. (2005). Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century. Cornell University Press. p. 317. ISBN 978-0801472732.

Comments on the lede 1

Support

• Support - I think a middle ground between 1 and 2 is best ... sort of what Hipocrite proposes below. But of the two choices above, I'd go with the tone of (1). The (2) choice strike me as a rather strident anti-communist POV, that tries to bludgeon the reader with figures. (1) is phrased more neutrally and encyclopedically. Granted, the accuracy issues (listed below in the Oppose section) have to be dealt with, but I'm !voting based on the tone of the proposals. BTW: If there are two factions of editors, and (1) represents one of the two factions, why is no one else !voting for it? --Noleander (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it. Why did you remove the middle ground 3rd option[2]? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I put that middle ground in, but then figured it may confuse other editors, so immediately removed it. If you want it in, go ahead and put it in. --Noleander (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support. More neutral, more sensible approach to figures. Also because of this explanation by Paul: User_talk:Paul_Siebert#The_top_margin_is_no_more_than_20_million. GreyHood ^Talk 17:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Not even close to what reliable sources - in fact the mainstream sources - state. Wikipedia should not be used to mislead readers in such a manner. Collect (talk) 13:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
2. This version is clearly problematic. (1) It misinterprets sources. It tells: "but also lives lost due to war, famine, disease". No, the numbers in Black book and other sources do not include people who were killed at war or died from diseases. (2) It is too wordy and non-informative. It tells: "Scholarship focuses on the causes of mass killings in single societies, though some claims of common causes for mass killings have been made." So, what exactly causes have been proposed? This should be explained. (3) No need to repeat expression "mass killings" many times. Biophys (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
3. Does not summarize what a good article would look like. Hipocrite (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
4. Opposing per Biophys and collect. The Last Angry Man (talk) 14:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
5. Oppose per others - but I have to add that, after reading it multiple times, I just don't understand what it actually means. Smallbones (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
6. Oppose per others. And per Smallbones, seems to spend more time on what it's not than what it is. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per Hipocrite and TFD's reason for opposing on the second proposed lede. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment

In regard to Biophys:

1. I would be grateful is you explained me where Courtois took the figures from. However, since his intro contains no references, we can only guess. Usually, the figure of 20 million deaths in the USSR include population losses during major famines (post Civil war famine, Great famine and post WWII famine). A significant part of deaths during these famines were the deaths from typhus (for sources see, Donald Filtzer, Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 51, No. 6 (Sep., 1999), pp. 1013-1038, Michael Ellman, Cambridge Journal of Economics 2000, 24, 603–630, David C. Engerman The American Historical Review, Vol. 105, No. 2 (Apr., 2000), pp. 383-416 ). I believe the sources I cite are reliable enough.

2. The causes proposed by single society studies are specific for each particular society. Thus, Werth argues that the reasons for the outburst of violence in post-revolutionary Russia was a combination of several factors, which included poorly organised agrarian reforms in Tsarist Russia, which lead to enormous social tensions, and of the overal brutality of the WWI. These factors were exacerbated by the brutality of the Civil war (from both sides). Of course, Communism contributed to that, but it was not the sole factor.
Fu speaks about long traditions of Chinese autocracy, so Maoism was just one more reincarnation of that.
Fein discusses specific problems, real and perceived, Cambodian Communist authorities faced, but she does not discuss the genocide in connection to Communism. All these three studies just the examples of numerous single society studies, I cannot review them all on the article's talk page. I think, you should read them by yourself.

I believe I addressed your criticism, so, I believe, you have no objections against this version.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

None of this includes "lives lost due to war". Biophys (talk) 04:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I see you agreed about "disease". With regard "wars", the text does not claim the figures include "all lives lost due to all wars". Courtois makes a reservation that "civil wars" are more complex subject, however, it is unclear from his words what part of civil war deaths does he include into the overall death toll. Lives lost during the Vietnam war are also attributed to Communism. Therefore, statement is fully correct.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No, none of the sources currently quoted in introductions (and in particular Black Book) counts deaths due to wars. Neither they discusses statistics of deaths from infectious or other diseases. Biophys (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The BB does count 1.5 million of Afghan deaths, which were a result of counter-guerrilla warfare (btw, Valentino explicitly excludes these deaths from Communist mass killings, see his "Final solution"). With regard to the Courtois' figures for the USSR and China, since the author did not explain the procedure he used for his estimates, and since no references have been provided, we can only guess about the origin of these figures, and about what they include. However, it is known that most high estimates of death toll in the USSR include the Civil war and a part of WWII deaths. In any event, we have at least one direct evidence (Afghanistan) that the deaths as a result of guerrilla war were included in the total death toll.

I believe, I addressed all your objections. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments on lede 2

Support

1. with changes removing the bit about "utopian society" etc, and the detailing of causes etc. The lede should be a summary, not an exposition of the entire topic. I would prefer to support something on the order of:

Mass killing, excluding war-related deaths, has occurred under several Communist regimes. Estimates for those killed range from 60 million to 100 million. The term "mass killing" includes deaths from various ideological and governmental causes, acts or decisions. The highest documented death tolls occurred in the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, and Cambodia. Collect (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Support obviously, naturally could do with tweaking but overall the better of the two. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
2. Support (as previous participant) Smallbones (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
3. Support, particularly if some of what Hipocrite proposes below is rolled into the text. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
4. Support, China would come first in death toll as opposed to the USSR, and per Martin. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

• Does not summarize what a good article would look like. Hipocrite (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Although the proposed text is too focused on numbers, it definitely has problems with elementary arithmetic. Thus, we have

• 60 million to 100 million total deaths
• 15 million to 40 million in the USSR
• 65 million to 72 million in China
• 1.5 million to 2.5 million in Cambodia

However, if we add 65, 15 and 1.5 (lower estimates for the three countries) we get 81.5 million (as opposed to claimed 60 million totals). If we add 72, 40 and 2.5 we get 114.5 (as opposed to 100 million totals).

That is just one of several issues with the lede, which, in addition to that, does not summarise the article at all.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Two things, the number are estimates from scholars. The USSR PRC and Cambodia, "72, 40 and 2.5 we get 114.5" are not the only communist regimes mentioned who have partaken in mass killings. We can but use the estimates provided by reliable sources after all. The Last Angry Man (talk)

Re "The USSR PRC and Cambodia, "72, 40 and 2.5 we get 114.5" are not the only communist regimes mentioned who have partaken in mass killings." Correct. However, that means that either the total estimates should be higher, or that the individual total estimates for each country have been made based on the obsolete data, and are exaggerated (the last possibility is more likely).

Re "the number are estimates from scholars." Then the selection of the figures are problematic. It is quite possible that, e.g. 40 millions in teh USSR were the population losses, which is a totally different category. Alternatively, it is highly likely that this figure includes all famines and some war time deaths. The source (Combs) refers to some unnamed "Western sources", and it claims that Stalin "caused the deaths". Since the definition of "mass killings" implies some intentionality, I do not think this claim from this fersion is supported by the cited source. Similarly, the problem with 15 million is even more serious, on the page 203 the source tells not about 15-20 million as the established number of "casualties of terror", but about the upper limit ("it may be that casualties totalled 15-20"). In addition, since these books just use the secondary sources, may be it makes sense to use these secondary sources directly?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose for the following reasons:

Dubious numbers and counting methodology as explained above.

False supposition that various kinds of excess deaths could be so easily summed up and dubbed equal to mass killings.

Dubious claim of the killings in pursuit of utopia, when in reality the reasons were much less idealistic and much more complex in each case. GreyHood ^Talk 17:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not up to us to assert that reliable source figures are "dubious" - perhaps you have sources which are much lower and which also pass WP:RS without falling into the "premature deaths don't count" argument? Did you note my suggested wording which does not use the "utopia" language? Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Correct. That is why I provided several reliable sources that clearly tell that those claims are dubious. You persistent attempts to ignore these sources are not an indication of your good faith.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Alas - you assert that your sources give numbers - but some of your posts indicated that (for example) "premature deaths" were self-inflicted because of opposition to "agrarian reform." Such claims, as far as I can tell, are exceedingly WP:FRINGE and should not be given any substantial weight. Now can you give any mainstream sources with numbers which can really be used? Or are WP:FRINGE sources the best you can come up with now? If so, then you really should accept that Wikipedia does not say we should use the fringe sources as the primary ones. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I never use fringe sources. Formally, all sources I use meet all non-fringe reliable source criteria. In that situation, I don't have to prove the opposite, and I do not have to provide the evidences that my sources are not fringe. However, if you think they are, please, provide needed evidences.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Takes singular opinions and states them as declarative fact far too often and much too strongly. BigK HeX (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose We need to explain why we are telling this. I could write for example that education levels are lower in U.S. states that start with an "A" (Arkansas, Alabama, Alaska), but would need to explain the connection between the group and the topic. TFD (talk) 05:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per Hipocrite, Paul Siebert, Greyhood, BigK HeX but most particularly TFD. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Figures should add up. The exact totals are uncertain, both on the facts, and above all on the definitions; a good lead would say this. One proper phrasing would be tens of millions, which nobody disputes as the right order of magnitude; the disputable estimates belong in the body of the article; and in the Soviet Union (chiefly under Joseph Stalin), Maoist China, Kampuchea, and elsewhere is the right level of generality for a lead. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment

This version does much better work with numbers. But there were also some practical reasons to conduct each specific terror campaign (such as Great Terror), not only ideology: preparation for WWII, establishing personal dictatorship, etc. This must be explained in body of the article and in introduction. Unfortunately, no one can edit this article in present situation. Biophys (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Better in some ways - but overly detailed in listing "every possible cause" instead of saying "various causes, including ideological and governmental causes" which would be sufficient IMO. Ledes should summarize, and leave the detailed cites to the body. Collect (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• The key sentences of lead 2 run Estimates of mass killings in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin range from 15 million to 40 million. In the People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong, mass killings are estimated from 65 to 72 million. And in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge the estimated death toll is between 1.5 and 2.5 million.

Those are assertions about what the range of scholarly estimates is; saying that, on a subject on which estimates are likely to be challenged, requires a source which says that the range of estimate runs from X million to Y million. Individual extimates which Wikipedia editors happen to have found do not verify the assertion being made. In particular, the sentence on China implies that the variance of estimate on Mao's murders

• varies by less than 10%,
• and that The Black Book of Communism offers the lowest figure in all the historiography of China.

Both are preposterous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

General Comments

??? I thought we just had an RFC above[3]. Why are we doing this all over again? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Since no RfC template was placed on the top of the last RfC, it was just a preliminary discussion between the users who have been already involved in it. Other users were not notified, so formally the last RfC never started.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• I was notified via RFC-bot. I find both of these lacking. I suggest the following alternative, which does summarize what a good article would look like:

Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century. Estimates for those killed range from 60 million to 100 million. Higher estimates include not only mass murders or executions but also avoidable lives lost due to famine and disease due to confiscation or destruction of property, in addition to deaths in forced labor camps or during forced relocation.

The highest death tolls that have been documented in communist states occurred in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, in the People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong, and in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. The estimates of the number of non-combatants killed by these three regimes alone range from a low of 21 million to a high of 70 million. Although most Communist regimes have not engaged in mass killings, there have also been killings on a smaller scale in North Korea, Vietnam, and some Eastern European and African countries.

Hipocrite (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I see some issues with this version. Firstly, it assumes that the lives lost lost due to famine and disease are excluded from the lower estimates (60 millions), although I doubt that is the case: in the USSR and China, the lion's share of deaths was caused by these reasons, so, if they are excluded, the deaths toll would be much lower. Secondly, the article devotes a considerable attention to various explanations of mass deaths; therefore, the lede is supposed to do that. However, your version lives this issue beyond the scope.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears that you intend to argue with outside views that disagree with what you want. I don't think that's very productive. I presented you a way forward - a middle ground between two embarrassingly biased ledes. If you choose to ignore the outside views, that's on you. Hipocrite (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I've just updated the lede 1 as I promised to Smallbones yesterday. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You really think The estimates of total death toll of mass killings defined in such a way are coloured by political opinion is going to fly? Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Not only I think, I know, and my knowledge is based on what the reliable sources say. Just read the articles I cited, and answer the following question:

"Do you really think that the authors of these reviews do not blame Courtois in playing with numbers in pursuit of a some concrete goal?"

--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

"Not only I think, I know", Yup, sums it up in a nutshell. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Martin, "I know" is short for "I know that the assertion I make is supported by reliable non-fringe sources". I believe, I made myself clear enough?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

This part of the discussion not needed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think the following could be removed as vandalism - but I'd hate to completely remove what some might see as a comment at or on the RfC. Based on the anon's edit history, there is no need to WP:AGF, so I'll say it looks to me like an intentional provocation, like some of the other provocations in his history. So please, nobody fall (anymore) into his trap. Don't respond to provocations. If anybody, after review of the anon's edit history, really thinks that this really belongs in the RfC, just remove the "hat" at the top and "hab" at the bottom. Smallbones (talk) 23:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC) --- All of these are bad and confusing. This is a simple article intended for the simple reader. I will suggest: Mass killing on the scale of hundreds of millions (possibly thousands of millions, that is, billions) of people occurred in communist and socialist countries. The highest death tolls occured in Russia and Red China. The Reds deliberately killed millions using guns, knives, bayonets, poison gases, artillery shells. The lion's share was caused by inaccessible and inadequate socialized medicine, land reform, and tort reform. These mass killings are known as the Red Holocaust, mirroring the Holocaust in Nazi Germany. 24.146.224.106 (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC) you forgot to mention the well known habit of "jewish bolshevik cossacks" to drink Christian infants' blood ...-Paul Siebert (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC) When in doubt, accuse everyone else of being Anti-Semitic, eh? Paul - you know better! Cheers, and suggest you redact that strange and quite worthless slur on other editors. Collect (talk) 12:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC) That is a quote from one novel, and this quote has nothing in common with anti-Semitism. This double oxymoron is supposed to demonstrate how ridiculous the anonym's post is. If my opponents are not familiar with this novel, I am not responsible for that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC) Tell ya what - post it on Slrubenstein's user talk page and ask him whether it is an "anti=semitic" charge. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC) I have no idea on who Slrubenstein is. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC) Ha, this is funny indeed.. GreyHood Talk 17:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC) Just in case all you haven't understand the double oxymoron: real Cossacks were anti-Bolsheviks and were ethnically Russian/Ukrainian. Hence Bolshevik Cossacks and Jewish Cossacks are nonsense, and no any anti-Semitism here. Cheers! GreyHood Talk 11:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC) Other than the fact that Jewish and Bolshevik Cossacks did, in fact, exist, and absolute claims are generally errant <g>. Collect (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC) Did they? Please, give me a name of at least one Jewish Bolshevik Cossack.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC) Copying post: As to the second claim that all Cossacks were anti-Bolshevik -- that is belied by [4], thus such a group certainly did exist. Ditto the existence of "Jewish cossacks" per [5], [6] etc. It is amazing how often absolute statements turn out to be errant. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC) Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC) The question was about Jewish Bolshevik Cossacks. The books you refer to are about pre-Civil war Cossacks. I need a name of some Red Cossacks with Jewish ancestry. Can you provide it?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC) I gave sufficient RS sources to show that the absolute claim was errant. You are now using the "let's pretend he didn't answer the question by making a different question" system of debate. I do not follow that sort of line, and I am aghast someone else would try it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Could editors please show respect when discussing the deaths of tens of millions of people. TFD (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead 3

To me, not knowing much about the facts, lede 1 reads like (I exaggerate a bit to get the point across): "Some scholars exaggerate, they are politically motivated, actually the situation was not so bad". Lede 2 reads: "Bad communists!". To me the best lead is the one that has been removed: lede 3. Without POV, without spin, and to the point. But as I said, I'm not expert on the subject. --Dia^ (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That would be:

Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century. Estimates for those killed range from 60 million to 100 million. Higher estimates include not only mass murders or executions but also avoidable lives lost due to famine and disease due to confiscation or destruction of property, in addition to deaths in forced labor camps or during forced relocation.

The highest death tolls that have been documented in communist states occurred in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, in the People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong, and in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. The estimates of the number of non-combatants killed by these three regimes alone range from a low of 21 million to a high of 70 million. Although most Communist regimes have not engaged in mass killings, there have also been killings on a smaller scale in North Korea, Vietnam, and some Eastern European and African countries.

The only real problem with it is the "most countries didn't" sentence. Ceraucescu may not have been Stalin, but he would have been described as a mass murderer in any other century than the twentieth. Amd if we exclude the USSR, the PRC, three of the East Asian Communisms, part of Eastern Europe, and much of Africa, what's left to be "most"? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

There are several problems with the proposed text. Firstly, the statement "Estimates for those killed range from 60 million to 100 million. Higher estimates include not only mass murders or executions but also avoidable lives lost due to famine and disease due to confiscation or destruction of property, in addition to deaths in forced labor camps or during forced relocation." implies that 60 millions were the victims of "mass murders and executions", and remaining 40 millions died as a result of "famine and disease etc." That is not the case. For most countries (except Cambodia, were we can speak about a pure genocide of 1/3 of population), both lower (60) and higher (100) estimates include the deaths from all causes. For instance, if we exclude "avoidable lives lost due to famine and disease due to confiscation or destruction of property, in addition to deaths in forced labor camps or during forced relocation" from the USSR mortality figures, i.e. we count only "murders and executions", we get ca 1.2 million deaths for the Great Purge (including the camp executions and similar deaths) plus several millions Civil war death, so the amount of death falling into the first category would be far below ten million. A situation in China was not completely the same, however the overall tendency was similar: most deaths were a result of famines and forced relocations. Theefore, this statement is simply misleading, because all authors that give the figures from 60 to 100 million do include both categories of deaths, although the estimates of famine victims are different from study to study.

A second problem with this text is that it completely ignores the analysis of causes of these killings, as if the article hadn't discussed them at all. However, this article is devoted not to the statistics of deaths, as on might conclude from the proposed Lede 3.

With regard to "most countries", I also am not comfortable reading this. However, that is an almost verbatim quote from Valentino's "Final solutions" (see the ref. provided in my version of the lede). That is exactly what he says, and we have no ground to question his conclusion.

Re Ceaucescu, as Valentino says, we cannot discuss this regime, because the existing data do not allow us to discuss the scale of mass killings in Romania, the very fact of them, as well as the motives of the perpetrators.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the close reading. But those are fixable difficulties: for example, replacing higher by these, or these, in varying degrees, will remove the implication that there is a 40 million "other causes" figure. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

If we will fix all difficulties we will probably get the lede #1 (or something of that kind). However, we can try.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to the clarification about the first sentence. I was not aware of the issue. Would be possible to change the given estimates (60 -100 millions) with whatever is the lower estimate without famine and so on (the same for the highest if it is contested)? Otherwise what about Septentrionalis' suggestion?

For the "most countries" bit, would be possible to give a percentage to avoid to give a subjective quantification? Or something like "Of the ...(put correct number) communists regimes that existed/exists ... definitely carried out mass killings, ... are debated and ... probably/possibly/surely didn't."?

For the missing sentence about the analysis of the causes I'm not 100% sure that I understand. I would expect that any half decent article on such a subject would include a detailed analysis of the causes.

Maybe is missing a "warning" that because of the political issues involved, complexity of the subject (span over decades, many different countries, many different causes, secretive regimes) is difficult to get an accurate disinterested picture? Maybe a sentence could be added between first and second paragraph?--Dia^ (talk) 11:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Re the lower estimates, the problem is that whereas the higher estimates are available from the books about the crimes of Communism as whole, lower estimates can be found mostly in the single society studies.

Re percentage, please keep in mind that we deal with very vague terminology: no commonly accepted definition of mass killing exists, and there is no consensus among the scholars on what can be considered as "Communist mass killings" and what cannot. So the percentage you are talking about is a matter of judgement, which depends on the political beliefs of some particular author. How can we seriously speak about any percentage in this situation?

Re analysis of the causes, different authors provide different explanations, including the explanations which are specific for each particualr society, and only few authors see direct linkage to Communism. However, by omitting the discussion of causes we create an impression that the commonality and the direct linkage to Communism is the sole mainstream view.

Re a "warning", that is exactly what I wrote in the first version of the lede. Maybe, the wording is not optimal, however, we can discuss its improvement.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, this is not what sources tell (as was already discussed above). Consider this phrase: "Higher estimates include not only mass murders or executions but also avoidable lives lost due to famine and disease due to confiscation or destruction of property, in addition to deaths in forced labor camps or during forced relocation." The higher estimate (100 million "killed") is apparently "Black book". But it does not tell "due to famine and disease". It tells: something like that: "due to intentional starvation of population, man-made hunger" (maybe not an exact quotation, but that is what authors tell). The number also does not include civilians executed during Russian civil war, etc. Biophys (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Correct. The sources that attribute all excess deaths in Communist states to Communism speak about "intentional starvation" etc. However, many single society studies use quite different terminology and provide quite different explanations for the actions of the authorities. In other words, the categorisation, and, accordingly, the figures are a matter of judgement, and, as a result, are highly controversial.

I agree that some sources exist that fully support your assertions. However, since many single society studies provide quite different description of the same events, we should either present all opinions fairly and proportionally, or to explain, from the very beginning, that the article reflects the viewpoint of some authors (Courtois, Rummel, Rosefielde, et al), who see a commonality between all these events, and who attribute them primarily to Communism.

Re civil wars, it is not clear from the Coirtois' text if he excluded the Civil war executions into the total death toll or not. He just says that civil wars are more contrioversial cases.

In any event, since no explanations have been provided in the BB on what sources had been used by Courtois, we cannot speak about these figures seriously. It seems to me that you insist on the usage of this introduction simply because you like this source (despite its obviosly poor quality).--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I see the discussion has abated. In a situation when no progress can be expected in close future, I revert last changes that have been made to the lede in violation of the procedure described by Sandstein on the top of this talk page. We can continue the discussion about further improvements of the lede later.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

And you clearly do not have consensus for any such revert. Cheers, Paul - but that sort of act is precisely what gets admins here on the double. Collect (talk) 20:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Since the edits I reverted have been made in violation of the Sandstein's procedure, they were supposed to be reverted immediately. The fact that I allowed them to stand for almost a month is a demonstration of my good faith. Please, self-revert, otherwise I'll have to take other steps. You have 48 hours.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Unless you demonstrate that you have consensus for the huge revert, it is you who is in the hot seat. As for the threat of YOU HAVE 48 HOURS - that belongs in a B-movie, not on any article talk page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Paul is right - the edit he reverts was against procedure in the first place. I wonder why it wasn't reverted so long ago. But it was moderately interesting to watch the resulting discussions, though.. And there is no need to use drama language. GreyHood ^Talk 20:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

For him to make a change, he ought to establish a consensus first. That is a core principle of Wikipedia, and the "drama" was injected with his deadline. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

So TLAM's edit did not need consensus, and Paul's revert does need. How utterly nice. GreyHood ^Talk 22:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I would point out that the status quo is what we are dealing with - and it requires a consensus to alter it. Cheers. And read WP:CONSENSUS. Nowhere in that does it suggest issuing an ultimatum. Collect (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is needed to change the article. TLAM did not obtain that and therefore Paul Siebert was correct to revert him. TFD (talk) 01:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Shall we try again?

It's pretty clear that it's still very divided here. I don't really know where to take this, or even how the extra rules applied here should be interpreted. Lede 1, which PS seems to want to put in still, had 2 supports and 7 opposes, Lede 2, by my count, had 5 supports and 7 opposes. Lede 3 - which hasn't been put in a ready-to-go cited format - seems to have lots of support. Could somebody write it up and we could !vote on it (vs. the current lede)? If this doesn't work, we could try again (and again and again). Or somebody else could come up with a better way to move forward. Smallbones (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

We are probably not going anywhere because no one has ever provided any evidence that the subject of this article exists in either mainstream academic literature or even in fringe writing. TFD (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

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

What is the Americanism to describe the results? Is it "duh" or "doh"? TFD (talk) 01:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably "d'oh". BigK HeX (talk) 03:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, I agree that the article's subject itself seems like questionable synthesis supported by synthesizing together a book on Stalin, a book about Mao, and a small smattering of obscure writings. BigK HeX (talk) 03:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The argument of TFD and BigK HeX is essentially the same argument put forward FIVE (5) times to delete the article, and definitely is not an argument about what should be in the article. I don't think that deletion has ever had a majority in an AfD, and KEEP has had a definite consensus the last 2 or 3 times. In short that argument has been tried over and over again and found lacking. At this point bringing it up again is simple obstructionism. There are plenty of sources that justify the existence of the article in the article now. I'll suggest that folks who want to delete the article just refrain from editing the article or even commenting on this page. We've just heard it too many times. Spouting the same old nonsense is not a way to move forward. Come up with a way to move forward or just get out of the way. Smallbones (talk) 03:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll stick around all the same. Thanks. BigK HeX (talk) 03:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's go with lede 3 then. Using, or course, the current refs from the lede I left the article with. Cheers, and glad this drama is over. Collect (talk) 13:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Collect. Ever the optimist. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

1. It appears to address all the main issues. 2. This has now dragged on for too long. 3. Rehashing old and interminably repeated "stuff" does not advance the encyclopedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone clarify, please, where the 21 million number for three countries (in version 3) comes from? Biophys (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)