Talk:Excess mortality in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Does Katyn massacre counts as "mortality in the Soviet Union" or "Soviet War Crime"

The Soviet invasion of Poland began on 17 September in accordance with the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. The Red Army advanced quickly and met little resistance,[10] as Polish forces facing them were under orders not to engage the Soviets. About 250,000[1][11] to 454,700[12] Polish soldiers and policemen were captured and interned by the Soviet authorities. Some were freed or escaped quickly, but 125,000 were imprisoned in camps run by the NKVD.[1] Of these, 42,400 soldiers, mostly of Ukrainian and Belarusian ethnicity serving in the Polish army, who lived in the territories of Poland annexed by the Soviet Union, were released in October.[11][13][14] The 43,000 soldiers born in western Poland, then under German control, were transferred to the Germans; in turn, the Soviets received 13,575 Polish prisoners from the Germans.[11][14] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre#Background

While the massacre did take place in Soviet territory; the actual people executed had not been Soviet Citizens. This article seems to be trying to tackle the deaths inflicted on Soviet citizen, and not on those who just happened to be killed in the Soviet Union. If that was the case there are a few other event that should be included as death such as:

In total, during the whole period of the existence of GUPVI there were over 500 POW camps (within the Soviet Union and abroad) which imprisoned over 4,000,000 POWs.[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Administration_for_Affairs_of_Prisoners_of_War_and_Internees If this is the case we should also include: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_prisoners_of_war_in_the_Soviet_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labor_of_Hungarians_in_the_Soviet_Union

These events also lead to signifficantly more deaths than the Katyn massacre so I would think their inclusion would be more notable.

There also may of been this: In Yugoslavia in 1945, most ethnic Germans had their land confiscated and some were stripped of their citizenship by the new communist government. They faced summary executions, massacres, deportations. They were rounded up en masse, and some were sent to concentration and labor camps,[where?] where they died in considerable numbers. About 27,000 – 37,000 women aged 18–40 were sent to the Soviet Union to perform forced labor. In addition, 35,000–40,000 Swabian children under age sixteen were separated from their parents and force into prison camps and re-education orphanages. Many were adopted by Serbian Partisan families.[26] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danube_Swabians#World_War_II,_expulsion,_and_post-war

I think either the Katyn massacre should be removed; and we should add a disclaimer that links to the Soviet War Crimes article-( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes#World_War_II ); or the other events should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:1501:1890:BCED:167F:90B5:B961 (talk) 05:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The page covers Population transfers and deaths in the Gulag adequately and the Katyn massacre was ordered by Stalin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:81:C401:7810:816B:D8D0:1208:480C (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 October 2019

Change 3,125 to 3.125 2601:243:403:690:FCC2:A5D5:BE7D:35AA (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Stalin and HIS Soviet Government KILLED 20 Million People, no more, no less

Stalin and his government killed 20 million people, no more, no less, see here: Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin ... https://www.nytimes.com › 1989/02/04 › world › major-soviet-paper-says-2

This was done before 1991, when historians got to access the archives after the break-up of the Soviet Union. According to these archives, the death toll is now slightly lower, with 6 to 9 million dead, as per new sources in the article.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Table at bottom of article

This table as it exists now is problematic as the calculations made to get the final totals cannot be found in WP:RS, and therefore possibly violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. EDIT: I also take issue with the inclusion in parenthesis of (*excluding killings outside of Soviet borders), as lay readers could take this to mean this excludes the killing of non-Soviet citizens, when Katyn clearly involved the killing of non-Soviet citizens.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the table is fine, because it includes all the events covered in the article. It also gives a range for the fatalities.

The parenthesis is justified since the article itself is called "Excess mortality in the Soviet Union". Killings were also perpetrated outside the Soviet borders, in its attacks and invasions of Finland, the Baltic states, Poland and other countries. The Katyn massacre occurred inside these borders, and should therefore be included.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Decimal point error

Could someone edit the first sentence in the section "Forced settlements in the Soviet Union 1939-53"? The figures of 5,870 million and 3,125 million are, presumably, meant to be 5.87 million and 3.125 million — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buchaille (talk • contribs) 12:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

What? You’re a id*** and a Stalinist apologist

What?!? You sir are a fool and have actual no proof and evidence and are probably a Stalinist apologist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8004:CC2:597C:14C:23E4:B953:8054 (talk) 08:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Your comment is not constructive. If you disagree with something in the article, provide an improvement and source references. An anonymous IP address who won't sign his own rant against an absent opinion doesn't win anyone over to your PoV. 49.180.123.199 (talk) 08:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Why not merge it into History of the Soviet Union (1927–53)?

As stated in the header, why not merge this into History of the Soviet Union (1927–53)? Why do we have only Communist-related articles about such things, even though there are sources and a literature about the excess deaths under capitalism or the excess death under the democratic capitalist experiment in India and Russia? Of course, the latter is not a good enough reason for a merge but what it does show, and what I really wanted to highlight, is that there is a bias. The mere fact this exists as a standalone article, when it is only one part of historiography that highlights excess death (completely ignoring the excess in lives also created and saved), only exacerbates this bias, which results in original research and synthesis, among other issues. I do not see why a short summary could not be added at Stalinism if the topic is so notable and the content be moved and merged into History of the Soviet Union (1927–53), where context and background is actually provided and is not put into a vacuum. Would this not have been there in the first place and only be moved here if required? It was actually moved here from the Joseph Stalin article, but the better solution would have been to move it to History of the Soviet Union (1927–53).

The mere fact this article exists precludes us to highlight the excess lives several scholars such as Ellmann did indeed highlighted and which would be discusses if the content was merged there. Especially since we write "Number of deaths of people by Stalinism, 1924—1953 (*excluding killings outside of Soviet borders)." Surely this content is better suited for those two articles since it is about the Stalin era; or even Demographics of the Soviet Union. While I appreciate all the good works, C.J. Griffin and Paul Siebert did, I wonder if the article existing only exacerbates and if it would not be better to merge the content, which would not be lost.

A quick research on Google Scholars reveals that it does not seem to be a uniform topic, with one article focusing on the scale of repression and excess mortality in the Soviet Union in the 1930s, another specifically about the demographic consequences of forced industrialization 1929–1949 and yet another about the human costs of collectivization in the Soviet Union; in other words, they do not seem to be lumped together the way the current article does. This one about demographic analysis and population catastrophes in the USSR seems to be more relevant for Demographics of the Soviet Union and not specifically about Stalin or excess deaths. "The demographic history of the Soviet Union is market by catastrophes. Even in 1970 the age distribution of the Soviet population displayed large gouges caused by World War I, the Revolution and Civil War, the collectivization of agriculture and the famine, and World War II. These calamities led to an increase in deaths, a decrease in births, massive displacement of population, and emigration from the Soviet Union. Territories with a large population was also annexed to the USSR." It does cite the "intense debate" of Rosefield and Wheatcroft but I do not see how that is enough for a standalone article. Both "Adult Mortality in the Former Soviet Union" and "The Seeming Paradox of Increasing Mortality in a Highly Industrialized Nation: The Example of the Soviet Union" are not specifically tied to Stalin or the Stalin era. Davide King (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

In addition, by the second page the results move to a broader Soviet topic, so if all we have is the source discussing the diatribe between Rosefield and Wheatcroft, it is a little too little, or am I missing something? The Four Deuces, Rick Norwood, do you think this is similar to, and hence has the same problems, of Mass killings under communist regimes, or is it different? Either way, the fact this was at Joseph Stalin and was moved here, rather than the article discussing the whole, actual period all this took place (how this was not even discussed is beyond me), shows an implicit bias.​​ Davide King (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

You are clearly in the right, and think that rational argument will have some effect. I hope you are successful. But I have argued with anti-communists (and with communists, and with Trump supporters, and with never-Trumpers, and with people who think there is a vast conspiracy to do this, that, or the other thing. These people do not respond to reason. They do, sometimes, change their mind, but the change has to come from within. Argument only stiffens their resolve. This will come down to a decision by some Wikipedia administrator. When it does, make your argument to him (it is almost always a him). Meanwhile, edit boldly, to the best of your ability. Insist on the three-revert rule. Let me know if I can help. Good luck. Rick Norwood (talk) 10:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

C.J. Griffin and Paul Siebert, is there any reason why no attempt was made to merge it there in the first place? It is pretty short and repeats many information that should be there. Did I miss any source that considers it as a separate topic rather than essentially tied to the Stalin era? This article would be better served there and there is no need have all those Communist-related articles just to highlight how bad Communism was when sources themselves do not do this; they discuss excess deaths as part of the Stalin era, as part of the Holodomor, as part of the Soviet industrialisation, so surely all this would be better discussed there and individually? If there is no source that ties all those together, we should not do it either, lest engaging in original research and synthesis. Several scholars also noted how several Communist regimes saved many lives by simply increasing the standard of living and life expectancy, which are just as noted, if not more, than all those unfortunate and tragedical excess deaths. Davide King (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

There was no attempt because no one discussed the matter of moving it there. While I would not object to such a move, I do want to point out that this article is on much more solid ground than MKuCR. Unlike that article, which is basically propped up by a handful of scholars and non-experts - like Rummel, Courtois, Rosefielde and Valentino, there has been plenty of ink spilled on the violence and excesses of Stalin's rule. The sources in the article demonstrate this I believe. Much of this is indeed separated into certain events as you point out above, but not all. There were many debates on this topic in prestigious journals such as Europe-Asia Studies, and in particular the heated exchanges between Wheatcroft and Conquest, in which Ellman, Keep and others joined the fray. And these are serious academics and experts on the subject of Stalinist repression, which is in stark contrast to those aforementioned authors writing about "Communist mass killings" (with the one exception being Rosefielde perhaps. Valentino might be a decent scholar but is not notable IMO, and not an expert on the subject). Speaking of mass killings, It was discussed that the article might be moved to something like "mass killings under Stalin regime", but this was nixed as sources such as Ellman highlight that the vast majority of deaths fall into the category "excess deaths", not deliberate killings. This is another way this article is superior to MKuCR, as the vast majority of deaths described in that article would no doubt fall into the former category as well, hence the "debate on famines" section, which is probably the only decent part of that article. So, honestly, a more apt title for MKuCR would be "Excess Deaths under Communist Regimes".--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

C.J. Griffin, first of all, thanks so much for your comment. I agree this article is in much better shape, mostly thanks to you and Paul Siebert; and I think your comments about the Mass killings under communist regimes article would be much useful. :) That article mixes more than one topic as it takes the Communist genocide/mass killings concept from Strauss' and Valentino's books, even though the first one is a book about genocide and the second is a chapter about genocides and mass killings in the 20th century (with Communism simply being one type), not about Communism; then listing all mass killings under Stalin, Mao and Pol Pol, adding all excess deaths under all Communist regimes, even as only few scholars and from one side list all non-combatant victims (famines, wars, etc.), to suggest all those are victims of Communism, its more accurate title that, however, does not really solve all those issues (undue weight, original research, synthesis, more than one topic, NPOV, etc.) I have highlighted and which could be easily avoided by re-structuring, move content and merge.

Until the lead is not fixed, a Criticism of the concept is added, it is not renamed Excess deaths/mortality under Communist Regimes or Victims of Communism (more accurate summary titles of the content) and in general most scholars' views opposed to the ideological and other proposed causes, and the account and views of Ellman, Getty, Wheatcroft et al. are added as balance, I believe the article is not only helpful or useful but actively harmful as it gives the misleading notion that it is an agreed fact among scholars and for many years I was misled to think that until I actually went to look at the sources and found that even those who are claimed to support the topic do not actually support it. Even The Black Boof of Communism only "presents a number of chapters on single country studies, it presents no cross-cultural comparison, there is no discussion of 'Mass killing[/Any other bad thing] in Communism'"; and Conquest, of all scholars, treated the Great Purge, the Holodomor, etc. as separate subjects did not develop a theory of mass killings under Communist regimes like Rummel and Valentino may have done; yet basing such an article on non-experts or fringe people like Rummel and non-notable scholars or experts on the topic such as Valentino is beyond me but I digress. If all we have are those two, who are then mixed with scholars who do not support the topic and only report the killings and deaths that did in fact happen, I think that is a little too little and that the article is a gross violation of NPOV in presenting their views as facts and mainstream scholarship. Hence, it should be deleted but its content should be moved. But back to this article.

Still, the Stalin era article is not too long or big yet and this one is very short, so I see no harm in a merge, unless of course the implicit bias in having so many separate Communist-related articles to show how bad Communism was, even though they may not meet criteria to be standalone articles and violate important policies such as undue weight to one side of historiography, original research and synthesis (a merge would mostly avoid both of those), and NPOV. I did point out this article as an example for possible Excess mortality in China under Mao Zedong and Excess mortality in Cambodia under Pol Pot (although the latter may be more accurately titled Mass killings in Cambodia under Pol Pot) articles which would be more in line with historiography, since only few scholars and from one side lumps all those together. Still, I do not see why most of the content cannot be at Communist state, each Communist state's history and each proponent individual/scholar's article. I agree the debates on famine is the only decent part of the article.

I also believe that a merge would give more weight to those such as Ellman who also highlight the lives saved and the account of Getty et al. who are mentioned only to support the lower estimates. In general, this is a problem that I have highlighted with most Communist-articles in that they rely mainly on a handful of scholars and non-experts (Conquest, Courtois, Pipes, Rosefielde, Rummel and Valentino) and do not given the warranted weight to Getty et al. I mean, Stalinism only lists Shelia Fitzpatrick's Everyday Stalinism and Stalin's Peasants in See also when the article should be rewitten to incorporate and rely on that; and Stalinism is another article where content could be merged since Wheatcroft wrote of "Stalinist repression" and "Victims of Stalinism". In addition, the Events section contains most content that is, or should be, already mentioned in the Stalin era article, so the only real content is the lead and Total number of victims section. Either way, the Events section seems more relevant to the Stalin era article and I find it weird some of which (a Gulag section, the post-war famine, etc) is not there already. The only reason I see for this is to keep this article and avoid that it violates content fork, but they are much more relevant and useful there and hence the lead and Total number of victims section, too.
—Davide King (talk) 04:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe Paul Siebert's comment here that "Ellman writes [...] the very category [of] 'victims of Stalinism' is a matter of political judgement" shows this should not be a standalone article but as part of Stalin era. Most of the estimates and victims sections are already replicated at Political repression in the Soviet Union which would need to be copy edited by using scholarly sources and not rely only on Courtois, Pipes et al., although I am not sure there is a literature around it and since it essentially replicates content from other articles, it would be better to turn Political repression in the Soviet Union into Stalinist repression, which seems to have an actual literature.

So this article and Political repression in the Soviet Union should be merged into Stalinist repression and follow the aforelinked literature, either as a new standalone article or as a redirect to section about Stalinist repression at History of the Soviet Union, although I wonder if Stalinist repression should not be already covered under the Stalin era article and may act as coattrack; hence, this article should be merged and expanded with Stalinist repression as part of the Stalin era and Stalinism. Political repression in the Soviet Union should be merged in a subsection about political repression (if it is not already) at History of the Soviet Union, with political repression under Lenin discussed at History of Soviet Russia and the Soviet Union (1917–1927), political repression under Khrushchev discussed at History of the Soviet Union (1953–1964) and so on.

C.J. Griffin and Rick Norwood, any thoughts? Davide King (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. And, where necessary, if there is referenced material about, say, Chairman Mao that is not already covered in the article on Mao, it could also be moved to that article.Rick Norwood (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. It might help to get other editors of the article on board before making such a move though. Maybe an RfC?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

C.J. Griffin and Rick Norwood, thanks for your comment. I was thinking of a merge request or a RfC since the page is protected, but which one would be better or more appropriate? I am also afraid this may end up like Communist mass killings, with one side arguing that the topic does indeed exist and the other side saying it does not. However, as I noted above, it is already covered at Political repression in the Soviet Union and scholarship seems to discuss the topic as part of the Stalin era and Stalinism, not as separate subjects, so this should be merged in both articles since it is well-sourced. Davide King (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The Social Disaster in the Ukrainian SSR (propaganda: Holodomor)

Judging by the work of Zemskov, which is based on data from the Central Department of National Economic Accounting of the USSR State Planning Committee, it seems, that the death rate estimate is overestimated. He points out that in 1932, 782,000 people were born in the Ukrainian USSR, and 668,200 people died. In 1933, 359,000 people were born in the Ukrainian USSR, and 1,309,000 people died. However, the data from this article for 1933 do not match. The data in that article cites the data that in 1933, 564,000 people were born in the Ukrainian USSR, and 2,104,000 people died. In the table, the spread of the dead people is 2,500,000–4,000,000. This is an oddity.

In this case, the excess mortality in one case is 933,560 people. In the other case, it is 1,540,000 people. However, this excess mortality cannot be considered only a case of famine. This would be a big mistake. And that's why. In the Russian SFSR, 3,296 famine deaths were recorded during the social disaster. The rest didn't die of famine. Whereas according to incomplete data, 77,000 people died of famine throughout the USSR.

Weddings in cities and villages also testify against propaganda of genocide: In total, 229,571 marriages were concluded in the Ukrainian SSR in 1933, 70,799 of them in cities and 158,772 in villages. Gnosandes (talk) 02:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Title

Isn't the title a bit too much sterile? Why don't we have a twin article "Excess mortality in Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler"? - Darwinek (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it's fine. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and I don't think it could be reduced to twins, could be about Pol Pot and others.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC))

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 January 2021

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

remove the black book of communism it is blatantly false and uses numbers that are over blown to include deaths that can just be attributed to communism 24.140.52.148 (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done This has been discussed many times in many articles and the consensus does not agree with you. You have provided no new inforamtion or even stated sources supporting your assertion.  // Timothy :: talk  13:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent edits

3E1I5S8B9RF7,

that is not an argument, comparisons may be done by any timeline, the opinion is attributed, so no reason for removal.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC))

The sentence is as follows:

"Ellman compares the behaviour of the Stalinist regime vis-à-vis the Holodomor to that of the British Empire (towards Ireland and India) and the G8 in contemporary times. According to Ellman, the G8 "are guilty of mass manslaughter or mass deaths from criminal negligence because of their not taking obvious measures to reduce mass deaths" and Stalin's "behaviour was no worse than that of many rulers in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries"

The sentence is highly dubious and problematic. The G8 is an organization that was formed in 1997. Starting from 1997, no mass famine was recorded in any of the countries in that group, whatsoever. It does not matter what he wrote, reality contradicts him on this. If he wanted to name specific countries, he could have done so. But he specifically named this organization. Making the statement pointless. When he said that the G8 is "guilty of mass manslaughter", he needed to elaborate. Because we can now pick and guess what he meant, and that is pure WP:SPECULATION. Even worse, the second part is suspiciously close to Whataboutism and has no place in here. If he were to compare Stalin, he should have started with other Soviet leaders first, and neither Khrushchev nor Brezhnev had even close mortality rates as Stalin. In light of all this, the sentence should be removed since it is very problematic and questionable.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Please clarify me, you have now made an analysis of the subject's opinion, or you claim he did not say what he said (until I may not react to anything elese you wrote)?(KIENGIR (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC))

What do you need clarification about? Can you name one famine that happened among the G8 countries starting from the foundation of that group in 1997?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I would have been happy if you would not answer to questions with questions (I asked to clear-cut question, why I should name any famine?)...you may agree or disagree what the subject said, and since it is attributed, shall it be true or not, etc., it is an opinion among the others.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC))

It does not have to be a question. It is a statement: there was no famine in countries of the G8 group. "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion". Comparing this nonexistent famine thus to Holodomor is nonsense. Wikipedia:REDFLAG: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Warnings (red flags) that should prompt extra caution include: 1) Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources; 4) Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions." In light of all this, the said claim is challenged, and should be removed since it is highly dubious and questionable.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The author did not say/imply that famine would be in the G8 countries, but what they could do the rest of the world where famine still exist today. Here a bunch of opinions are listed, this is one of them so REDFLAG does not apply here the other policy you cited says consensus needed for removal. Let's say, if other editors also would agree you I will consider to concede.(KIENGIR (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC))

I will again copy the sentence currently in the article verbatim:

"Ellman compared the behaviour of the Stalinist regime vis-à-vis the Holodomor to that of the British Empire (towards Ireland and India) and the G8 in contemporary times. According to Ellman, the G8 "are guilty of mass manslaughter or mass deaths from criminal negligence because of their not taking obvious measures to reduce mass deaths" and Stalin's "behaviour was no worse than that of many rulers in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries."

While one can compare what Stalin did to Ukraine in the Holodomor to that what the British Empire did to India and Ireland, because famines did happen there and one can name them here (Bengal famine of 1943, Great Potato Famine), there is no "...and the G8 in contemporary times" because there were no famines in G8 countries in contemporary times. Famine in Ukraine under Stalin's control is not the same as famine in Africa outside of G8 control. He is comparing apples and oranges here. You just cannot dodge this. The sentence in the current form is nonsense, and needs to be completely rewritten. And if you claim that G8 is guilty because of "what they could do for the rest of the world where famines still exist today", then we could also blame the Soviet Union for the hunger in Africa, the hunger in India, the hunger in Vietnam, etc. In that case, we can blame everyone, every country that ever existed, from Angola to Zimbabwe for every famine that ever happened in world history, even outside of their borders or outside of their reach. Criteria have to be established before this goes out of hand. One can only find a government guilty for the territory they had under their control, whether it is their country or territory onder their occupation. This is a REDFLAG, since preposterous is being claimed, and thus multiple high-quality sources are needed for this claim, or it should be completely rewritten to not be in contradiction to reality. --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

This interpretation of yours is just one interpretation, literally he does not say the comparison would be any kind of famine inside G8, but he compares death tolls. And again, I don't claim anything, it is an attributed sentence, btw. I can reiterate, if more editors agree with you, I will concede.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC))

That is the problem. Ellman's whole reasoning here is so vague and short, it does not even pass the scrutiny test. There are too many interpretations possible since he did not go into specifics. Neither you seem to be aware of what Ellman was referring to in that sentence. As such, since this is so vague and confusing, the sentence should be either removed, shortened or rewritten, to meet the standards of neutrality and concise information. Ask yourself: since there are so many other authors who go into depth and detail to give a comparison of Stalin and other rulers of the 20th century, why precisely insist on this one vague footnote that Ellman wrote, which leaves people guessing instead of explaining what he meant?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I hope you realized input needed from other editors. Let's wait for their opinion, I don't repeat the the third time. Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC))

Add Rosefielde's criticism of Anderson and Silver?

I noticed that Anderson and Silver's estimate of excess mortality is cited definitively in the Total number of victims section despite there being examples of criticisms of them that have come out more recently than their works by Rosefielde: http://www.paulbogdanor.com/left/soviet/rosefielde.pdf

Getty, Rittersporn and Zemskov recently claimed that no more than 2 million people could have perished from collectivization, famine, execution, terror, and forced labor in the USSR during the 1930s. Prior demographic confirmation of this estimate was provided by Anderson and Silver who contended that killings were unlikely to exceed a few million and could not be more than 4.8 million victims. This essay disproves both these contentions by introducing new demographic evidence proving that Stalin killed at least 5.2 million Soviet citizens 1927-1938, with a best estimate in the vicinity of 10 million.

Should Rosefielde's alternate estimate be mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:1501:1890:0:0:0:96F7 (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

DOI link broken,

The DOI link for "Ethnic Cleansing and Revisionist Russian and Soviet History" by Jon K. Chang (currently citation no. 87) seems to be broken, and searching for the DOI (10.1007/S12129-019-09791-8) on doi.org yields the same "Page not found" error message.

On the subject of the citation itself: The cited work appears in the publication "Academic Questions" published by the National Association of Scholars, a politically conservative advocacy group, and the journal itself is not a scholarly journal. The article reads more like an opinion piece than a serious historical work, and I find its inclusion questionable. Best regards, wwklnd (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Steven Rosefieilde's Red Holocaust has a section dedicated to debunking Brian Silver who is cited as the end all be all in this article.

The criticism Rosefeilde brings starts on page 174 of Red Holocaust in a section titled Demographic Skepticism.

Like many analysts before them, Anderson and Silver misleadingly claimed that any estimate of missing persons which included natality forecasts only reliably measured population deficits, not excess deaths, even for children born between censuses. Although technically incorrect, the authors grasped at straws, justifying their position with the claim that birth statistics were unreliable during times of turmoil. They also intermittently asserted that Lorimer’s excess death estimates were merely “consistency tests,” not measures of missing persons.21 These ploys flummoxed some, but another sleight of hand was even more successful. Anderson and Silver devised a battery of sensitivity tests that purportedly showed the unlikelihood that Lorimer’s excess death estimates pertained to missing persons. The procedure had two components. The first focused on the mortality behavior of adults recorded in the census of 1926. Since these people were alive at the beginning of the period, fertility issues were irrelevant and natural survival rates could be estimated straightforwardly from life expectancy tables according to various assumptions - from page 179 Steven Rosefielde's criticism of Silver should be mentioned. 2601:601:1500:7410:0:0:0:F03B (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Correction for Gulag

1st Paragraph "According to official Soviet estimates, more than 14 million people passed through the Gulag from 1929 to 1953, with a further 7 to 8 million being deported and exiled to remote areas of the Soviet Union, including entire nationalities in several cases.[16]" Link to [16]: https://sovietinfo.tripod.com/CNQ-Victims_Stalinism.pdf

There is nothing in [16] to indicate: "including entire nationalities in several cases." 2001:1970:5117:C500:0:0:0:2D3A (talk) 06:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Title?

Perhaps this has been hashed out before. Is there any precedent to using a term ("excess mortality") which could as easily apply to a plague or a widespread lack of medical care as it does here apply to a ruthless, murderous dictator? That is, can anyone point to a similar use? Is this not removing agency from the question of historical events ab initio? Perhaps someone could offer a little perspective. Blueistrue (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The article deals with a wider scope than intentional deaths, so I'd say the title works well. Best regards, wwklnd (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Replace Joseph Stalin with Adolf Hitler and the Soviet Union with Nazi Germany, and many of the same arguments would hold. The title is not just idiotic and cruel, it serves to diminish the magnitudes of crimes committed by the Soviet regime. --Vihelik (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Excess mortality is certainly a bad euphemism at the very best. The title should be retitled to 'Democide in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin', I say 'Democide' over 'Genocide' due to any dispute over the legal definition, which would potentially be a legitimate rebuttal. However argument that Stalin did not commit democide would not be persuasive with historians. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

First, I am interested to know how many historians use the term "democide" and apply it to the Stalin's USSR. My guess, that is a tiny minority.

Second, the very term "democide" is an artificial construct proposed by Rummel for his statistical study, it is deliberately imprecise, and it has never been claimed to be precise. According to Rummel's definition, this umbrella term cowers virtually everything, from the Holocaust to George Floyd's murder.

Finally, it is normal to use the most neutral term when we describe several events of a totally different type. Let me demonstrate it using this example. Imagine, we are writing the article about people who died in some remote island. We know, that 10 people were murdered, 100 people died because of lack of medication, and 1000 people died from hunger. What title would be more appropriate in this case: "Murder of people on the island X", or "Premature death of people on the island X"? The situation in Stalin's USSR is similar. We know that some people were murdered by authorities, and we know the total number of premature deaths from demographic evidences. However, we don't know how many of them were direct victims of the regime.

As Michael Ellman correctly noted (the reference can be found in the article), estimates of the total number of Soviet repression victims depend both on accurate estimates of the numbers in particular sub-categories and on judgement of which sub-categories should be included in the category ‘repression victims’. The former is a matter of statistics on which we are better informed today than previously but on which the Žfigures are still surrounded by a significant margin of uncertainty. The latter is a matter of theoretical, political and historical judgement. As we all agree, the article's title should not reflect political views of just one group of authors, and that is why it was made deliberately neutral.

We already have the article about murder of people by Stalin's regime, this article is called Great Purge. This article covers a much broader range of events, hence the title. Paul Siebert (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

50 million civilians killed in the U.S.S.R. between 1924-53, historian Norman Davies CMG FBA FRHistS

In “Europe A History,” historian Norman Davies counted 50 million civilians killed in the U.S.S.R. between 1924-53, excluding wartime casualties." Europe A History, 1996 ISBN; 0060974680 (ISBN13: 9780060974688) Celtic-Films-Official (talk) 19:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@Celtic-Films-Official The book has been criticised as exaggerating the numbers by Stephen G. Wheatcroft, and they're much higher than most other estimates. wwklnd (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Crimes against humanity category removal

Crimes against humanity is a specific legal concept. In order to be included in the category, the event (s) must have been prosecuted as a crime against humanity, or at a bare minimum be described as such by most reliable sources. Most of the articles that were formerly in this category did not mention crimes against humanity at all, and the inclusion of the category was purely original research. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2024

Please remove this phrase:

1953, with a further 7 to 8 million being deported and exiled

and replace it with this:

1953, and a further 7 to 8 million were deported and exiled

"with" would fit better with additional punishment (deportation and exile after release from Gulag), but the sentence is talking about people who were punished without going through the Gulag system. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done Jamedeus (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2024 (2)

Please remove this sentence:

The scholarly consensus affirms that archival materials declassified in 1991 contain irrefutable data far superior to sources used prior to 1991 such as statements from emigres and other informants.

and replace it with this:

The scholarly consensus affirms that archival materials declassified in 1991 contain irrefutable data far superior to sources used prior to 1991, such as statements from emigres and other informants.

This is an extremely long sentence (but not easily broken into two), so the least we can do is break it a little with a comma. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done Jamedeus (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)