Hello, Amerul! I just want to commend you for your bold revert here on this article! You are absolutely correct it's not fit for WP: it's an originally researched section, violating WP:NPOV, and it's totally unreferenced, to boot. Nice bold edit! Keep up the good work, and happy editing! :> Doc9871 (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the whole point of the discussion. The Communists killed 100 million people, while the Nazis only killed 50 million. Most of those victims were part of resisting the Communists, including their non-Christian allies. Smallbones and others believe this as an article of faith and you will never change their minds and they have no other interests other than that one point. TFD (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I have not yet seen evidence that Smallbones and others actually believe that, or that they "have no other interests other than that one point." In any case, I'm not trying to change their beliefs, I'm trying to get them to collaborate in writing a section that will reflect all points of view. Afterwards, maybe we can even collaborate on the whole article. I know this approach might not work, but do you have a better idea on how to move forward? -- Amerul (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Read through the discussions and also literature about anti-Communist belief systems and its relation to modern right wing political theory. TFD (talk) 03:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I admit I have not yet read through all (or even most) of the discussions. They are incredibly long. But still, the question remains: If you believe that no compromise or collaboration is possible, then what other course of action do you propose? -- Amerul (talk) 03:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Read what Smallbones posted on his talk page, "All I've seen previously from those folks who have wanted to delete the article are essentially arguments that all estimates are nonsense, which sooner-or-later comes down to denial that there were any mass killings." No one has said that and I resent being called "folks". The term "denial" is appropriated and turned against people who use it. TFD (talk) 03:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

AmateurEditor, who has normally supported Smallbones, recommended a change that was supported 9:5 but rejected by Sandstein because of "no consensus". I do not think there is a course of action. That is a problem with all the articles relating to social sciences. TFD (talk) 03:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, we can't just let this article be locked forever. That would be a gross violation of the Wiki way, and maybe even policy (I'm not sure). So we have to do something. Right now, my plan is to get as many people as possible to work together on an "Estimates" section, and see how it goes. Hopefully that will result in an edit proposal that can achieve consensus. I understand why you don't think this compromise has any real chance of success. I'm not especially hopeful, either. But we have to try it. If it doesn't work... then we'll have to think of something else. -- Amerul (talk) 04:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I read your reply to Smallbones. If you want to say in an article, "scholars estimate that..." then you find a source that says "scholars estimate that...", rather than performing your own research. The estimate in the article is from Stéphane Courtois, a Communist turned anti-Communist, and his estimates were debunked by the main contributors to his book. I do not know if any scholars have attempted to add up the victims, because it is more an interest of polemical rather than scholarly writers. TFD (talk) 04:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I know. The fact that adding up the victims is not something done by most scholars on the subject is precisely the reason I am opposed to having a total estimate in the article lede. But if we write an "Estimates" section that contains all the various total estimates (as well as estimates for particular countries and particular leaders), then we can replace the numbers in the lede with a link to that section of the article.

I have no intention to perform my own research, of course. I only want to find all the relevant sources - that is, all the scholars who have written studies claiming that X Communist regime killed Y number of people. I'm sure I won't find them all, but we need at least a good handful. -- Amerul (talk) 04:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Sources I presented in the talk pages say that the extreme right routinely uses the number 100 million in order to compare Communism unfavorably with fascism. They do that for several reasons, one of which is to excuse collaborators and another is to discredit political rivals and Russia in Eastern European states. Few people of course want to defend Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot, but it still does not justify misrepresentation of history. TFD (talk) 04:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I will make sure those sources are included in the "Estimates" section. Do you have a direct link to the archive page where you presented them? The framework of my proposed compromise is that we include all sources, provided by both sides. -- Amerul (talk) 04:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

As I indicated, no one adds up the total, because only Courtois did that. However, many scholars have criticized his conclusions and his intentions. Compare with Catholic sex abuse cases - no totals are provided but if one wanted to be pointy one could find an estimate somewhere by someone and edit-war it into he lead. I cannot find any sources that provide totals and that probably is because sources treat it as a serious issue in social science rather than a partisan issue. TFD (talk) 06:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I know, and I want to include all relevant sources, not just those that try to add up a total. In fact, I am determined that we must include the sources that don't add up a total, precisely because they are the majority of scholarship. So I'm looking for links to anything that is relevant. I'm thinking of any and all sources that provide an estimate for the number of deaths due to specific events (the Great Purge, the Great Leap Forward, etc.), as well as sources that criticize the estimates provided by others. It sounds like you have some sources that give criticisms, but I wasn't able to find them in those vast archives. Could you point me to them? -- Amerul (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)