Not it's really not.

Yeah it really is. It has no academic rigor. This is why teachers don't let you cite it.

And like you and I both said the numbers quoted aren't incorrect or come from a non-factual source.

Actually I didn't say that and so far you haven't even responded to my comment on your numbers. I'm not going to repeat myself so if you want to discuss the numbers maybe you could deign to directly respond, O Great Wiki Warrior.

So saying this man killed a lot of people is not something incorrect.

Saying that Stalin killed a lot of people would be unanimously accepted by every person on this website and Wikipedia isn't how we know it lmao. We can all see the responses to you saying he killed lots of Nazis, for example, but you seem to be afraid of internalizing anything we say to you - or not saying silly things while being defensive.

Just try being honest. Kill the person in your head that says you can never admit fault. That person is a coward and full of shit and as you can see here, nobody likes them.

Regardless of your political ideologies or affiliations. So what critical thinking do you want me to employ here? Even if I read the book, what context would I be missing?

There is no mystery to what critical thinking I've asked of you. I asked you questions for you to yhink about two comments ago (that you ignored) and the comment you're trying to ignore is quite clear. I think you can figure it out. I'll help you out and repeat myself if you say, "sorry Barx, my bad. I went and triex to figure out what you meant by critical thinking and, shucks, I just couldn't do it! Can you help me please?"

Someone else in this thread tried giving me the same message. Recommended a few books to me.

Because you display ignorance. They are being nicer to you than you are to them. They, unlike you, actually do the reading. Unlike you, they don't rely on chickenshit rhetorical circles to avoid doing so.

One of them was written in the 30s so before a lot of the shit Stalin did.

That's not a reason not to read it. See what I mean by chickenshit? If anything something from the 30s will be favorable to anticommunism simply because the Soviet archives were not available. If you weren't deathly afraid of challenging yourself, you would learn that the archives largely contradicted Western exaggerations and guesses as well as Kruschevite antistalinism.

Another one literally backed up the numbers I quoted.

Did you read it? And for the third time, I've already replied to your numbers and you've not responded.

So what are you and every other person in this thread arguing with me about here?

I have been very clear. You can respond to what I say instead of pretending it's a mystery.

Are you simply trying to tell me that wikipedia isn't reliable?

What have I said about Wikipedia? Can you read it and tell me?

I would disagree as nothing you or anyone else has said has led me to believe that my understsnding of this topic is incorrect

Yes, it is quite clear that you have made the propaganda you wish to believe unassailable. This is not because it is valid, but because you are being intellectually dishonest with yourself and others. For example, pretending to not know my criticism of you using Wikipedia, ignoring 75% of what I say to you, and relying on blatantly absurd rhetoric.

but I'll leave you to your opinion in the mattyou

Difference being that I read the books while yoi skim Wikipedia to confuse yourself, so my opinions are correct and yours are propaganda.

Just because you take issue with some articles that has millions of articles from a community built site does not delegtimize it in my eyes.

The thing I told you to do is to read actual history books, including the ones you listed from Wikipedia despite not having read them, because Wikipedia is poisoned by, for example, Nazi apologetic debate perverts when it comes to social and political issues. You need to actually read critically, not just absorb whatever fits the bullshit you spent all of 10 minutes absorbing from others.

This is, apparently, too much for me to ask of you. God forbid you read a book or challenge the logic of a Wikipedia page. You might die in the process.

Are you trying to tell me that Stalin did not cause a lot of deaths? That's not really an argument up for debate as its well documented that he was.

You thought this was such a good zinger you said it twice lmao.

So hey, what about the 80% of my comment you didn't reply to? Why take up so much space saying silly nonsense instead of just replying to what I say?

I think I know the answet. But do you have the self-posession to say it?