Talk:Soviet Union/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Earlier talk moved to Talk:Soviet Union/Archive 1, Talk:Soviet Union/Archive 2


Did you get permission from UPI? See Wikipedia:Copyrights. BTW, the upi article don't say it is owned by moon. Mikkalai 04:12, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) Does now Libertas. Thx.Mikka

Contents

Evil Empire

The following piece removed as misplaced in a general-purpose article

In 1983, attempting to draw a clear moral divide in the Cold War, former President Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an "evil empire," a statement that drew the ire of some but was championed by his conservative supporters in the U.S.

You may wish to reinsert it into specialized articles dealing with politics or history of the Soviet Union. Mikkalai 18:54, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

interesting trivia, Rage Against the Machine named their second album as evil empire. now, I... MUST... resist... CAN'T.. RESTRAIN... ARGH! I lost the fight with my fingers...
IN SOVIET RUSSIA, WIKI EDITS YOU! *phew* had to get that off my chest :)

Project2501a 15:45, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

anyone know of any resources?

I'm doing a research paper on Russian-American Cold War Relations at the Chess Table. Any help on finding good resources would be greatly appreciated. The resources I currently have our as follows: 1. Bobby Fischer: The $5,000,000 Comeback 2. Bobby Fischer biography by Frank Brady 3. Soviet Chess: 1917-1991 4. Chess is My Life (Korchnoi) 5. Chess is My Life (Karpov) 6. The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal 7. Bobby Fischer Goes to War

Thanks.

NEP and civil war

I am relying on memory, but I recall that the NEP was introduced before the Civil war ended. Ruy Lopez 23:57, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is it me or them?

I am amazed that this article stands without criticism. It whitewashes a very sinister regime. I am not saying it should do anything but present the facts but even minor changes have been rejected. How does this work? I am not sufficiently expert to rework it totally but how can a page on the USSR not record the tens of millions who died at Stalin's hands or the political prisoners or those who died fleeing there. Ask Russians about this, they wouldn't have written this. Libertas

This article is linked to scores of articles that accomplish this, and characterize myriad other facets of the Soviet regime, as it is supposed to. The function of this page, based on encyclopedic hierarchy, is to give very brief overviews on the Soviet polity, economy, and demography, as it is for articles on every other existing or defunct nation. That is why each section is linked to a main article, such as History of the Soviet Union , Economy of the Soviet Union, and Republics of the Soviet Union. (Incidentally, we still have to complete a number of important articles, such as Politics of the Soviet Union and Foreign relations of the Soviet Union; notice that their links appear in red in this article, meaning that they have not been even started.) In this article, constructive additions to the general overviews will mention specifics that link to other Soviet-related topics, such as collectivisation in the USSR, and Communist Party of the Soviet Union. But adding emotive, POV terms like "murder," "totalitarian," or "dictatorship" (though I personally agree with your sentiment) does not help make this article a better guide to the other articles on Soviet topics in Wikipedia. On that note, helpful sources for picking up the kind of language appropriate for this article can be found in the U.S. Library of Congress studies of the Soviet Union [1] and the CIA Factbook entries on the Soviet Union published before 1991. (Adding POV language is not the proper way of making sure that information on the crimes of the Soviet regime are more readily acceptable to Wikipedia readers. Notice that this is not even the approach of U.S. federal government publications written as the Cold War was still unfolding.) Please, by all means, add important key words linked to specific articles where you can find them. 172 10:36, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I am Russian and your additions are very wrong and biased (not to mention the "Ministerial Lanes" that you apparently invented). Some of Stalin's actions are horrible, but his legacy also includes building one of the greatest countries on Earth that became leader in science, education, culture and social security. It's not a job for you or for this article to decide what outweight what. Soviet history was also very complex and should not be oversimplified. And the USSR was not totalitarian for most of its history. And Soviet people were much happier before their country collapsed than they are now, according to almost any reasonable metric, from economic output, to food consumption, to life expectancy, to number of hospital beds, to average income, to subjective happiness, to the damn number of smiles in the streets. Check out any economic study, check out any public opinion survey, the obvious result is that most people don't like their life now and liked the old life better.
The articles about Soviet Union are in a pretty sad state, but as the work required to fix them is so monumental, I can't contribute much in the immediate future. Still, before you spit our your misconceptions about this great country that you were told by propaganda in your American school, please have a modicum of respect to people who attempted to build the first ever society based on the principles of Communism. Paranoid 13:26, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I too am of Russian descent. I was one of the fortunate ones. My family left. And yes we came to America and built a better life. Defending Stalin's legacy is a joke. Russian achievements in science, education and culture long preceded his murderous reign of terror. Shall I annoy you by citing a hundred composers, authors, etc? It is indeed a job for encyclopedia articles to state facts and not whitewash them: the USSR was a totalitarian country from start to finish with millions of dead its victim. As to the crap about smiling Soviet cherubs compared with today, Russia is on the verge (if Putin can restrain himself a little) of a natural resources led boom. Russia has more natural resources than any other nation and its best days are coming, under freedom. It is a joke and an insult to Russians to say they better off under any measure under that evil system of state fascism:


Freedom has many difficulties and democracy is not perfect, but we have never had to put a wall up to keep our people in. President John F. Kennedy
Ask me to have to respect for the wall-builders and gulag-operators and politburo special lane drivers and I spit in your eye (figuratively at least!), you get the same treatment in history as Nazi Germany, a similarly evil regime.
I also note Paranoid's interest in the Vagina article where his main contribution has been excitedly noting the existence of Thai pingpong ball tricks. If possible, his defense of Stalin lowers his credibility further.
Libertas
I am not just of Russian descent, I live in Russia now. I am very well off personally, I also happen to have an excellent general education and a very good business education. But what you say about Putin and "natural resources led boom" is idiocy, which is partly explained by the fact that you live outside of Russia. There is no "boom", except the possible "boom" of crashing even lower than Russia currently is.
Soviet Union was not a totalitarian state for most of its history. It's a fact. Check out the definition of "totalitarian". The legacy of the Russian empire was further developed by the Soviet Union. While Russia was a major player on the world arena before, it wasn't until the Soviet Union that it became one of the two world leaders. The achievements during that time were much greater than already great deeds done before the 1917.
"As to the crap about smiling Soviet cherubs", only 3 percent of Russians expect their economic conditions to improve in 2005. The majority thinks that current system is bad for the country. A significant fraction (don't have figures hand, check out fom.ru and romir.ru) believes that Soviet system was better for the country. By any reasonable quantitative measure life in USSR was better than today. I challenge you, take any metric and chances are it was better 20 years ago.
The excellent Soviet systems of education, science, medicine, culture, defence were either already completely destroyed or are being destroyed as we speak.


No freedom, not of speech, not of thought, the Soviet Union respected neither the will of the majority nor the rights of the minority. Meanwhile, Stalin fought racial war upon Tartars and Ukrainians and class war upon the Khulaks claiming at least 4 million, most historians say 8 million. Meanwhile 1 million Russians were purged for thoughtcrime. Lets not forget the tens of millions forced to live under Communist dictatorships in Eastern Europe. Although the US's record is far from perfect, who is wealthier and happier happier today, a West or East German? A South or a North Korean? A mainland Chinese or a Taiwanese? The Soviet Union was the fruits of a complete and total betrayal of the revolution. --CJWilly 18:32, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Argumentum ad hominem

An ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument by addressing the person presenting it rather than the argument itself.

A traditional ad hominem argument was identified by Aristotle in his On Sophistical Refutations and has the basic form:

  1. A makes claim B;
  2. there is something objectionable about A,
  3. therefore claim B is false.
Paranoid 19:12, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't feel like debating this, because 'you are obviously a communism-hater and left USSR early enough in your life to be successfully brainwashed by your parents and the American propaganda machine.' But you can't fight facts. And the facts (according to ongoing polls by major independent pollsters in Russia) are that Russian citizens generally aren't happy with how things are (and have been for the last 15 years). 20% said in a recent poll that life has become unbearable for them. Meanwhile the Soviet times are remembered positively. Another facet of facts is that (I repeat it again) by any reasonable measure, life in the Soviet Union was better than life is today in Russia, which, in turn, is many times better than life in other "independent states". You can argue that people in Moscow live better than they lived 20 years ago (it's not true, but at least it's not as blatantly false), but it should be clear to anyone but the blindest communism-hater that people in Far East, people in Adygeya, people in Udmurtia, people in Armenia, people everywhere, but in the very center of Moscow are much worse off today than they ever were during the Soviet times. Paranoid 16:14, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia is great.
1) You seem to place great stock in Russian opinion polls. I don't trust Russian or Ukrainian election results, let alone opinion polls. I measure whether people are willing to die to leave Russia, this no longer happens. The evil empire no longer needs walls to imprison its people.
Libertas, It is always healthy to be skeptical of polling data. However, when it comes to Russian opinion polling, you are painting a picture with an excessively large brush. For example, VCIOM and later VTsIOM-A have earned quite a good reputation for their reliable and independent opinion polling among Western Russia specialists. 172 19:36, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Did you read the wikipedia entry on those organizations. Read it and agree with me there probably hasn't been an unrigged opinion poll or election in Russia ever. Libertas
I wrote that entry for the most part... VCIOM and later VTsIOM-A following the breakup of VCIOM by the Kremlin earned a good reputation in the West. Do some searches online. You will find respected Western academics and media outlets using their data. 172 20:07, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2) Denying totalitarianism governed the USSR is like denying it governed Nazi Germany. Not worth discussing.
3) Russia's commodity wealth will inevitably transfer to liquid wealth. And God willing, the thieves and bullies in the Kremlin and oligarchy will invest in Russia and not hide the profits offshore. That investment will give all the capital Russia needs to achieve great prosperity, not just for avaricious insiders like you but for all the people. A true democracy needs equality of opportunity, and Russia is lacking that. I believe it will come.
On that note, the Democratic Republic of Congo is one of the richest countries in the world, right? Commodity wealth does not inevitably yield liquid wealth. 172 19:38, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I did not say it would in all cases, in Russia's case I believe it is inevitable. Russia has its problems but Congo has bigger ones, which it too might overcome, I certainly hope Africa improves using its own resources not relying on handouts which never seem to solve anything. Libertas
4) Russia can be great, but won't be with those of dubious intellect defending an evil empire. Every Russian I know celebrates its collapse (without necessarily being overjoyed about everything that replaced it of course) and to pretend otherwise with fake opinion polls is an insult to my intelligence although a credit to your Soviet style intelligence service.
5) 20% find life unbearable, I think is probably true of all of us at one time or another and to blame it on the demise of Stalinism or Sovietism is incorrect.
Libertas
Libertas, I'm sure that you will be relieved to find out that Wikipedia is not governed by the Kremlin but by its own policies. On that note, please take note of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Calling someone a "freak" is not going to win you support on Wikipedia. 172 19:41, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC) 172 19:27, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Quite right, just returning fire, I hope you similarly advise Paranoid although I note you haven't Libertas
I will now. The same goes for Paranoid and myself. Paranoid should avoid using terms like "brainwashed." I also should make a self-criticism. Over the past couple of years I admit to breaking this rule many times myself, although I don't think that I have done so in this particular conversation. At any rate, let's hope that the conversation will proceed with a more civil tone. 172 19:44, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sure. I won't use the term "brainwashed" anymore. Let me just say that I consider Libertas to "hold strong ideas that I consider to be implausible and that seem resistant to evidence, common sense, experience and logic". Furthermore, I believe that he developed these ideas under external influence. Hope it's better now.Paranoid 20:32, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Summary

I really don't see the need to debate anything, because instead of responding to my arguments and factual claims Libertas simply choses to attack me personally (for example, by wrongly implying that my edits to Vagina made me a woman-hater, which is nonsense) and repeat his groundless claim. I find it quite obvious that he is very poorly informed about the real situation in Russia, which is quite normal for an emigrant, but must be taken into account. I could just restate my points, but that would be useless. Libertas, if you want to argue, please respond in a rational and calm manner to my posts first. What you've just written is mostly false and doesn't make much sense. Paranoid 20:32, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Would you please stop lying. Here is the diff and it doesn't have either the word "Thailand" or "pingpong". It adds value-neutral factual information. I did not express any views (much less misogynist), I just mentioned several facts, which are supported by evidence. I fail to see what "common sense, experience and logic" have to do with it. So would you please stop your personal attacks that contradict facts and have nothing to do with this article. If you want to discuss my views, do it at User talk:Paranoid. Thank you in advance. Paranoid 11:34, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Explanations of changes

Poor and middle - removed. As opposed to what, rich peasants, who benefited immediately? Nonsense.

forced collectivisation - removed. Everything was forced in a sense. Electrification was forced, five year plans were forced. The NEP was an economic regime, just as 5-year plans and collective farming were an economic regime. Forced collectivisation was a form of achieving such regime and is not relevant in that particular sentence. Additionally, enough is probably written in the linked article.

privileges - removed the false propaganda and replaced it with a better reflection of reality. It may be too long for this summary article, but it's better than unsubstantiated lies inserted by people who blindly follow "capitalist propaganda".

growth rates - please don't revert such changes without explanation. This addition by Libertas was correct and also improved the style by connecting two sentences. Don't just revert all changes wholesale. Paranoid 13:49, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, that was my addition to try to NPOV Libertas' one. I thought it was particularly important to note that there Russia followed a global trend.
Eviction is forced by default, so to say "forced eviction" is NPOV. And to call the deaths of landowners during the revolution, murders, is moralistic. If you wanna criticize the USSR, learn to do it properly.--Che y Marijuana 00:45, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, everything is forced in a sense. Landowners often resisted expropriation of their lands in Soviet times, yet recently many peasants resisted de-collectivization and were deeply reluctant to accept markets, given their difficulties in adjusting to the structural changes of the 1990s. [2] 172 02:20, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That's fair enough. I think all I changed from Libertas' version there was to make "property owners" into "land-owners", with an appropriate link, and explain who did it (the previous version implied that it was the state evicting and killing people, whereas it was really the state that was under attack at that point).
As I explained above, additions ought to add links to specific articles. For further descriptions, users can click on links to war communism, History of the Soviet Union, or NEP. 172 02:20, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why this article on the USSR is not neutral in my view

1) References to mass murder are consistently deleted

2) References to totalitarianism deleted

3) References to oppression deleted

with what I believe is inadequate explanation. It requires a radical overhaul.

Libertas

No, the article deals with these two matters appropriately. It links to specific entries on forced labor camps, internal exile, political prisoners and executions, e.g., Gulag and Great Purges. It links to Collectivisation in the USSR and Agriculture of the Soviet Union, articles with which I am sure that you will be satisfied. This article is no more of a whitewash than those two publications by none other than the U.S. federal government about its own Cold War rival that I mentioned earlier on this talk page. Like this article, they mention the necessary specifics while avoiding the tone that you seem interested in advancing. 172 07:25, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Cannot agree with this. And you ought not remove the disputed tag until it is resolved. Libertas
The tag will not go back up until you pont out a single example of factual inaccuracy. If you know of any specific topics that this article fails to mention, please let us know. But picking fights with people isn't going to help. BTW, read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. You will need to learn to write in a neutral manner and try not to be so confrontational; otherwise, you'll be on the road of getting yourself blocked. 172 23:38, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Republics

Can anyone confirm if this paragraph from the Republics section is accurate? (I was not aware of these criteria.)

The criteria for establishing new republics were as follows:

  1. to be located on the periphery of the Soviet Union so as to be able to exercise their alleged right to secession,
  2. be economically strong enough to survive on their own upon secession and
  3. be named after the dominant ethnic group which should consist of at least one million people.

Andris 14:30, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

I think there have been no criteria at all; new republics were created on an ad hoc basis. — Monedula 15:07, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Article protected

Please state the disputed issues with reasons you think that there is a problem.

Please keep also in mind that this article cannot contain all possible details about the state of the Soviet Union. Please consider discussion of some issues in other articles about the Soviet Union. Mikkalai 00:21, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Libertas points

I am not an expert on this subject and I certainly have a view about the Soviet era in Russia.
I compare this article on the USSR with the one on Nazi Germany and am amazed at the differences. When I attempted to place the word 'totalitarian' in the former it was rejected. And yet it rightly appears in the latter.
The Nazi Germany article is a component in the History of Germany series. The counterpart to that article for the Soviet Union is History of the Soviet Union (1927-1953). This comparision does not hold up. 172 03:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(to Lib:)You are making wrong comparison. Nazi Germany is a period in the history of Germany. There are periods in the history of the Soviet Union that do deserve all bad words you want to add. And these words and even more do present in the corresponding artices. Mikkalai 03:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I understand this articles draws in the content of subsidiary articles. But that shouldn't justify an accurate and brief summary of what the USSR really was.
(to Lib:)If you meant to write "shouldn't prevent", then you are right. However there is a difference between "brief summary" and "buzzwords". Mikkalai 03:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I will look at other Encyclopedia for some inspiration but in my view (and it's just one view) this article must explain (in more neutral terms than I'm putting them here):

1

1) That the USSR was a totalitarian one-party state
Totalitarian is a POV term and will be kept out of this article. Single-party state is NPOV; and the article states clearly that the Soviet Union was a single party regime. 172 03:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(to Lib:) "one-party": the "Politics" section speaks about this very strongly. "Totalitarian" is a political slang better to avoid. Mikkalai 03:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
So it's OK for the Nazi Germany article but not for the USSR article. Libertas
The same standards do not apply. They are different kinds of articles. One is a component of a national history series; the other is not. (As an aside, I would prefer keeping the term "totalitarian" out of the intro of the Nazi Germany article. The nature of the regime could be expressed in clearer, more concrete, and specific way in a concise way with better writing... I just don't have time to start working on that article myself. I wrote two articles in the History of Germany series, but not that one. After being here a couple of years, I've piled up a watchlist including over 1,200 articles; and I don't have time to add that one at the moment.) 172 05:26, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It is a perfect description of both regimes. WHat is the difference? They are both regimes that governed nations for a time. They are exactly the same and they should have exactly the same article structure. Libertas
Though it is sometimes used as pejorative political slang, totalitarianism has a real meaning and is the subject of significant scholarship. As the article makes clear, Stalinism is, for many, a classic instance of it. As such, the article should probably make some reference to the USSR under Stalin being widely considered totalitarian. However, that should not be presented as absolute truth, nor applied to the entire history of the USSR. RadicalSubversiv E 07:04, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You make some good points. This discussion can be found in Stalinism. This article really isn't the place for a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of looking at Russia in the framework of the totalitarian model used by some scholars; but we definitely do need to work in a link for Stalinism so that this discussion can be found from this article. 172 07:17, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
RS, yes, totalitarianism is a term which is the subject of significant scholarship. At the same time, it is a term which many scholars would suggest is inappropriate to ever use (our historian of the Nazis at U-Penn, Thomas Childers, doesn't like the concept, for instance), so we can't simply say that either Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union was totalitarian with no qualification. Some sort of link would certainly be useful, and probably not only to Stalinism (after all, Jeanne Kirkpatrick used the term to refer to the Brezhnev period), but we need to be really careful how we work it in. john k 21:56, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2

2) That millions died at Stalin's hand, and that Stalin used starvation as a weapon against the people
Other articles estimate the death tool. They are easily found in this article, which brings up the Gulag system, the Great Purges, and Stalinist collectivization. 172 03:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(to Lib:)(1)Yes, millions wil be added in the Histoy section. (2)No, "starvation as a weapon" is speculations, although convincing. Mikkalai 03:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
172 seems to want a "neutral" story (and I use the word advisedly) about the USSR. The main point of the Soviet system was the gulags, the mass murders, it's like saying you cannot mention WWII in the Nazi Germany article. Libertas
It doesn't matter that I want a "neutral story." What matters is that Wikipedia requires a "neutral story." See Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. BTW, the Gulag systmem is mentioned in this article; I myself added it. 172 05:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not require the removal of key facts about the Soviet regime. Neutrality should be the goal. Libertas
Remove facts like Great Purges and Gulag? Oh wait, they are already in the article... 172 05:44, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Mikkalai. Millions should be added in the History section and "starvation as a weapon" should not be added, since it is a speculation. Andris 09:03, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
"Starvation as a weapon" is a speculation, but the article should mention that there was a starvation in 1930s. At the present, it only mentions "catastrophic consequences in agricultural sector" which is very vague. Andris 09:12, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
We certainly shouldn't talk about starvation as a weapon. As to the death toll, I think it's fine to mention it in the history section, although we need to be careful, again, how it is put. john k 21:59, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It may be relevant to consult historical references -- there seem to be a number of people who feel that the starvation was a result of mismanagement and political contests with the boyars rather than an actual intended result. --Improv 00:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

3

3) That hundreds of thousands of political prisoners were detained without trial or with sham trials, many in mental asylums
See the above said articles. 172 03:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(to Lib:)Political repressions are mentioned, with references, but without numbers. I would say millions. Mikkalai 03:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes Mikkalai I believe you are right, millions. Libertas

4

4) That the economic system was a disaster, with living standards dismal, basic consumer goods often impossible to get, with huge amounts of productivity wasted by people just looking for the basics while vast amounts were spent on weapons
Incorrect. The stagnation of the Soviet economy and the shortages of consumer goods are indeed mentioned in the section on the Soviet economy. 172 03:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(to Lib:)Not a disaster for most of the time. It worked for different purpose. In any case, this issue cannot be described in two simple words. Mikkalai 03:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It was a complete catastrophe, not a disaster then. Libertas
Argue about the scope in the subsidiary articles. This article already deals with the stagnation of the 1970s and 1980s, the shortages of consumer goods, and the calamities of Soviet agriculture appropriately. 172 05:39, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I understand your argument about the subsidiary articles and respectfully disagree. The inherent failure in central planning must be in the summary of the history of the USSR. Libertas
It would've been, but there is a section on the economy. See Soviet Union#economy. Further detail on this subject can be found in Economy of the Soviet Union and the section on economic stagnation in History of the Soviet Union (1953-1985). I know this because I actually wrote most of that material. 172 05:58, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Note also that calling it an inherent failure is neither NPOV (it's a political conclusion) nor does it belong in this article. The Societ economy is a complex topic, spanning many years, projects, and leaders. Calling the whole thing a failure is historically inaccurate. --Improv 00:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

5

5) That the occasional use by the Soviet regime of the term "democratic" is somewhat ironic in the circumstances
Relevance? This sounds like the content of an essay. 172 03:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(to Lib:)Not much more ironic than here in the US at times. Mikkalai 03:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I was specifically referring to "democratic centralism" which centred power in Moscow, but not democratically. The US system of course isn't perfect but yes it is democratic and there is no irony about it. Ask Al Gore who would have been President but for a few hundred confused old people in Miami who thought they'd voted for him but actually voted for Buchanan. That's pure democracy, imperfect but true. And exactly what the Soviet was not. Libertas
The article mentions and includes a link to democratic centralism. 172 05:32, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes but the irony of the term must be pointed out. It was the opposite. Libertas
That's a topic of discussion for another article. Try democratic centralism. 172 05:59, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
172 is exactly right. Democratic centralism is a specific method for decision-making in communist parties. We can disagree over how democratic it is actually is/was (just as we could about the Democratic Party), but that's its name -- it's not "so-called" or "what they labeled". RadicalSubversiv E 07:04, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

6

6) That in fact those with power lived lives of luxury while everyone else lived in desperate circumstances
This is mentioned (privileges for party and state officials), but in the proper neutral manner. Incidentally, poverty worsened in the 1990s, but the Russia article does not have a section on it, as well it should not. 172 03:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The vast majority of Russians have enjoyed a tremendous boost in their standard of living. Yes, I don't doubt poverty has increased as some have not made the transition as well as others. It was a huge change after all. Libertas
Actually, this is incorrect; only a small minority did, mostly in the big cities. At any rate, this is an issue for History of post-Soviet Russia, not this article. 172 05:35, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Priviliges are mentioned. "Desperate circumstances" is a fairly big exaggeration. On 1990s, this is not the scope for this article. Andris 09:17, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

7

7) That while there was some pride about the role and power of the Soviet Union that for the most part people hated the dictatorship that was imposed on them and many risked their lives to leave
Again, this sounds like the topic of an essay. This is not the place for it. 172 03:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(to Lib:)Not most part. Not "many". Only those who wanted more and better and now. Here in the USA people use to grumble about the state and its politics, some even leave (without risking their lifes, though). But this means nothing. The same in USSR. An average person was happy with his piece of bread and butter. Mikkalai 03:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Excuse me? I was in Russia after 1991, they were happy about the collapse of Sovietism. In fact they were delirious with joy. Libertas
No, you excuse me. The delirium wore off pretty quickly after everyone was robbed off what little they had for sure under sovietism. Mikkalai 07:09, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I was in Soviet Union througout 1980s and I did not see much of hate for regime. People seemed mostly content, caring about their everyday lives more than about the regime. Andris 09:20, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Take a look at this UPI article run in the Washingting Times Most Russians regret Soviet collapse 172 10:49, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

UPI is owned by the dangerous religious cult the Moonies and can hardly be considered a credible academic resource. Reverend Moon claims to be the Messiah. Libertas

8

8) That the USSR was a police state, where neighbors and family members were encouraged to inform on each other's political views
Repression, political prisoners, and executions are mentioned, e.g., Great Purges. 172 03:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(to Lib:)"police state"; heh; for your hatred totalitarianism is not enough? Now, let's get the full list (I recall you mentioned evil empire, dictatorship...) IMO this becomes simply silly. Mikkalai 03:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

9

9) That membership of the Communist Party was a ticket to advancement
Indeed it was. Privileges for party and state officials are mentioned. 172 03:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(to Lib:)Plain wrong cliche, "balalaika". Cause and effect mixed up. Mikkalai 03:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(to Lib:)Priviliges are indeed mentioned. If you want to expand on that, give a more concrete proposal. Andris 09:08, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

10

10) That the USSR imposed its system of dictatorship throughout Eastern Europe and elsewhere, with military force.
The article deals briefly with the role of the Soviet Union in the Warsaw Pact and Soviet interest in proping up the regimes of member states. 172 03:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(to Lib:)The "Politics" section says maintenance of hegemony over the Warsaw Pact. Do you want more thousands of deaths mentioned here as well?Mikkalai 03:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
YES, it was a murderous regime that exported its terror throughout the world. It should be mentioned. Libertas
Please try to talk clearly and carefully even in free discussions. There was no "throughout the world", fortunately. Think that you are writing a phrase into the article, rather than kicking ass of these commies. Mikkalai 07:19, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

11

I'm sure others can think of more, but the Soviet era needs a comprehensively more honest treatment that it has gotten here previously. This article is practically silent on the economic failings, the human rights abuses and the inequalities that the Soviet Union is really now known for. I don't understand why it should be. Even the smallest suggested changes have been totally rejected.
No, the article just does it in the way required by encyclopedic standards, the function of this article, and Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. Rather than making this article into a condemnation of the evil empire, it makes information quickly accessible by linking to all the other relevant Soviet-related topics. 172 03:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(to Lib:)This article is a summary of 70+ years of the huge country. It is "practically silent" about almost everything what happened it it. There is simly no space on the page. All phrases are summaries. If something is really missing, it must be added. But this must be made as summary and without polical buzzwordism. Mikkalai 03:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Those too young to remember much about the Soviets or with short memories should read the excellent article on Stalin's henchman Beria to see what really happened under Sovietism.
I'm confident that all those chiming in on this page are familiar with Beria. 172 03:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(to Lib:) And there is much more in category:Soviet political repressions. Mikkalai 03:36, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Neutral yes. Whitewash no. Totalitarian has become slang in the Orwellian world of this Talk page. Give me a break. This is a whitewash article. It is a sham. This "discussion" is not that, it has the tone of two ageing Marxist professors telling a freshman how it's going to be. Well I don't accept any of it. A summary means retaining all the crucial points. How can a summary of the USSR exclude or make a footnote of mass murder, political repression and economic chaos. This article will remain the sham and scam that it was without a comprehensive re-write. Libertas
How can a summary of the USSR exclude or make a footnote of mass murder, political repression and economic chaos? It can't. That's why the article already deals with these matters. How many times do how many different users need to point this out to you? 172 05:42, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I do not agree, they are mentioned inadequately at best. Libertas
Yes, they are. This is not the History of the Soviet Union article. 172 05:51, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've been watching this discussion and I'll chime in here since Libertas asked for more opinions. I think the article mentions all the relevant points appropriately for a summary. Calling it a "whitewash" is alarmist and propagandist (ironically). As far as I understand it NPOV prohibits all but a few changes Libertas has made to the article. (And for disclosure, I do not nor have I ever lived in or adjacent to the USSR in any of its incarnations, and am not a citizen of any country that was ever at war with it. I'm just annoyed by anti-propagandists who resort to propaganda.) — Saxifrage | ☎ 07:01, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
Libertas

sigs

I went though your statements point by point. Each of the relevant issues that you bring up is addressed in the article, but in a neutral manner in which you should become acquainted in writing. 172 03:10, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(172 and I overlapped in time...) I would suggest you to read a little more articles related to Soviet Union, and you will see that they are way far from being communist conspiracy to silence the truth. Mikkalai 03:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Looking at the kinds of changes you made to the article, you seem to be committed to doing something here that it is not the proper place to do. I am an Anarchist myself, so it's not like I love the Soviet Union, but the reality is, to use words like "murder" to describe a revolution, and "forced eviction" when eviction is by definition forced, is just a little over the top. Have you ever been evicted by choice?--Che y Marijuana 05:03, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

The point is the key attributes of the Soviet Union are not which republic was what but the evil it did, the story of its victims. To downplay that is not neutral. It would not be tolerated on the Nazi Germany article and rightly so. It is not a space issue, some Wiki articles seem very long. It is a neutrality issue. Libertas

(1) Mikkalai and I have both already explained to you that the Nazi Germany article is a component of the History of Germany page. This is not the component in the History of Russia series; it's History of the Soviet Union. This comparision that you are drawing does not make sense. This article would not be accomplishing its fucntion if it were like the Nazi Germany entry. (2) some Soviet nostalgics If you continue to attack users, you will be blocked. You are already starting to exhaust a considerable amount of patience. 172 05:49, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I totally disagree with you.
The Soviet era is directly comparable with the Nazi era.
The defense of this article is not a defense of neutrality. I don't like it and am entitled to say so. It is not a personal attack to say so.
I will continue to revise the article (and encourage those familiar with Russia to do similarly) until it is neutral, factual and encyclopedic. The article is currently none of those things in my view.Libertas
Re: The Soviet era is directly comparable with the Nazi era. I have not responded to your argument that the Soviet era is 'directly comparable with the Nazi era'. This is not a discourse on comparative politics. However, I have explained to you that this entry does not have the same function as the Nazi Germany article. (I'll state this again because you don't seem to be reading our comments-- the counterpart to the Nazi Germany article, a part of the History of Germany series, is History of the Soviet Union, which, in turn, is part of the History of Russia series. The counterpart to this article (Soviet Union) is Germany. Notice that that entry goes into even less detail than this one. If you ever grasp this, you'll calm down. Re: I will continue to revise the article (and encourage those familiar with Russia to do similarly) until it is neutral, factual and encyclopedic. The article is currently none of those things. You are hearing from users familar with Russia. I'm a professional historian; I think that at least one of the other users is also a historian. In addition, there users from the former Soviet Union (whom I'm sure are all much older and more familiar with the subject matter than you are) have already chimed in. The users familair with Russia are not joining your crusade. If you don't accept this, you will have trouble with the peer-editing process on Wikipedia... No one is going to conspire to block you, as you seem to be suggesting above, but this article can stay protected for quite a long time until you become a bit more reasonable and less vitriolic. 172 19:39, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Libertas, most Wikipedia users, who have been here slightly longer than you, are very familiar with loudmouthed prejudiced people, who take it upon themselves to fix a grave injustice commited by this encyclopedia. Supposedly, a certain article either whitewashes some evil scum or fings mud at something white and fluffy. These people usually wholeheartedly believe that they are right and everyone who disagrees with them is dead wrong. They are incapable of understanding the views of others and as such are seen as a hindrance to this project. Even though Wikipedia users are patient and forgiving, they will not yield to repeated one-sided edits that they perceive to be vandalism.
Please, Libertas, don't be like those people. If you persist you may waste some of our time, but eventually will get banned. We would all be much happier if you accepted that while your views are very dear and important to you, not everyone shares them, although we all respect your right to hold them. So let's put aside our opinions and concentrate on veryfiable facts, trying to present the subject of this article in a neutral, objective and factual manner. Paranoid 17:28, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


On the substantive issues, this article must at least record the fact that the Soviet regime was totalitarian. I have read no sensible argument against this. Libertas

Totalitarianism

Totalitarianism is any political system in which a citizen is totally subject to a governing authority in all aspects of day-to-day life. Sounds like the Soviet Union to me. Libertas

So you've read no sensible argument against that, huh? I never realised an argument was required. If you would have managed to read the Totalitarianism article beyond the first sentence that you quote here, you would realise that:
Many commentators consider the post-Stalin Soviet Union as a post-totalitarian society.
However, the concept of totalitarianism remains highly controversial. Most historians who study Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union accept it only with reservations.
Still, one can reasonably argue that all totalitarian systems do seem to necessarily require the presence of a living human absolute leader at all times and do expect a certain type of guidance for nearly every aspect of life from that leader.
there is also the question of measurement of totalitarianism with its emphasis on state control over "every aspect" of everyday life. The United States had a higher rate of imprisonment than the Soviet Union did when the Soviet Union collapsed.
the collapse of the Soviet Union overturned many established ideas about "totalitarianism".
There can be no argument about it - Soviet Union for the most time wasn't a totalitarian state. We can agree that under Stalin Soviet Union had many elements of totalitarism and could be called a totalitarian state, but most of the time it couldn't. The citizens simply weren't totally controlled by the state in all aspects of their day-to-day lives.
If we should call Soviet Union a totalitarian state, because it was one for about 20 years, then perhaps we need to call United States a nazi state or a slave-ownership state, because of the racism and slavery 200 years ago?
BTW, when did your family run away from Soviet Union? It appears to me that you have no clear idea of what a life in Soviet Union in 1960-1990 was like. Paranoid 19:32, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"There can be no argument about it", well in that case I'll just agree with you.
I don't accept Wikipedia's definition of totalitarianism as definitive. Nor do I accept that Brezhnev was any less of an all-imposing leader than Stalin. He murdered fewer people, but there was just as much repression, it's just people had gotten used to it probably.
The proposition that the US is a 'nazi' state demonstrably false.
Cheap shot, and a thoughtless one at that—you missed the point so far that you've responded to the opposite of what was said. Calling the USA a nazi state was an example of reducing your argument to an absurd conclusion: that if you insist that the USSR must be called totalitarian because it was for 20 year of a much longer history, then you must also, by that logic, call the USA "nazi" because it was for a short period of its history. Since it is absurd to call the USA a nazi country for all its history for that reason, it is just as absurd to call the USSR a totalitarian country for all its history for the same reason. — Saxifrage | ☎ 07:17, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
I probably wasn't clear. The USSR was totalitarian from Day One til the day of its collapse. Not for 20 years, or 10 years, or during Stalin's rule, or when the gulags were operating or at some other time, it was a dictatorship from start to finish. I don't accept the US was "nazi" in any way, ever, at any time. They had slaves and there is still racism but how that constitues Nazism is beyond me. Libertas


Fallujah

If anyone wants an example of what IS totalitarism, to better understand that Soviet Union WASN'T it, here is an interesting article about US plans for Fallujah that are being implemented right now.

"It is not much of a reach to see that, at least in their fantasies, US planners would like to set up what sociologists call a "total institution". Like a mental hospital or a prison, Fallujah, at least as reimagined by the Americans, will be a place where constant surveillance equals daily life and the capacity to interdict "suspicious" behavior (however defined) is the norm. But "total institution" might be too sanitized a term to describe activities that so clearly violate international law as well as fundamental morality. Those looking for a descriptor with more emotional bite might consider one of those used by correspondent Pepe Escobar of Asia Times Online: either "American gulag" for those who enjoy Stalinist imagery or "concentration camp" for those who prefer the Nazi version of the same. But maybe we should just call it a plain old police (city-)state."

Source: The failed US face of Fallujah

Website Writes About Fallujah

Please note the above is from a website that describes itself as Marxist, down to Karl Marx appearing in Santa Claus suit.

Libertas

Further consideration of Libertas' proposals

Please let's keep this discussion focused on specific proposals for modifying this article. This is the only way of working toward getting this page unlocked eventually. Around half a dozen users have responded to all of Libertas' proposals. The coalescing consensus is that most of the 11 items listed by Libertas are already included in the article. There seems to be agreement, though, that the second point should be addressed. Libertas: That millions died at Stalin's hand, and that Stalin used starvation as a weapon against the people. Andris, in response to this point, noted that we should elaborate on the following: "Crises in the agricultural sector reaped catastrophic consequences in the 1930s under Soviet leader Joseph Stalin." I'll add to that that more detail on collectivization also should be added, including a reference to causalities and famine. This could be added to the following under history: "Under Stalin, who replaced Lenin's NEP with five year plans and collective farming..." This cannot be accomplished until the article is unprotected, which requires Libertas to start working with us rather than against us.

The rest of his points have already been addressed. Just to recap, I will go through them point by point once again.

(1) Libertas: That the USSR was a totalitarian one-party state See under politics: "The government implemented decisions made by the Communist Party (see Organization of the Communist Party of the USSR). As a rule, the Communist Party did not permit any other political group to challenge its leadership, and over the decades, especially under Stalin, Soviet citizens who dissented openly with CPSU policies faced numerous forms of repression, including imprisonment and executions." See under politics: " The party, using its nomenklatura authority, placed reliable individuals in leadership posts throughout the government. CPSU bodies monitored the actions of government ministries, agencies, and legislative organs." The following is featured prominently in the introduction: "... the political organization of the country was defined by the only recognized political party, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union."

. The word totalitarian is essential, it is used in the Nazi Germany page. I have no problem with the description in the subsidiary page but an accurate representation of the Soviet's political repression is warranted in this article. As it stands, it isn't there. To say, the CPSU is the only "recognized" party is a term that one wouldn't see on the Nazi page. Libertas
Is the handbook on the Soviet Union published by the U.S. Library of Congress Country Studies, sponsored by the U.S. Department of the Army, also using whitewash terms? They refer to the CPSU as the "only party permitted by Constitution." [3] In addition, their brief overview of on politics and government does not include the term "totalitarian." You need to learn the difference between the style appropriate for a sourcebook or an encyclopedia and a polemic. 172 05:34, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Permitted" is a much more appropriate term. I'm happy with that. The Nazi Germany article says totalitarian. It is an accurate term. It stays. Libertas
"Permitted" also works. I'll change "recognized" to "permitted" after the article is unprotected. 172 06:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


(3) Libertas: That hundreds of thousands of political prisoners were detained without trial or with sham trials, many in mental asylums. See under history:" ... with effective political opposition eliminated in the 1930s through a harsh system of internal exile (see Gulag) and a severe period of repression known as the Great Purges." See also under politics: "...Soviet citizens who dissented openly with CPSU policies faced numerous forms of repression, including imprisonment and executions."

Nor is an estimate on the number of dead in the Second World War included, although this is far greater. I already stated that an estimate of casualties would be appropriate when we are expanding the sentences on collectivization. However, keep in mind that causality estimates vary considerably in just about every important episode in Soviet history, and the level of detail necessary to explain this variation and contextualize the history may be too much for this article. This article is supposed to stay under 32 K, not much longer than it is now, so this means that just about important details on the Soviet Union will not be mentioned. Please tell us your specific proposals, staying concrete and historical, as opposed to repeating the same anti-Soviet rants over and over again. 172 05:34, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The article needs to reflect the dimension of Soviet victims, I suggested hundreds of thousands, another user said it was millions. There are many articles greater in length than 32K.
This is an excuse to exclude inconvenient truths. I will not dignigfy this with a response. 172 06:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It is not the purpose of articles to "do justice", but rather to provide information. Use of links to other pages doesn't hide information, it provides a nice way to navigate it. I don't think it's hiding inconvenient truths to cover the deaths and repression on another page. --Improv 16:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It's like not mentioning the Holocaust on the Nazi page. I have no problem with subsidiary articles and all that, I just believe the article as it stood is not a neutral treatment of the USSR's history. Libertas
It's unique POV: citizens of the Soviet Union were constantly and massively killed. The first argument is to look at the demography of the USSR, its population increased (BTW compare to nowadays "non-repressive Russia" with the population decreasing).I think it would be worth of mentioning, how many Russians were killed by Hitlerites during WWII (Communists were massively killed, like Jews) and that Russians not only ended the war as implies from the article but actually defeated Hitlerites (turning point in the war was the Battle of Stalingrad). I think, when somebody speaks on such serious things as repressions etc. he or she first should point out source, he/she must pay attention on the sources both foreign and native for the country, about which one is speaking. In other cases it will allways be POV, not in the Wikipedia style. Cmapm
1) I am not a he, 2) Stalin murdered millions, do you dispute this?, 3) The talk page, not the article, is an acceptable POV forum to some extent for the purposes of improving the article. I am honest about my view. The suggested changes in the article are very minor. Although am working on a comprehensive re-write. Libertas
Sorry, I've fixed that in my comments. But you are not speaking only about Stalin. You say: Soviet Union throughout its history. Well, I should stop now, I'm not an experienced Wikipedian and it's difficult for me to continue such a discussion without deeping into POV. I hope Administrators can distinguish between POV and NPOV. Cmapm
The history of the Soviet Union did not end with Stalin. Noone after him came close to doing this. Would you judge any nation based on a single action? Should, for example, we speak about Japanese in concentration camps or the treatment of Amerindians in the main United States article? Must we speak of the excesses of the Revolution in the France article? The information is there, but you seem to be digging for the worst things done to display prominently, out of something that has a very long history, in order to meet some notion of justice. Mind you, Stalin's politics and their consequences, from the purges to the horrible mismanagement, should all be covered, but it doesn't need to be on the main Soviet Union page. --Improv 00:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
'The Soviet Union murdered, tortured, arbitrarily detained and persecuted its citizens throughout its history for "political" crimes, such as disagreeing with communism. Some estimates indicate millions suffered as political prisoners.' Something like that would be OK. Libertas
Search the Library of Congress Soviet Union handbook online. Let's see if you can find if they do this in any survey articles. Research and teaching are how I earn my living of Wiki. Let's see if you can do this yourself. 172 06:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Please try to avoid personal attacks. --Improv 16:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have exposed his use of Reverend Moon (a self-proclaimed Messiah) as a source for his assertions. Is that a personal attack. It's not meant to be. I think I'm entitled to 1) challenge his credibility based on evidence and 2) respectfully disagree with any other user. Libertas
It would be good if 172 would keep things calm too. It is true that one should be more careful when citing people like Moon as a source, and take their writing with more than a grain of salt. Why not just say that, rather than use the flippant suggestion that a topic of research is his grammar? Civility (you too, 172) will help keep the discussion flowing smoothly. --Improv 00:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Improv, I did not cite Rev. Moon. 172 04:52, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(4) Libertas: That the economic system was a disaster, with living standards dismal, basic consumer goods often impossible to get, with huge amounts of productivity wasted by people just looking for the basics while vast amounts were spent on weapons. See under economy: "...production in the consumer and agricultural sectors was often inadequate (see Agriculture of the Soviet Union)." Under economic development: " Growth rates slowed in the 1960s and then stagnated from the mid-1970s, sometimes attributed to administrative planning or to active corruption…" Under economic characteristics: "Their [i.e. economic planners] buying decisions, however, had relatively little influence on planning and shortages of in-demand consumer goods were common." Also, touching on the last point in this comment: "Industry was long concentrated after 1928 on heavy industry rather [i.e. the military industrial complex] than the consumer or agricultural sectors."

Again, not mentioning the economic situation in the main article is not neutral. Libertas
These excerpts are all taken from the main aritcle. Read the main article.172 05:34, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What about growth rates? The article mentions that they slowed in the '60s and staggnated in the '70s and '80s. Even so, growth overall in the '60s and '70s was not negative. (It was in the '90s). 172 06:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
My understanding in fact was that it was in freefall, stagnation is a polite euphemism for that. Libertas
GNP Growth was at less than 2 percent in the late 1970s [4]. It was down to 1.5 percent in 1988[5], with continuing deceleration beginning in mid-1970s. The "freefall" did not begin until the early 1990s. 172 07:09, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
yes that's right for the late 70's but there are estimates for 60's and 50's around indicating a collapse. Or so I recall.Libertas
You're dreaming this one up. 172 07:37, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The soviet economy, and attempts to make it work better, are things best covered in depth in other articles. Remember that we're an encyclopedia -- there's no sin in not using the most colourful, damaging terms here. Let the data speak for themselves. Of course, we do want a summary here, and the current text does a good job. "Flushed down the toilet" is certainly not a phrase for articles. --Improv 16:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(5) Libertas: That the occasional use by the Soviet regime of the term "democratic" is somewhat ironic in the circumstance. See under politics: "The organization of the CPSU was based on democratic centralism, the Leninist method of intraparty decision making. According to democratic centralism, lower party bodies executed the decisions of higher party bodies."

The irony need be pointed out, "democratic centralism" was no such thing. Libertas
No. As Mikkalai keeps pointing out to you over and over agian, this is POV. 172 05:34, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It is not POV to acknowledge that "democratic centralism" was not democratic, just centralist. Libertas
If a reader wants to know about democratic centralism, all he has to do is click on the Wikilink in the article and read Democratic centralism. 172 06:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
An article whose neutrality I question also. Libertas
As I understand it, democratic centralism is a system whereby open discussion and debate happen on a new topic, but once a vote is taken or consensus is formed, people are expected to abide by it and not continue to campaign against it. I don't think we should be pointing out ironies in topics like this -- let the reader decide if they want to make such judgement. Often two-word terms don't have a strong resemblance to their components. This is not always irony. --Improv 16:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Respectfully disagree. Libertas
Do you disagree with the summary, or the suggestion that we don't point out ironies? Further, I'm not certain if you mean Leninist to be an insult word or not. If so, let's try to keep it civil. --Improv 00:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(6) Libertas: That in fact those with power lived lives of luxury while everyone else lived in desperate circumstances See under economic characteristics: "Special access to certain consumer goods was a privilege of high-ranking state, Party and military personnel… This contrasted with the lower living standard of the average Soviet worker." See also response to point 4.

That's fine. Libertas

(7) Libertas: That while there was some pride about the role and power of the Soviet Union that for the most part people hated the dictatorship that was imposed on them and many risked their lives to leave. Andris, Paranoid, Mikkalai, who happen to be from the former Soviet Union, acknowledged opposition to the regime, but have pointed out that popular opinion was a more complex phenomenon. Thus, this point doesn’t pass the test of NPOV determined by Wikipedia's peer editing process.

Like this UPI article Most Russians miss Soviet Union? History is more complicated than you are making it out to be. 172 05:34, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
UPI as a source? UPI is owned by the Moonies. Reverend Moon claims to be the Messiah. I do not believe UPI to be a credible source. Libertas
No, the Washington Times is owned by the Moonies, not UPI. The Washington Times has nothing to do with this article; they're just running it. At any rate, I am pointing out this article to show you that another user with another POV can insist on making the opposite point in the article. POV should be kept out of the aritlce. I'll keep out the fact that most Russians now regret the collapse of the Soviet Union if you keep out your statement of "loathing of Russians for their slave-master Soviets." 172 06:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It's actually irrelevant who owns what, because whoever the author was, he didn't make up the story. They refer to VTsIOM, but practically every large polling house had the same answers to the same question for 14 years already. In ALL socio-economic groups the majority of people miss the Soviet Union. Here is one of FOM's studies on the same subject. It's a fact that Russians are sorry the USSR is gone, and I think it actually must be included in the article (or one of the subarticles). Paranoid 19:47, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Most of our exchange has been exchanging opinions but on this you are incorrect.[6] Try a Google search on Moonies and UPI. They bought UPI when it went broke for hundredth time. No one else wanted it. And that Helen Thomas White House reporter resigned in protest because she didn't want to be associated with them. Libertas
Not responding to these ad hominem diversions. 07:37, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There were articles in the Moscow times on a number of people who were protesting the end of the soviet union and their policies because they had a more difficult time making ends meet under a more capitalist system. Also, the continued existence of the Communist party of Russia argues that the Soviet Union, at least in the form it had in the later days, had some support. I doubt many people want Stalin back, but Gorby? Maybe. --Improv 16:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now I do recall that the Washington Times acquired a stake in UPI, leading to the resignation of Helen Thomas... Nevertheless, this is a rightwing newspaper and was quite hawkish in the Cold War. Do you think that they have a pro-Soviet agenda… I haven't seen evidence of significant changes in editorial policies from UPI in recent years; and their articles seem to appear as frequently in papers across the country as before. I'm no fan of the Washington Times; but I see no evidence that UPI should be generally any less reliable than (say) AP or Reuters... BTW, this is a diversion from the point of posting the link to that article. 172 07:22, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Libertas"

I disagree the Moonies' UPI is no less reliable than AP or Reuters! This is not the place to go on at length about the Moonies but they are very bad news, have a history of interference in the Washington Times and UPI, have strong anti-Putin bias and havelimited status as an academic resource. Libertas
'172 says "(UPI's) articles seem to appear as frequently in paper across the country as before"'
This is not correct in my view. Do a search within Google news on UPI and you will see the only publications referrring to UPI stories are the Washington Times and something called the World Peace Herald. Libertas

(8) Libertas: That the USSR was a police state, where neighbors and family members were encouraged to inform on each other's political views See excerpts in response to points 1 and 3. This is already covered.

No it's not. This is a vital fact that reveals much of the true USSR. Libertas
The characteristics of what you are stating appear in the article; the evidence is right in front of you. "Police state" is POV. Notice that it does not appear in any of the main survey articles of the U.S. Library of Congress Soviet Union handbook (see [7]) 172 05:34, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Police state is not POV. It is highly accurate. Libertas
Do you see it in any of the main survey articles of other sourcebooks? I showed you evidence. Where's yours? 172 06:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't care whether it's in the LOC handbook. How many sources do you want that the USSR was a vicious police state. I could come up with thousands. Libertas
You may find a lot of people willing to toss just about any insult possible at the USSR. What does "police state" mean to you, exactly, and how does the USSR, over all its history, fit your definition? --Improv 00:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(9) Libertas: That membership of the Communist Party was a ticket to advancement. See the excerpts in response to #6.

Yes, true.

(10) Libertas: That the USSR imposed its system of dictatorship throughout Eastern Europe and elsewhere, with military force. See under foreign relations: "The overarching objectives of Soviet foreign policy were national security and the maintenance of hegemony over the Warsaw Pact."

No you give me a break. The word "evil" is POV. What you call "academic jargon" is NPOV. Read Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. 172 05:34, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Disagree, the article can be neutral as it describes evil, as the Nazi Germany article does. Libertas
What does have to do with the sentence anyway? If the sentence doesn't sound anti-Soviet enough for you, click on hegemony. 172 06:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Plain English is a reasonable objective. Hegemony is a academic term that doesn't accurately describe the evil Soviet's export of dictatorship. Libertas
Libertas, Evil is necessarily POV. If you would like a general policy that when one country calls another evil (e.g. Persia calling the United States the "great satan"), it goes on that country's Wikipage, that would be ... interesting. It seems to me that it would be better to cover the topic without even thinking of evil, to avoid POV temptations. --Improv 16:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No I don't agree. What about Nazi Germany. Most would accept it was an evil regime. It's possible to write about it neutrally, while accepting the evil of its agenda. Same with Soviet Union. Libertas
When people use the term evil, they're always talking about their POV, indicating whether they approve of something or not. Hence, while a lot of people will call X evil, it's always still not NPOV to have the encyclopedia suggesting it is. --Improv 00:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(11) Libertas: This article is practically silent on the economic failings, the human rights abuses and the inequalities that the Soviet Union is really now known for. I don't understand why it should be. Even the smallest suggested changes have been totally rejected. As one can see from the excerpts from the article quoted above, there is plenty in the article about inequality, human rights problems, and economic stagnation.

I thank Libertas for going through his objections with the article systematically. I agree that he has touched upon a problem in point two. I will be willing to work with him to clarify the impact of collectivization and the famine in the Ukraine if he willing to follow Wikipedia's process of peer-editing, NPOV, and consensus. 172 07:21, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


What changes do you have in mind? You will not be able to impose them unilaterally, so you might as well try to build consensus for your ideas here on the talk page while the page is protected. Otherwise, it will continue to be locked in its present state. 172 07:54, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry I thought anyone could edit any wikipedia article anytime, unless it was protected. I will certainly be open to discussion. Are you suggesting I put up my suggestions here first for your approval? Libertas

Please read the protection notice: "This page is protected from editing until disputes have been resolved on the discussion page." This is Wikipedia policy speaking. The page will not be unprotected until the disptue is revolved. This involves not just me but you, Andris, Paranoid, Mikkalai, and other interested users. If you want to effect any change on this article, just as any other user, you will have to build consensus for it at this stage on the talk page. Please start doing so. 172 08:07, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 I was pleased you could see one of my eleven points had some merit and thank you very much for that. Libertas
There is no "whitewash." I have shown you that all of your points are already addressed, with only one needing to be expanded a bit. BTW, do you understand why this article will not go into the level of detail seen in History of the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany? 172 08:55, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This article is directly comparable to the Nazi Germany article, where no one would even think to argue about an accurate description of its repression and totalitarianism. You have asserted that the article mentions or that subsidiary articles mention the issues I have raised. I don't agree with this approach. Shunting off central aspects of the Soviet regime to subsidiary articles is not something I agree with. Libertas
That's just the way encyclopedia's are organized. If you have a problem with that, Wikipedia is not the right hobby for you. 172 10:41, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I The article as it stands needs serious revision. I respect your right to your view and you have certainly been willing to reiterate it. But I don't agree that the central aspects of Sovietism which are repression, privilege for elites, grotesquely inefficient central planning etc. should be excluded or their negative aspects minimized. The ideological inspiration for this seems to be that the USSR was the moral equivalent of the US. History tells us otherwise. Wikipedia should reflect that. Libertas
We're trying to write an encyclopedia, not a moral treatise. Information on the USSR, its structure, leaders, culture, economy, etc. are all things that belong, and it's possible to go into much depth over all of them. It's better to provide facts than conclusions, especially of the moral kind. There's nothing wrong with letting people come to their own conclusions, and nothing wrong with moving things to other pages when a great deal of text is needed to adequately cover a topic. --Improv 16:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes but I suggest you look at the very minor amendments I was proposing before the page was protected. Libertas
Well, Libertas, just to indicate that there are other POVs, different from yours. Please pay attention on the fact that People's Republic of China with it's Communist Party's "regime" will soon beat US in many fields including economy, sports and other. Also look at the USSR budget of mid 80-ies and compare it with US budget of that time (will see they were nearly equal), as well as with the enormous growth of US budget after the collapse of USSR and the enormous decrease of Russia's budget in the same time (that's where all money have gone, isn't it?). I understand that some people in US feel they are the winners over the Soviet Union and want to write its history themselves solely, but Wikipedia is International, so I can too edit articles and not only about USSR (where I was born)but also about other countries including US. I agree with you that The article as it stands is a whitewash and needs serious revision But I promise you that the article about USSR if unprotected will not be your personal point of view :) Cmapm 19:44, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Re: But I don't agree that the central aspects of Sovietism which are repression, privilege for elites, grotesquely inefficient central planning etc. should be excluded or their negative aspects minimized. I have cited one excerpt after another from the article demonstrating that this is not the case. By disregarding all this evidence, you are making yourself look unreasonable. 172 20:52, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes I think the GDP of China's per capita is about one-tenth of the US at the moment. But they are catching up. I saw a good quote the other day that China was 30% Marx, 70% Sopranos. It is certainly embracing market capitalism in a gangster format and it is working in an amazing way. I suspect a similar approach in Russia might have saved the hammer and sickle. In name anyway. China is about as socialist as Wall Street. It wears the label of Marx less convicingly than they wear Prada and Gucci. And all visitors to China know ALL the labels are fakes.
The stuff about the US and USSR being economic equals in the mid 80's is comic relief much needed in this debate. Thanks. And that the Yankees took all of Russia's wealth. I thought it was all stolen by former KGB agents and Boris Berezovksy. Someone must have it. My family got nothing.
I have no problem with the USSR article reflecting anyone's view as long as it squares with reality. I doubt it will or should reflect my point of view. Citing sources is important and I am researching dozens to give greater substance to the article in due course.
Libertas
If you have too much of a personal stake in something and don't think you can be properly NPOV while editing it, I suggest you avoid editing it. If, on the other hand, you're involved in something and can keep NPOV, you might have a lot of unique understanding/data to provide to the topic. It can be hard to tell the difference. With ideal NPOV, a pro-Soviet person and an anti-Soviet person could both read the article, and agree that they got the facts right, even if they each feel that their own perspective isn't reflected in the article. It's enough to detail that some people hold the perspective, and not kosher to have the article hold it. --Improv 16:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't have a personal stake, I have a view. It ought not disqualify me from writing. Libertas
Libertas, can you try to avoid making statements that are just intended to inflame here? If you have a problem with another editor, state it as simply and nonoffensively as you can, and that way you can work out your disagreement rather than just make them angry. As I understand it, you dislike 172's claim (as you percieve it) to have more authority on this topic than other editors because of his work as a researcher. Why not just say that, rather than claiming that he has a claim to be divine? --Improv 00:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Foundation and dissolution of the USSR

Why is there only the year of the foundation in the article? There are pretty many sources where the exact date and circumstances mentioned, I'll cite [8]: All-Union Congress of Soviets held in Moscow on December 30, 1922 accepted the Declaration and Treaty on the Formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Cmapm 02:10, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. I don't know why anyone didn't notice that, although the date existed in the December 30 article since 2002 (added by user Zoe). I think that the date should also be added to the table on the right in the section "Declared". I have some doubts about what date should be in the section "Recognized", because I don't know what does this exactly mean. If it means the date when first diplomatic relationships where established, in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (3rd edition, 24 vol.) is written that first relations after the Formation were established with Great Britain February 2-8 1924. In [9] the date of that event is stated as "1924 February".

I've added appropriate dates, as you can see, in December 30, 1922; December 26, 1991 and 1924 articles these dates already existed. Cmapm 11:03, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

talk page duplication fixed

Parts of this talk page was accidentially duplicated in this edit at 00:21, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC). I just fixed the duplication. Andris 09:48, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Considered as a totalitarian state

I have added this section as there is some question as to whether it should be included here or in the article totalitarianism. I'm sorry to extend the disorder, but I thought I would take the suggestion seriously since it was made. Fred Bauder 12:58, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

This text should not be included in any article on Wikipedia, because it's a poorly written collection of random one-sided biased claims. Most of them also happen to be completely unrelated to the issue of totalitarism. Wikipedia is not a text-dump. It is understandable when the text of such low quality is inserted in a stub, but for an article, which is already in a developed state (though clearly not in finished), this is unacceptable. Paranoid 13:31, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Agree with Paranoid. It was also unsalvageable because it did not fit into the structure of this article. Like entries on other nations, this article summarizes specialized main articles on history, politics, the economy, foreign relations, territorial units, and demographics. However, Fred's section-- stuck under Politics of the Soviet Union (which did not have an article at the time)-- was more like an essay arguing that the Soviet Union was a totalitarian regime than a broad survey article... I moved it to Politics of the Soviet Union, where a section on "totalitarianism" can be fitted into the structure... Or maybe not. Let's see what happens to it there. 172 13:37, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm interested in fleshing out Politics of the Soviet Union anyway so I'll work on that article for awhile. I don't agree that the information doesn't belong here in some form, but let's take it easy for now. I don't think 172 has the final word on the structure of this article either, please reconsider that. Fred Bauder 19:13, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Paranoid, you deleted two entirely reasonable and appropriate sentences. Please put them back. Libertas
As I explained in my response to you on my talk page, I just moved them. Paranoid 00:20, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Not appropriately, please restore them to their former and correct place, otherwise the neutrality of the article can be questioned. Libertas
I reverted the changes for the following reasons. The comment about hand-picking was factually incorrect. Councils of Ministers were not hand-picked from Moscow, they were elected by Supreme Councils. If you don't know the subject at hand, please consider abstaining from adding unchecked information to the article.

Furthermore, remarks to USSR being totalitarian are usually offhand informal comments, often in biased articles. Scholarly publications do not usually refer to USSR as totalitarian. As is evident from the article on Totalitarism, most political scientists are not ready to classify Soviet Union as totalitarian (especially, the post-Stalin USSR). Furthermore, if you use Freds additions as a standard, many other countries could be classified as totalitarian using the same criteria, for example the United States. Paranoid 00:32, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just imagine...

...that instead of the Soviet Union, the United States had collapsed. Surely the Soviet POV would have dominated the political sphere, imposing itself as an absolute, non-biased truth, and the US would have been called in encyclopedias as an empire, a colonialist monster, controlling lots of States nominally independent. And, most important, individuals would have surely believed that and take it as NPOV.

But what happened, was the contrary thing. The SU collapsed and the US POV was imposed globally and absolutely, talking about "freedom" when the SU also talked about a different "freedom", biasing even the meaning of words, following with the example, associating freedom with its Capitalist conception,

Well, all this crap was just to ask people contributing, to have in mind that there *was* (and is) another view, where the lies were in the western version, and that shouldn't be ignored in a really nautral encyclopedia like Wikipedia.


POV article

The Soviet Union article is not neutral.

As currently constituted it fails to appropriately recognize the totalitarian aspect of Soviet governance. Simple attempts to incorporate the description of Soviet totalitarianism have been rejected consistently by 172, Paranoid et al. Paranoid even removed and significantly relegated a sentence re-written by Paranoid and agreed here. Much of what I've written on this Talk page has been unnecessarily provocative and that probably discounts my credibility now, but the article is seriously flawed and biased as any comparison with the Nazi Germany article makes clear. Libertas

  1. For the third time, I didn't delete it, I moved it.
  2. I actually want to partially support Libertas's view. While I disagree that the USSR was totalitarian (facts say otherwise), the repressions should probably be described here briefly. The inflamatory reference to Nazi Germany is probably best ignored, but even the main Germany article does mention the main facts about the Third Reich and about Holocaust. Perhaps a similar amount of details (at least a paragraph) should be included about the repressions.
  3. Since the repressions are a very sensitive issue (especially to people, whose relatives died in camps), I think it would be best if we all tried to support our additions on that topic with proper references and used neutral and factual style. Paranoid 01:16, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Paranoid, this is not the article for a similar amount of details about the repressions. Notice that Nazi Germany is a component of the History of Germany series. Notice that this article is not a component of the History of Russia series.
The Soviet Union was not only composed by Russia, and it was a country itself. It is like putting the European Union in the History of Germany series.
We already have an article that goes into similar detail about all aspects of the regime as Nazi Germany-- that's the article on the History of the Soviet Union. Thus, under the heading of the history section we have: Main article: History of the Soviet Union. What the Soviet Union article needs to do is link to as many subsidiary articles on the Soviet Union as possible. 172 01:32, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please note the distinction between Nazi Germany and Germany articles. The second one does contain a brief overview of the Nazi period and the Holocaust. The main article about the country callled Germany basically says that "it" killed 6 million Jews. While I don't think the repressions were as horrible as the Holocaust, it still deserves a mention, IMO. Paranoid 02:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1) The Soviet Union article does not even mention the death toll resulting from the Second World War. These estimates all vary considerably, including those left dead by the war. Like the survey entries in the LOC handbook on the Soviet Union, we are not in the position to deal with these estimates in this article... The estimates get considerable attention in articles like Joseph Stalin and History of the Soviet Union (1927-1953). (2) This article already goes into roughly the same amount of detail about repression as the Germany article; the only difference is that this subject is not addressed in just one place in this article. Please note all the excerpts that I quoted above about the Great Purges, the Gulag system, and social control. Unlike the Germany entry, they are found in both the history and politics sections-- not just the history section. 172 05:45, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I rewrote some of the article. I removed the external link, it's already in the article, there is no need for it to be in the article twice. Ruy Lopez 04:10, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How many convictions were "bogus" depends on one's point of view. Stalin, Molotov and the Polituro later felt some of the convictions were bogus, just as people in the US have bogus convictions and are let out of jail from time to time. *Most* convictions are not bogus, unless one means it in the sense that arresting someone for smoking marijuana is bogus. What is a concocted political reason, ethnic Poles in Ukraine who belonged to a military organization which was sabotaging the USSR? One can feel different ways about their executions, but it is certainly not a concoted political reason.
By bogus/concocted I mean that people who were obviously not involved at all in the activites that were incriminated them were convicted. It's commonly accepted that most of the victims were convicted "wrongly". I think that information is important. Paranoid 04:45, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Also, not all of the sentences were carried out is a fact. As far as the statement that 682,000 were executed, the article does not say that, it says 682,000 were sentenced to be executed. If there is an error, you have a dispute with the person who inserted that, not me. The fact remains that, regardless of the numbers, not all of those who were sentenced to be executed were executed. This is a fact. I have not yet disputed any of the numbers presented. Ruy Lopez 04:19, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Both references say "расстреляны" or "shot". "Sentenced to death" should probably be replaced with "executed". Paranoid 04:45, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Removing POV tag

I am told that doing this is considered very bad form. 172, Could you stop ? Libertas

Listen, you can't decide to put the POV tag because your politic idea tells you so. There are many people with other ones, as valid as yours, that would consider POV what you think that is NPOV. The article is well balanced now, let it quiet.

Not sure who I'm responding to, but the article is an example of POV. My view is no more valid than anyone else. I want a NPOV article and will persist in researching it and building it up from its low base. Libertas

It is bad form to keep inserting terms like "murder" even after you were told that this was moralizing and POV and make false claims [10]. The Soviet Union was not an importer of grain for most of its history. That's why it was considered such an important development in the 1970s, when it became one. 172 05:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Murder is a legal term not a moral one. The Soviet Union certainly became a net importer of food, [11] and I recall the private plots with 4% of land produced 25% of food, I'll look up a source for that as well. They are not false claims. Libertas

It is not a legal term in the context in which you were using it; the Soviets were the authorities at the time, of course... Since your text was vague, it made it sound like the Soviet Union was consistently an importer of food from the time of collectivization to its collapse, which was not the case. Also, the Soviet Union saw great increases in its output of many commodities; I doubt that you will want to include this side of history. This whole effort to make the tone of the article more "anti-Soviet" is unsavory. This is no better than (say) a "pro-Soviet" user coming along and demanding that the article be jammed packed with random arguments and cherry-picked data illustrating how living standards for the majority of the population have worsened in the post-Communist years. 172 06:09, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Murder is a legal term not a moral one. Do you think killing civilians so as to confiscate their land is murder? I think it qualifies. My text on the Soviet Union becoming a net importer of food was not vague. It was quite specific. The "pro-Soviet" user is already here, and with great respect you have been here for some time, you have produced an article which reflects no credit on Wikipedia. 'Compare the Soviet article with its equivalents on Encarta and Britannica and the grotesque deficiencies of this one became very evident. You delete the description "dictatorship" which managed to survive the cut at Encarta. You don't like calling it totalitarian, funny, it made it through at Britannica. Are they both wrong ?' Libertas

Then don't listen to me. Take note of the other users that have been telling you similar things about POV terms like totalitarian, murder, and dictatorship like John Kenney, AndyL, Paranoid, and Mikkalai. 172 06:31, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am listening very carefully. Again I ask you, why are Britannica and Encarta comfortable with the description dictatorship and totalitarian ? Frankly those two have credibility than any user or group of users here. Libertas

Wikipedia has its own editorial policies based on NPOV. Thus, Wikipedia cannot disregard many observers-- including some very well-respected Western scholars-- who avoid the terms "totalitarian" and "dictatorship." (Incidentally, I myself learned this distinction the hard way about half a year ago, when I was asserting that U.S. backing for the 1973 coup in Chile is an established fact. I pointed out that other encyclopedias referred to it as a U.S.-backed coup, such as Encarta; but ultimately this did not hold up, given the credence given by the NPOV policy to the very small minority camp on the hardcore partisan right denying the U.S. role... Here's a good rule of thumb for figuring out if a contribution is going to stay up on Wikipedia: if both you and (say) Ruy Lopez, who is on the opposite extreme can tolerate it, it's NPOV. 172 07:13, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thus, Wikipedia cannot sensibly sustain an article that is at such significant variance with what the vast majority of non Marxist scholars argue. This view is manifested for public consumption in Britannica and Encarta. They are not determinative but must be recognized. You haven't explained why the articles are so different. NPOV does not mean that no government could ever be defined as a dictatorship just because someone doesn't like the description. Pol Pot was a community activist. Auschwitz was a labor camp. Saddam a family man. I mean all three descriptions are true probably, but to describe those three that way is really missing the main story. It isn't neutral to describe those three that way, it is intellectually not correct. Omitting the glaringly obvious fact that the USSR was a dictatorship when the vast majority of scholarship says otherwise is equally erroneous and is best rejected. Libertas

172's Sources

The concept of "totalitarianism" has been challenged for methodological reasons-- not political reasons-- by some of the most respected Western Soviet and Russia specialists. These are the writers to whom I refer, not the Communists. (BTW, you bring up "Marxists," but it was a Marxist who first applied the concept to the USSR-- Victor Serge.) Since the late 1960s there has been a debate in Russia and Soviet studies between proponents of the "totalitarian model" (such as Conquest and Brzezinski) and some social historians more concerned with conflict. In case you're not familiar, here are some cached links (so that the key words are highlighted) making reference to the debate on the 'totalitarian model' and Stephen Cohen that may be able to guide some further research. [12] and [13] are from Johnson's Russia Index. [14] is another example. (Please recall that User:John Kenney brought up a similar debate in 20th century German history, bringing up a scholar at Penn, where he is a graduate student in history, who does not use this concept.) At any rate, for the leading works of the scholars working outside the totalitarian model see Stephen F. Cohen, Rethinking the Soviet Experience: Politics and History since 1917 (1985), J. Arch Getty, Origins of the Great Purges: The Soviet Communist Party Reconsidered (1984), Fitzpatrick, "New Perspectives on Stalinism" (1986), Fitzpatrick, "How the Mice Buried the Cat: Scenes from the Great Purges of 1937 in the Russian Provinces" (1993) These accounts do not use the 'totalitarian model' because (a) it does not adequately take into account the conflict between opposing groups and key figures that characterized the Soviet Union (Cohen) (b) it does not adequately take into account the primitive nature of the Soviet planning bureaucracy (Getty) (c) it does not adequately take into account the extent to which the Soviet authorities lacked complete control of the agency of the masses or the social outcomes of its own plans (Fitzpatrick)... Other publications may be in the position to adopt one school of though over another, but Wikipedia is not... In addition, although this article, like the LOC handbook on the Soviet Union, avoids the terms "dictatorship" and "totalitarian," the characteristics of the Soviet regime that are noted by scholars of totalitarianism are dealt with in very clear, concrete terms in Wikipedia. 172 07:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the references to left-wing writers and without evaluating individual scholars, the left-wing agenda is clear. I understand it. I accept the left is entitled to a view. I don't agree with it but that's not the point. I would like you to respond to my previous posts though. You dismiss Britannica and Encarta as "other publications," when of course they are the most respected popular encylopedia in the world. They represent a good summary of recent scholarship, not perhaps in Marxian circles but for the rest of us. Your arguments a), b) or c) could be advanced to assert no government was ever a dictatorship and that therefore the word has no meaning or theoretical meaning. For example, there were factions within Nazism, Nazi economic planning was primitive too at times (how that matters is beyond me) and the Nazis often lacked control over lots of different things, especially in resource allocation. Does any of that mean Nazi Germany wasn't a dictatorship. I don't think so. I have already cited a Library of Congress reference (which you of course deleted) calling the USSR a dictatorship. For this Wikipedia article to be neutral, it must reflect what seems obvious, the USSR was a dictatorship. Britannica agrees. Encarta agrees. Library of Congress agrees. Libertas

Have you even heard of these scholars whom you accuse of having a "leftwing agenda"? That notwithstanding, readers can make up their own mind after reading sentences like the following: With the exception of a brief period immediately following the revolution, the political organization of the country was defined by the only permitted political party, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. As a rule, the Communist Party did not permit any other political group to challenge its leadership, and over the decades, especially under Stalin, Soviet citizens who dissented openly with CPSU policies faced numerous forms of repression, including imprisonment and executions. 172 08:17, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is there any government ever that qualifies in your assessment as a dictatorship? Why are Britannica and Encarta (and the vast majority of scholarship) wrong ? Those two sentences do not appear together they are from totally different parts of the article. The USSR qualifies as a dictatorship as it is defined in Wikipedia. Libertas

I am not bothering to argue that the USSR was not totalitarian or a dictatorship. My position is that calling it a single-party state is a more precise way of dealing with its characteristics. Also, the theoretical regime typologies used in comparative politics are generally avoided on Wikipedia due to the NPOV policy and the lack of a framework on this site for standardizing their usage or adopting any consistent editorial policies... BTW, I added a link to totalitarianism in a proper context to the article-- qualifying it and working around NPOV policies by not organizing the article around it. 172 10:06, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

172, you have been arguing exactly that it seems to me but will now deal with the issue of how prominent a reference dictatorship warrants. I researched the question of its prominence prior to writing the description. I put it this way, relegating the dictatorship reference to deep within the article so it is not prominent is not good scholarship. I submit that totalitarianism and dictatorship was a defining characteristic of the Soviet Union, to not mention that in the first paragraph or two is not neutral. Let us not regard Soviet totalitarianism as a cigar burn on the rug that we try to hide by moving the sofa. the inclusion of a reference to Stalin's secret police being a characteristic of what "some" say is totalitarianism is welcome but frankly does not deal with the issue I've been raising. It's nearly comic how little ground is being conceded in an article all are entitled to edit. Again, I refer to Britannica and Encarta which introduce this idea at the beginning of their articles. I refer to Nazi Germany which does the same. Again I ask why should the Wikipedia article be so different in format, in content and in approach to respected publications elsewhere.

More sources supporting a prominent reference to Soviet dictatorship-

  • Oxford University Press says Soviet Union was dictatorship in book title[15] Libertas
It's already been said, Libertas: Britannica and Encarta are not governed by the same policies as Wikipedia. Their articles would not be accepted under the NPOV policy. Neither is Oxford University Press. Besides which, a publisher is in the business of publishing books, not endorsing the views of those authors. Better to say who wrote that book if you're going to claim it as evidence.
Yes, murder is a legal term. It is also a moral term. In the context you're using it, it's a moral term. "Murder" is only a legal term when the state (which makes the laws) says a killing is legally murder. The USSR did not call the killings murder, therefore using "murder" in that context is not using it as a legal term. Therefore, it's a moral term, and should not appear. — Saxifrage | ☎ 20:12, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
Murder in the context I employ the term is a legal term. Even under USSR law, land owners were murdered. I am not familiar with any scholarship that seriously disputes this.
Britannica and Encarta are an indicator of how this article is not neutral. I am not saying they are definitive, but a helpful summary of respected scholarship on a range of subjects. Non-Marxist sources would be welcome. Asserting the Soviet Union was not a dictatorship has been such an exercise in absurdity that I have serious concerns about our ability to edit the article as it should be.
And now we see that some don't want to call murder murder. Priests were murdered. Farm owners murdered. Their relatives murdered. It was murder, by any definition. Libertas
Would you care to cite a Soviet legal opinion on Stalin's actions? --Improv 22:21, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Look at "Microsoft Windows" or "William Henry Gates III" in Encarta, look at the history of the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands in Britannica. I wont take those encyclopedias as a reference.
I respect them as sources. Some are willing to cite that as a source. Britannica and Encarta are a very useful point of comparison, if not a definitive guide to prevailing scholarship on many subjects. Libertas

The new section on religion was mostly good. However, it makes little sense to go into more detail on the subject in the executive summary in the Soviet Union article than in the main article where this should be a subsection, Culture of the Soviet Union. So I moved it there and added a link to it under the section on demographics and society. More detail on religion can be added in both articles if editors so choose. 172 21:59, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe a section on Religion is appropriate in the main article. Perhaps a summary of the entry in culture would be acceptable. Libertas

Regarding the recent changes, Cmapm moved the new section on internal security from the Soviet Union article to the Soviet law article (like in other countries' articles, e.g. U.S. article). On one hand, he's right and this is the standard placement. But the secret police effectively exercised an extraordinary degree of power independent of the party under Stalin, affording it some coverage in the politics section... I noticed that Libertas objected to this move in talk... This should be considered an issue of organization and standardization, not to be politicized. 172 14:59, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

This is vandalism. 172 14:44, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Page Protection

This article reflects no credit on Wikipedia. Most scholars would find it puzzling to remove references to religion and to the enforcement of "internal security" from an article about the collapsed USSR. Given that an increasing number of students and others draw on Wikipedia, I believe it is important that a detailed disclaimer about the article's deficiencies be provided. To characterize that as vandalism is not correct in my view. Vandalism seems to abound on Wikipedia and a carefully worded and prepared disclaimer does not in my opinion represent vandalism of any kind.

The page was protected [16] without anyone explaining a case.

In my view the article needs to explain

  • The scholarly accepted fact that the USSR was a totalitarian regime and a dictatorship and to do so prominently
  • Religious affairs in the collapsed former country
  • Economic dysfunction in the USSR
  • Repression in the form of "internal security"
  • In light of the above why the USSR collapsed

It does not, and while it does not it represents an article that is not complete, not factual and not neutral. Rather than be protected, it needs reasonably minded people to step forward to deal with its omissions.

Libertas

This artcile must not "explain" anything. It must list and refer to dedicated articles.

  • If these scholars call Brezhnev dictator, then they have really soft brains. Mikkalai 20:01, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree; must be mentioned. Religion in the Soviet Union article is badly missing.
    • See religious groups under demographics and society. I added a new section on Nationalities and religious groups, then Cmapm moved it under the said section. 172 23:04, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • There's now a Religion in the Soviet Union article, using the LOC text in order to have it completed quickly. Perhaps another admin can post a link to the article in Soviet Union, since adding a link has nothing to do with the reasons why this page is protected. 172 06:47, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Dysfunction is wrong word. Every country has its periods of ups and downs. At times it functioned perfectly.
  • Repression, yes, but without shouting and waving hands.
  • "Why" cannot be in this article. It is all after-fact wiseguy guesswork. It can be only in a specialized article carefuully stating theta these are opinions of these and those scholars.

Mikkalai 20:01, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would like to see an article that:

  • Tells what happened with the regime
  • Tells us who it hurt
  • Tells why it collapsed

To some extent it does but it doesn't go far enough. I don't agree the article should list a bunch of articles only. It should synthesize those articles for sure.

Brezhnev had almost unfettered power, he had a personality cult. He was a dictator by any accepted measure. Just because we think he was a touch uncharismatic doesn't discount his dictatorial status.

  • Brezhnev was puppet. I am thoroughly surprised that this is not well-known yet. Cult was crafted. Mikkalai 02:12, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I question whether any economic system functions perfectly. Perfect markets are theoretical constructs. As for the USSR, its sclerotic system seemed as far from perfection as possible. Food production is probably the best measure of the failings of the USSR's economy. Went from being a huge exporter to a net importer, and 3% of the land holdings which were privately owned produced nearly 30% of production. Will 172 ever allow these inconvenient truths to appear?

I've written this in other articles. I will favor adding a note on the Soviet Union becoming an importer of food in the economy section once the page is unlocked. 172 00:04, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The repression of religious people, of dissidents, of Jews all needs to be dealt with. Mass murder needs to be dealt with. Gulags too. And just the facts, of course. They tragically need no embellishment.

Repression is dealt with. See the excerpts from the article quote above in my response to Libertas. 172 00:04, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There are many theories about the ultimate failure of the Soviet Union and I don't champion any of them, seems to me that many factors contributed, particularly President Reagan whose clarity of vision about Soviet weakness crafted US policy through the 1980's and put immense pressure on the Soviet military industrial complex. Technology was a huge factor. While we developed the internet, they were smuggling in Apple II's in diplomatic pouches to figure out what these PC's were all about! Productivity was a factor, alcoholism rife, queues, rationing, waiting for basic services like telephony, all these and more caused productivity to be very low. Let's face it the whole Soviet thing was a disaster, at times a very sinister disaster, and I don't want to put it in those POV terms but let's get on with it and call a spade a spade and not a Glorious Workers Tool for Landscaping.

Libertas

And you think you are neutral? Another important factor in the USSR's collaps was the tremendous brainwashing of the neoliberalist ideology (there is onlye ONE path, one "true and free" POV), including US-backing of ultranationalist, anti-Union groups that took power after the Union's collapse. (Edit by 200.85.101.26)


In my opinion, these are reasonable undeniable facts that need to be included:

  • I think totalitarian can be used in relation to Stalin's Soviet Union, I don't care how patriotic a Russian you are, Stalin created a totalitarian state. After his death, it becomes debateable and the article shouldn't comment.
  • Lenin's Soviet Union was very different from Stalin's. If the Communist Party leaders are the Apostles (and Trotsky used this comparison), then Stalin was Judas. The Soviet Union could have taken a very different direction if Trotsky (or another) had been at the helm and if life, within the communist party, remained open (it would still have been a dictatorship, but then, no worse then the Whites trying to overthrow them)
  • The article should make it clear that none-Russians were subject to ethnic cleansing under Stalin in the form of engineered famine and deportations to Siberia.
  • It should be said that even after Stalin, Russians and minorities alike had no civil liberties and government was, at the very least, authoritarian.
  • It should be made clear that until the late 70s the Soviet system of central planning seemed like a reasonable competitor to free market capitalism. After that, it was undeniably backward, so backward that the Ruble was worthless, industry was both extremely polluting and bankrupt while agriculture was STILL A MESS (despite huge Ukraine being rich in farmland).
  • The creation of puppet regimes, little more then unofficial extensions of the Russian Empire, in Eastern Europe should not be ignored.

Equally undeniable:

  • the Soviet Union aided anti-colonial liberation movements against imperial oppressors in Africa, Vietnam and Algeria.
  • The Soviet Union aided resistance movements against reactionary right wing authoritarian dictatorships in Spain, China, Korea.
  • The Soviet Union was a leader in space and military technology (although they eventually lost their edge due to the capitalist's world's tremendous economic growth).
  • Many Russians regret the fall of the Soviet Union, for reasons of prestige, propaganda and simply because Russia has not re-attained its Soviet-level economy. Nevermind that Russians don't seem to value their newfound freedoms as much as economic security, this can be seen in the Russians being very complacent in Putin's grabbing more and more despotic powers (the comparison with the Germans not valuing their freedom in the face of Hitler seems good to me).

Guideline: The words used for Stalin's Soviet Union should be as damning as those used for Hitler's Third Reich. The rest should be more PC. (edit by CJWilly) (my bad: --CJWilly 09:32, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Written by 200.85.101.26 (not Libertas, although I wish I was half as well informed and erudite)

No, it was written by CJWilly, as you can see in the History page. I just commented on Libertas' biased view on the USSR's collapse. (Edit by 200.85.101.26)
Re: The words ... should be as damning... That's a key problem with your suggestions, so far, Libertas. No article is here to damn anyone—that would be POV. By the NPOV policy, editors (including you) are obligated to oppose "damning words" being used in any article, whether it's basket weaving or Soviet Union. — Saxifrage | ☎ 22:09, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
Sax, you are responding to an anon, not to me. I repeat I do not post anonymously, more than anything so I can follow what I'm working on and so Radicalsubversiv and 172 can follow my every entry and revert it :-( My thesis is slightly different to 200's. I believe basket weaving and Soviet Union damn themselves, they don't need to be damned here. The facts, uncensored is all I ask for, in neutral language. It is possible to talk about what most would accept as evil Hitler or Pol Pot or Stalin without hyperbole, in fact the stark facts are probably more damning than the angriest language of their victims. Facts like: Millions dead. Secret Police. Torture. Terror. Colonizing Weaker Nations. Although that said, 200, if you read this please stay, . In fact sign up and stay and we can to bring some neutrality to the article. And 200 is right about one thing, the USSR is a former system of government not a country and its article should reflect that with an explanation about why it collapsed.
My pardon, you're right. That was CJWilly failing to sign themself. (Bad editor, causing confusion! No cookie for you.) I retract my comment. However, WP consensus is that "terror" is a POV term. The others you list are borderline. Borderline is to be avoided. — Saxifrage | ☎ 00:04, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
I did not send you an email. 172 23:04, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Note that it is trivially easy to forge an email. An expert inspection of the headers may reveal forging. — Saxifrage | ☎ 00:04, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
I did not send you an email. I don't think that it's unbecoming of you to post a forgery, though. 172 00:08, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, if it is indeed the case that an inspection of the headers may reveal forging, bring on the forgery. I dare you; I have nothing to hide, after all. 172 05:51, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Saxifrage, you seem to raise some good points. However, you seem to want this article to go into even greater detail than the daughter articles on History of the Soviet Union, Politics of the Soviet Union, and Economy of the Soviet Union. Many of these facts aren't even mentioned in these articles. 172 23:04, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wait, wait, wait. What good points did I raise? My only recent comment was about damning words in response to CJWilly's (unsigned) comments. — Saxifrage | ☎ 00:04, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I'd thought that the second part of CJWilly's comments were posted by you. Sorry about the confusion. 172 00:12, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Browbeating everyone who does not entirely agree with your edits all the time as a Marxist is getting annoying. This is an ad hominem response attempting to divert attention from the substantive issues and goes against the Wikipedia policy against personal attacks. I do not have a Marxist agenda on this article; I was not a supporter of the Soviet Union before its collapse. Nor I am not a Communist of any stripe; I am an American and I belong to one of the country's two mainstream political parties. Nor I have not cited any Marxist publications or authors. My only agenda on the article is making it usable. This means following NPOV, making sure that summaries are exactly that-- designed to be summaries of main articles. Also, there was no UPI "gaffe." Just because you say something over and over again does not make it eventually come true. I posted a link to a UPI article on this talk page. I stand by the accuracy of the report, having seen similar data and the same information in other sources. However, I do not wish to discuss this with you further. I only posted this link because it was incidental to something brought up in passing on this talk page, not because it relates to this article. So let's keep the discussion on talk focused on the article... You just seem interested in bringing it up over and over again so as to argue that everything that I say ought to be disregarded; this is the strategy of users that lack a command of the facts but get their way against other users by attacking their character and diverting attention to the personalities. 172 23:54, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have not called you a Marxist. I have no idea whether you are and no interest in knowing that you're a Marxist or a Democrat or whatever you are. I have revealed your preference for Marxist sources and less reputable sources, I'm sorry it's just the truth.

Libertas

Libertas, you cannot cite Britannica for precedent. Read NPOV. Britannica and Encarta are Western-POV publicatons and goverened by radically different rules than Wikipedia. Second, if you're going to call upon the authority of "respected non-Marxist scholarship", you will convince more opponents and by-standers if you provide references. Insubstantial authorities don't get to contribute. Lastly, stop harping on the UPI reference. It just looks like an ad hominem attack and does not actually have relevance to this article. (Sure, attack the source, but never the editor.) — Saxifrage | ☎ 00:04, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
Sax says Britannica and Encarta are "western POV". Britannica and Encarta are useful points of comparison, that's all I've ever said. Wikipedia should not be pale copies of anything. That said, to deny Britannica's credibility on any subject seems unjustified given its stature.
You have only brought them up as examples as to why "totalitarian" is appropriate. NPOV says it's not. What Britannica and Encarta say about the USSR is not useful for determining what are appropriate terms to use on Wikipedia, because they are not beholden to our NPOV policy. Wikipedia policies win over Britannica and Encarta policies, here. — Saxifrage | ☎ 00:47, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
Can 172 cite a non-Marxist source, if he does, He claims the Library of Congress says the USSR was not totalitarian, this is just not right. I checked. Libertas

172 says "I have not cited a single "Marxist" source"

I have not cited a single "Marxist" source on this talk page. 172 04:38, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Marxist insights and other delights

Not true, you (and your close associates here) constantly cite Marxist sources, including on your user page. If you want me to catalog them I will but then you will accuse me of brow-beating, the exact offence you have been repeatedly committing for a very long time. Just say the word and I will review every source you've cited in the past month and scrutinize their leftist leanings. In fact the only sources I can think of that aren't leftist are the one I won't mention out of politeness and the LOC. And the LOC reference you twisted like a pretzel to make it prove your point, which it clearly didn't.
Karl Marx once said "Last words are for fools who haven't said enough." I doubt either of us will need them. But seriously I think it's time you read the writing on the wall and on the talk page, made some concessions of the kind proposed and move on. Just move on, 172, we've had enough. You don't own this article, you aren't the determinative voice on scholarship as I have illustrated perhaps too often, so let's just get on with re-shaping the article and not get you fellow-travelers to protect the page everytime someone has a contribution to make that's inconsistent with your ideological POV. 172, I respect your length of service and hundreds of good contributions and I would like to move on from this article before we both develop RSI, so can't you just give a little. We're turning this into a farce, with no one brave enough to get in the middle. I will happily discuss on IRC or by email or whatever to work out differences. Leaving the article protected puts off the inevitable. Reverting everything I do puts off the inevitable. Attacking me constantly just guarantees a response, when we should be attacking the article so it is at least to some extent a neutral account of the former Soviet Union and its collapse. Libertas
I have not referred to any Marxist aritcles on this aritcle. And yYes, I do have links to some Marxist sources on my user page. I also have links to some conservative think-tanks on my user page. Fair-minded users will see through this demagoguery. 172 06:52, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And go ahead, let's see your foregery email and let's see you show where I have cited "Marxist" sources in this article or even on this talk page. The closest I have come is making reference to Victor Serge, ironically enough, the person who first applied the term "totalitarianism" to Stalinist Russia. 172 06:54, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You're user page is replete with Marx and leftism. Please leave your baggage at the door in future. IN one post you manage to accuse me of being a demagogue and a forger. And then complain about personal attacks. Tsk Tsk. Libertas


(1) Yes, I do have links to Marxist sources like Monthly Review on it. I also have links to conservative think-tanks focused on Russia like Jamestown Foundation. At any rate, my user page is irrelevant. What is relevant is this article; and you seem unable to give me a single example of a Marxist source that I cited in the article or even on this talk page. (2) I did not call you a forger. I called a purported email a forgery. (You claimed to have received a rude email from me. I did not send you one. Therefore, the email is a forgery. If this is wrong; let us see.) (3) I did not call you a demagogue. I called comments demagogic. 172 07:43, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes, indeed you do have Marxist sources, and you refer to them, and to leftist sources exclusively. You can cite whoever you want, but you lose your right to claim neutrality.
You are free with allegations. And have been from the moment I got here. Your claims are many and various:
  • That I was another user or users
  • That I should be blocked, banned (and put more than a dozen messages on his associates user pages to encourage them to get me banned)
  • That I am emotive and polemical
  • That I engage in anti-Soviet rants
  • And what he said in an email to me was to nasty to republish (nb he denies writing it, I wonder if he'll disclose his IP number so it can be verified)
  • Now he says I am forger, or that I am in possession of a forgery (a crime last time I noticed)
  • And he doesn't call me a demagogue, but everything I say is demagogic.
Puh-lease. So you say Stalin committed murder but was not a murderer? You have got away with this sort of thing for far too long 172, as your ArbComm case demonstrates. Bad words and false claims don't do anything other than make you look bad, and we wouldn't want that, would we? Libertas

Name just one Marxist cite that I cited in this article or on this talk page. If the email that you claim that I've sent you isn't a forgery, let's see it. Quote me making the explict claim that you were another user or users. Go ahead. Go through my work. Take a look at the sources in (say) History of post-Soviet Russia. There are about a few dozen of them. I don't even think that one is "Marxist." You claim that I cite 'Marxist and leftist' sources exclusively. So prove it. 172 08:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


I have not attacked 172 personally, I have challenged his conduct, I have questioned his sources, I have reviewed is treatment of others, I have reminded him of his pledges to the ArbCom which he persistently breaks but I have not attacked him and see no need to do so. His actions speak louder than any of my words. Libertas
Then let his actions speak. As an observer in this debate, your words have spoken louder than anyone's. By the way, a link to the Google search/reference you talk about is necessary, otherwise it's just rhetoric. — Saxifrage | ☎ 00:47, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
More importantly, 172 never said that the Library of Congress has never referred to the Soviet Union as totalitarian. He said that a specific document from the Library of Congress could be a good guide to the kind of language that should be used here. That document uses the word totalitarian precisely once: "Thus, although the Soviet regime was not totalitarian when he died, Lenin had nonetheless laid the foundations upon which such a tyranny might later arise." RadicalSubversiv E 01:34, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Radical, you have just made my point. He utterly misrepresented the document. He utterly misrepresented its stature. This is not the first time he was engaged in this conduct. Read his arbitration page. Libertas
  • ahem* You attributed to him a statement which he did not make, and you misrepresented the document in question. RadicalSubversiv E 02:00, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
One more thing. 172's arbitration case doesn't tell us anything about the Soviet Union. It does tell us that he "is a valued contributor with expert knowledge of his subjects of interest". It says nothing about misrepresentation. RadicalSubversiv E 02:11, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think it's sweet that you want to defend 172, despite his catalog of misconduct. Why don't we let others read the evidence page and the rulings and make up their own mind. I have certainly not misrepresented anything on there. I am not saying he doesn't contribute. I am saying he thinks his contributions are worth so very much better than ours. That is my point. Nothing more or less than that. As for the LOC doc, he has referred to it repeatedly until I called him on its content. *ahem* indeed.

This is not new, 172 has been acting this way, treating others this way for a long time. I guess we shouldn't take it too personally.

Libertas

This is just awful! I know for certain I am not an expert on this topic. If I were given an assignment to write a research paper on the Soviet Union, fortunately, I know where the library is located. Paradigmbuff 23:50, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more Paradigmbuff, it really is bad. Hope you can help work on it. It can't get any worse! Libertas

The article is a mess right now. It will stay a mess until everyone agrees to abide by NPOV (and actually reads and understands the policy!) and starts to work together on building consensus. — Saxifrage | ☎ 00:08, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

If all that Libertas said until now about other users and particulary about 172 is not the subject of Wiki sanctions, then I have nothing more to say on this article and its discussion. Let's remove my and other users' edits and change the article to be blahblahblah-style: no precise facts, no dates, no sources, only:"tens of millions believers", "millions murdered throughout its history" etc.etc.etc. It's so American! (Improv, I don't mean people like you). Bye, I'm diving to other Wiki topics for undefined time.Cmapm 07:09, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On one occasion, 172 acknowledged my section on religion as being good and then deleted it entirely!


Anyways, sorry to see you go Crapr. Libertas
No, you must stop monopolizing the megaphone. You say that you are sorry to see Cmapm go, so why don't you consider his rebuke: If all that Libertas said until now about other users and particulary about 172 is not the subject of Wiki sanctions, then I have nothing more to say on this article and its discussion. 172 08:17, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think maybe some time off for both of you is a good idea. Libertas, I don't understand your point in coming to my talk page and telling me my name is a violationof wikipedia policy. Perhaps you are taking this place to seriously?--Che y Marijuana 08:21, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

172 Denies Using Marxist Sources and Is Caught "Red" Handed

The Story So Far

I put to 172 that some of his sources are Marxist or very left leaning Soviet nostalgics. There was a little bit of bluff involved I admit because I wasn't familiar with them. I thought it was a fair assumption in light of the propositions he was supporting with their work.

On this very page, 172 expressly and repeatedly denied ever using a Marxist source on this Talk page and I quote I have not cited a single "Marxist" source on this talk page. 172 04:38, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)[17]

Knowing I had a fair bit of digging to do, I pick one, the most prominent of his sources it seemed.

As above, 172 made frequent favorable reference to a Columbia Professor Stephen Cohen who has written about Russia extensively [18] and used his supposedly impartial scholarship as a basis for defending his claim that the USSR is not considered totalitarian.

Thanks to Sergei at Google I provide the following from their cache:

Article Reviewing Cohen's work

"Peter Reddaway and Dmitri Glinsky’s history of this catastrophic process is the richest and most detailed yet to appear, and is of timeless value as a record. Its conclusions are supported by Stephen Cohen’s interesting, if one-sided, collection of essays on the same subject, and by Paul Klebnikov’s more popular, well-written and brilliantly revealing biography of Boris Berezovsky.

It is a striking sign of just how deep Russia’s catastrophe has been that Reddaway and Cohen should have found themselves in much the same camp. Cohen is a Marxist whose earlier books on Soviet history were written from the standpoint of support for the (relatively) moderate and humane strand of communism represented by Nikolai Bukharin, which was bloodily destroyed by Stalin. Despite his loathing of Stalinism and contempt for the rulers of the Brezhnev era, Cohen retained an evident sympathy for the basic Soviet project.

Very disappointing indeed, 172

There are two possibilities, 172 knew Cohen was a Marxist and lied about it or 172 did not know Cohen was a Marxist. I don't know which, and do not wish to speculate, and want to assume good faith, but I do know that 172's pretence at good scholarship must surely now come to an end.

I will not review any more of 172's sources in the circumstances unless there is a consensus about it. His conduct makes me sad not angry and I don't wish to labor the point, if others want me to continue the investigation I will but I think even 172 might be quiet now.

Libertas

172: I indeed mentioned Stephen Cohen on this talk page and various others.

172: And you have indeed found an article condemning him as a Marxist.

The article doesn't condemn him at all, it praises his work on my reading. It just identifies his views Libertas

172: This only proves that one individual has called him a Marxist. This does not prove that he identifies himself as a Marxist or that he is generally considered one in academia.

Provide some evidence that rebuts mine. Libertas

172: This just goes to show you that anything can be found said about anyone online who is well known enough. Libertas

Do you dispute the source? Do you dispute Cohen is a Marxist. If so, provide evidence. Libertas

172: (Even ardent anticommunist Fred Bauder has expressed respect for Cohen and cited him on the Stalin talk page: We [comment directed to me] do seem to share respect for at least one scholar, Stephen F. Cohen. He does use the word totalitarian, but in quotes, for example on page 31 of Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution: 'In his description of an omnipotent "single all-embracing organization ," Bukharin foresaw, however idiomatically, the advent of what came to be called the "totalitarian" state." He also anticipated the agonizing question this development was to pose for Marxists. Again on page 362, ' Unlike all too many Marxists, Bukharin recognized that the Nazi order was something new. It represented, he believed, the actualization of the "New Leviathan," the nightmarish potentiality in modern society that he had adumbrated in 1915, the "state of Jack London's The Iron Heel." And as his portrayal of Nazi Germany, its "totalitarian" order, "statism and Caesarism," in 1934-6 seemed to suggest, and as he confided privately, he feared that Stalinist policies and practices since 1929 were leading to a similar development in the Soviet Union.' When he puts totalitarianism in quotes, he's quoting those who do use the word. As he writes about Bukharin's ideas he is outlining the concept, as Bukharin put it, "a militaristic state capitalism".

The point isn't whether Cohen is worthy of respect, the point is whether he is a Marxist source. Libertas

172: Also, Marxist does not necessarily mean communist.

I didn't say it did. Libertas

172: In Western academia, adapting a Marxian analysis in some settings has nothing to do with advancing a Marxist ideological agenda. Some ardent anticommunists on the right have even identified themselves as Marxists or acknowledged his influence, such as Sidney Hook. In Western sociology and political sociology, Marx is considered one of the founding theorists, along with Weber and Durkheim. In short, I stand by my reference to Stephen Cohen. If you want to put him on trial here; go ahead. Perhaps Fred Bauder will join me in defending him.

No. No. No. I said I was reluctant to commence this process because you would allege McCarthyism. This is not about Cohen's credibility. Libertas

172: BTW, it’s pretty lame to back up the claim that I exclusively use Marxist sources by finding a single article calling a single scholar a Marxist whom I don’t even cite directly in an article while I have inserted hundreds of citations in Russia- and Soviet-related articles. Go to History of post-Soviet Russia, where you find several dozen sources used that are clearly not Marxian in their approaches or Marxist in ideology. In that article I cite many academics on the right like Anders Åslund, a strong Cold Warrior, and right-leaning think-tanks like Jamestown Foundation.

I think it's pretty lame to claim you don't cite from Marxists when you do. Libertas

172: So, kudos to you.

Thank you. Libertas

You found one article online that allows you to systematically mischaracterize my work as exclusively using Marxist and leftist sources. Big deal. Fair-minded users will see through this charade.

Also, let’s see the email that you claim that I sent you. I did not. But I have no problem reading a forgery. 172 09:46, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You have denied writing it. I'll accept that. I have no wish to republish its hateful words. Although in light of the material written by you in the archives, I do wonder. If they are sent again, I will forward them to the relevant authorities for their review. Libertas
There's no need to protect me. Let's see it now. Is it even more damning than my reading of well respected scholars like Stephen Cohen or posting a link to a newspaper article on this page? 172 15:27, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


wtf...

is going on on this talk page? Libertas, you are not discussing, you are ranting. This is no way to write an article, and you are as far from WP policy that I won't even begin pointing out the details. Be it just known that misbehaviour on such a scale is a blockable offence. dab (ᛏ) 10:53, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

He denied using Marxist sources and made a big deal of it. He was found it. It's not a rant. It's just what happened. However, I am reviewing everything I've written here and will remove anything I've written not relating to the subject matter of the article and our discussion thereof. I hope he and his associates can do the same. Libertas

well, I suggest you try to get the discussion page in some shape understandable to 'outsiders'. If you remove (archive) your comments, you have to either leave a note that you removed a comment, or archive the replies as well, otherwise the page becomes unreadable. I suggest the whole thing is archived, and you write a short summary of the dispute in a matter-of-fact tone. dab (ᛏ) 11:52, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
ah, and remove the pinocchio, too. it's enough to say that something 172 said was incorrect, no need to make a multimedia presentation about it. dab (ᛏ) 11:54, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't like the idea of cleansing one's comments on the talk pages. [19] It distorts the context in which the replies to the provocations were made. After all, do we get to rewrite our comments?(Perhaps a neutral party should go ahead and restore the original comments?) Dbachmann is right. Even this talk page has become such a mess that it should be restored to its original state or archived. 172 12:12, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I feel somewhat responsible for this, having suggested the idea to Libertas in the first place. First off, I don't see where any of his changes have significantly distorted anything, except perhaps the tone of a few comments. Secondly, as far as I'm aware, anyone is free to edit their own comments, especially if the comment you're replying to has been changed. Lastly, how would people feel about adding a footnote to every comment which was changed? We could point to a disclaimer explaining what happened and linking people to the previous version if they really want to see all the blood-letting. RadicalSubversiv E 12:22, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think that footnoting the dialogue is a good idea. I'm just not in the position to do it, as I'll almost certainly be accused of acting in a biased manner somehow. After all, just consider how much content remains on this page systematically attacking my credibility and competence as an academic and behavior as a Wikipedia contributor. A new user taking a look at this talk page would get the impression that I was an agent for the Stalinists or the Moonies. 172 12:27, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

While I don't know why 172 denied using "Marxist sources", I don't think anyone could write good articles on the Soviet Union without using Marxist sources, after all that is one major point of view which needs to be adequately covered. I'm not at all sure what Stephen Cohen's politics are. What matters is not his politics but whether he covers the subjects he writes about. Accusing 172 of some wrongdoing for referencing a well-respected scholar gets us nowhere. Fred Bauder 13:39, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. BTW, you might be interested in working on Religion in the Soviet Union, which I just started. 172 14:11, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
BTW, I denied using Marxist sources because Libertas 'put it' to me that my 'sources are Marxist or very left leaning Soviet nostalgics'. [Taken from his comments on my user page]. While it appears someone has called Cohen a Marxist, he is certainly no 'very left leaning Soviet nostalgic'. Nor or any of the sources that I've used in this article, on this talk page or in articles like History of post-Soviet Russia.

Rewrite

Here's a rewrite of the article based on LOC handbook text at Soviet Union/temp. I favor the article as it is as a more concise and condensed directory of Soviet-related topics. But I can accept basing a new one on one the LOC if it can put an end to this dispute. 172 15:04, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Was the LOC text written in 1989? In my opinion, the Soviet Union article must at its core reflect that it no longer exists. Libertas

Its isn't negative enough about collectivization, soviet agriculture and general inefficiency. It should also point out that economic growth was also impressive under the Tsars, it is quite possible that its simply not the Soviet Union who is to thank for Russia's (for a time) impressive technological and military industrial capabilities. From the article it sounds as if the soviet economy was very rosy, its agriculture was blood red. --CJWilly 20:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Are the facts not negative enough (or not enough of them) or is the tone not negative enough? The first is relevant, the second is not permitted. — Saxifrage | ☎ 21:29, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
There are insufficient facts about these matters, CJ Willy is quite right. Libertas

Archiving

If nobody minds, I'm going to go ahead and archive this page. I know that it's usual for an archiver to summarise the points still unclosed so far, but I admit that I can find very little of substance relating to the article on this vast Talk page. These are the things that I would summarise if I were to archive right now:

  • Is "totalitarian" an appropriate term for the USSR in total or at any time in its history
  • How the scale of the deaths during the USSR's history should be represented ("millions" killed, etc) (actually, this is agreed on, but discussion of how to implement it got lost in the flames)
  • Whether there should be more details about agricultural failure
  • The purpose of this article / Whether this article should mirror Nazi Germany

(Of course, I would cover it more than in point form.)

Nothing else seems to be factually relevant to the article. — Saxifrage | ☎ 19:41, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

I am glad Saxifrage has summarized some of the issues. There are important and unresolved issues at hand, including but not limited to restoring the Religion entry to include facts about worship and the persecution of worshippers.

I do not know how they will be resolved but welcome a more reasoned and dare I say honest discussion on the Talk page. I will do my best to contribute to that, and will remember silence can also be a healthy part of every discussion!

Libertas

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/o/v/Talk%7ESoviet_Union_Archive_3_9304.html"