Talk:Chekism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article has been placed in the Wikipedia Intensive Care Unit and needs attention in the following areas:
per afd resulting in keep, multiple issues tag (neutrality, weasel, cleanup), article talk page, and in my own opinion the afd. See also ICU discussion at Wikipedia:Intensive_Care_Unit/Chekism
Please note any edits that you make in "treating this patient" on this talk page below.
If you would like to help with articles under similar circumstances, consider joining the ICU staff.
Chekism is part of WikiProject Soviet Union, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Soviet Union. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the class scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chekism article.
Article policies
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 24 October 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Hello everyone. The Economist magazine's front page, as of August 25th - 31st 2007, was titled "Putin's people, or the spies who run Russia", and that issue had three solid articles on the role of siloviki role in Russia today. It also featured quotations with Olga Kryshtanovskaya. So have a look at it, if you have some time.

Contents

[edit] POV

Do I really have to explain why this article is POV? Just read it. It is clearly trying to push the POV that the FSB is taking over Russia and all that BS. QZXA2 03:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what sources say (not me!). If there are any other sources that tell something opposite, you are very welcome to include them in this article.Biophys 15:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes but they are worded as solid fact when they are mere theories. Plus, it is just not right to add every single negative comment. For example, you shouldn't write "Jim says Russia is an evil hellhole. Bill says Russia is bad. Bob says Russia is a dictatorship." you should just write "some people think Russia is bad". and add sources accordingly. Besides the sources are not reliable. QZXA2 16:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

All sources here satisfy WP:SOURCE, some of them are even scholarly or/and written by notable people. If you think that a certain source does not satisfy WP:SOURCE, please explain why. This article does not represents anything as fact. It only says: According to historian X, "citation" (or description of his statements). This is in full ageement with WP:NPOV policy. Again, if there are any other sources that tell something opposite, you are very welcome to include them in this article. These sources do not tell "Russia is bad". Each source tells a different thing or opinion. Therefore, one can not combine all of them in one sentence.Biophys 17:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Biophys, just because you like the sources does not make them reliable. All of these sources are either foregners or ant gov. groups that would never say anything positive about Putins administration. QZXA2 20:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not a valid argument. Any sources that satisfy WP:SOURCE can be used. Moreover, English sources are preferred because this is English WP.Biophys 20:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The sources are worded in a way that makes them sound like facts, this is not right, and you know it. Just because you like the sources doesn't make them reliable. QZXA2 20:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple issues

per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chekism. --victor falk 16:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intensive care

comments

[edit] Some sources

A few Russian sources:

"Чекизм" - этот культ всепроникающего политического сыска, идеология "тайного ордена", манипулирующего обществом Open letter to president Putin (Russian)

Потеряв утопию как основу национальной идеи, Россия сама себя привела к новой и единственно возможной идеологии. Имя ей - чекизм. Чекизм является сегодняшней государственной крышей, хотим мы этого или нет. Призвана вся чекистская рать - от курсантов до отставников. ...Чекизм состоит из следующих вещей. Верный своей природе, он создает и культивирует двуединого врага: внешнего и внутреннего. Этот враг призван разрушить государственную целостность России. ...Внешним врагом России легко сделать кого угодно - стоит только захотеть. Что касается внутреннего врага, то чекизм стремится к организации уникальной национальной ниши. Наша самобытность (что бы ни вкладывать в это слово) - конек чекизма. ...Чекизм знает: достаточно придумать заговор декабристов и посадить сто человек - Россия замолкнет на годы.

По сути дела, именно чекисты были наиболее последовательными государственниками внутри властных структур всесоюзной колыбели мировой революции. Пока партия бесконечно колебалась между идеологическими мифами и государственным строительством, чекисты уже с конца Гражданской войны становятся умной организацией государственного порядка с гибкой кадровой политикой и многочисленными инициативными предложениями, которые простонародно можно было бы обозвать провокациями. Огромное обаяние этой организации, сумевшей в 1920-е годы создать видимость экономической свободы (НЭП), подчинить себе или просто-напросто организовать эмигрантские центры, хорошо почувствовала на себе русская интеллигенция. Запугав (порой до смерти) непослушных, отправив философов за границу, чекисты нашли возможность работать с колеблющимися элементами, вступили в тесный контакт с творческой элитой. Со своей стороны, Горький, Маяковский, Бабель и сколько еще других писателей дружили с чекистским руководством. История подлинных взаимоотношений интеллигенции и чекистов еще не написана. Chekism by Viktor Erofeev.

Неправда, что Политбюро ЦК ВКП(б) является всемогущей сверхсилой (...) Политбюро - хотя и яркая, но все-таки лишь одна тень той действительной сверхсилы, которая стоит за каждым креслом членов Политбюро. Сами члены Политбюро это знают точно, партия смутно догадывается, а народ апатичен к "высокой политике". Народ учат не думать. За всех думает, действует и диктует одна абсолютная сила. Имя этой силы - НКВД - МВД - МГБ. (...) Сталинский режим держится не организацией Советов, не идеалами партии, не властью Политбюро, не личностью Сталина, а организацией и техникой советской политической полиции, в которой самому Сталину принадлежит роль первого полицейского. Original text by Avtorkhanov. Biophys 03:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I like this: "The leadership of Communist Party is only a shadow of that invisible force which stands behind the chair of each Politburo member".Biophys 03:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Vadim Bakatin: Chekism is a traditional mindset of the KGB defined as the constant search for an enemy: Trotskyists, US imperialists, dissidents and so on. (Espionage: Past, Present, Future? By Wesley K. Wark, ISBN 071464515X). He also said: "The traditions of Chekism must be eradicated, must cease to exist as an ideology" (Dismantling Tyranny: Transitioning Beyond Totalitarian Regimes By Ilan Berman, J. Michael Waller, 2005, ISBN 0742549038).

"Chekism, the offspring of Bolshevism, like Zeus emasculated its parent", wrote Shteppa (K. Shteppa, "Dzerzinsky: Creator of the Cheka and founder of Chekism " [1]. This also seem to be a belief in right of chekists to rule the country, to form an elite that has right to do anything with ordinary citizens. Biophys 04:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Russian Empire

The Russian Empire was often described as a police state.

Speaking about XIX century alone, it was marked by rules of Alexander I, Nikolai I, Alexander II and Alexander III. Generally speaking, every successive rule was marked by different socio-economical and cultural ways. I don't think it's fair to dub the Russian Empire as a police state (although, e.g. the rule of Nikolai I (1825-1840s) was sufficiently harsh in this concern, what to a large extent defined the evolution of the public mind during the century).

I think the above phrase is better a myth introduced by the XX century Communist rule. Before the February 1917 Revolution Russia was a normal European country, i.e. it existed with the Europe in the same socio-political and cultural space. Could anybody better find any sort of comparisons between the Imperial Russia and other European countries of the time? ellol 08:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I think roots of the Soviet chekism should be better found in the Revolutionary France, rather than the pre-revolution Russia. ellol 08:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source issues

Some observers note that the current Russian state security organization FSB is even more powerful than KGB was, because it does not operate under the control of the Communist Party as the KGB presumably did in the past I've looked through both the sources cited and found no such point there. I request for a direct quotation of "some observers". For the country shall know its heroes. Otherwise, sorry, the passage will be removed. ellol 12:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Church

You have 1 source which should prove your point of view, exactly that Russian church supports chekism.

Exactly, in that source there is 1 passage which is relevant:

As well as invoking secular patriotism, Russia's security bosses can readily find allies among the priesthood. Next to the FSB building in Lubyanka Square stands the 17th-century church of the Holy Wisdom, “restored in August 2001with zealous help from the FSB,” says a plaque. Inside, freshly painted icons gleam with gold. “Thank God there is the FSB. All power is from God and so is theirs,” says Father Alexander, who leads the service. A former KGB general agrees: “They really believe that they were chosen and are guided by God and that even the high oil prices they have benefited from are God's will.”

This is a point of view of 1 priest. The man can't represent the official position of the Russian Orthodox Church, because he is an ordinary priest. There are thousands of churches in Russia. Addressing a single priest you can't show the position of Church. So: please, find another source which goes from a high person in the Moscow Patriarchy, who is able of expressing official position of Church. ellol 09:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Really, not to wonder Church and FSB are separated structures. Anyway I've attempted search for "FSB" at the site of the Moscow Patriarchy. Try to look at some, may be you'll be more specific/ make a different point: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] -- that causes certain thoughts, doesn't it? Similar search for "church" at the site of FSB: [8] [9] [10] [11] ellol 14:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


My quote: "One should say, that among staff of FSB, both in early 1990s and now, there are people who really sincerelly aid the work for immortalizing the memory of those subjected to repressions, in particular in questions connected with archival investigations." Надо сказать, что среди сотрудников ФСБ как и тогда, в начале 1990-х годов, так и сейчас, есть люди, которые действительно искренне помогают делу увековечивания памяти репрессированных, и в частности, в вопросах связанных с архивными исследованиями.


[edit] Tags

Please justify here why do you think the "Intensive care unit" tag should be used. Then we can try to fix the problems. Thanks,Biophys (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This tag was posted by one user who did not explain why he posted this tag. After that, a number of changes has been made to improve this article. Please explain why do you think this tag should be used.Biophys (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Justifying tags I placed on the front page: 1. Non-neutrality of page which describes any criticism of conspiracy theory it promotes as "deplorable" is obvious for anyone not blinded by prejustices. 2. Article is still listed at WICU page and haven't been improved. Bottom line: please keep tags in place until broader consensus is reached that article can be removed from the life support and NPOV enough. 206.186.8.130 (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you user RG_CG? What exactly should be improved? Please tell. So far, it is only you who inserts this tag. Old tag was placed 6 months ago, and the article has been significantly changed since then.Biophys (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Old tags had been placed 6 months ago but you and Ellol (main proponents of existing article (which gives new depth to the meaning of POV) did not dare to apply for status change since then. Instead you resorted to misleading casual reader by removing WICU tag (which adequately express the sorry mess) from the page and thus giving him/her an impression that article conforms to WP standards. I took a liberty to add Totally-disputed for calling any deviant views deploring and (as if this isn't enough) as POVishness was the main reason to put article in WICU, but Wikipedia's argo is not known to casual reader. As of now reader sees that article had been recognized as being non-compliant with wikipedia's standards of quality for being unbalanced. Exactly as per talk page. If you feel that article had been sufficiently improved to be removed from WICU, feel free to apply. Until that moments, tags stay. RJ CG (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
You did not tell what exactly should be improved. What is missing here? What segment of text is poorly written?Biophys (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it my responsibility to edit this article? Consensus of editors still favours not trusting this article, and I just took the liberty of informing casual reader about this situation. RJ CG (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
If you insert a tag, it is your responsibility to explain why do you insert the tag. Why exactly? You did not answer, except simply telling "it is POV". No one supported you here, so there is no "consensus", and no one, even six month ago justified this tag.Biophys (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Over on WP:ICU, a 4 November 2007 comment regarding this article says: "This article has just survived an AfD. See the discussion for details. It is tagged with multiple issues, to wit, neutrality, weasel words and clean-up." -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Since then, this article has been significantly improved by several users. Please tell, which issues, which weasel words, and what exactly is not neutral.Biophys (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:ICU#Untreated Articles says, "If an article has been in the ICU for two weeks without ever being treated, and you feel that there is limited potential for improvement, the article can be removed from the ICU. To do so, remove any icu tags, and add whatever cleanup or dispute you feel are needed. Then de-list it from this list." Feel free. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I did not know about WP:ICU#Untreated Articles. Only ellol and me tried to improve this article. It is still in a very poor shape. Perhaps one should briefly describe here the entire history of Russian secret services in the context of their quest for power: Stalin as a "top manager" of Soviet political police; the alleged poisoning of Stalin by Beria; Semichstny as a key figure in the coup against Khrushev; the political influence of Andropov; August putsch by Kruchkov; involvement of Barannikov in the events of 1993; the attempted coup by Korzhakov, and the FSB takeover of 1999. Then, it would be really encyclopedic.Biophys (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)