Talk:Gulag

Additional information

Additional information for Paul Siebert is the following. Viktor Zemskov used documents taken from only one archive (Central State Archive of the October Revolution). That is his weakness. Quotation translated from Russian: “No objective counting of the number of repressed persons is possible without fundamental analysis of archival documents. The difficulty of this method is that the required data are very diverse and are not in one archive. They are in the State Archive of the Russian Federation, in the archive of the Goskomstat of Russia, in the archives of the MVD of Russia, the FSB of Russia, the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation, in the Russian Military and Historical Archive, in archives of constituent entities of the Russian Federation, in urban and regional archives, as well as in archives of the former Soviet Republics that now are independent countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States and the Baltics. Where, for example, can one determine the number of people shot in the second half of the 1930s and in the early 1940s in the Kurapaty hole (estimate for them is from 30 to 100 thousand people or, by some estimates, up to 200 thousand)? Only in Belarus. The same can be said of other mass shootings and other forms of repression of victims of Soviet regime.” Source: Лунеев, Виктор Васильевич (2005). Преступность XX века: Mировые, региональные и российские тенденции. Wolters Kluwer Russia. pp. 378. ISBN 5466000981. http://books.google.com/books?id=xyq5sYeKEhsC&printsec=frontcover#PPA378,M1.  Information about the author of this book: “Виктор Васильевич Лунеев – доктор юридических наук, профессор, Заслуженный деятель науки Российской Федерации, полковник юстиции, лауреат Государственной премии РФ является одним из известнейших криминологов, криминалистов и практических деятелей в современной Российской Федерации.” Source: [1]. Psychiatrick (talk) 08:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Updated Psychiatrick (talk) 07:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You again mix two different issues: the number of repressions victims and the population of GULAG. The archive used by Zemskov is the former archive of the GULAG administration, which was moved to TsGAOR (now GARF) when GUALG was dissolved. It contains more or less complete information about GULAG, however, as Luneev correctly notes, no complete information about other repression victims has been found so far.

Let me point out, however, that the issue we are discussing is the GULAG statistics, not the number of the victims of Stalinism. Therefore, the data provided by Zemskov, which are consistent with old estimate made by Timasheff and Jasny, and which are in agreement with the data of some local archives, are quite trustworthy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The data obtained from the only one archive and used by Zemskov are not complete. To emphasize this issue, I would like to provide an example by citing the following quotation translated from Russian: “In one of documents I find such a text: “GUZHDS of the NKVD of the USSR was established by the order of the narkomat dated 4 January 1940. The new body was created on the base on the Administration of the Railway Construction of the Gulag ... Performance of its camps was not set forth in the consolidated accounts of the Gulag for 1939 (emphasis added).” Then it turned out that it was the Dalstroy administration, ie the Kolyma memorable to all, that at its initial stage was independent of the Gulag and even entirely independent of the NKVD (and was directly subordinate to one of the departments of the VKP(b) Central Committee and the government). And as it is known, hundreds of thousands of prisoners passed through the Kolyma.” Source: Лопатников, Леонид (2009). "К дискуссиям о статистике «Большого террора»". Вестник Европы (№ 26–27). http://magazines.russ.ru/vestnik/2009/26/ll28.html.  Psychiatrick (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

In the last paragraph of his article, Lopatnikov makes a reservation that he is not a historian, and his article is not a historical study. For instance, his attempt to contrapose Zemskov and Tsaplin ("В этом смысле от работ Земскова выгодно отличаются статьи Всеволода Цаплина. Он почти каждую свою цифру подтверждает ссылкой: фонд, папка, номер документа, страница. ") demonstrates the Lopatnikov's unfamiliarity with Zemskov's works: in his main articles, Zemskov provides enormous number of references to concrete archival documents, and every his statement is supported by such a reference. However, Lopatnikov is partially correct, especially regarding the execution of the Poles: this execution was not and could not be reflected in the GULAG statistics, and Zemskov's attempts to essentially equate figures of the GULAG victims and the repression victims are not correct (however, I already wrote about that). Regarding Dalstroy and other divisions of GULAG, I recall I saw the discussion of Dalstroy in the articles of western scholars who discussed the data obtained by Zemskov. I need to check it again, but I do not remember about any major inconsistencies.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

For this edit, there is also the Russian version of the article by Nicolas Werth: [2]. Psychiatrick (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The fact that major part of local archives was destroyed does not mean that the data from central archives were incomplete, because they simply summarised what the local archives were telling. In addition, Werth does not question the conclusions about the overall size of the GULAG population, he just demonstrates that many details are very hard to establish. However, that has no relation to the statistics issue. On the first glance, your edit seems to have some synthesis issues. I have no time to look at it more carefully, so I'll return to that in close future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Range of et al.

I'll think more about the reorganization of figures. I am, however, disappointed at the general trend, which involved removing reliably sourced content from current scholarship indicating possible underestimation while vastly expanding the narrative about doubts, overcounting, double counting, not "technically" GULAG (all capitals) and confusing, etc., etc., etc. Since I see absolutely no recent talk page discussion or postings related to Paul's reorganization of figures (does not involve POV, goodness) or to Paul's overhaul of the timbre of the content in question (that would be POV, for example, Ellman related to potential underestimation disappeared), I invite discussion here. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

BTW, do we mention where the keeper of the census was shot for population figures Stalin didn't like? I continue to have major issues with contentions of the reliability and completeness of Soviet era archives. The article also needs more about incongruous archival data. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Unlike widely publicized census data, the GULAG archives were intended for the internal usage only and therefore were kept as accurate as possible. Nobody was interested in underestimating them: the GULAG officials needed more finances dependent on the number of prisoners, and the government needed more workers for the GULAG projects. Early overestimated figures (before the limited opening of archives) made confusion and later gave rise to speculations about "underestimation". But even Conquest accepted Zemskov figures afterall. The "narrative about doubts, overcounting, double counting" etc. nicely explains the typical ways to get higher figures and is highly relevant. Better let the readers judge themselves how those figures are got and which components they have, not hide all that counting machinery behind the scenes. GreyHood ^Talk 17:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• I did not read anywhere that "Conquest accepted Zemskov figures". Neither does Applebaum in her book "Gulag". She only cites these data, with critical comments. And there are authors (in particular Anton Antonov-Ovseyenko) who still consider these data to be a fraud, with a reference to other archive data that contradict NKVD data. Hence we need a range of numbers.Biophys (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

During the past discussion between you, Celasson and me I posted the ref and quote to this Conquest's article. I made that on 02:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC). How can your above post be characterized in light of this fact?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• • Conquest cite related to Zemskov is presented in the article. Applebaum is a journalist. Anton Antonov-Ovseyenko is a former GULAG prisoner and not a neutral observer here. GreyHood ^Talk 19:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Odd, those who have survived repressive regimes elsewhere and gone on to be scholars thereof are highly regarded. Why should Soviet victims (Antonov-Ovseyenko) be singled out as unreliable? Sorry, unless you have reliable research debunking him as a quack or somehow aligned with political extremists, you can's decide to censor sources. (Same for Applebaum's work being highly regarded.) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Peters, the potential underestimation noted by Ellman refers not to the Gulag statistics, but to the scale of the repressions, which is the different subject (Ellman argued that it would be incorrect to non-critically accept Zemskov data as the total number of the repression victims). Therefore, it does not belong to this article. Regarding the sources I removed, I am not sure I removed anything significant, just shifted the weight on English scholarly sources. In addition, in any event I added much more sources than removed, however, if you have some cincrete source in mind, just let me know.
I plan to discuss the scale of Gulag deaths, because most scholars disagree with how Zemskov interprets the mortality figures. I agree that they are significantly understated by the official statistics. However, I would like to discuss it in the separate subsection, and, since, as you can see, I am somewhat busy with the MKuCR article, I cannot do that soon.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Penalty for jokes (ridicule of authorities)

Let's not delete cited content based on personal interpretations of RSFSR penal code section 58. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, in addition to famous 58th article, they made many other "laws" (or rather orders) including the famous Law of Spikelets,NKVD orders, etc. Biophys (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Actually it wasn't a personal interpretation, but the law is straightforward and the subsection 1a is short. The law is also thoroughly analyzed from the juridical point of view in a book by Dmitry Lyskov, «Stalin Repressions». A great lie of XX century ISBN 978-5-699-33737-8. I agree however that in a certain number of cases, there may have been misinterpretations of the law that led to unlawful rulings, however it doesn't mean systematic or lawful nature of these decisions, as currently suggested in the article. This either needs clarification or it can be reverted to my edit. Are we in agreement? BesterRus (talk) 09:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • No, we are not. The simple reliable and reputably sourced fact is that ridiculing authorities got you sent away. That is irrelevant to aspects of jurisprudence. It is the practice, not the word, that determines factual circumstances. Perhaps you are unaware that totalitarianism and the rule of law are ultimately mutually exclusive. As for Lyskov, anyone who is an organizer of Stalin's "Victory Bus" tour is not an objective source. If you'd like to create a section for contentions by Stalin apologists, feel free to do so, but please name it appropriately and don't attempt to represent it as reputable scholarship. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
    P.S. As I recall, I thought it was subsection 10, but that's from memory. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Either provide a source (with pages please),.. or don't. What you've provided so far is irrelevant and does not constitute a source, while I have provided mine. The social and political activities of my author are irrelevant. It isn't forbidden by law to depict Stalin on buses nor does it equal denying holocaust or anything of that nature. I urge you to take this more seriously. BesterRus (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

[3] section 58-10 'Anti-Soviet and counter-revolutionary propaganda and agitation'. People in camps called them 'chatterer'. And there were lot of them.Celasson (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Early estimates of the GULAG population

The table itself and its title are very confusing, because it does not explain what number of years are summarised in these estimates. It does not have any verifiable links, only unverifiable referenses. If these numbers are made for a one year, then whole table is a plain bogus, because for example Steven Rosefielde's Gulag numbers per one year never been over 1.5 million, but the table says he estimated 10.6 million - which is not true, see Rosefielde's book Gulag per Rosefielde Even chart right next to the table does not go over 1.8 million in a single year. Also on top of the article it says: "The total population of the camps varied from 510,307 (in 1934) to 1,727,970 (in 1953).[6]" Without a proper explanation that these numbers in the table are summary, and without the exact number of the summarised years, this table only discredit and contradicts to the whole article.

IMO, the table is quite clear. Thus,

"15 million 1940-42 Mora & Zwiernag (1945)"

means that, according to the authors (Mora & Zwiernag), who made their estimation in 1945, the population of Gulag was 15 million in 1942. The only exceptions are Solzhenitsyn (his estimate refers to the total number of those passed through Gulag) and Volkogonov (an average amount of inmates in every single year). This table is supposed to demonstrate how early knowledge about Gulag statistics was evolving, so your edit simply misleads a reader.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Re "It does not have any verifiable links, only unverifiable referenses." All references (70 to 78) are totally verifiable. They are the references to scholarly journals or university books, and I can guarantee that each of them totally supports the numbers provided in the table. Re Rosefielde, he simply quotes the same data that have been currently presented in this section (and in the chart). Most other contemporary authors agree that the chart shown in this section reflects the Gulag population quite adequately. Robert Conquest (cited in this section) expresses a common opinion that the total number of those passed through Gulag was 14 million (the figure that was derived from the same data set as the chart).--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

If you believe that the table's header is not clear enough, I agree that it might be modified. It is necessary to clarify, however, that the table shows earlier, outdated estimates of the Gulag population, which were made before the archives had been opened, so they do not reflect the present-days knowledge about this subject. In addition, this table demonstrates how widely these early estimates (made using different methods based on different indirect data) varied (from Timasheff and Yasny to Dallin and Nikolayevsky). The reason why I added this table is simple: many of those figures are being occasionally cited by some present-days authors, so we cannot omit them totally. However, we need to explain that these data are old data, and that both high and low estimates were being made in the past by different authors (almost concurrently).

However, your edit is misleading, and I revert it. If you believe it should be modified, feel free to do that, however, my explanations should be taken into account.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You are either liar, or you yourself did not read these references!!! The table said Steven Rosefielde's Gulag numbers for 1941 is 10.6 millions, but his actual book said 1.415 million in 1941 - check this verifiable reference: Gulag per Rosefielde. There is no single year Steven Rosefielde's would estimate more the 1.5 millions in Gulag. The whole table is bogus and plain lie. Wherefore I remove it until you get verifiable and true references. And I will take it to admins if you keep inserting fake data in Wiki - this is a plain vandalism! Innab (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure tertium not datur works here: I am not a liar and I read all these references. With regard to the ref you are talking about, it is a reference to the early Rosefilde's work published in 1981. Most authors reconsidered their early estimates based on new evidences. Rosefielde, Conquest, Wheathcroft, and many others do not support their old estimates. Currently they are inclined to believe in the data provided by Zemskov, which are summarised in the chart (although Rosefielde still doubts in them).

Since I have already had many emotional debates over this topic on this talk page, I understand your emotions and I do not request you to retract your insulting statement. However, I beg you to try to understand the point I am trying to make; it is quite necessary to keep in mind that this issue is very controversial and confusing, so one should think twice or trice before making any strong claim.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

All my references are verifiable and true. You may take it to admins if you wish, however, I doubt the result will be desirable for you. Again this table is supposed to demonstrate the evolution of old views, and by no means it reflects a present days knowledge. However, again, if you believe that it is unclear from this table that we are talking about the evolution of the views on the subject, and that it does not reflect the present days knowledge, feel free to modify the header to make it clear. We definitely need to show these figures, because some people still believe in some of them. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the table we are talking about has been prepared based on the table from (Edwin Bacon. Glasnost' and the Gulag: New Information on Soviet Forced Labour around World War II. Soviet Studies, Vol. 44, No. 6 (1992), pp. 1069-1086). Go to you library, find the Bacon's article, and you will see that I just slightly expanded this table, removed few lines and re-grouped them in chronological order.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I know Steven Rosefielde's work pretty good, and I have read his book that you are referencing in that table, so I can tell for sure that you are liar, and it is no such 10.6 million estimate in that book for single 1941 year. Provide us a scanned page from the book where you found it. Rosefielde did some minor adjustments, but he had never multiplied his numbers by 10. I will let admins know if you do 3RR and vandalism again. Innab (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, the reference we are talking about is not a book, but the article published in the Soviet studies journal (Steven Rosefielde. An Assessment of the Sources and Uses of Gulag Forced Labour 1929-56. Soviet Studies, Vol. 33, No. 1 (Jan., 1981), pp. 51-87). I did NOT referenced the Rosefilde's book you are talking about in this table. Secondly, the statement that, according to the Rosefielde's estimates made in 1981, the amount of Gulag prisoners was 10.6 million was made not by me, but by Edwin Bacon (Edwin Bacon. Glasnost' and the Gulag: New Information on Soviet Forced Labour around World War II. Soviet Studies, Vol. 44, No. 6 (1992), pp. 1069-1086). Thirdly, on the page 65 of the Rosefielde's article (Rosefielde, op. cit.) Bacon refers to you can find a table, according to which the Gulag population was as follows:

• 1941 10.6
• 1942 11.2
• 1943 11.2
• 1944 12.3

By no means I imply that these data reflect the present days knowledge. However, the fact that in 1981 Rosefielde published these figures (and Bacon cited them) is indisputable. You can go to your library, take both journals, open at pages 65 and 1070, accordingly, and see those figures by yourself.
Fourthly, your request ("Provide us a scanned page from the book where you found it.") is just a demonstration of your infamiliarity with our policy. I do not have to do that, I provided all needed references, so every educated person can verify the statements I made. Moreover, even if I wanted to scan a page, as you request, I simply could not upload this page to the article's talk page, because that is explicitly prohibited by our non-free content policy.

In summary, I suggest you to self-revert, because my edits meet all criteria of our policy. They are verifiable (correct references are provided), neutral (all significant views are presented) and they contain no statements that are not explicitly present in the sources I used. In addition, the table is totally relevant to the article (Gulag). Therefore, you have absolutely no legitimate reason to remove this table. Please, self-revert, otherwise you may inflict sanctions on you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, if you take a pause, have a cup of tea and think a little bit (or read the talk page history), you will see that our points of view coincide: both you and I do not believe in old inflated figures of Gulag population, and both of us see the Zemskov's data as reliable (the only difference is that you, for some reason, believe these figures belong to Rosefielde, although in actuality they had been obtained by a Russian researches Viktor Zemskov, how later published them in the American Historical Reviews in the article co-authored by Getty and Rittersporn). However, since other users expressed doubts in these figures, and were trying to add obsolete (and exaggerated) data, I decided to combine all notable obsolete data (both high and low) in a single table, to demonstrate the actual range of early figures (from relatively small figures of Jasny to astronomical figures of Nikolaevsky).

In any event, I spend long time for collecting the sources, for checking each figure in this table, and I do not want this table to be thrown away under laughable pretext. If you will not restore the table I will have to report you to ANI, and you will be sanctioned.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The table is well-referenced and verifiable, so such comments by Innab are not acceptable and are based on a major misunderstanding of Paul's position. However, I believe, Innab's insistence on removal of this table is driven by good faith considerations, even though defended by wrong arguments.

The table might seem a bit misleading, especially from the first glance, because the data there mostly contradict the graph beside, as well as contradict the modern and revised estimates (including by the scholars already in the table). Yes, the table says these are early estimates, but there are some questions still:

• 1) Why put so much emphasis in early estimates only, and why the table in this section doesn't include modern and revised estimates as well?
• 2) Shouldn't we put more emphasis in modern, supposedly more reliable estimates, and remove the early estimates altogether or move them into a separate article or section specifically devoted to the Gulag historiography? GreyHood ^Talk 22:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe there is no need in ANI usage, though Innab definitely owns Paul Siebert an apologize for wrong attestment of his work with sources. To resolve the issue, we may just expand the table and/or move it to a different place, as proposed by me above. This, of course, is better than complete deletion of interesting, well-sourced and relevant material. GreyHood ^Talk 22:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Re "Why put so much emphasis in early estimates only, and why the table in this section doesn't include modern and revised estimates as well?" Because these old data are still being cited occasionally by various authors, and an emphasis is being made on higher estimates, whereas lower figures are usually ignored. Since the table is devoted to the history of this issue, there is no need to include modern data, which are being discussed in details in the second part of the section.

Re "Shouldn't we put more emphasis in modern, supposedly more reliable estimates, and remove the early estimates altogether or move them into a separate article or section specifically devoted to the Gulag historiography?" I have no idea where should they be moved to. In actuality, this is the most appropriate section, because it is devoted both to the history of the question about the Gulag population and to the modern views.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Using the table means certain visual emphasis on the data. In this aspect, we put more emphasis in the early estimates and not in the new.

>this is the most appropriate section - then perhaps we could split the section into two parts: one devoted to History of estimates and another to Modern estimates. GreyHood ^Talk 22:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Being one of the authors of this section it is difficult for me to judge about the perception of this text by an ordinary reader. Taking into account the confusion that lead to the last conflict with Innab, I feel that this text is not as clear as I thought. Therefore, if you have any idea on how to improve it, please, do that. However, I am absolutely sure that the table that summarises the most important past works on that account should stay.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, we all agree that this data does not represent current view of the subject. If this is the case, then we should make it very clear in the header of the table that these numbers were later revised. Also would be nice to make notes about revisions by individual authors (such as Rosefielde). I do agree with GreyHood that this old data is misleading, especially from the first glance, because many people would just look only at the table itself, without reading the surrounding block. I really do not understand what value these old numbers are adding to the article, if they are wrong? I think this block only humiliates the historians who made an overestimate and make the whole article look confusing and self-contradictory. I think we should delete the whole table, and only leave reference to article about early mistakes, but for now I will fix the header at least. Innab (talk) 03:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see that you realised that you were wrong regarding my alleged falsification of the data, so no apologies are needed. Regarding the rest, the reason why I prepared this table was as follows. Many users continue to believe that currently available Gulag statistics is incomplete or totally falsified. In addition, since the writings of such authors as (early) Conquest, Rummel, Solzhenitsyn et al are still popular among some categories of Wikipedians, who are unfamiliar with the works of such authors as Jasny or Timasheff. As a result, they believe that early studies always provided high figures of Gulag population, and new (Zemskov's) data, which are being currently used by Rosefielde, Conquest, Whertcroft and others, are the revision of old figures downward. However, that is simply not the case. Depending on the methodology used by various early authors, the estimates varied from ca 2 million to ca 15 million, and new archival data simply provided additional support for the former, and refuted the latter. If we will not explain this point clearly, I anticipate the obsolete data will be added again and again as alternative estimates. The best way to avoid that is to collect the most important old studies together, in a separate table to give some perspective to a reader.

I admit I probably have not been able to convey this point clearly in the text I wrote. However, that is not a reason for starting this edit war. So let's discuss how to improve the section without removal of any data, which are totally accurate (I mean, I guarantee fully that all figures are supported by reliable sources).--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

PS Whereas I totally agree with the idea you are trying to convey, I had to partially revert this edit because the wording is not satisfactory. Firstly, not all these estimates were "overestimates". Thus, Timasheff's data are even underestimation, because the disenfranchised population included not only Gulag inmates, but also part of exiled (ssyl'noposelentsy) persons, who were formally free. The same can be said for Jasny's data, because Gulag labour force (the category he tried to estimate) included not only Gulag imnates. Let's think together about better wording.

Regarding Rosefielde, he never wrote that he accepted the Zemskov's figures without reservations. Moreover, in one of his works (Stalinism in Post-Communist Perspective: New Evidence on Killings, Forced Labour and Economic Growth in the 1930s Author(s): Steven Rosefielde Reviewed work(s): Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 48, No. 6 (Sep., 1996), pp. 959-987) he is very critical of some Zemskov's data, so had Rosefielde read your edits, I believe, he would object against them. Moreover, this particular author still supports relatively high numbers for repression victims in the USSR, as opposed to his most persistent opponent, Steven Wheatcroft.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I've rearranged and renamed some sections. Hope this helps. GreyHood ^Talk 16:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I still think we might need to expand the table, including estimates by Zemskov at least. GreyHood ^Talk 16:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is needed. By doing that, we will give equal weight to earlier estimates and to modern studies. Instead of that, let's look at the "Archival documents" section. In my opinion, it needs in rewrite. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's a valid point, that's why I wasn't sure about that myself. OK, better leave the table as it is if you insist. So you don't mind the changes already made by me? GreyHood ^Talk 17:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

As for the rewrite, the information in the "Archival documents" overlaps with the "History of Gulag population estimates" a bit. While better avoid the duplication, that's not a big problem in my view. What else needs to be fixed there? GreyHood ^Talk 17:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The section Brief history looks like it was a part of the intro splitted into a separate section, because it contains no information on Gulag founding (which is in the intro) but tells about the end of Gulag, which is not in the intro, and supplements key statistics also not in the intro. I'm not sure that such a situation with the intro and the first section is the best way to tell the introduction to the subject. Perhaps we might use some other organisation of sections, or at least divide the information between the lead and the first section in a more reasonable way. GreyHood ^Talk 18:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You are probably right. Try to rearrange the text accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I still think that header of the table is very confusing. Please remember that this article being read by Russian readers for whom English is second language, so the header should be very clear that these numbers are outdated and were revised later. I think we should include later revisions for the same historians (like Rosefielde), at least. Innab (talk) 00:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If you have any idea on how to make it more clear, feel free to propose new header. However, your last edit was not an improvement, because it simply misinterpreted the facts. The table summarises the estimates of the Gulag population different scholars made for different years using different data sets and different methodologies. Thus, Timasheff calculated the population based on the official election data (which allowed him to estimate the disenfranchised population, which was equal, according to him, to the Gulag population). He published his estimate in 1948, and that estimate was made for December 1939. Mora & Zwiernag according to Werth, were Polish officers who were Gulag prisoners before 1945. They made their estimates based on their own experience and using numerous testimonies they collected. They published their data in the Dallin&Nikolaevski's book in 1945. Conquest relied mostly on literary sources, and various pre-perestroika official documents, which he analysed very critically. And so on. In connection to that, I do not know what title can be more adequate then the current one.

Please, keep also in mind that the header of the similar table in the Bacon's article is "Estimates of the Gulag population around the outbreak of war".

Nevertheless, I have nothing against the modification of the current title; what I object against is a directly misleading header, or the header with unneeded editorialising. Remember, we must be neutral.

Re Rosefielde, I do not think he totally agreed with Zemskov's figures. He simply cites them. One way or the another, I do not think we need to combine old estimates and modern data in one table, because the main idea of this section is that there were no gradual evolution of the views on the Gulag statistics, it was a revolution (an "archival revolution") which changed our knowledge of Gulag statistics dramatically and sharply. That is why all old studies should be discussed separately from the modern findings.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I believe we can rename the section on estimates Outdated estimates of Gulag population or Outdated historical estimates of Gulag population, since in fact the historical estimates and their outdateness is the subject of the sections, and Timasheff's estimate for the particular year was too high. GreyHood ^Talk 00:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If you believe that will be an improvement, feel free to do that. However, I am not sure we have a right for such editorialising.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think Outdated historical estimates of Gulag population would be much more clear. I have made the change. Also I put a short note that Rosefielde later revised his numbers. Innab (talk) 00:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Why only Rosefielde? Conquest also accepted the figures from Zemskov (see the ref in the article). I think this type comments should be added to footnotes, not to the table itself.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, moved to footnotes. Innab (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Good. BTW, you were right about Wheatcroft. I forgot about him.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is an interesting article in Russian, by Denisenko, 2008 on pp. 106-142, which discusses the Soviet demographics in the late 1920s and in the 1930s, and on pp. 115-116 contains an interesting table of estimates of demographic losses before opening of archives and after. Might be related to this discussion and some others. GreyHood ^Talk 16:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone think that this article can use some improvements in terms of grammar and style? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexkvaskov (talk • contribs) 00:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent massive changes

I noticed the article has been massively changed during last month, and some changes are simply factually incorrect, or directly false (thus, replacement of 14 millions of passed through GULAG with 4-5 millions is simply vandalism, because this is a deliberate lie: Conquest clearly speaks about 14 millions). Therefore, I suggest to restore the stable version and then to discuss addition of factually correct changes (or stylistic improvements) step-by step. Please, leave edit summaries after every changes you made, which adequately explain these changes. Discussion of these changes on the talk page is appreciated.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Magadan, 09.06 019.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Magadan, 09.06 019.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 25 February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Magadan, 09.06 019.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)