Talk:Human rights in the Soviet Union

Page name

Soviet genocide

For a May 2005 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Soviet genocide

---

Although these mass murders were politically motivated rather than designed to exterminate a people (and thus do not meet the UN definition of genocide), I bow to popular usage. --Ed Poor

The redirect from Pogrom is inaccurate. Pogroms were violent mob acts committed against the Jewish population during tsarist (not) Soviet times. The most famous pogrom, in Kishinev, took place in 1903, a decade and a half before the Communist Revolution. Danny

Okay, the term pogrom is fixed.

Thanks. Danny

Soviet genocide to Soviet persecutions

As the article says CPPCG does not cover "Soviet genocide", they were probably Crimes against humanity and some of them could perhapse be described as autogenocide. Persecution covers deportations (ethnic clensing) as well as mass murder. It also covers the masive number of people sent to the gulags for political or alledged political crimes, which are not covered by the word genocide. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

From history of the page

14:19, 28 March 2006 Philip Baird Shearer (Talk | contribs | block) m (moved Soviet genocide to Soviet persecutions: As the article says CPPCG does not cover "Soviet genocide", the y were probably Crimes Agains Humanity. Persecution covers deportations as well as mass murder.)

Soviet persecutions to Human rights in the Soviet Union

From the history of the page

12:39, 27 August 2006 FrancisTyers (Talk | contribs | block) m (moved Soviet persecutions to Human rights in the Soviet Union: more npov title)

NPOV

This article is highly POV, the only citation is from an article titled " DEMOCIDE IN TOTALITARIAN STATES: MORTACRACIES AND MEGAMURDERERS" hardly an NPOV or credible article, as the website it links to does not even appear to be a credible NPOV source.

I suggest this article be brought up for review. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yuri Zhivago (talk • contribs) 12:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added a non-NPOV warning to the top of the main page as the article is heavily biased against the Soviet Union and previously used an academic whose perceptions of 'human rights' in the Soviet Union are highly unorthodox and distinctly built out of a bias against the USSR. This article seriously needs to be brought up for review. Hauser 05:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this article must be significantly improved. Basically, this is only a stub. If you want to contribute here - please do. I will try to provide more references in a few next days. However, it not a good practice simply to remove reference to a prominent historians R.J. Rummel simply because you disagree with him. If you have other good sources that say something different - please include them. Biophys 05:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Now I see that we do not need too many references here. Actually, there are many good articles already on this subjects in Wikipedia (I indicated a few of them in "See also" section). So, we need only to summarize briefly their content. I do not know if you are familiar with this subject, but the mass murders in the Soviet Union were much worse than the Holocost. Are you going also to deny Holocost? Biophys 06:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have fixed the problem with insufficient sources for the moment. So, I would like to remove the tag. I am going to include more sources later. If you think that anything is POV, you are very welcome to include alternative points of view supported by references. Biophys 23:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What new data from archives?

I removed the following fragment: When NKVD/KGB and Russian state archives became publicly accessible to a certain degree after the collapse of the Soviet Union, it became possible to derive more accurate estimates. Opened archives made it possible both to debunk the exaggerations and to reveal certain facts for which only anecdotal evidence existed before. This fragment does not provides any factual numbers or data. Thus, it is useless for the readers of Wikipedia. If there are any data, they could be included with references. Biophys 04:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"Soviet conceptions of human rights"

What you are talking about is called "Economic and social rights". They exist and usually recognized in any society. The "Soviet" concept of "human rights" did existed. However, it was not something you are writing about. As was correctly stated by Ronald Regan in his talk on this subject, rights such as free speech, free press, and free assembly in the Soviet Union are granted if they are "in accordance with the interests of the people and in order to strengthen and develop the socialist system" [1]. One could also cite Vladimir Lenin and other Communist leaders views on this subject. They are basically consistent with description by Regan. Sorry, but what you have inserted is unfortunately misleading.Biophys 15:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

O'K, I found the publication that you cite on line. It does explain the Soviet understanding of human rights, but not exactly as you stated. This needs to be explained in more detail.Biophys 21:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

unfortunatley i think u might find the only way you could make a serious small article about soviet human rights would be to read lenins state and revolution and then read some of stalins work later on in his career, gives a good outlook on what marxism would tradtionally want to see in human rights compared to how stalin changed it (there isnt a massive change really but there is some, though the world had changed). f4i 8th October 2007 (UTC)

The Vote

I might be useful to note that universal suffrage was only achieved in 1928+ .... in the UK. So perhaps things should be put in context hey. --maxrspct ping me 00:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, everything in the Soviet constitution (which claimed numerous rights) exited only on paper. It was never universal suffrage. Of course the paragraph we are talking about is in poor shape and not even sourced. So, I will try to fix this later.Biophys (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see sources other than Conquest there. He and many others usually devote a paragraph in their books on the subject. And no.. please don't put Pipes up. Later I will put up a source showing that Stalin actually encouraged democracy and accountability. --maxrspct ping me 11:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No mention of easing of censorship towards the end of USSR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.117.109.18 (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to include any sources other than Conquest or describe the "easing" of censorship towards the end of the USSR (per sources), please do. That would be more constructive than place a POV tag.Biophys (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

If something is not sourced in your opinion, you are welcome to mark this as . However I object your edits. Let's compare. For example, you replaced this segment:

Usually, all members of a family, including children, were punished simultaneously as "traitor of Motherland family members". by the following:

Family members were also punished if they were seen as being involved with their relative in the supposed crime.

You also replaced this segment:

For example, a desire to make a profit could be interpreted as a counter-revolutionary activity punishable by death. by

For example, a desire to make a profit could be interpreted as a criminal act done for self interest at the expense of others.

But that is not what the cited sources tell! Did you read cited sources? This is not "NPOVing". This is distortion of cited sources. You are welcom of course to cite any alternative reliable sources if you wish.Biophys (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

For the first one, why did not you mention that the order was changed after two years? You are saying that it was so for 70 years?

Where is your reference about speculation? I don't see where this is cited.

And in the Tambov Rebellion gas was used against rebels in forests. Go read the article on that.

So don't revert my edits (including the tags) until you provide sources and be more neutral. -YMB29 (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You should see my discussion at the talk page of Tambov rebellion. Here is the source telling that chemical weapons were indiscriminately used against whole villages, not only against "partisans" who still qualify as "civilians" B.V.Sennikov. Tambov rebellion and liquidation of peasants in Russia, Publisher: Posev, 2004, ISBN 5-85824-152-2 Full text in Russian. I have no idea when the order you are talking about was changed. If you have any sources about that, please include the text with supporting sources.Biophys (talk) 03:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

NKVD Order No. 00486#Partial_recall

Your source for the Tambov rebellion is, first of all, very biased, and it does not say that gas was used on villages. Partisans are not civilians... I know that your source uses peasants and partisans interchangeably, but it is not so.

Also you have to provide page numbers for the citations, not just stick in a source that you think supports the information.

-YMB29 (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want me to provide exact pages, please mark the segment as instead of deleting everything.Biophys (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I told you, you keep on removing the tags. -YMB29 (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Also note, three is no any "Western" concept of rule of law. There is only one concept.Biophys (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Says who? -YMB29 (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You did not answer my question. You changes (see citations in the beginning of this section) are inconsistent with cited sources. However use of chemical weapons against civilian villages is fully supported by references to several books including Sennikov and "Black book". Please stop your reverts. You should either prove that your version is better consistent with cited sources, or site alternative sources that tell something different.Biophys (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

First prove your information. Put in pages numbers, give the exact quotes, especially of where it clearly says chemical gas was used on civilians (NOT partisans/rebels).

What changes are inconsistent with sources? -YMB29 (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

What changes? Please see two examples in the beginning of this section. I can provide page numbers in the places you mark as soon as you stop reverting my edits.Biophys (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Basically you are making any changes you want but refer to the same old sources that tell something different.Biophys (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well tell me exactly what changes, instead of reverting everything I changed, including sourced information I added. Look at the changes carefully. My changes make the article more neutral. Tell me what I need to source? Also choose better sources; using sources like the Guinness Book of Records is ridiculous (66.7 million killed! :o) -YMB29 (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see two examples of your changes in the beginning of this section. Guinness Book of Records qualify as a reliable source per WP:Verifiability.Biophys (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The Guinness Book of Records is a reliable source, when you are looking for entertainment...

You still did not tell me what exactly you are talking about? You mean about the relatives of the repressed? I explained that and linked the sentence to the article about that order. As for making profit being punishable by death, there is no source for that.

You better stop reverting everything, before I get an admin in here. Again, I am providing sources and making the article more neutral. You are not helping with this article, but just making it dirty and one sided, which goes against Wikipedia's policies.

-YMB29 (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

YMB29 you must have misunderstood WP:NPOV. It doesn't say that you can alter the wievpoints you don't like. It says that you're should add alternative viewpoints according to reliable sources in case there are conflicting pespectives. That is in essence that Biophys has been explaining to you.
The fundamental conflict within the subject is in the fact that the western understanding of Human rights lie in civil liberties and political freedoms while the "Soviet version of human rights" contained mostly the "right to employment, education and housing" without granting the freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc. These are the facts that are in compliance with WP:NPOV policies, please do not alter the sourced facts in the article according to your opinions. Thanks--Termer (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you read? That is what I am doing (presenting both views). While Biophys just wants to say that there were no human rights in the USSR and only propaganda claims.

-YMB29 (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No that's not what you have been doing, you've removed sourced facts and altered them. feel free to add new facts according to reliable sources. Please note that soviet sources, sources of the totalitarian regime that violated human rights throughout it's existence can't be considered reliable. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well you have shown how neutral you are with that statement... -YMB29 (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV and WP:Reliable sources. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you do it? -YMB29 (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Segment of text in question

So far, the only "alternative view" inserted by YMB29 was this:

More recent estimates, based on actual archival data, indicate that 2 to 3.5 million died in Ukraine. Historians R. Davies and S. Wheatcroft estimate that, overall, 5.5 to 6.5 million Soviet people died due to famine in the 1930's. According to them, the famine was an unintentional result of erroneous state policies in implementing collectivization combined with natural causes.

User YMB29, do you agree to stop reverts and start discussion of this segment inserted by you?Biophys (talk) 01:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

If you agree to start discussion, here is my reply. That is review of your source. According to your source (R. Davies and S. Wheatcroft), "The authors’ best estimate of the number of famine deaths in 1932-1933 is 5.5 to 6.5 millions (p. 401)". This is actually very close to 7 million figure provided by Conquest for the 1932-1933 period. The 14.5 number provided by the same Conquest is about a longer period of time (1930–1937). Your text ("5.5 to 6.5 million Soviet people died due to famine in the 1930's") is a gross misrepresentation of your source.Biophys (talk) 02:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Why can't you be careful when reading? 5.5 to 6.5 million is the total number all over the USSR, not only in Ukraine (Holodomor).

The estimates of excess deaths in the Kazakh famine of 1930-33, in the rural famine of 1932-33, and the accompanying urban food shortages, range from 4.5 to 8 million. As we explain below, our own view is that both these extreme estimates are implausible, and that excess deaths probably amounted to 5.5 to 6.5 million. (p400-1)

So this estimate is for the period 1930-33, but since there were no other famines in the 1930's, it is good enough to say that this number is how much died of famine in the 30's. Or I could say in the early 30's.

Conquest's number includes repressions and is an overestimate since he had no archival data to look at and made the estimate during the Cold War. You like him and consider him the best source because he says more people died, and that is all want to say.

Furthermore, this is not the only alternative view I put in. Go look at "Soviet conception of human rights" for example. Can you read? I will edit it seperately since you seem to be unable to follow the changes.

-YMB29 (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

As soon as you agree to discuss one question at a time, we can continue this discussion. So far, you are making massive "Soviet POV" type changes of text without any discussion. This is not going to work.Biophys (talk) 23:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You are the one making massive anti-Soviet, Western POV edits without discussing, ignoring sources and failing to provide them when asked. This will not work. -YMB29 (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time to semi-protect the article to give new users a chance to catch up with WP:NPOV and WP:Reliable sources, WP:3RR etc. I just think it's getting a bit boring to go over the same arguments again and again.--Termer (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and you are welcome to contribute here too. Obviously, this article needs improvement, but this should be done in accordance with WP policies including verifiability and consensus-building. I will try to make a few changes in response to comments by YMB29.Biophys (talk) 01:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

O'K, I made the following: (1) separated "famine-terror" from "genocide" since the classication of former as "genocide" is debatable; (2) reorganized the entire "political repressions" section by sub-sections; (3) corrected a couple of errors.Biophys (talk) 01:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You did not do anything to make it neutral, just rearranged some things. You have zero objectivity on this. And stop making edits before we finish discussing here. -YMB29 (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving forward

If you have any specific objections, please state them here for discussion before making any changes. This way we can easier find consensus.Biophys (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I am making objections here and in the edit summaries. Why don't you read? -YMB29 (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Then please state one specific objection for discussion.

Let's discuss it, make changes if necessary, and move to your next objection. Was that statistics of Soviet repression victims as you said at my talk page? As I explained, what I cited was a scholarly secondary source as required by WP:Verifiability. If you have any other reliable sources on the overall statistics of the Soviet repression victims, please cite them. Unfortunately, most of the sources tell only about victims during Stalinism, but omit victims during the previous period of time. Only overall statistics is really relevant in this article.Biophys (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Then don't use an overall statistic from a laughable source. -YMB29 (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Due to your constant inability to follow and understand edits, I made a list: Don't make changes until we agree on these issues.

---

For example, a desire to make a profit could be interpreted as a counter-revolutionary activity punishable by death.

Source for this? Even if it was true in some cases and during certain times, it was not punished by death most of the time, as you are making it look.

Sourced to Pipes; I will check. If you can provide sources how it was punished the rest of the time, let's include it.Biophys (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No how about you provide a source saying that it was the norm... -YMB29 (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Soviet people have been deprived of the basic civil liberties including the protection of law

This is a biased statement that was used as anti-Soviet propaganda during the Cold War, making it seem like the Soviet people had no rights and were abused by criminals and the state.

Sourced to Pipes and Conquest; perhaps needs to be rephrased.Biophys (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I am rephrasing it. -YMB29 (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

According to Soviet propaganda, each individual was guaranteed civil rights, but had to sacrifice them and his/her desires to fulfill the needs of the collective

Not Soviet propaganda but the constitution. Again READ, I know it might be hard for you but try!

What article of the Soviet constitution? Then, this should be also reverenced to the Soviet constitution. But it was also undeniably a stance by the Soviet propaganda per sources.Biophys (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Anything in any constitution can be used as propaganda. It is in Article #39. -YMB29 (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Usually, all members of a family, including children, were punished as "traitor of Motherland family members".

Again, Order № 00486 lasted for 2 years before it was changed so it is not usually (you mean for 70+ years???). READ the partial recall section.

Family members were prosecuted during the entire 1917 to 1953 period - per sources (can be provided). They were also prosecuted later, as KGB defector's families.Biophys (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You can't go by what you think. They were not prosecuted, especially punished as you wrote, all the time. Saying they were punished and then giving the link to that order that called for wives and children to be arrested is wrong; it makes it seem that wives and children were usually arrested. -YMB29 (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

During Tambov rebellion, Bolshevik military forces widely used chemical weapons against villages with civilian population and rebels

Again you fail to provide a credible source and a quote for the use against civilians, and not just rebels in forests.

That was referenced to "Black book" and book by Sennikov. The latter is best and most detailed study of the subject.Biophys (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

For like the 10th time, give me the quote of where it says that. -YMB29 (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Genocide section should be Genocide accusations since no genocide was proven to be done by the Soviets.

Most scholarly sources refer to extermination of ethnic minorities as "genocide". Can be rephrased. Biophys (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Here again you fail to use your brain. It must first be proven that the Soviets tried to exterminate ethnic minorities. -YMB29 (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The deaths of 5 to 7 millions of people during the Soviet famine of 1932-1933, including the Holodomor at the Ukraine was caused by confiscating all food from peasants and blocking the migration of starving population by the Soviet government.

Again this is a debated accusation by Conquest and some others.

Please cite any good sources claiming that food was not confiscated, and that migration of starving population was not prevented.Biophys (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I give a source where it says that it was not deliberately done to kill people. Plus READ the Holodomor article. -YMB29 (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Five million of people died earlier during Russian famine of 1921.

Has no relevance to the section since the Soviets are not even accused of artificially creating that famine.

sourced to "Black book". Of course, Soviets have been accused of making this famine too. The only difference with Holodomor: they did not deny existence of this famine and allow a group of intelligentsa to ask West for help.Biophys (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Give the source and quote of where it says that they were accused of creating it intentionally. Also this is technically pre-Soviet history. -YMB29 (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the Guinness Book of Records, 66.7 million people were killed in the Soviet Union by state persecution from October 1917 through 1959 - under Lenin, Stalin, and Khrushev

Again, bad source and ridiculous claim. So the Soviets lost over 100 million people (together with WWII and civil war) in the 70+ years?? Somehow I don't think there would be 293 million people in the USSR by the 1990's if that were true...

Ridiculous? Said who? Please cite other sources about overall statistics of repressions during 1917-1990.Biophys (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You looking for someone to count everything for you? Most people died under Stalin's time so referring to his period is correct. Giving the total number like that is not useful; you have to explain, break it down. -YMB29 (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

All real property belonged to the state.

And society too, read the constitution link.

So, that was correct statementBiophys (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

So why did you remove society? -YMB29 (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Freedoms of assembly and association did not exist.'

Where is your source for this? Don't remove tags.

I will check sources telling precisely that. If sources are not found, this should be rephrased. Biophys (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well first find them... -YMB29 (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The Soviet Union was an atheistic state

This is only officially since many practiced religion or at least some religious customs. This statement makes it seem like there was no religion at all in the USSR.

State was atheistic; some people were not. This paragraph should be elaborated. Biophys (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I will rephrase it. -YMB29 (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

---

-YMB29 (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I will need a couple of days to look into all the issues and find all additional sources. Please do not revert text during this time. Biophys (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No I will revert; why should your biased edits stay? I am getting the feeling that you don't even know what you are talking about... Like I said you are ignoring my sources, refusing to provide page numbers and quotes, and you are unable to think objectively about this. -YMB29 (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Please note that many rights declared in the Soviet constitution were not in fact provided by the existing laws - per sources. Quite the opposite. The constitution served mostly to propaganda purposes and should be more properly described as a propaganda tool.Biophys (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Who are you to say that? At least provide the quote of where it says that in your sources and explain. Don't make general statements and pretend to be an expert. Anyway, like I said any constitution can be said to be a propaganda tool. -YMB29 (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

---

YMB29, why did you refuse to discuss and collaborate? I asked you to let me to take into account all your comments, check and include sources, etc. You seemed to agree. Then why did you revert again? This is not going to work.Biophys (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I told you why I reverted. What is not going to work is you being too biased to edit this. -YMB29 (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You said above: "No I will revert", without giving me a chance to fix anything per your own comments. Sorry, but this is a collaborative project. At least you are honest, which is good.Biophys (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Collaborative project? So then why should your biased edits be judged higher than mine? -YMB29 (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Termer, thank you for your recent additions here. More can be said about Moscow Helsinki Group and so on.Biophys (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to note that meaning of "human rights" here is exactly the same as in other "human rights" articles.Biophys (talk) 04:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see that you YMB29 have not familiarized yourself with WP:NPOV policies just yet. Please note that in order to maintain the policy, you should add alternative viewpoints by citing WP:reliable sources instead of altering or removing sourced facts or adding personal opinions to the article. thanks!--Termer (talk) 06:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You two are some of the most biased and illogical users I have seen on here. Tell me where have I not added alternative viewpoints, removed sourced facts, or put in my personal opinions? That is exactly what you two have been doing. -YMB29 (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi YMB29, An example of how you have altered and removed sourced facts from the current article is this edit [2]. Please note that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to remove or alter sourced material. You should only add alternative viewpoints according to WP:reliable sources and you're free to challenge/remove unsourced claims and opinions. --Termer (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I am challenging unsourced claims but you two are removing the tags. Also can you give a list of sourced "facts" I am removing and altering (you mean the Guinness Book claim :) )? I have explained my edits many times (see above), but you two are unable to discuss them in detail. -YMB29 (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

YMB29, you probably think we are a couple of trolls, and you are trying to fight with us using slow reverts. A much better strategy would be WP:Dispute resolution. That would help you to formulate exactly what the disagreement is. Then we might even agree with you. So far, you simply failed to formulate and justify your position.Biophys (talk) 04:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Look who is talking; I am able to and you are the ones who fail to. You have not refuted any of my edits and arguments for them. How about you try to do that before reverting?

And I am looking at dispute resolution. -YMB29 (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please. If you can formulate exacty what is the matter of disagreement and justify your position, I am ready to participate in any mediation procedure.Biophys (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok I asked an admin to help here.

I suggest you stop blindly removing my edits (like the tags). Also, in your new Soviet justice section, you talk about it like these things were the norm for the entire 70 year period. -YMB29 (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Declaration of rights

Termer, you can not tell in the Introduction that "The Human rights in the Soviet Union refers to adaptation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the Soviet Union." This declaration was adopted by UN only in 1948, but this article is about 1917 to 1990 period. This should be told somewhere, but not in the Introduction.Biophys (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Biophys, in case you'd like to keep the concept valid before the declaration was issued, it would need a reference according to what concept of human rights the period of 1917-1948 in the USSR would refer to? I'm afraid all former concepts of Human rights were not Universal but mostly covered the laws of war such as Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907) or were national concepts of Human Rights such as the Virginia Declaration of Rights or the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. I'm afraid it's going to be difficult to apply anything else than the Universal Declaration to the Human rights in the Soviet Union.--Termer (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I only mean that Soviet Union did not adapt this declaration in 1917. So, first phrase in Introduction sounds dubious. Another question what exactly do we mean when talk about human rights, and that can be defined by the UN Declaration.Biophys (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC) But we do not have to define and explain what human rights are in this article.Biophys (talk) 02:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I was about t leave a message yesterday but didn't make it. I'd reformat the whole article according to the universal declaration since all the human rights groups in the USSR were based on it etc. Doing it it would keep it right on target. And I'm afraid we can't really talk about the human rights in the sense prior 1948 since the universal concept simply didn't exist. Anything that happened in USSR prior 1948 would need it's own article and title I think--Termer (talk) 02:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
PS...or simlpy merged with Soviet political repressions.--Termer (talk) 02:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is entirely wrong. The concept of human rights existed since the Virginia Declaration of Rights. Please look at article Human rights in the United States. When does it start? Moreover, one could even make an article Human rights in Ancient Greece if only this could be supported by published sources. It does not matter that Greeks did not know what it is (they did not know a lot of things). It only matters that we know. Please also do not mix Helsinki Accords and Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Only the former was used by the Soviet dissident groups, because it was officially signed by the Soviet Union.Biophys (talk) 03:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It was just a suggestion, It's up to you in case you'd like to apply the Virginia Declaration of Rights to Soviet Union in this article. I don't have any problems with that, just that I don't see it working for WP purposes. Good luck with it!--Termer (talk) 04:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was applied by the Moscow Human Rights Committee founded in 1970. Please see NGO's and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for example--Termer (talk) 04:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Please look Moscow Helsinki Group. I though it might be merged with Moscow Human Rights Committee.Biophys (talk) 04:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving forward, take two

YMB29, please select ONE specific issue/problem you want to debate. We can not discuss ten different problems simultaneously.Biophys (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well what prevents you from discussing the issues, addressing one at a time? -YMB29 (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Please select ONE issue you want to discuss and explain what is the problem. Is that some unsourced statements? If that is the case, please mark them in the existing version and wait for my response. It will take some time.Biophys (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

How many times must I do that. Just pick any one issue I brought up from the list just above. Is it really that hard?

Well if you are yet again incapable of following, then you can start by providing the quote of where it says that gas was used against civilians in the Tambov rebellion? YMB29 (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Great. This is constructive. Please see reference 11 (internet link to original Russian text provided). It tells:

ПРИКАЗЫВАЮ:

1. Леса, где прячутся бандиты, очистить ядовитыми газами, точно рассчитывать, чтобы облако удушливых газов распространялось полностью по всему лесу, уничтожая все, что в нем пряталось. ...

В советских газетах сплошь и рядом красовались такие заголовки, как: "Мы уничтожаем семьи бандитов - они должны отвечать за них" и т.д. "Травить их удушливым и отравляющим газом!" ...

Most important,

Артиллерия беспрерывно лупила по островам, и облако удушливых и отравляющих газов расходилось по всей пойме реки Вороны. Крестьяне, спасаясь от газов и сбиваясь с тропинок, тонули в болоте, куда с шипением падали, не разрываясь, снаряды. Однако большей части партизан удалось выбраться из болот, и они, разделившись, ушли в две разные стороны под покровом ночи. Артиллерия красных перенесла огонь на оба села, где практически не оставалось жителей. Вскоре газеты "Тамбовские известия" и "Красный пахарь" писали об уничтожении "бандитских сел".

As you can see, the entire villages have been destroyed using chemical weapons. How this is different from Halabja poison gas attack?Biophys (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I told you that in this case the author uses peasants and partisans interchangeably (first peasants then the next sentence says partisans).

After that it says that gas was shot at the villages of the partisans, but it then says that almost no one was there. So this is not destroying entire villages of innocent civilians. You have to find more confirmation for that. Also the source is, as I said before, very unobjective (almost like yellow journalism to get people terrified at the horrors of communism). I mean look at its home page. -YMB29 (talk) 03:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

1. "Yellow journalism" probably means the internet link. But this link does not affect the source (this is just a courtesy to a reader). One can remove the link, and the source remains the same: a scholarly book on the subject, a reliable secondary source.

2. "almost no one was there". Yes, no one knows for sure how many peaceful peasants, women and children were killed. But the text remains no doubts that some were killed, and that is enough. In addition, it is hard to distinguish "partisans" and peaceful peasants. They shot directly to the villages.

3. Double check using other sources. "Black book of communism", page 116. Tukhachevski and Antonov-Ovseenko organized a Committee that "took hostages on enormous scale, carried out executions, set up death camps where prisoners were gassed,...". Biophys (talk) 03:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well remove the gulag website link if it is not the direct source.

It says that almost no one was left in the villages, implying that they left... Furthermore looking at the text closely, it does not say that gas was fired at the villages, but just that artillery fire was used. What makes you think that it was not regular artillery fire that was used to shell the swamps before? Why would they even use gas at almost empty villages? So it is not clear and you can't say that they "widely used chemical weapons against villages".

In this case the author just refers to partisans as peasants without being confused.

As for the black book claim, that is another issue (death camps with gas) that, as was mentioned already, has to be proven.

-YMB29 (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The Black big of communism can't be used as a source. It's unreliable and it clearly pushes a political agenda. It's not nutral. Kostan1 (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Please suggest better source on the Tambov rebellion and let's use it. If you have any concerns about Black book of communism as a reliable source, please ask at WP:RS noticeboard. This book was written by best European historians and qualify as a reliable secondary source per WP:Verifiability.Biophys (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Look at the well referenced critisism section and see for yourself why it can't be used as a reliable source. The book was written with a bias, and that's obvious. It was written with an intention, with an agenda. When a historian has an agenda before he started doing something, while researching he will unintentionaly ignore things that might make all his idea, hard work, collapse. Kostan1 (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the book you are talking about?Biophys (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Attempt to get a compromise

Biophys. I haven't deleted your sources, any of them, but you must take the contrasting source into account. I haven't deleted any word you clamed, what I did do I added phrases like "clamed by..." or "according to...". Remember that without concensus your changes will continue to be reverted. Just like you can push your POV, someone else can to, and we will have here edit warring. I could to bring you Soviet sources, modern Russian sources, and push my POV, which I don't do. As I said, we must have a compromised version.

Now, I call on you both. Please understand, there is enought space here for all of you. You can add contrasting sources, as long as they are reliable. If there is material not agreed in, I mean, that one mostly goes to you Biophys. You see someone reverts you to another version, your in an edit war, but you wan't to keep the information. What's the problem to add the phrase "According to..."? Are you so shure you are the right one? Have it accured to you you might be wrong? You might be кшпре yeah but also you might be wrong. No one is preventing you from entering the information you entered. But the Black Book of Сomunism for example. It has critisism on it, you cant denie it. So what is the problem to enter the same information you entered, but with the add-on "According to the black book of communism"? Or the famine. The article on the Holodomor brought many historians who also clamed it was not intentional, so do you have to fight for a section name that shows it as if it was? Again, maybe it was (I don't agree with that but nevermind), but maybe it wasn't. There are different sources. So use phrases like "Ocusations of...". You enter the same information you added! But with that small add-on it's nutral. Life is so much simpler when you compromise!

Now to the second person. Your add on that the property belonged to the society. I agree with you, I'm not against you, but what is the problem to add an "According to the Soviet constitution"? When you write it as a fact, some people might not agree with you and delete it. If you say "According to the Soviet constitution" it's a different case! What will they clame? "Delete it, the Soviet constitution haven't clamed that"? They have a link to the text it would be stupid to edit war here from their side.

Our argument is not about that phrase; he used to have "according to Soviet propaganda". -YMB29 (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You can change it to "According to Societ law/Soviet constitution". Kostan1 (talk) 10:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Just think about it! You both think you are right, so the only way to go thru this is to compromise. Kostan1 (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Kostan1. I agree to use your last version as a starting point for future changes, which we will make only after discussion. YMB, do you agree too? If you agree, we can continue discussion. If not, this is not going to work.Biophys (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You said: "you must take the contrasting sources into account". Yes, absolutely. What exactly sources do you mean?Biophys (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

In this article there are no, but for example in the article about Holodomor there is a section of historians who say that wasn't intentional, in the article of the black book of communism there is a critisism section. I spoke in general. By those add-ons we entered of "According to" no one can delete what you said. Kostan1 (talk) 10:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Compromising and using contrasting sources is exactly what I have been doing. I don't see why my version should not stand. -YMB29 (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Bring here a list of all sources you want to use and were deleted. We will enter all of those that are reliable, with the appropriate add-ons. If you don't like something Biophys added what you can do is add an "According to... the name of the source" as a start to the sentence. Again, you have to understand the whole idea. If you have a contrasting source to something Biophys have said that doesn't mean you can delete what he said, but simply add to the article that "Other sources clame... Something else". Kostan1 (talk) 10:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The only source I "deleted" was the ridiculous 66.7 million deaths claim that is supposedly from the Guinness Book of Records, which Biophys has yet to even prove (he is only referencing a book that supposedly uses that record book as a source).

I also added the Davies and Wheatcroft book as a source but Biophys removes it. -YMB29 (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You YMB29 should add to the article any new facts, not alter or change the facts or/and remove anything that's based on provided sources. --Termer (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you read? -YMB29 (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

YMB, you revert this article to a very old version. It has been significantly modified since by Termer and me, partly to reflect your criticism. Right now, already three users agree to work with last version. Please stop your reverts. You act against consensus here.Biophys (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I kept most of Termer's changes, but your changes just make it more biased. You edited without consensus and only kept one of my edits. Except you and Termer, no one agrees to your version. -YMB29 (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the article is protected so there ain't no way a revert war will take place. Now let's do the next thing: 1. Write phrases and sources you want to enter the article. 2. Copy phrases from the article you don't wan't to be in the article, and offer a new formulation you would agree to be here.

After you make those sugggestions, other users will response to you if they agree, or not. Remember! If you on purpouse disagree with everything your "enemy" offers, he will do the same to you and we will all get nowhere! Kostan1 (talk) 10:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess I go first. In the opening of the article. The phrase "The regime maintained itself in political power by means of secret police, propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, personality cult, restriction of free discussion and criticism, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror tactics, such as political purges and persecution of specific groups of people." The pro-Soviet's might say something different, that the regime maintained itself on the progess and other things. I thing we can add an "According to the critics," in the start of this phrase. Don't forget that Democracy uses the same tactics. USA. Doesn't it has CIA? Why did that torture Martin Luther? What about Slavery? What about propoganda (teaching kids in school democracy is good is aslo propoganda). Every ideology uses those methods to keep itself, that's geo-politics. I'm not saying we should delete it, any view has place to be, but I offer to add an "According to the critics" start. Kostan1 (talk) 11:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

A few points. 1. What you are talking about is your personal opinion - original research (please see WP:NOR). Please bring your sources. What good contemporary book(s) tell about human rights in Russia? I can easily bring sources that support present text of the introduction (do you want them?). No, this is not "according" to the critics". This is according to scholarly sources. 2. Present text of the introduction mostly summarizes content of the article. 3. CIA and slavery in the USA are irrelevant. They belongs to articles about CIA and slavery.Biophys (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Kostan1 (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Actualy, after my addons of "According to..." the text looks pretty nutral and I personaly can't point out on any problems here right now. There were a few parties involved in the case so I hope everybody will speak out everything now and prevent problems to come up later. Kostan1 (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Ok here is the list again. This is the last time I am doing this. If Biophys is incapable of reading, discussing, and understanding what is going on, it is not my problem:

"Do not look in the file of incriminating evidence to see whether or not the accused rose up against the Soviets with arms or words. Ask him instead to which class he belongs, what is his background, his education, his profession. These are the questions that will determine the fate of the accused. That is the meaning and essence of the Red Terror." The purpose of public trials was "not to demonstrate the existence or absence of a crime - that was predetermined by the appropriate party authorities - but to provide yet another forum for political agitation and propaganda for the instruction of the citizenry. Defense lawyers, who had to be party members, were required to take their client's guilt for granted.

This could be said only about specific periods in Soviet history and it should be mentioned for which. -YMB29 (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

For example, a desire to make a profit could be interpreted as a counter-revolutionary activity punishable by death. vs my: For example, a desire to make a profit could be interpreted as a criminal act done for self interest at the expense of others.

Saying that it was punishable by death makes it seem like it was always or usually so, which Biophys did not prove. -YMB29 (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Usually, all members of a family, including children, were punished as "traitor of Motherland family members". vs my: Wives and family members were also punished if they were seen as being involved with their relative in the supposed crime.

Saying usually is wrong since NKVD Order № 00486 lasted for two years before it was changed by NKVD Order № 00689. -YMB29 (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The secret police forces conducted massacres of prisoners at numerous occasions.

I put a tag and Biophys removes it again. -YMB29 (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

During Tambov rebellion, Bolshevik military forces widely used chemical weapons against villages with civilian population and rebels. vs my: During Tambov rebellion in 1921, Bolshevik military forces widely used chemical weapons against rebels in forests.

Again look above, Biophys does not provide clear proof that villages and civilians were targeted with gas. -YMB29 (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

My paragraph in the famine section: More recent estimates, based on actual archival data, indicate that 2 to 3.5 million died in Ukraine. Historians R. Davies and S. Wheatcroft estimate that, overall, 5.5 to 6.5 million Soviet people died due to famine in the 1930's. According to them, the famine was an unintentional result of erroneous state policies in implementing collectivization combined with natural causes.

This was completely deleted by Biophys even though it is sourced. It provides an alternative view, but of course Biophys does not like it. -YMB29 (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The Black book of communism claims five million people died earlier during Russian famine of 1921.

Has no relevance to the genocide accusation section since the Soviets are not even accused of intentionally creating the famine, and Biophys has failed to provide proof of the accusation. -YMB29 (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the Guiness Book of Records, 66.7 million people were killed in the Soviet Union by state persecution from October 1917 through 1959 - under Lenin, Stalin, and Khrushev.

Again, not a good source and the claim is not even directly sourced by Biophys. Quote the book directly. What is the "record" based on? On what Solzhenitsyn said as it is implied here[3]? -YMB29 (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Freedoms of assembly and association did not exist.

It is a biased statement and needs a source. I put in the tag but Biophys keeps on removing it. Why is he allowed to? -YMB29 (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

All real property belonged to the state. vs my: All real property belonged to the state and society.

To society also, according to the constitution. -YMB29 (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The Soviet Union was an atheistic state. vs my: The Soviet government promoted atheism.

Saying that the USSR was an atheistic state is making it seem that no one practiced religion there, which is false. -YMB29 (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Locked

I have locked the article for a week, so you could settle the difference on the talk page. It is not the enforcement of any version. If the article is ready to be unlocked please let me know. If there is a consensus on a non-protected edit - please let me know. Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

O'K. As soon as all this discussion participants agree on something, we will let you know.Biophys (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)