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)

---

My conclusions, for Biophys:

• Biophys, you have to write which time you are talking about. No one sent people to Gulag in the 60's. You also can't use laws that lasted for two years as a general discription. YMB29 will edit this when the protection is over. Esspecialy the NKVD Order № 00486 thing.
• Biophys, you will have to explaine why you have deleted the citation needed tag in the "massacare of prisoners" and the "Freedoms of assembly and association did not exist".
• What prove do you have that gas was used on civilians in the Tambov rebelion?
• The R. Davies and S. Wheatcroft book is a reliable source, therefore it will be restored. You can't bring only one view. Even if your source contrast that, both views have right to be here.
• Why did you use the word gynocide when referencing with the Black Book of Communism when it haven't used it?
• Biophys, The Soviet government promoted atheism is realy a better formulation then yours. Churches existed, they stood there, some were destroyed at was but many stayed. Priests were still there. The synagogues in Georgia weren't touched. Infact, since Stalin the Church was offical! It officaly existed and was sponsored by the state! Kostan1 (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

My conclusions, for YMB29:

• About the property, I already did a different formulation, see it in the text.
• Biophys didn't have the right to delete your sources, but the Guiness Book, and I to laught about that few 1000s page comics, to can be here as long as he says it's according to the Guiness book.
• Could you bring a law that talk's about the desire to make a profit? Maybe a constitution quote? That one goes to you to, Biophys.

Waiting for both of you to response. Kostan1 (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why it can't just say "state and society" for property...

Maybe the Guinness book source can be kept if he actually provides a quote from it of where it directly says that 66.7 million were killed, so we can judge if it is a reliable estimate or just a guess.

Here[4] is information on how speculation was punished in the USSR. -YMB29 (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving forward, take three

YMB29, please select ONE specific issue/problem you want to debate. We can not discuss ten different problems simultaneously.Biophys (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Since you can't function taking care of multiple issues one at a time?

How many times must you say this and then fail to continue the discussion when I start talking about one issue for you? -YMB29 (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Are we done with Tambov rebellion? If we are done, let's formulate new text (if old is bad) and discuss it.Biophys (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I should ask you that since you fail to respond. New text should say that gas was used against partisans in forest since you did not prove that civilians and villages were targeted with gas. -YMB29 (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Biophys, I'm sorry but you can't just escape the dicsussion like that. You can make a "Take nine", if you won't answer the question's, many of your edits will be reverted. Not answering the question=Lossing it. I for you summarized all clames of YMB29 in point. please answer the same way, in points. I re-copy it to here:

• Biophys, you have to write which time you are talking about. No one sent people to Gulag in the 60's. You also can't use laws that lasted for two years as a general discription. YMB29 will edit this when the protection is over. Esspecialy the NKVD Order № 00486 thing.
• Biophys, you will have to explaine why you have deleted the citation needed tag in the "massacare of prisoners" and the "Freedoms of assembly and association did not exist".
• What prove do you have that gas was used on civilians in the Tambov rebelion?
• The R. Davies and S. Wheatcroft book is a reliable source, therefore it will be restored. You can't bring only one view. Even if your source contrast that, both views have right to be here.
• Why did you use the word gynocide when referencing with the Black Book of Communism when it haven't used it?
• Biophys, The Soviet government promoted atheism is realy a better formulation then yours. Churches existed, they stood there, some were destroyed at was but many stayed. Priests were still there. The synagogues in Georgia weren't touched. Infact, since Stalin the Church was offical! It officaly existed and was sponsored by the state! Kostan1 (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's be constructive and consider questions one by one. I suggest the following version related to gas poisoning:

During Tambov rebellion Bolsheviks widely used chemical weapons against civilian population and rebels.[11] A Committee organized by Mikhail Tukhachevsky and Antonov-Ovseenko "took hostages on enormous scale, carried out executions, and set up death camps where prisoners were gassed" according to Black book of communism[12]

This way we provide direct citation and clear attribution. Please suggest your version.Biophys (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No need to quote a biased source in the article and again the use against civilians is not proven.

During the Tambov rebellion in 1921, Bolshevik military forces used chemical weapons against rebels hiding in forests. The Black book of Communism also claims that prisoners were gassed at death camps.

-YMB29 (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not exactly what I wanted, but we are moving somewhere. Then let me suggest a compromise version when I return from a trip.Biophys (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Great, all we need to do is to add an "According to the black book" start and that's it. One point less. Now you have those 5:

• Biophys, you have to write which time you are talking about. No one sent people to Gulag in the 60's. You also can't use laws that lasted for two years as a general discription. YMB29 will edit this when the protection is over. Esspecialy the NKVD Order № 00486 thing.
• Biophys, you will have to explaine why you have deleted the citation needed tag in the "massacare of prisoners" and the "Freedoms of assembly and association did not exist".
• The R. Davies and S. Wheatcroft book is a reliable source, therefore it will be restored. You can't bring only one view. Even if your source contrast that, both views have right to be here.
• Why did you use the word gynocide when referencing with the Black Book of Communism when it haven't used it?
• Biophys, The Soviet government promoted atheism is realy a better formulation then yours. Churches existed, they stood there, some were destroyed at was but many stayed. Priests were still there. The synagogues in Georgia weren't touched. Infact, since Stalin the Church was offical! It officaly existed and was sponsored by the state!

If you want to answer one point at a time, choose the next one you want to response to, and that way we will finish it fast. Kostan1 (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As soon as YMB29 agree with that version, we can move further.Biophys (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

He said above that he oposses to it, so we change the formulation to "The black book of communism clames that...". Could you now move to the next point? Please stop being so anxious. Once you answer the point no one could delete that information becuase we change the formulation. If you choose to ignore you will simply be reverted becuase you haven't answered it! Please answer, or only the other user side will be taken because he pointed out all of his problems with the article.

You yeat explained why you deleted the book by Davies and Wheatcroft, you yet explained why you haven't given the time of the laws. Those are the most important points. nless you answer them, YMB29 has all the reason to return his reliable source, and to insert dates of the laws. Even if he doesn't answer, you don't need his answer to answer the question. We already said that sll your information stays, simply formulations will be changed, and his source will be returned to. You don't need him to get a nutral formulation. Kostan1 (talk) 12:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I in Word edited a new version for the article, which is suppose to be the compromise version. Sent me an email if you want to see it before the protection is over and I upload it here. Kostan1 (talk) 11:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Send you an email? Post it here on the bottom, then we can remove it when we finish if it takes up too much space.

I don't know where is Biophys. -YMB29 (talk) 04:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice idea. Well, as you can see I took to account what both of you said. Kostan1 (talk) 10:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, my version of the text was uploaded. Hope both sides will feel better now. Kostan1 (talk) 11:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not much different than before. Things like the killing of villagers with gas and the Guinness book claim are still there despite the lack of evidence, while my source for the famine is not.... -YMB29 (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm so sorry I missed your famine source! I simply missed it, but I can see someone else already added it.

The Guiness book is an argumental source and that's why I wrote that it only clames that. I placed a citation tag needed there. Kostan1 (talk) 11:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Biophys, if previously I was on your side (all your information was kept) now I clearly see only want to push your POV, sorry, use the sandbox for that.

Sorry, but you never "was on my side", and you are not suppose to be on any side.Biophys (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Why did you delete his reliable source about the famine? It was well referenced, you can't call something POV only because that's not according to your opinion.

We can not discuss all Soviet famines, and especially Holodomor in great detail here. There are other articles for that. This is called "content fork" and should be avoided.Biophys (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You are beyond ridiculous. So why should only your source stay? -YMB29 (talk) 03:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

O'K, I included your source and modified text accordingly.Biophys (talk) 04:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

although some historians still believe that the hunger was unintentional' - Nice try, shows how neutral you can be. You trying to fool us? -YMB29 (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Biophys, if you bring a claim that is disputed the paragraph showing that must be included. Kostan1 (talk) 10:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• It will be "Genocide Accusations", because there are different views on were those a "Genocide" or not.

This is supported by many scholarly sources. Ethnic cleansing is typically regarded as genocide per UN conventions. Should be sourced better.Biophys (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

What scholarly sources? Holodomor was denied internationally to be called genocide. This is just what you want it to say, but who do you think you are? It has to be proven and conflicting sources have to be presented. -YMB29 (talk) 03:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This paragraph is not about Holodomor. Howver I removed "Genocide" from the title, provided a reference and edited this slightly.Biophys (talk) 04:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing is basically genocide...

And Holodomor is a major part of that section. -YMB29 (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• During Stalin the church became offical, an even before that i on my family history know people were baptised.

Only Church created by the NKVD/KGB "became official". Others were prosecuted even after Stalin, including arrests, taking children away from the families of "sectants", and sometimes assassinations.Biophys (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

And where are your sources for this? -YMB29 (talk) 03:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting, but Wikipedia needs sources. Kostan1 (talk) 10:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• The NKVS law about families lasted only two years, you can't speak about it generaly as if it was always like that. It was signed in 1938, and lasted to years.

No. The arrests and/or prosecutions of family members took place during whole ruling of Stalin (can be easily sourced), and continued even later with regard to families of "defectors" like KGB officers who ran away.Biophys (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok let's see your sources. -YMB29 (talk) 03:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no time right now. So, I indicated this as only during the Great Purge.Biophys (talk) 04:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This only shows that this was done at times during a specific period in history. -YMB29 (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You have no time - Don't edit. Kostan1 (talk) 10:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• "The Black Book of Communism clamed" is much more nutral then "According to", especialy when you have so much different sources saying different numbers. And the Davies, Norman source to stayes, unlike the Black Book or the Guiness Book, who were kept and not a bad word was said on them in the articel (even though one being a propoganda book and the second being a not scientific but records book), that one is a reliable source.

Let's not mix the apples and oranges. We need some data for the entire "Lenin/Stalin/Khrushev/Brezhnev" period. I found only this reference. If you find any other sources for the entire period, you are welcome to include them. But the sources you are trying to cite (actually you did not read the sources I guess) are about date during say only 20 years, or "Stalinism" period.Biophys (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, that is the most important period in regard to this. You want a number that sums everything up for you? I get the feeling that even if you would have found such a number in a comic book you would have still referenced it here as "the only complete source"... -YMB29 (talk) 03:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not an argument. Please find the appropriate number(s) with sources.Biophys (talk) 04:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you find real sources? -YMB29 (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• You realy have not brought a reference to the phrase "The secret police forces conducted massacres of prisoners at numerous occasions", so instead of being fast and deleting it, I chose to put a citation tag there.

O'K, I can bring the sources.Biophys (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you do that if you are able to, which I doubt. -YMB29 (talk) 03:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I included a source.Biophys (talk) 04:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Then you should specify that this was done during the retreat from the Nazis. -YMB29 (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Near the claim of the Guiness Book, you have a reference which is not the guiness book, so it's logical to have a citation tag there.

I cited good scholarly secondary source (the book by Albats who cited the Guiness book) and indicated the page. Nothing else is required per WP:Verifiability.Biophys (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Albats is no where near credible and objective when it comes to Soviet history. You can't just say that she mentions it; you have to quote the source directly. -YMB29 (talk) 03:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:Verifiability. No one should be looking for primary sources if there are reliable secondary sources.Biophys (talk) 04:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

In this case the Guinness book is not even a primary source and gets its information from other sources (most likely Solzhenitsyn), so you will need to find it directly in there. -YMB29 (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If you don't like something? Bring it up here, in this duscussion. You mostly simple deleted well referenced information without explanations. And calling a referenced paragraph "POV"? Not everything you dont like is POV. Act more mature. All you entered the article stayed, you were given respect, now you give respect. When you revert war, you get ignored. YMB29 chose the talk page, was heard, and in some cases turned out to be right. I again remind you, all you entered the article stayed, don't push it. Kostan1 (talk) 13:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That is what I was talking about before. He can't discuss and all he wants to do is revert to the version he likes. -YMB29 (talk) 00:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

See my reply above. You are welcome to include citation tags if they were accidently deleted.Biophys (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Accidentally deleted... Don't make me laugh. -YMB29 (talk) 03:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Biophys you were systematicaly doing it fot the whole period. Kostan1 (talk) 10:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Biophys, this is the last time I am saying this. If you are going to continue to ignore the discussion of the issues in detail and not give sources or explain when asked, we will proceed without you. -YMB29 (talk) 03:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I made a number of changes in reply to your criticism. But I need a little more time to fix the rest.Biophys (talk) 04:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes you always need a little more time... -YMB29 (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Since Biophys again showed that he does not care about discussing, we will be editing it ourselves. I will start making some edits in a day or two and explain again if needed. If Biophys will turn this into a revert war again, we should contact an admin. -YMB29 (talk) 05:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

100% agree. Every word he entered to the article, was entered. And after all that he instead of using the talk page simply reverts, that's just uncivil. I mean, he deletes referenced information, and uses not-nutral language. I got the impression he's just trying to make a point. Kostan1 (talk) 11:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

O'K, I made next version. Please discuss rather than revert.Biophys (talk) 20:45, 2 September 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)

Criticism, Justification and other new ideas

I had to revert such drastic changes to the article that have not met a consensus on the talk page. And what is this "Justification of repressions" all about anyway? WP should cite sources and opinions and facts according to these sources. According to who exactly any of these repressions were justified? If it should go into the article it should clearly say so. Exactly like if a new chapter was made "Criticism". Who exactly was a critic there, according to what source, when and how etc? Please bring up such desired additions at the talk page first. --Termer (talk) 05:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What? There are enough sources for the criticism (like Pipes). Justification is just an explanation of why repressions were necessary, according to those who carried them out, based on ideological reasons.

You come back after a long time away and don't know what is going on. Reverted what has not met consensus on the talk page... Well if you would pay more attention you would see that Biophys makes this impossible. Why should the article be reverted to his biased version anyway? -YMB29 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

YMB, yes, we had and still have consensus with Termer with regard to current version. As about Kostan1, he was a sock of banned user M.V.e.i. He made a number of POV edits, and I had to fix them a little. This is a new compromise version. If you have objections, please state them here.Biophys (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The only one making POVed edits here is you. My objections were made clear numerous times; it is not my problem that you are unable to address and discuss them. I don't see how you can claim that there was a compromise if you fail to do this. -YMB29 (talk) 03:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"...is you" is not an argument. Please comment on content, not on a contributor. Please tell what specific problems do you have with this last specific version. Please do not fight against consensus using blind reverts.Biophys (talk) 04:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Should I even answer that.... I am not going to play your game anymore. You say to tell you on the talk page about the problems I have, but you have no arguments once the discussion starts; then you simply ignore the discussion and continue the mass reverts. And when your reverts are being questioned and reverted again, you say again "tell me what is wrong"...

You think I am stupid? You have shown your character and I won't take you seriously as long as you continue to act in the same way. -YMB29 (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Since it should be clear by now that YMB29 edits the article not according to the sources provided but according to Soviet POV. and since it is a POV, YMB29 should have a chance according to WP:NPOV to split up the article and have a section Human rights in the Soviet Union according to Soviet sources for example. It's shouldn't be news to anybody that what are considered human rights according to Western civilization, can mean something different in a non Western society. So lets have this non Western concept of human rights written into the article. I have no problem with it as long as it's clearly separated and the current concept thats based on the Western ideas is not getting altered from what the sources say. Please remember, WP:NPOV, meaning neutrality on WP doesn't mean no POV, It means in case multiple POV-s exist within a subject , each should be presented fairly and minority POV's shouldn't get as much coverage as the majority. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 06:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We can split articles based on subject, but we can not split them based on sources. Each article (e.g. Soviet conception of human rights) should be based on different sources including Soviet and western per WP:NPOV. Otherwise, I have no objections.Biophys (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, what are you talking about? The version you support is full of anti-Soviet POV. Not according to sources?? Well you two are the ones removing sources. Are the two of you capable of following what is going on, or just pretend to be so ignorant?

This is Wikipedia and not a place for you to try to prove how evil the Soviet Union was. -YMB29 (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I made a new version that addressed some of you concerns (see my last series of edits). At the same time, I removed a number of bad edits made by banned user M.V.e.i.. Now it is your turn: please explain what exactly was not sourced (for example) in the last version. But you openly refuses to talk and simply revert. You also refuses to use WP:Conflict resolution, as discussed above. This is not going to work. "Anti-Soviet" is not an argument.Biophys (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"Reverted edits of a banned user" is not an argument. These edits are mine not his; stop using it as a silly excuse. Anyone looking at the talk page can see who can't talk openly and simply reverts... Again, discussing with you is like banging my head against a wall.

Your edits did not change your original version much. My issues are listed here many times and still apply. Like I said, I am not going to play your game of me repeating and you ignoring. It is you who now has to answer my issues or list your problems with my current version, but you have shown to be incapable of doing that. -YMB29 (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

But it was me who made a series of compromise changes, and it was you who started blind reverts after that, and you acted against a consensus opinion of two other users, as anyone can see from this article edit history (I do not count the sockpuppet). Fine, if you do not want to talk, what can I do? I acn only develop this article further as time allows.Biophys (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

With your kind of "development" it would be better that you not develop it at all...

It is you who does not want to talk. What compromises are you talking about? You are all about blind reverts. Consensus of what users? You and Termer? The two of you don't create consensus. -YMB29 (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is written from the POV of human rights and I haven't yet come across a human right organization that would justify repressions against civilians. If anybody feels that Amnesty of International for example is an anti soviet organization I really can't help out with that. The facts are straight forward: the Soviet Union was a totalitarian regime that didn't respect the Universal declaration of Human rights. If that makes Soviet Union "evil" is not up to us discuss here.--Termer (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well that is your biased view of the USSR and what human rights mean. And no one here is justifying repressions. -YMB29 (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

My personal views or biases exactly like yours are irrelevant in the context. the only thing that matters are what Secondary sources say about the subject. Since Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources but your additions are not based on any sources, (who exactly has called it so like you've but it "Criticism of Soviet justice")? Therefore your altering the text is in conflict with WP:OR and the reverts you've made have been therefore unacceptable. Please feel free to add any new facts that would be in sync with any reliable secondary sources and please stop edit warring. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You are sounding almost as bad as Biophys. Do you people try to think or read carefully? You two have been removing credible sources that I put in and also the tags. What have I been adding without sources? What is hard to understand about "Criticism of Soviet justice"? If you are criticising it then it is criticism. Maybe such basic and logical things are not obvious to you and Biophys; then you should not be editing such articles on Wikipedia. You and Biophys have failed to disprove the detailed points I brought up many times, and resort to edit warring. -YMB29 (talk) 06:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I do sound as bad as Biophys? Please limit your comments on content instead of the contributors. In case you'd like to add "Criticism of Soviet justice" , please source the term to a specific secondary source and write the section according to it. So far the sources provided do not mention anything about "Criticism" and therefore it constitutes of unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas.--Termer (talk) 07:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

No sources saying it was criticism?? Many of the sources are criticism. Maybe you need to look up that word in a dictionary...

But if you want to play that game, then where is your source that says that it was Soviet justice? There is no source that says it was justice! -YMB29 (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

NPOV Tag removed - there is no explaination as to what "Point-of-view" is not covered in this article. Bobanni (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree, but a lot of other things had to be restored as well. Right now I think it is OK.Biophys (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright I agree also, as long as Biophys' version is not used. -YMB29 (talk) 06:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no "Biophys version" here. The article is written according to the secondary sources available, feel free to introduce alternative secondary sources and add any new sections to the article that have been written according to it.--Termer (talk) 07:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes there is. Biophys created many of the sections using his one sided sources (of which some are questionable). Introducing alternative sources is what I am doing, but you and him keep on reverting most of what I added. I should report you for vandalism. -YMB29 (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Massive edits

Why was the sourced section on human rights deleted. This section defines what the recognized definition of Human Rights is. It is probably easier to make smaller well discussed changes.Bobanni (talk) 07:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Likewise reference to Ukrainian Helsinki group was also deleted. Was not Ukraine part of the Soviet Union? Bobanni (talk) 07:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

More chronology needed

While looking over the article, I've noticed a serious absence of dates and years. I think the article would be better organized if it was all divided into sections dealing with specific human rights (like the sections we already have on freedom of expression, voting rights, freedom of religion and so on), and each section sought to provide a chronology of official policies and measures taken within the Soviet Union with regard to the human right in question.

Here's an example of a section badly in need of reorganizing: Soviet justice. It opens up with some general statements and a quote from Lenin (presumably made sometime between 1917-23), then talks about dekulakization in 1928-31, then quotes a statement made by Martin Latsis during the Civil War (presumably in 1918 or 1919), then talks about the Moscow trials of the late 1930s. Shouldn't it review Soviet judicial proceedings in chronological order from the Civil War to 1991, noting major turning points? -- Amerul (talk) 10:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, why not?Biophys (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well according to Biophys all those repressions and hardships were going on for the whole period of Soviet history. That is what he wants to portray. I am the one who clarified some time periods, but he keeps removing my edits. -YMB29 (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes because any edits that are not sourced can and will be removed any time. any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence.--Termer (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Good you know the rules, but you have to think about them, not just repeat them.

What is not sourced? In this case I meant that I simply clarified what Biophys added. If he adds quotes about "Soviet justice" made during the civil war, then it should be noted that this was said during the war. -YMB29 (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Problems with the more neutral version

Ok Biophys, list and discuss your problems with the current version here. -YMB29 (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to start from something, you deleted data supported by a cited reliable source. You said "You cannot use the Guinness Book as a source that is above all others. You have yet to actually cite the source directly; I am looking in the current book and cannot find this.". But I explained this already several times. I do not make a ref to Guiness book, and I should not. I made a reference to book by Yevgenia Albats who is an internationally recognized scholar on these subjects. If you can provide any other sources on the overal statistics of the Soviet repressions, please do.Biophys (talk) 01:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Who says that she is internationally recognized on the subject?

She did not research this herself; you said that she cites the Guinness book, so we need to see if this is really in the Guinness book and what is the number based on. Such a wild claim needs confirmation. It is not like she is citing some respected historian.

And again, we don't necessarily need a source that sums everything up. -YMB29 (talk) 03:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok I found her quote:

"The effect of our complicity is well known; a terrible statistic has made it into the Guinness Book of Records: 66.7 million people were killed by state persecution and terrorism from October 1917 through 1959 - under Lenin, Stalin, and Khrushchev."

This is hardly something that can be used as proof. She does not even indicate that she believes it.

Furthermore, her source for this is a newspaper that cites a 1989 translation into Russian of the Guinness Book of Records, so it is outdated information (that is why I could not find it) probably based more on propaganda and guessing than credible research. -YMB29 (talk) 03:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

She wrote it; this is a reliable secondary source per WP:verifiability; if there are alternative numbers on the total statistics, you are welcome to include them.Biophys (talk) 03:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a fourth hand source at best - she got it from a newspaper that got it from the old 1989 Guinness Book which in turn uses Solzhenitsyn's opinion.

Let's see WP:verifiability:

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. - fails

Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources. - fails

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Questionable sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. - fails

-YMB29 (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Main point. We had a stable version. You came and started making large changes without discussion. This is not going to work. Please make one small change at a time and wait for our reply and discussion.Biophys (talk) 03:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Why, you can't keep up? This has been one of your main excuses. Again, if you are able to process only one information at a time, it is not my problem. Why don't you respond instead of whining?

You had a stable version only in your mind. I tried and try hard to discuss but you refuse to continue the discussion and make massive reverts of everything, as you are doing now. -YMB29 (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Off topic Soviet concept of human rights

This article is suppose to be about Human Rights in the Soviet Union. I have repeatedly added a simple well sourced paragraph that defines the majority point of view on what is considered Human Rights based on United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was not opposed by any nation in 1948.

Soviet concept of human rights probably deserves an article by itself. Bobanni (talk) 04:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree to include the declaration; a separate article would be OK, but this material can stay here too. Why not?Biophys (talk) 04:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits ???

An editor persist on deleting Definition paragraph which changes the whole flow of the article. Why was a photo deleted? Bobanni (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This is no reason to revert the whole article. You are looking more and more like a sock of Biophys. If you revert the whole thing like that again I will report you both.

Photo was deleted by accident.

Also, this is not an article about the definition of human rights, so why do we need a separate section about its definition (anyone can click on human rights for the article about its definition and concept). -YMB29 (talk) 02:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

Guys, edit war is not the way to solve problems. I have protected article for a week please discuss the problems on the talk page. If you want to make noncontroversial edits, please request protected edits. It might be worth to start an article RfC or request for mediation Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Biophys has shown that he is not capable of any discussion, so I don't know how mediation would work. -YMB29 (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I am still waiting for Biophys to start discussing the problems he has with my edits or to answer my points. -YMB29 (talk) 23:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

So it has been days and Biophys has failed to show up and discuss, which shows how committed he is to resolving issues. He can only revert and start edit wars. -YMB29 (talk) 13:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is well sourced material deleted?

Why is well sourced material deleted? Bobanni (talk) 05:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, you tell me why are you doing this? -YMB29 (talk) 06:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

DISCUSSION NPOV

Soviet concept of human rights

The title of article is Human Rights. There is a world wide consensus of what this means based on Human Rights treaties. Currently the article is unbalanced since only presents the Soviet “definition” of Human rights. To balance it – it needs some information regarding the world wide concept of human rights. Bobanni (talk) 13:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You can click on human rights to see the definition.

The definition of it is loose and each country can have its own concept on what rights are most important. -YMB29 (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Soviet rights and laws

To start an article with a "Criticism" section is unbalanced. The is no establishment of Soviet Human rights laws. Maybe the title does not accurately reflect the section. Bobanni (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not about Soviet human rights, but criticism on how Soviet laws were used to abuse certain human rights. -YMB29 (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Do editors need to ask permission from YMB29 before making edits?

Do editors need to ask permission from YMB29 before making edits? Bobanni (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No but you have to explain your edits if asked.

If your edits are challenged, you have to explain why they should be there and discuss it with others. You cannot just put in whatever you want. If I see something really wrong (like the photo from Hungary), I will revert and say why. -YMB29 (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Constitution of the Soviet Union

Just noticed that several things have been sourced to the Constitution of the Soviet Union like the "Soviet concept of human rights" etc. This is not acceptable pr WP:RS since the Constitution is a Primary source and making any conclusions in WP according to this text would be WP:OR. In such a case the claims would need to come from a secondary source that would comment the Constitution, so that it can be clearly determined, according to whom this and that is so. currently things are so according to whoever has interpreted the Soviet constitution directly in this article. Please fix the problem by providing intext citations according to WP:PSTS otherwise it needs to go due to WP:OR. Thanks--Termer (talk) 07:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• WP:RS allows to use primary documents if secondary are not allowed.The main problem with using of the Soviet Constitution is that before 1989 it was not a direct action document. Thus, if a law or a decree contradicted the constitution then the law /decree was used in the court, reducing the constitution to a propaganda document. Thus, having a right written in the constitution meant very little. It is not emphasized in the article leaving the impression that if some right was granted by a Soviet Constitution it was indeed available to the population that is simply not true Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Alex for spelling it out. The constitution can be considered more like a piece of literature perhaps, not anything that facts can be directly sourced to. So anybody who wants to get the story straight regarding According to Soviet constitution, each individual was... should use some secondary sources in order to get it right.--Termer (talk) 06:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I fixed this. Current version tells: "According to communist ideologists, the Soviet political system was a true democracy, where workers' councils called "soviets" represented the will of the working class. In particular, the Soviet Constitution of 1936 guaranteed direct universal suffrage with the secret ballot. However all candidates had been selected by Communist party organizations, at least before the June 1987 elections. " This sounds NPOV enough. Please do not revert. Instead modify/add more things if something is missing.Biophys (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It still mixes de jure and de facto situations. The universal suffrage "guaranteed" by Constitution is de jure. The constitution said nothing about the candidates pre-selection. The electoral law said that candidates are selected by the electoral meetings on the enterprisers, kolkhozes, places of residence. They were reasonably concious to appear neutral. De facto, of course all the "electoral meetings" were 100% orchestrated by the Communist Party (until Perestroika years). Even the ritual "election polls" from one candidate were heavily manipulated (according to the non-written rules all the Politbureau members should had received 100% votes, all others more than 99% but less than 100%, communists more than the non members, etc.; many rural communities e.g. in Azerbaijan, just did not see the polls at all - the officials filled the required papers themselves without bothering the electorate with the polls). Also I do not see while we should name the Soviet Union's times councils named soviets, as workers' councils. The were not revolution-time Sovety Rabochikh Deputatov; they were just Gorodskoy Sovet, Raionnjij Sovet, Verkhovnij Sovet, etc. (City Council, Raion Council, Supreme Council, etc.) the membership was not limited to factory workers in any way. Actually similar inaccuracies fills the article creating very sloppy impression. Maybe we indeed should name the article Violations of Human Rights in the Soviet Union then we would just file a list of grievances that is easy to find and source. If we want to write something system-like we probably start with finding a few good academic sources Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This article has been created as a summary/umbrella of other articles that existed in WP on this subject (such as "Freedom of religion" in the SU, etc.). It follows general organization of "Human rights" articles for other countries (compare with Human rights in the United States or Human rights in North Korea). It cites many academic sources; but most of them were not specifically about Human rights in the SU. It needs improvement of course.Biophys (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:19730110 Soviet refuseniks demonstrate at MVD.jpg

The image File:19730110 Soviet refuseniks demonstrate at MVD.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Massive Reverts

Reverting to a very old copy of this article without explaination why valid sourced material is deleted is not the Wikipedia way. Please explain why valid sourced material is deleted. Bobanni (talk) 16:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You and (your puppet?) Biophys changed this article to a version which you favor (but fail to back up) while I was away from editing here. So don't change anything without discussing/proving or I will report you again. -YMB29 (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If you think that I am doing something wrong please go ahead and report it. Bobanni (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

YMB, you reverted good work not only by me, but by a lot of other users. This is unacceptable.Biophys (talk) 00:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, I reverted only your sneaky revert that you made on June 2009. What you wrote in the edit summary was only a fraction of what you actually reverted. You thought no one would notice that you reverted the whole article.

We are back to where we were more than a year ago... when you were incapable of carrying any logical discussion to prove your changes and started an edit war. -YMB29 (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• This is your initial revert. Yes, you undid work by several editors.Biophys (talk) 14:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No I kept the minor changes that were made. How about you explain your revert of the article? Why did you revert the whole article on 15 June 2009? -YMB29 (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's start it all over again, one point at a time. Problem 1. In your recent revert (and please do not tell anything about June), you removed the following:

The Soviet conception of human rights was very different from conceptions prevalent in the West. According to Western legal theory, "it is the individual who is the beneficiary of human rights which are to be asserted against the government", whereas Soviet law claimed exactly the opposite . The Soviet state was considered as the source of human rights. Therefore, Soviet law rejected the Western concept of the "rule of law" as the belief that law should be more than just instrument of politics. Political and civil rights were considered meaningless without basic "economic rights", which are the provision of basic health care, adequate nutrition, and the right to an education, rather than liberal property rights. Finally, each individual had to sacrifice his rights and desires to fulfill the needs of the collective

Why? This is clearly an encyclopdic text, and it was sourced to academic publications. Biophys (talk) 18:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Well if you bothered to read instead of just reverting, you would see that it is all there, just in a more neutral and objective form:

Soviet concept of human rights

According to Soviet constitution, each individual was guaranteed civil rights, but had to sacrifice them and his/her desires to fulfill the needs of the collective. So, for example, open criticism of the Communist Party could not be allowed because it could hurt the interests of the state, society, and the progress of socialism. The Soviet concept of human rights focused on economic and social rights such as being able to have access to health care, get adequate nutrition, receive education at all levels, and be guaranteed employment.[1] The Soviets considered these to be the most important rights, without which political and civil rights were meaningless. [2]

Criticism of Soviet rights and laws

It is often argued that the Soviet constitutions did not contain provisions guaranteeing many human rights and lacked laws to protect them. Thus, the population enjoyed political rights only to the extent that these rights did not conflict with the goal of building communism. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union alone reserved the authority to determine what lay in the interests of Communism.[original research?]

Critics claim that the Soviet legal system regarded law as an arm of politics and courts as agencies of the government [3]. Extensive extra-judiciary powers were given to the Soviet secret police agencies. According to Vladimir Lenin, the purpose of early socialist courts was "not to eliminate terror ... but to substantiate it and legitimize in principle" [3]. Historian Richard Pipes writes that the regime abolished Western legal concepts including the rule of law, the civil liberties, the protection of law and guarantees of property.[4][5]. Western legal theory states that "it is the individual who is the beneficiary of human rights which are to be asserted against the government", whereas Soviet law claimed the opposite.[6]

But really it is you who should be explaining. -YMB29 (talk) 21:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read text I cited:

"The Soviet conception of human rights was very different from conceptions prevalent in the West. According to Western legal theory, "it is the individual who is the beneficiary of human rights which are to be asserted against the government", whereas Soviet law claimed exactly the opposite [3]. The Soviet state was considered as the source of human rights."

Why did you delete this? Biophys (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you blind? It is there, look at what I highlighted in bold for you. -YMB29 (talk) 01:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

What I cited was main idea describing the difference between Soviet and western conceptions of human rights. Therefore it goes in the beginning. That was about the difference between Soviet and western concepts of human rights - as in the original sources. You made something completely different "Criticism of Soviet rights and laws". No, it was not criticism of Soviet rights and laws in the source cited here (did you read the source?). What you did was WP:SYN.Biophys (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no synthesis here. You are taking critical sources and presenting them as the only interpretations of the Soviet concept. You have a problem here with NPOV.

It is more appropriate to present the Soviet view of their concept, and then give Western criticism to it. -YMB29 (talk) 03:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem. What your description of the Soviet law was based on? Your own perception? Great Soviet Encyclopedia? Please explain. Current citation is based on publication by Lambelet, Doriane. ("The Contradiction Between Soviet and American Human Rights Doctrine: Reconciliation Through Perestroika and Pragmatism." 7 Boston University International Law Journal. 1989.) and on the book of Richard Pipes. If there are other good source that tell something different, you are welcom to cite them as well. But what are your sources on this? I do not see them. You did not add a single new source. You took old sources (without even reading them I guess) and rearranged the text as you like, without bothering if it still consistent with sources. Biophys (talk) 04:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, you have a problem reading. These are the sources for the Soviet concept: [5] and [6]

Don't act like they were not there. Everything is consistent with your sources. You just don't like it because it is more neutral than what you wrote. You are just giving straight criticism without presenting the concept. -YMB29 (talk) 04:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You cited Pipes and Lambelet from Boston University in a chapter you called "Criticism of Soviet rights and laws" and reorganized accordingly. Nowhere authors tell that they criticize Soviet rights and laws, and in fact they do not. Two other sources you just indicated also do not criticize Soviet rights and laws. This is your interpretation. Hence OR.Biophys (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

We are not going to get anywhere if you continue to behave like that...

Of course the two sources I indicated do not criticize, that is why they are not in the criticism section. Is that hard for you to follow?

Stating that the Soviets rejected the rule of law and that they protected the rights of government against the individual is criticism.

Looking at the actual source (Lambelet), you mislead what it actually said (no where does it say that the government is the beneficiary as you imply, by writing "whereas Soviet law claimed exactly the opposite"). So if you want it to not go as criticism change what you added. It can go as criticism also because Westerners are concerned with the rights of the individual only.

Also you are missing a source for "Soviet law rejected the Western concept of the "rule of law" as the belief that law should be more than just instrument of politics". -YMB29 (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

So, you admit that "criticism" was your interpretation. Hence WP:SYN. In fact these sources compare different legal systems and the underlying ideas. Western system has also a lot of problems, but that was not the subject of the publications, just like criticism of Soviet system. As about your other questions, I will check these sources again.Biophys (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No it is not my interpretation. The way you used the sources is criticism. I will change it later to make more sense according to the sources. -YMB29 (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Massive Reverts again

Some one keeps deleting well sourced section Human Rights based on the Universal Declation of Human Rights. This editor keep trying to make this article on Soviet-definition of Human Rights which varies significantly from the 'Universal Declation of Human Rights'. If this editor wishes to present an alternative concept of Human Rights - by all means include it in a separate section. Do not delete references to the other concept (Universal). Bobanni (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Again this is not an article about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, so there is no need for a section just for it. We already discussed this. I will include a link to the declaration.

You just used this as an excuse to revert the whole thing again. -YMB29 (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

YMB has a valid point: this article is about rights specifically in the Soviet Union. So, I merged two sections and shortened the first segment to fix it. Any objections? Biophys (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, YMB, I made corrections per your last comments and removed excessive anti-Soviet POV in many places. Let's go from here. If you want to change something, please make one visible change at a time and wait for objections if any. "Tishe edesh', dal'she budesh'". Biophys (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I guess it is a step foward for you, but you still reverted most of it. Hope you will stick to this, unlike the last time we tried this. -YMB29 (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but your changes are bad. We had the following text:

Soviet conception of human rights was very different from conceptions prevalent in the West. According to Western legal theory, "it is the individual who is the beneficiary of human rights which are to be asserted against the government", whereas Soviet law claimed exactly the opposite . The Soviet state was considered as the source of human rights. Therefore, Soviet law rejected the Western concept of the "rule of law" as the belief that law should be more than just instrument of politics....

This is a coherent and logical text, and it is 100% based on the cited sources. Yes I studied them carefully. You deleted some parts of the text, broke it to several parts and completely abolished the logic. This is degrading the article. Sorry.Biophys (talk) 00:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion: could you please add some new materials in the article; extend the sections etc., instead of removing or degrading text that you do not like. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Just for a moment I thought you were serious about discussing and trying to work together, but you just proved who you are once again. This is not your own article to push your POV, where you can revert others' changes at will. It is you who is degrading text here with your bad edits.

And here is the source which you claimed to have studied 100% carefully:

"Consequently, Soviet legal theory holds that it is the collective, society generally, that is the ultimate benefiaciary of human rights. Western legal theory holds that it is the individual who is the beneficiary of human rights which are to be asserted against the government."[7]

-YMB29 (talk) 00:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

And that is precisely what was said in the last version, but only slightly reworded. So, what's the problem? But we should not place every phrase from the source. Current text is a brief summary of something described in the source.Biophys (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No it is precisely what I said. Society is the beneficiary, not the government as you are implying. Are you going to apologize for lying or not reading carefully?

So we should not take the actual phrases from the source, but only the summary according to you? That is nothing but a POVed original research from you.

I think you are getting desperate; you know you don't make sense... -YMB29 (talk) 01:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You just wrote this:

"Soviet law rejected the Western concept of the "rule of law" as the belief that law should be more than just instrument of politics. However, article 4 in the last Soviet Constitution does state that everyone has to observe Soviet laws, including state officials and organizations."

Of course, Soviet Constitution stated that everyone has to observe Soviet laws, but this paragraph (which you broke down) was about a completely different subject: that Western law and Soviet law were different and served for different purposes. But I am not going to revert this now. Please add something new in this article instead of degrading already decent content.Biophys (talk) 03:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you stop degrading the article and turning it into your own page.

How is the subject in the paragraph different? I don't think you even understand it. All laws mostly serve the same purpose, but each side can criticize the other for how they are misused and why.

What you are trying to insert as undisputed fact is Western criticism. You are just too POVed to see this. -YMB29 (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Main conflicts

These are the main issues of the conflict we have in this article. If you look at the talk page, you can see that Biophys has failed multiple times to back up his favorite version of the article and stubbornly resorts to edit warring. He reverts even sourced information, and tags. I have tried to get this resolved with him many times as you can see on this page, but it has led to no where, so maybe someone else can help?

Versions diff.

The regime maintained itself in political power by means of the 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

Not sourced. Looks like original research to me, but Biophys removes the tag.

However the Soviet conception of human rights was very different from conceptions prevalent in the West. According to Western legal theory, "it is the individual who is the beneficiary of human rights which are to be asserted against the government", whereas Soviet law claimed the opposite.

POVed interpretation of the source. The source, clearly says society or the collective. I have it as:

Western legal theory states that "it is the individual who is the beneficiary of human rights which are to be asserted against the government", while Soviet theory states that society as a whole is the beneficiary.

Soviet legal system regarded law as an arm of politics and courts as agencies of the government.

This is criticism and Biophys thinks it is an undisputed fact since he wants to keep his POV. What is wrong with rewriting it as:

Critics claim that the Soviet legal system regarded law as an arm of politics and courts as agencies of the government.

The regime abolished Western rule of law, civil liberties, protection of law and [[Property rights|guarantees of property].

Again this is criticism by a certain author, so I have it as:

Historian Richard Pipes writes that the regime abolished Western legal concepts including the rule of law, the civil liberties, the protection of law and guarantees of property, and thus became totalitarian.

But again Biophys removes this to keep his POV.

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

Punishable by death refers to the earlier period of the USSR, so this should be mentioned, but Biophys of course does not like that I made it more consistent with the source:

For example, a desire to make a profit could be interpreted as a criminal act done for self interest at the expensive of society, or, in the early period of the USSR, even as counter-revolutionary activity punishable by death.

State repression led to uprisings, which were brutally suppressed by military force, like the Tambov rebellion, Kronstadt rebellion, or Vorkuta Uprising.

Tambov and Kronstadt were during the civil war, so what is wrong with clarifying this. Biophys wants to hide this fact to make it look like it was later during peace time. Vorkuta was a prison uprising, so how is that relevant. I have it as:

During the Russian Civil War, anti-Bolshevik uprisings, like the Tambov and Kronstadt rebellions, were brutally suppressed by military force.

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

Biophys failed to provide a credible source indicating that gas was used against civilians. Earlier it was agreed to have it phrased as against rebelling peasants hiding in forests , but again Biophys has reverted it.

Entire nations have been collectively punished by the Soviet Government for alleged collaboration with the enemy during World War II. In legal terms the word "genocide" may be appropriate.

What is wrong with having it formulated more neutrally as:

According to some historians, in legal terms the word "ethnic cleansing" or even "genocide" may be appropriate.

According to some historians, "the systematic use of famine as a weapon" was a "particular feature of many Communist regimes." The deaths of 5 to 7 million people during the Soviet famine of 1932–1933, including the Holodomor at the Ukraine that was caused by confiscating all food from peasants and blocking the migration of starving population by the Soviet government, although some historians still believe that the hunger was unintentional. The overall number of peasants who died in 1930–1937 from hunger and repressions during collectivisation (including in Kavkaz and Kazakhstan) was at least 14.5 million, according to historian Robert Conquest. The Black book of communism claims five million people died earlier during Russian famine of 1921.

Again very POVed and Biophys refuses to take into account recent research on the famine, and removes sourced information. I have it as:

According to some historians, "the systematic use of famine as a weapon" was a "particular feature of many Communist regimes" and the deaths of 5 to 7 million people during the Soviet famine of 1932–1933, including the Holodomor in the Ukraine, were caused by confiscating food from peasants and blocking the migration of starving population by the Soviet government. The overall number of peasants who died in 1930–1937 from hunger and repressions during collectivization (including in Kavkaz and Kazakhstan) was at least 14.5 million, according to historian Robert Conquest.

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

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 (the number apparently includes victims of famines and Russian Civil War). However the exact number of victims may never be known and remains a matter of debates among historians. The result depends on the period of time, the criteria of the democide, and methods used for the estimates. For example, the number of victims under Joseph Stalin's regime vary from 8 to 61 million.

Biophys insists to keep it brief and POVed, without explanations.

The Guinness Book claim has no place in an encyclopedia, and the source he has given for that is a Russian journalist's book which only cites a very old version of the Guinness Book.

My version:

The number of people who died under Joseph Stalin's regime, including the famines, in the Soviet Union has been estimated as between 3.5 and 8 million by G. Ponton, 6.6 million by V. V. Tsaplin, 9.5 million by Alec Nove, 20 million by The Black Book of Communism, 50 million by Norman Davies, and 61 million by R. J. Rummel. The Guinness Book of Records claims that, overall, 66.7 million people were killed in the Soviet Union by state persecution from October 1917 through 1959 – under Lenin, Stalin, and Khrushchev.[citation needed] Figures published before the Soviet dissolution may be inflated.

The numbers of victims are inconsistent because they are determined using different criteria and methods and counted during different periods of time. Most recent publications are probably more reliable than estimates made during the Cold War, since after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, researchers gained access to Soviet archives.

This is all sourced of course.

Stevenjp has also added sourced info:

Professor Richard Overy wrote, “For years the figures circulating in the West for Soviet repression were greatly inflated. … The archive shows a very different picture.” (The Dictators: Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia, Allen Lane, 2004, page 194.) Professor R. W. Davies wrote, “The archival data are entirely incompatible with such very high figures, which continue to be cited as firm fact in both the Russian and the Western media.” (Soviet history in the Yeltsin era, Macmillan, 1997, page 172.) For example, the archives show that the total executed between 1930 and 1953 was 776,074, not millions.

Richard Evans wrote that Charles Maier's statement that Stalin killed more people than Hitler relied upon “Conquest’s implausible and inflated estimates without question, while omitting deaths caused by Nazi aggression in the East (which also, apart from military and exterminatory action, led to famines and deportations). The number of deaths caused by Nazism’s eastward drive may itself have been as many as 20 million.”

Biophys shamelessly deletes this.

Freedoms of assembly and association were limited.

Again unsourced original research, but Biophys removes the tags.

So judge for yourself who is making POVed reverts here. -YMB29 (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion

This was posted on WP:3O. Wow, this is one of the craziest edit wars I've ever seen. There's a lot here. Instead of passing judgment on who is right and who is wrong, I will encourage both of you assume good faith on the part of the other editor, and read through Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Talking_and_editing. You two have been edit warring for over a year. Massive, sweeping edits and reverts are not the solution to improving the article. Instead:

• Make smaller edits with good edit descriptions
• Use the talk page to reach consensus on individual points - making broad accusations that cover several sections of the article are not constructive.
• Make sure all statements are well-sourced and do not remove citation needed tags.
• Accusing each other of WP:OR is also not helpful - politely requesting sources for a piece of information is.

MildlyMad^Contribs 16:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC) MildlyMad^Contribs 16:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for advising, but as you can see on this talk page I have tried all this.

Biophys has shown that he can't discuss individual points, ignores consensus, removes sourced info and citation tags, plus he makes whole article reverts with misleading edit summaries.

The conflict seemed to have been settled last year, but in June Biophys reverted to his favorite version from November of last year, deleting everyone's changes since.

So what can be done about such a user? -YMB29 (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You can try opening a Wikiquette alert or a request for comment. Make sure that you're aware of the implications of what you're doing - an RfC against a user is a very serous allegation. MildlyMad^Contribs 16:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, it looks like you've already posted this twice on WP:ANEW (and got blocked for edit warring). You really need to cool off and figure out how to get along with this editor. MildlyMad^Contribs 17:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion

YMB29, this diff bothers me: [8] - I think you're trying to personalize a legitimate content dispute that isn't personal. Both you and Biophys are trying to improve the article. That's good. However, you're trying to "win" a content dispute by accusing another editor of POV-pushing. That's not good; Wikipedia isn't about winning, it's about consensus. I'm hesitant to try to solve the content disputes, because you guys clearly know far more about Soviet history than I do and can come up with a better solution than I would. But keep in mind the following:

• An unsourced statement isn't necessarily original research. Sometimes, it's just an unsourced statement, in which case {{citation needed}} is more accurate (and less accusatory) than {{original research}}. Of course, it would be better if it had been cited to start with, but when a statement is unsourced, {{citation needed}} is almost always true, where {{original research}} often isn't. (This isn't to say Biophys should be removing the tags entirely.)
• NPOV doesn't mean NO point of view; it means NEUTRAL point of view. As the NPOV policy page says, "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." For a topic like human rights, there are going to be a lot more opinions than facts. If something is an opinion, don't remove it; state whose opinion it is, and provide a source.
• NPOV is a process; it isn't going to happen instantaneously. My suggestion would be for both of you to include whatever information you can accurately source, including opinions from both the Soviet POV and their critics' POV; once that is reasonably complete, you can start discussing how to pare the article down for balance and brevity.
• Saying something is POV doesn't carry much weight without a reasoned explanation of why it is POV. And again, just because a statement is POV doesn't mean it should be removed; it just means there needs to be an explanation (and a citation) of which reliable source holds that POV.

MirrorLockup (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments.

However as you can see in my comparison above, I don't remove his statements that I think are POVed; I only insist that the statement or opinion be attributed to the corresponding author/historian/critic, but again you can see that he simply removes this to present such statements/opinions as undisputed facts.

Furthermore, he is against me clarifying what the sources actually say. So for example if something was done or said during the civil war, it should be clarified that it did happen during the war.

I am also adding sourced info with a different point of view (like the info about the 30's famine), but again he removes it. -YMB29 (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I am quite disturbed by your edit summary claiming that the Third Opinion I gave justified your continued edit-warring on this article. My suggestion was that, as a start, all sourced information you, Biophys, or any other contributor thought was relevant should be added, and that the article could be pared down for clarity and balance later. However, you have removed large chunks of text, including some which was sourced. Additionally, I suggested that in the interest of AGF you not use the {{or}} template where {{citation needed}}, and you re-added the {{or}} template to the lede. Finally, MildlyMad made the excellent suggestion that everyone involved in the dispute should make smaller edits; your edit could easily have been split into several, each of which could be more easily discussed. This is a relatively large article, and sorting it out point-by-point is going to be far more productive than trying to work every part out at once.

3O (and the dispute resolution process in general) only works when all parties are willing to cooperate and take into consideration the advice of those who are trying to help. Using the existence of Third Opinions to do exactly the opposite of what the Third Opinions suggest is not cooperation. I will repeat the suggestion to cool down, work with other editors instead of against them, and avoid taking content disputes personally. MirrorLockup (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not remove text, look again. I know it might seem so looking at the diff since the texts are not always lined up. I simply moved some statements around, reworded some (like adding according to...), and restored sourced alternative views, which is what you suggested and what I was doing all along. I only add one tag since the sentence was like a general analysis. -YMB29 (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Soviet constitution

Again, why does this article still use the 'Constitution of the Soviet Union' as a source of reference? Please have it corrected by citing secondary published sources instead. And since this is a second time [9] I've brought it up, the third time anything sourced to the constitution would simply need to go. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 04:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

For the three times it is cited, explain why can't it be used in each case. -YMB29 (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:PSTS states: "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" Constitution was cited three times in the article, and all these citations were made to support descriptive claims, and accuracy of these claims can easily be verified by simple comparison of the Constitution's text with the article's statements (I believe, the ability to read and compare two texts is a normal ability of any "reasonable, educated person"). My conclusion is that using Constitution is justified here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The question has been addressed and once solved already at Talk:Human_rights_in_the_Soviet_Union#Constitution_of_the_Soviet_Union. And please Paul Siebert, feel free to use the constitution "to support descriptive claims". Meaning , any time the Constitution is used as a source of reference, it needs to say "according to..." and -a citation from the primary source should follow. Currently however the constitution is used as a SOR for factual claims like All real property belonged to the state and society. And yeah, I'm well educated in the Soviet history and can tell that the way the constitution is used as a source of reference in the article misleads the reader. And finally, the constitution is a primary source, but not a WP:RS. Therefore facts/statements from reliable secondary published sources would be preferred.--Termer (talk) 05:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Meaning , any time the Constitution is used as a source of reference, it needs to say "according to..."" Absolutely no. The statement supported by the reference implies that all needed information can be obtained by going to the reference. In other words, it already means "according to ...". According to WP:PSTS no "according to" are required when primary sources are cited.
In addition, the statement "The Soviet Union was a single-party state where the Communist Party ruled the country." is what took place both de jure (according to Constitution) and de facto (in actuality). That can be easily verified after having simply looked through the Article 6. From the other hand, it would be incorrect to present some other Constitution's clauses as is, without necessary reservations. For instance, the Article 52 (Religion) cannot be presented as if the freedom of religion did exist in the USSR in actuality. In that concrete case, Constitution can be used only to support the statement that such a right was granted for Soviet citizens de jure, and some secondary source is needed to explain that de facto the situation was somewhat different. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This usage, "The Soviet Union was a single-party state where the Communist Party ruled the country." is simply not supported, the constitution does not discuss the legality of other parties.

This usage, "However, article 4 in the Soviet Constitution states that everyone has to observe Soviet laws, including state officials and organizations." is a mischaracterisation, Article 4 does not discuss persons other than "The Soviet state and all its bodies" and "State organizations, public organizations and officials" obeying the law.

This usage, "All real property belonged to the state and society." is plainly false at source, "Citizens may be granted the use of plots of land, in the manner prescribed by law" land being "real property". Other forms of personal possession of property are outlined in the source.

This is exactly why we use and paraphrase secondary sources. Wikipedians are not legal historians. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: "This usage, "The Soviet Union was a single-party state where the Communist Party ruled the country." is simply not supported". Disagree. Although other parties are not mentioned in Constitution, it explicitly states that the Communist party is the "leading and guiding force of the Soviet society and the nucleus of its political system". Therefore, according to the Constitution, the USSR was a single party state not because all other parties were illegal, but because by law the CPSU was a core of the Soviet political system. So the question is not in our interpretation of the Constitution, but in our understanding of what does "single party state" mean.

Re: "Article 4" The problem is resolvable by more precise wording.

Re: "This usage, "All real property belonged to the state and society." is plainly false" Incorrect. In the USSR land was not "real property", all land belonged to state, and people got it on the terms of unlimited and gratuitous lease (Article 12(2): "The land held by collective farms is secured to them for their free use in perpetuity."). The important consequences of that were that land could not be sold, and that it could be revoked by the state with no or minimal compensation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

So all real property in Australia belongs to the Crown? All real property in England except for remaining allodies belongs to the Crown? You're interpreting a primary source. This is not the job of wikipedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You point is unclear. My argument was that the statement ""All real property belonged to the state and society." is plainly false at source, "Citizens may be granted the use of plots of land, in the manner prescribed by law" land being "real property". " is not correct because in the USSR private property of land was abolished by first Lenin's decree, and never restored until very late Soviet times.
The article 11 states: "The land, its minerals, waters, and forests are the exclusive property of the state." Land could not be privately owned in the USSR, you could use it unlimitedly and freely in some circumstances, however, it was not your land. You could not buy land (only a house could be bought, and after that you got right to use the house's yard), you could not sell land, there was no market regulated price for land. So your argument that land being "real property" is a result of inaccurate interpretation of that primary source (if I understand your point correct).--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The point, which you appear to have admitted, is that use of Primary Sources creates Original Research and Synthesis (here from your previous reading of Lenin). Find the claims in secondary sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:PSTS, presenting conclusions made based on primary, secondary or tertiary sources created OR or Synth. Making descriptive claims (based on primary sources), the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge is allowed. So the question is whether the claims we argue about are descriptive or not. I see no problem to find secondary sources that state the same, however, since I believe we will interact somwhere on WP pages in future (and I believe this interaction will be productive) it is desirable to come to common understanding of some basic things.
Cheers,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the field, I imagine the way we use Primary sources (in the Humanities and Social Sciences) to need to be like the use of a photograph or diagram, where the photograph or diagram should be relatively clear, transparent, not doctored; and any descriptive claim to be so direct and immediate that we may as well hammer it home, "The foundation of economic life in the Soviet Union was, "socialist ownership of the means of production"(USSR Constitution 1977 10.1)". Even that one line quote is a mess of interpretation (leaving aside the issue of means of production in PE), "Socialist Ownership" is a mine field of interpretation.

Requiring a person to have a knowledge of Lenin's decrees in 1917, or of the difference between real property (land), other forms of property, property forms since 1066 in the Common Law countries for comparative purposes of theories of property, theories of property across multiple class societies... it gets a bit much. Similarly, being aware of the structure of preponderance of the central apparatus of the Soviet Communist Party over its branches, and thus over forums where non-party independents would come forward... Its simpler to use the most Weighted RS in the literature. It is so very very much simpler. If we're going to use a primary, we may as well quote it for effect, so that the reader of moderate intelligence and non-specialist background can quite literally draw the obvious results themselves. And in historical fields about the only primaries worth quoting (and possible to quote in wikipedia's space limits) are opinionated ones, which really deserve attribution. (There's nothing wrong with quoting opinionated primaries... often conflicts over opinion is what history is all about. Formally the Soviet Constitution is quite good, substantively it didn't operate in the interests of soviet citizens; the most interesting thing about the Soviet Union for most people is this gap between formal and substantive).

My points above, of course, are argumentative leading towards the Primary issue, and being used to draw out the point of primaries rather than soviet property forms and ownership; and I expect to work with you positively again here and elsewhere (I remember your name from RS/N and Soviet Historiography!). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The constitution is a prescriptive document, not descriptive at all. Therefore from the constitution you can only infer descriptive claims about what should be the case from the viewpoint of the constitution rather than about the subject of this article. And it is not particularly relevant here. Colchicum (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: Paul Siebert "According to WP:PSTS no "according to" are required when primary sources are cited.". In case you know better ways to make 'descriptive claims' other than saying...'according to', (for example lets say "the constitution says:...") feel free to use whatever phrasing you prefer as long as it's clear where it comes from. Currently however even such a statement "The Soviet Union was a single-party state where the Communist Party ruled the country" is misleading. The Communist party didn't rule the country, up to the Stalin era it was just Stalin who ruled the country and later it was the Politburo, who ruled the country on behalf of the Communist Party.--Termer (talk) 06:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Termer, up to Perestroyka time Soviet Constitution was not a direct action document. Unlike say USA you could not (even theoretically) claim in the Soviet court that such and such law contradicts the constitution. 1936 Constitution could be used as a constitution of a western democratic government but just after adoption of this constitution there was a period of possibly the worst human rights violations in the Russian/Soviet history. The 1977 Constitution introduced the infamous 6th article (about the leading role of the Communist Party) but in reality the Communist Party leadership governed the country before 1977 quite comfortably. 1936 and 1977 Constitutions warranted Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Meetings and Demonstrations, Freedom of Press, etc. but nothing of this freedoms existed in the real Soviet Union. Thus, everything referenced to Constitution has to be prefixed "According to the Constitution" and the version of the constitution should be stated (they were quite different). IMHO, the main problem of the article is that it mixes historical epochs, de-jure and de-facto situations. Before 1936 Soviet Constitutions openly proclaimed the inequality of citizens, the so called "Proletariat dictatorship" and "oppression of class enemies" and more or less lived up to those promises. The 1936 Constitution was a reasonable democratic constitution de jure warranting all tha basic human rights but de facto we had mass violation of basic human rights in the all ways possible, little bit improving after 1953 (Stalin's death). The 1977 Constitution institutionalized a few violations of the baseic rights (6th article) but in reality the human rights situation slightly improved (although still far from proclaimed in Constitution). Gorbachev's perestroika amendments de jure made the human rights situation worse (e.g. introducing of 100 deputies directly appointed to the Parliament by the Central Committee of CPSU) but in reality the rights situation greatly improved, etc. Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The rights situation greatly improved in reality after perestroika? You mean certain kind of rights like political, not human rights as a whole?

But anyway, reality always differs from what is written in a constitution. However for the statements for which the Soviet constitution is used as a source here, is this the case? -YMB29 (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

(od)Frankly, I myself am not a proponent of wide using of primary sources, and many arguments presented here are quite correct and reasonable. However, revenons a nos moutons. There are three statements in the article where the Constitution was cited as a source. Let me ask you all, if anyone really believe that the secondary source will dispute the facts that (i) the Soviet Union was a single-party state, (iii) all real property in the USSR belonged to the state and society? I agree that the statement about Soviet laws (ii) is just a declaration that had not connection to reality. However, with regards to (i) and (iii) all reliable secondary source are unanimous.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with statement (ii) about laws? It is about theory not practice anyway. -YMB29 (talk) 04:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I've read in RS Academically published sources that some forms of personal property over means and tools survived into the mid 1930s in some non-strategic sectors in regional and remote areas. Similarly, other RS quite strongly protest that the substantive property form was collective ownership by a Bureaucratic Oligarchy or New Class or... Similarly, the RSFSR was multi-party for a very short period. And that constitution is only the 197x one. Its why I'd go to a Secondary that's allowed to make broad characterisations and generalisations. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(i) it was (iii) not sure about that particular wording, in particular about "and society". Quite a meaningless phrase. The sources may be unanimous that there weren't certain kinds of property, but that's another matter. Colchicum (talk) 02:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: "I've read in RS Academically published sources that some forms of personal property..." Articles 13(2) and 17 tell the same, so I see no contradiction here.

Re: "Similarly, the RSFSR was multi-party for a very short period. And that constitution is only the 197x one." That is correct. You raise a very important point. During Soviet history, political system of the USSR, and the situation with human rights in particular, experienced dramatic changes: from early Soviet positive discrimination of Jews to Stalin's "Doctor's plot", from grim fascist regime of late 1930s-1940s to Khriscshev's "thaw", from de facto abolished passport system in early USSR to Brezhnev's Francist type gerontocracy. I believe it is quite necessary to describe a situation with human rights in the USSR in historical perspective.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

For example a statement like "all real property in the USSR belonged to the state and society" is simply factually incorrect. There were many forms of "real property" in the USSR during the course of it's existence. Starting with private ownership of land during the NEP policy, collective form of ownership, for example the Kolkhoz vs Sovkhoz which were state owned. And last bu not least there were Soviet co-op organizations that owned property in the Soviet Union. etc. Just another example how the primary source, the Soviet constitution has been misused here.--Termer (talk) 06:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It was not misused, just incompletely cited. The articles 11, 12 and 13 tell about different forms of property, however, state property dominated both de jure and de facto. Even kolkhoz land belonged to state, not to kolkhozes themselves. However, you are right pointing out that Brezhnev's Constitution cannot be a source describing pre-1977 events.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No progress has been made on it, so I had to remove the Soviet constitution as a source of reference from the article. Please provide secondary published sources of references for intext citations in the article.--Termer (talk) 05:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

William Carey Library

William Carey Library appears to meet Wikipedia criteria for reliable publisher - hence World Christian trends, AD 30-AD 2200 is reliable source. Bobanni (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

No. The article's text implies that Orthodox Christians were persecuted and killed because they were Orthodox. Please, provide a quote from the Carey library that explicitly states that all these 21 million died because they were Orthodox Christians, not because they were kulaks, Whites, etc. No reliable sources available for me state that Orthodox Christians were a separate social group that was mass persecuted and killed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

At RS Carey could be considered a Vanity publisher / Single Purpose political/religious publisher. Additionally, against the FA criteria which specify "higher" RS, it would not be a higher RS. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Biophys' reverting

What happened Biophys? Did not you quit and had an admin delete your user page? Everyone who knew you knew that this would only last until the mailing list case was over. You were lucky not to receive bans like your mailing list friends. So why are you back to your old antics? I won't take your edit warring, and will report you if you continue. Maybe this time, when there is so much evidence against you in the mailing list case, the admins will listen. -YMB29 (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• YMB29, Please explain your objections to the texts you try to delete or point to the previois discussion. Please refrain from personal attacks and threats. This is not productive. Your edit summary "Undid unexplained revert" is unclear. What exactly was reverted? Plese provide the diff to demonstrate which version Biophys was restoring. - Altenmann >t 16:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• Biophys, in your text some statements you are presenting as facts (e.g. The purpose of public trials was "not to ...; but to provide...). In fact, they are judgements of the author, and they must be presented as such, with authorship attribution. Please also keep in mind that while in general the remarks about the differnce in human rights are in right direction, there is a confusion in antagonisms: this difference is not "symmetrical": western human rights is "individual rights" vs state, while in Soviet union is "individual rights" vs "rights of a collective", ultimately "individual vs. "soviet people". It is only secondary that soviet state is a "plenipotentiary representative" of the soviet people. There is much confusion and over-simplification in the west about this. Drawing this distinction and shedding light on the details is helpful to understand how brainwashing worked. The third major problem with the article is that it arbitrarily mixes different periods in Soviet history, or, more exactly, does not present the dynamics of changes from general extrajudicial "revolutionary terror" as you quote Latsis, to construction of legal system, to its development, to attempts of "making it nicer". Unfortunately I am not interested in writing generalizing and summarizing articles. I prefer writing about individual pieces of history or science or life. - Altenmann >t 17:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

He knows what I am talking about; he just ignores it.

The section is the same as in his version from a while back.[10]

I tried to discuss here: [11] and [12].

He just does not care and only wants to revert. -YMB29 (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"He knows" is irrelevant. This is not a dispute between the two of you. Other editors need to understand what's going on as well. Yur personal clashes are irrelevant, so please refrain from prolonged personal talks. What is relevant is the article text. From your difs I noticed one thing that I mentioned above: about some statement being an opinon of Pipes. This is easily fixable. What are other problems with the text? and why the only cure is revert? However from the same diffs I see you are quite emotional with Biophys personal issues. Please cool down. Soviet Union is gone. There is no rush in writing good text. Why don't you two try and come to an agreement ove the interpretations what is written in sources? I understand this is a long and frustrating way to come to mutually satisfying solution. It is much faster to revert and grumble. But please notice that both versions of the article quite poor. I would suggest the merge the two texts, with some changes, rather than oscillate between the two. Therefore here is a question to Biophys: what was wrong in the pieces of text you removed in this edit? - Altenmann >t 21:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well this is the typical response I get when someone tries to resolve the issue here. You don't know what is going on... Take a look at this talk page. I have tried to resolve this through discussion countless times with him, but he is not interested. He sometimes only pretends to discuss a little but then fails to continue and just reverts. When I say that he is obsessed to only have the text he wants I base it on experience.

Many who had similar experiences with him were very surprised when he somehow did not get a ban in the EEML case. So what does he do? He lays low for a few months and then comes in here to do what he always did...

I am trying to get the admins to finally do something about him.

So don't tell me that I should be cooperative with him and that we should work together, as he has shown that he is not capable of that. -YMB29 (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

If it is a typical response, then may be the problem is with you, at least partially, like, insufficient patience? Your response makes me believe that your main goal is to defeat Biophys, rather than to improve the article. I specifically asked you not to discuss personalia. In response I got not a single word about article content. If you cannot work with Biophys directly, the next venue is Wikipedia:Mediation. However please keep in mind that you will have to discuss only article content. Personal political dramas are boring and loved only by political activists, and you would not want to have a political activist as a mediator, if you want the article improved. - Altenmann >t 22:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You still don't get it... Insufficient patience? Well like I said you don't know what is going on here. I am supposed to be patient while he ignores me? How can I not discuss Biophys' ways if they directly affect what is going on here? -YMB29 (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that your clash lasts since 2008. However the article has changes significantly since these times. If you both want some help from a third person, it is not very good to make him sift thro volumes of talks here. I would suggest for both of you to list each disputed sentence and show how its deletion was justified based on the old talk. Since the talk is chaotic, I think the best reference is verbatim citation: a quoted cut-and-paste from this talk page, so that the corresponding part of the discussion could be found by text search. - Altenmann >t 22:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I did list all the disputed issues 5 or 6 times already... So let Biophys do it this time.

Yes no one wants to go through all the talk here, but that is the problem... -YMB29 (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

As for the section text, I edited it based on his version[13], and then another user removed a part of it as being unnecessary [14] (which I agree with). -YMB29 (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Glavlit has been closed down for years YMB29, please stop censoring wikipedia!--Termer (talk) 04:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop trolling. -YMB29 (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

That was my edit. It was fully sourced and provides a correct perspective of the situation in the Soviet Union. Nothing was distorted; I even quoted directly some pieces. Can this be improved? Yes, sure. Bring additional sources that tell something different.Biophys (talk) 06:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It has been proven that you have misused the source and lied [15]. I was not the one who removed the part of the section [16]. Before, I corrected the section to reflect what the sources actually say.

However the question is does that belong in this article? You are misrepresenting rights in the USSR by concentrating on the revolutionary and 30's terror. As though human rights in the USSR were always the same as in those early periods. I think you should talk to the user who removed the part also, instead of just coming in here after a few months and reverting to what you like. -YMB29 (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not blame contributors. It does not matter who removed what. It only matters that this edit was fully sourced and precisely on the subject, because Due process is a part of human rights protection. Moreover, it explains Soviet concept of human rights, which is important to follow WP:NPOV. Note, that you do not refer to any sources in your comments. If you want to describe how human rights in the Soviet Union in 1930s were different from those later, please do it, but based on reliable sources.Biophys (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

How can I not blame you if you only care about edit warring and inserting your POV? As I proved multiple times before, you misuse sources and make wrong generalizations. You can't back your stuff up in discussion so you resort to edit warring.

If you think you can come here after months of hiding due to the mailing list case and revert to what you like, disregarding edits and discussion by other users, you are wrong. -YMB29 (talk) 03:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Please provide at least one example with proof where I misused sources or "lied" as you said above.Biophys (talk) 03:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Here: [17] -YMB29 (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

In this segment of discussion you claim that word "state" should be replaced by word "society". Then why did not you just replace the word, but reverted everything I did? Once again, That was my edit you reverted several times. Which source I misused/"lied"? Please prove that I lied by directly quoting any of the sources and quoting my edit that allegedly misuses the source.Biophys (talk) 04:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Your source clearly says society and not government, so this is a good example of you misusing sources. Other misuses are listed here: [18]. You reverted the whole section to match yours from September, so that is why I reverted you. Don't pretend you don't know why...

Also your use of User:Defender of torch as a tag team partner or sock to help you avoid 3RR violation is noted. I would have thought you would stay out of trouble after the mailing list case. -YMB29 (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Please apologize

• No, I correctly described what the source tells. The article by D. Lambelet,

The first distinction is that the source of human rights in the Soviet system is the state, whereas the source in the American system is natural law (page 64)... The third distinction (page 66) ... Soviet legal theory holds that it is the collective, society generally, that is the ultimate beneficiary of human rights. Western legal theory holds that it is the individual who is beneficiary of human rights which are to be asserted against the government.

Now, please compare this with my text:

According to Western legal theory, "it is the individual who is the beneficiary of human rights which are to be asserted against the government", whereas Soviet law claimed the opposite. The Soviet state was considered as the source of human rights

Could you please apologize for calling me "a liar"? Biophys (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to go in circles with you for everything...

You just proved yourself wrong again.

As I said months ago here, you are implying that the government is the beneficiary by saying - whereas Soviet law claimed the opposite.

Your source clearly says collective, society generally, not government. So I change it to say society, but you keep on reverting me on this to imply government...

So you need to apologize for misusing sources and for constantly reverting me. -YMB29 (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

YMB, I would view this not a lie but a logical mistake. You should have explained the mistake clearly, rather than called names. From this section it is clearly seen that Biophys is honestly confused, rather than deliberately tries to cheat. Such things happen all the time when someone tries to reword something from sources. I have been fixing such misquotes in wikipedia for years. The more trivial the logical error, the less people tend to notice it in their own writing. So this is a second warning, please tone down on your name calling. - Altenmann >t 22:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I did not call him anything.

Secondly, if such a thing would happen once or twice, then I agree it might be a mistake, but with Biophys such things happen constantly. Because of such "mistakes" he keeps on reverting me... I have been explaining this particular quote to him since September, and he still does not get it? Do you really think that? -YMB29 (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with describing this precisely as in the source (the 1st distinction, the 2nd, and the 3rd). But removing important, perfectly sourced and relevant information at will is unacceptable per WP:NPOV.Biophys (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You see again, he pretends that he does not understand what is going on, playing innocent. Common tactic by him to make others lose their cool. -YMB29 (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you conclude that he genuinely does not understand what was the problem with his rephrasing. - Altenmann >t 18:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Acutally Biophys, you did have a problem with describing this precisely as in the source:

And that is precisely what was said in the last version, but only slightly reworded. So, what's the problem? But we should not place every phrase from the source

This is your quote from old talk above. -YMB29 (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me point out that in Western perception the words "society" (or "country") and "government" (or "state") describe two quite different things, whereas in Eastern Europe they are frequently treated as synonyms. In that sense, Biophys' inability to understand the issue (that seems to be genuine) seems to be a result of his Eastern mentality.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Inability to understand what? I understand well the difference between society and state. But government and State (polity) were used essentially as synonyms in the source. Once again, it is not a problem to describe everything closer to the source. I can do it. No objections? Biophys (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest you to present your version here first, to avoid the continuation of the revert war and wasteful debate like the above.

To the opponents of Biophys: I find it sad that you turned this section into a kind of quiz or test for him instead of simply pointing to the error: the source says that in Soviet POV beneficiary is society. The text of Biophys says "in soviet POV the beneficiary is the opposite". If understood that "opposite" refers to the previous sentence, i.e., it must be inverted, so the "opposite" would mean "government is beneficiary against individual", which is not what the source says. I hope time comes when bickering and jeering will not take precedence before calmly explaining each other's errors. Inshallah, Mukadderat (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I have explained this and other things to him plenty of times [19][20].

I don't think he lacks intelligence or English skills to not understand this. So it is either that he lacks respect of what others are trying to explain to him and does not read carefully to understand or that he knows the problem but chooses to act like he does not understand it because such statements better reinforce his POV. This has been a constant problem with him in this and other articles (Red flag article is a recent example). Even if he really does not understand it is not an excuse for him to edit war. -YMB29 (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Re to Mukadderat. I fixed the problem and removed the words about "the opposite". Is it OK right now?Biophys (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Protected

I asked both sides of the revert war to state objections to every removed sentence by both sides. Instead, the talk page deteriorated into personal bickering. The page is protected until boths sides come to senses to discuss every piece in the page version difference.

I see that this war drags for a long time. If certain issues were already discussed earlier, please copy the corresponding pieces relevant to the mutually disagreed phrases here, for ease of tracking of conflict resolution.

Please put each disputed phrase into a separate section. Siction titles like "Massive reverts" or "Main conflicts" are unhelpful in tracking down what was discussed and when.

Please consider inviting an independent mediator.

If you want this page unblocked as soon as possible, please avoid any personal references regardless offensiveness. "I told him so" is just as useless for article content as "he is a moron". - Altenmann >t 17:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You write: "I have explained this and other things to him plenty of times". This phrase sounds like a one-sided action. It does not say about whether the issue was resolved. It does not say whether he agreed or disagreed with your explanations and whether his disagreement was well-argumented. For each item the final decision must be clearly written, for future direct reference. - Altenmann >t 18:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It is good that you decided to do something here, but you should note that Biophys again reverted everything mostly to his old version, saying that he supposedly fixed the earlier disputed statement in the edit summary [21]. -YMB29 (talk) 06:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Section "Soviet concept of human rights and legal system"

Here I am setting an example of the structured discussion. Please finish it yourself. - Altenmann >t 18:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

section title and scope

I suggest to remove "and legal system" from the title. Its presence creates confusion and gives an oppirtunity to go off-topic. The main topic in "concept of human rights" regardless where and how it was defined or implemented, in particular, how it was refliected in the Law. Please notice that cited references must explicitely connect human rights and soviet law, otherwise it will be original synthesis, regardless how evident it seems. - Altenmann >t 18:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Comparison of Soviet and Western concepts

• (Biophys) However the Soviet conception of human rights was very different from conceptions prevalent in the West. According to Western legal theory, "it is the individual who is the beneficiary of human rights which are to be asserted against the government", whereas Soviet law claimed the source of human rights is the state [ref Lambelet, Doriane [...] The Soviet state was considered as the source of human rights [ref name=shiman...
• (YMB29) The Soviet conception of human rights was different from conceptions prevalent in the West. According to Western legal theory, "it is the individual who is the beneficiary of human rights which are to be asserted against the government", whereas Soviet theory states that society as a whole is the beneficiary. ref name="Lambelet

The immediate issues:

• Both refer to Lambelet, but say it differently. What exctly Lambelet say? - Altenmann >t 18:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
• Who said that they are "very different"? - Altenmann >t 18:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
• Text of Biophys compares apples and oranges: Western piece is about beneficiary, while Soviet piece is about source. - Altenmann >t 18:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
• Text of biophys repeats the phrase. - Altenmann >t 18:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Altenmann, frankly speaking, if you wish to fix this particular segment in the current version, please do it. I agree with your edit in advance because you a good content contributor, and you know the subject.Biophys (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I don't want to write generalizing articles at all, although I started quite a few of them, to fill the apparent voids. I consider it waste of my time. I prefer filling knowledge gaps about specific topics. There are still lots of them. - Altenmann >t 19:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well you can see that Biophys has "fixed" the statement to misuse the source again. The source clearly says (as I wrote before): "Consequently, Soviet legal theory holds that it is the collective, society generally, that is the ultimate benefiaciary of human rights. Western legal theory holds that it is the individual who is the beneficiary of human rights which are to be asserted against the government."([22] p66) The difference in conceptions can be sourced to the same source. -YMB29 (talk) 07:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

phrase about "emphasis"

(YMB29) Within the Soviet Union emphasis was placed on economic and social rights such as access to health care, adequate nutrition, education at all levels, and guaranteed employment. The government of the Soviet Union considered these to be the most important rights, without which political and civil rights were meaningless.

Why this phrase was deleted? - Altenmann >t 18:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I would like to hear Biophys' explanation as to why this keeps on happening. -YMB29 (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Not neutral

This article is not neutral, not even close. --TIAYN (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This is how it is tagged. Do you have any specific suggestions? - Altenmann >t 19:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The lead seems to be one big aggressive attack on the Soviet Union and thecommunist system. Try to include some positive information in the lead to even it out, or instead, re-write the lead. --TIAYN (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• I think one can safely remove last phrase in the intro about the totalitarian state (although SU was indeed described as such). We could also debate alternative versions of the introduction if someone suggests them.Biophys (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

  Tot-state is about human rights, and it is in place in the intro. - Altenmann >t 00:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Please explain which information is false or misleading and which information must be added. Please explain which phrases are stated in non-neutral tone. Please keep in mind that some topics cannot be "evened out" by their essence. By the way, the intro says nothing about "communist system", whatever you understand under this term. - Altenmann >t 00:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)