Talk:Human rights in the Soviet Union

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.[1]

I tried to discuss here: [2] and [3].

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[4], and then another user removed a part of it as being unnecessary [5] (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 [6]. I was not the one who removed the part of the section [7]. 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: [8] -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: [9]. 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 [10][11].

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)

No, you also just reverted to your version. Please note that by doing such things you only increase evidence of your misbehavior. -YMB29 (talk) 07:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I fixed the "logical mistake" Mukhaderrat was talking about (if I understood him correctly).Biophys (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No you "fixed" more than that mistake.[12] Do you think we are all stupid here? -YMB29 (talk) 05:13, 14 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 [13]. -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)

Yes I agree. -YMB29 (talk) 07:37, 13 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."([14] p66) The difference in conceptions can be sourced to the same source (first sentence in my version). -YMB29 (talk) 07:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please write the correct summary, to be put into the article. - Altenmann >t 18:52, 16 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)

Yes the article is far from neutral. The purpose of my editing here was to at least get rid of some of the most ridiculously biased statements. -YMB29 (talk) 07:34, 13 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)

Well using Biophys' version:

(i1) The Soviet Union was a single-party state where the Communist Party ruled the country. All key positions in the institutions of the state were occupied by members of the Communist Party.

True, but does not explain what this has to do with human rights.

(i2) The state proclaimed its adherence to Marxism-Leninism ideology that restricts rights of citizens to private property.

Marxism-Leninism cannot be described simply as restriction on private property. And this assumes that this restriction is always bad.

(i3) Independent political activities were not tolerated, including the involvement of people with free labour unions, private corporations, non-sanctioned churches or opposition political parties.

Could be rephrased to better fit in the lead and maybe a source would help. For example: Independent political activities, like involvement in oppositional political parties, were strictly limited.

(i4) The regime maintained itself in political power in part 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, political purges and persecution of specific groups of people.

Certainly not the only ways the power was maintained. This can be the negative side but what about the positives (economic security/rights, growth in living standards, enthusiasm)?

(i5) Soviet Union was regarded as a totalitarian state by prominent historians, such as Robert Conquest, Richard Pipes, Karl Popper, Hannah Arendt, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Juan Linz.

Yes I agree this is of course too biased.

-YMB29 (talk) 07:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that much of the content of the lead section does not belong there. All stuff about who ruled and how may be placed to section "Background".

Please review the guidelenes Wikipedia:Lead section, write it anew, following the standards, and suggest here, for discussion. - Altenmann >t 19:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Detailed reply:

(i1) : does not belong to intro - Altenmann >t 19:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(i2) : a particular detail unnecessary in intro. - Altenmann >t 19:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(i3) : mixes apples and oranges and confuses many things. For example there was no concept of "free labor unions" at all, but this much be explained: (a) how it happened and (b) what human right is belongs to.

(i4) : no clear link to human rights stated. - Altenmann >t 19:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(i5) : Unclear comment: "of course too biased". This phrase is a statement of fact. - Altenmann >t 19:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

i1. "Single-party state" is important as it implies limiting political freedoms.

I2-i4. One should mention in Introduction which civil rights were limited. Let's be specific. But if anyone suggests here better version of introduction, let's discuss it.Biophys (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

re: i1-i4. Yes, I thought about this, but came to conclusion that it makes no sense to put this list in the intro: it will basically repeat the table of contents. IMO a general phrase suffice, kind of "many traditionally recognized human rights were restricted, even those which were formally declared". - Altenmann >t 00:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

How about this:

The Soviet Union was established after a revolution that ended centuries of Tsarist monarchy. The emerging Soviet leaders sought to establish a new order and understanding of equality based on the Marxist-Leninist ideology. The Communist Party ruled the country and mobilized the entire population in support of the state ideology and policies. As a result civil and political rights were limited. However the principles of guaranteed economic and social rights were actively developed instead. -YMB29 (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, section "Soviet concept of human rights" does not give the description how it was understood by Soviet Union itself. Can anyone? - Altenmann >t 00:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well it was there but Biophys removed it. Look at the version he reverted:

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.[3] The government of the Soviet Union considered these to be the most important rights, without which political and civil rights were meaningless.[3]

See that is the problem with working from an old version "censored" by Biophys. It is like being thrown back to square one... -YMB29 (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No, this version of introduction tells nothing about human rights in the SU. It suppose to briefly summarize the content of the article.Biophys (talk) 05:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

What are you referring to? -YMB29 (talk) 06:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

YMB, he is probably referring to your version of the intro. Did you read and understand Wikipedia:Lead section? I have a suspicion you didn't. Your suggestion mostly belongs to "Background" section. - Altenmann >t 07:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I did read that... Are you both referring to what I wrote immediately above (where you asked about the Soviet concept of human rights)? Or to what I wrote above that at 04:54, 17 February 2010? -YMB29 (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I mean the both. Let's be specific when we summarize the content: there was no freedom of expression, no right to travel abroad, no property rights (beyond having personal belongings), no due process, there were no free labour unions, no private corporations, no independent political parties; all churches were tightly controlled or prosecuted by the sate. Moreover, even the idea of human rights in the "western" (mainstream) meaning of the word has been officially rejected by the Soviet authorities as "Bourgeoisie propaganda", at least prior to signing the Helsinki Accords in 1975. Altenmann noticed that words about the "totalitarian" system should stay in the introduction. That's fine, but if we follow this route, an appropriate example would be Human rights in Nazi Germany, an article that we do not even have.Biophys (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

When did he say that totalitarian should be there? That is how the USSR was described by critics in the West, but if we include that then we have to mention what you said about bourgeois propaganda to show the Soviet perspective...

You were told to not get into specifics in the introduction. The views on rights and comparisons can be in other sections. Maybe you can post your suggested version? -YMB29 (talk) 02:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I am still waiting for an answer. -YMB29 (talk) 04:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)