User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Congratulations, TheTimesAreAChanging, for recently making your 1,000th edit to articles on English Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to articles on international politics, and for persevering in spite of earlier friction with some of the community's policies and guidelines. Keep up the good work! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Vietnam war

Is the relevant portion of FeuerHerd (2005/2006) the 321st minute, or is that the length of the work? Please cite the time range when death totals are discussed. Thanks! Fifelfoo (talk) 04:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I presume you mean citation 9: "Aaron Ulrich (editor); Edward FeuerHerd (producer and director) (2005 & 2006) (Box set, Color, Dolby, DVD-Video, Full Screen, NTSC, Dolby, Vision Software). Heart of Darkness: The Vietnam War Chronicles 1945–1975 (Documentary). Koch Vision. Event occurs at 321 minutes. ISBN 1-4172-2920-9." This is used for the estimate of 1.1 million North Vietnamese military deaths, as well as Kingdom of Thailand military deaths. It sounds like it occurs at the 321st minute. But I didn't add this source to the article. So I wouldn't know for sure.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Indonesian killings

Thank you. You're braver than me. :) why must all these types of articles have a united states involvement section? Lol - which style guide makes them apparently mandatory? Lol. --Merbabu (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad I could help.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I wrote the article except that section, and it's style (and length!) had long bothered me, but I did not know how to go about fixing it, apart from just removing it which would not have stuck. Your changes are just about perfect. Cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with merbabu - btw interesting all this stuff about the usa - I am sure somewhere in the recesses of my long filed away secondary sources in my storage boxes (all pre-internet) - the british embassy was a up to its eyeballs and may have been feeding the us embassy or operatives with material... SatuSuro 09:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Some people always prefer to emphasise the real or imagined US role in things, and not the role of other states. You would think that the US (and not the USSR) sold Saddam most of his weapons in the war with Iran, or that the US gave more aid to the junta in Argentina than France, or that the CIA overthrew Mossadegh all by its lonesome (and not at the request of the British). I don't doubt that the UK was involved in Indonesia to some extent, but I don't have the sources to back that up.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I hope this is not repeated on the Indonesian article. --Merbabu (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Horhey edit warring

His restores without consensus are not acceptable. But I don't know the best way to respond. His actions and comments don't suggest he will respond to or respect rational or standard Wikipedia procedures. You will also see from his contribs that he has received some bad advice from another editor. --Merbabu (talk) 07:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

PS - it appears to me that the three of you might have some history. If that is so, and as I already said on the talk page, it would be nice if these battles could be kept off this page and that we focus on the specific issues. I and others really don't care about the other troubles you may have had. just saying. :) --Merbabu (talk)|

I'll discuss his edits with him. I'll handle it. I don't want an edit war. Thanks for the tip about the bad advice he got.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way, please don't split other editor's comments up like this. It makes it really hard for a third person (like me!) to understand who's saying what.

Thanks for your work. will be monitoring what happens. :) --Merbabu (talk) 07:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, really? I'll have to watch that.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yet another one of your changes just got reverted. --Merbabu (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And I reverted it back, because he's so clearly, blatantly in the wrong.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

This might be helpful: Scroll down to slow revert]--Merbabu (talk) 10:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You are being reported for censorship

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at noticeboard of discussion regarding reason for discussion. The thread is thread name of the discussion.The discussion is about the topic Topic. Thank you. —Horhey420 (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

*grabs popcorn* --Merbabu (talk) 11:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this another joke? Ald™ ¬_¬™ 17:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

For your reference...

The archive of the section on ANI opened by Horhey can be found here. For your reference. --Merbabu (talk) 04:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

(as for the recent blocking, IMO probably best if we let the admins carry most of that load - let's just chip in if really required. :-) Otherwise, the risk is a perception that things are murky. And perceptions are what counts unforunately. cheers) --Merbabu (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing to worry about. I wasn't responsible for his being blocked; he was blocked before I could consult an admin. Nick-D noticed that virtually everything he added violated copyright. It's pretty clear cut.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. --Merbabu (talk) 05:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Noble Lie

Sure TheTimesAreAChanging, I will do my best to communicate, although I haven't gotten the impression that this editor is an attentive listener. This sure is a frustrating edit war, eh? Best, CCS81 (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It certainly is. Thanks again for your help.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Paul Ryan

The template was for the snarky "if you can read" comment in your edit summary. Because I used a canned template, it referred to removing your comments, which of course I can't do on an edit summary. Is this clearer now? Mesconsing (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Historical Fact

Yeah, but it says that his government ended in 1968 so I always get confused :P And didn't the Ba'athist coup in 1963 fail? I always thought the Ba'athist regime came in to power in 1968. 183.492.365.I98 (talk) 05:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC) 183.492.365.I98 (talk) 05:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the coup succeeded in 1963--but there were two coups that year! The Ramadan Revolution split power between Abdul Rahman Arif and Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr; Arif purged the Ba'ath from the government in the November 1963 Iraqi coup d'état. The Ba'ath did not have the Presidency until 1968. However, the Ba'ath was the dominant faction in Qasim's cabinet, and had significant power from 1959 on.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

History of Iraq under Ba'athist rule

I didn't know that Qasim's government ended in 1963, I thought it was 1968. And the reason why I added the Pre-Ba'athist flag to the History of Iraq under Ba'athist rule was becuase Qasim's government was the regime before the Ba'athist Republic, so that's why I added Qasim's flag in the top right corner link, to represent the previous Iraqi government before the Ba'athist Republic of Iraq which was Qasim's

And with regards to the Totalitarian debate, I must insist that Ba'athist Iraq was Totalitarian in nature and was a Totalitarian Dictatorship as control was vested in one man which had a centrally controlled government that required complete subservience to the state and leader. Certainly it was a Dictatorship in some respect. I'm not saying Ba'athist Iraq's government was Totalitarianism which makes no sense, but it was a Totalitarian Dictatorship, of which I found referenced material to back up my claim. I just would like you to consider it.

183.492.365.I98 (talk) 05:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Saddam's Iraq was unquestionably totalitarian. But you should discuss your changes on the talk page. Do any other articles list "totalitarian government" under "government type"?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, under "Government" on the Wikipedia article, it's listed as a form of government, as is a Constitutional republic or a Constitutional monarchy. Nazi Germany for example lists it's form of government as a Totalitarian Dictatorship, and since I've seen countries with a Constitutional republic or monarchy I though there would be nothing wrong with it.

183.492.365.I98 (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Good argument. I restored it for now.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! :D

183.492.365.I98 (talk) 06:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries

‎I'm going to resist the urge to verbally abuse Viriditas in this edit summary, even though he verbally abuses me in his edit summaries.

Now you're reduced to accusing others of your own misdeeds and falsely portraying actual events in favor of a fantasy world you've created in your head? Really, this kind of delusional behavior reflects poorly on you. I seem to have to remind you that you wrote in your edit summary directed towards me, "More irrelevant rants from the same user that speculated about whether Ryan truly liked RATM".[1] You wrote that at of 02:58, 20 August 2012. I then followed up with this reply, after which you began falsely accusing me of misdeeds over and again. Since the page history disputes your version of events, has it ever occurred to you that you might be wrong? Viriditas (talk) 09:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Viriditas, the fact that the owner of this talk page has removed your previous edits on his talk page, suggests to me that he/she does not want to have this discussion on their talk page. If you feel you have a legitimate and significant complaint that should be investigated against an editor, then you should use the WP:ANI board. But take care with WP:BOOMERANG. Otherwise, maybe it's time to move on. That's just my opinion. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 10:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Which explains why the "owner" (nobody owns their talk page, btw) continues to post on my talk page. Right. Viriditas (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, then you keep posting here in retaliation then. Makes perfect sense. --Merbabu (talk) 11:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Pointing out that the editor is a hypocrite who accuses other editors of his own faults is not "retaliation". Viriditas (talk) 11:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, seems like you have it all under control. ciao. --Merbabu (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing to control. If you think that's what it's all about, then I'll just delete this section. Viriditas (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Viriditas, why are you even here? I have stopped commenting on your talk page. I have not called you a "hypocrite" "delusional","ridiculous" or a "troll", nor have I suggested that you cannot read English, nor have I resorted to swearing to make a point--whereas you have done all these things and more. Calling one of your off-topic comments "irrelevant" is not equivalent to your amazingly bad behavior. We both know that you only took interest in the Korean War article because I upset you. But what did I do to get you so upset? Let's go back to the cause of our current conflict: Your off-topic commentary on the Paul Ryan talk page. On that page, you made the following assertions based entirely on original research (and were challenged by several editors for doing so):

• "Well, I have a hard time believing that Ryan listens to the band as they are diametrically opposed to his belief system. It sounds like something he was told to say to attract attention from people his age and younger. It's like that time when they released Romney's playlist from his iPod. You don't really believe that was real or that he even knew who those bands were, do you? This is PR."
• "Then you're helping to promote PR. Funny how that works, isn't it? They want you to think that everything is black and white, that's how they control you, through your own bias. Does anyone really believe that Paul Ryan listens to Rage Against The Machine? Anyone?"
• "Come on, guys, nobody believes this stuff. In March, Mitt Romney's office released his playlist with "Somebody Told Me" by The Killers on it. Can anyone see Romney listening to that song, with those lyrics? Obviously, his staffer put that on the list as a joke. And, I think Ryan is joking about liking Rage. He's getting massive media attention because of it, so it's working."

I naturally assumed that you were a new user who thought Wikipedia was a political message board. I politely responded, but gave you little attention. Then, you left another comment, on a topic unrelated to the band in question:

• "Unfortunately, in the United States, professional politicians rarely hold real jobs like average working people who pay 90% of the taxes. They tend to hold few qualifications for any actual duties involving decision making, and instead rely on trusted advisers to help them reach decisions. They are really just professional politicians who specialize in running for office, nothing more. In the United States, it is a prerequisite for the job that you must first be completely out of touch with the average person who must work for a living. Anyone who has ever held a real job or has made money from providing a service or creating a product that has helped contribute to their country is generally not eligible for office."

I labeled this last remark as "off-topic commentary". You did not challenge that label--in effect, you agreed that you were trolling. However, even though the text in question had nothing to do with RATM, you responded--not by addressing my concerns on the talk page of the relevant article--but by invading my talk page with comments like this:

• "You must be kidding. Are you claiming that Paul Ryan, an avowed conservative and lover of Ayn Rand, listens to the Marxist-inspired socialist music of Rage Against the Machine? Does that make sense to you? Because to normal people, that kind of contradiction doesn't make sense. Either he's lying or he's a Republican who loves listening to Marxist-inspired music. Which is it? Of course, everyone knows that politicians never lie, so I must conclude that Paul Ryan is a Marxist."

In that comment, you implied that I am not a "normal" person, and suggested that only Marxists are "allowed" to enjoy your precious band. I characterized your comments on my talk page as "spam". You proceeded with a series of flagrant violations of Wikipedia policy: First, you threatened me by writing "See you on the noticeboards"--although you never followed through on the threat. You described my edits as "bullshit". You claimed that I was a sockpuppet, and when I asked if that was a serious accusation, you replied: "About as serious as claiming that Paul Ryan was a Marxist". Of course, I never claimed Ryan is a Marxist--and yet it was you who wrote "I'm getting the distinct sense that there's a major communication problem that exists on your end, not mine" (!). Why the violations of WP:HOUND? Why the swearing, harassment, and name calling? If you really think that I was wrong to label your comments "off-topic", why didn't you challenge me? Why have you made this a personal vendetta? I may have no choice but to take this complaint to an administrator if you don't cease your behavior immediately. If you think you can intimidate me because you've been here longer and made far more edits, you're wrong. I have laid out the record of your behavior here, and it is damning. With regard to the Korean War, you actually made at least one legitimate point in your recent comments, and I will respond to you there in good faith. Don't bring it up here, please.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Chile

I'll reply back to you when I have time, maybe tommorow, on that page and notify you about any changes. We'll work something out. Bye. JTBX (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I'm incorporating your changes with regard to the Nixon administration.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Ryan comment

Um.... you just reverted my pro-Ryan edit by restoring a "gotcha" fact that plays into the anti-Ryan narrative that he is anti-defense in a way Romney recently criticized. Believe it or not, I actually do want the article to be balanced and NPOV, and I thought that "gotchas" like that were silly. So you made the article worse, and for that I am sad. But since I also want Ryan to lose the election, I suppose I can be happy that you're helping that to happen. Have a nice day. Homunq (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't pay much attention to TV news or campaign ads, so it didn't occur to me that Ryan was vulnerable on national defense. Looking at the article, all I see are passages that endlessly criticize his "fiscal conservative" reputation on the grounds that he doesn't support military spending cuts:

• Ryan was a "reliable supporter of the [George W. Bush] administration's foreign policy priorities" who voted for the 2002 Iraq Resolution, authorizing President George W. Bush to use military force in Iraq.[65] Ryan also voted for the Iraq War troop surge of 2007.[65] In May 2012, Ryan voted for H.R. 4310,[citation needed] which would increase defense spending, including spending for the Afghanistan War and for various weapon systems, to the level of $642 billion – $8 billion more than previous spending levels.[169]
• In 2009, Ryan termed the Obama administrations' "reset" of relations with Russia as "appeasement."[140] Daniel Larison of The American Conservative wrote that Ryan "seems to conceive of U.S. power abroad mostly in terms of military strength" and "truly is a product of the era of George W. Bush."[140]
• In 2011 President Barack Obama criticized Ryan as being "not on the level" for describing himself as a fiscal conservative while voting for these policies, as well as two "unpaid for" wars.[91] Columnist Ezra Klein wrote in 2012 that "If you know about Paul Ryan at all, you probably know him as a deficit hawk. But Ryan has voted to increase deficits and expand government spending too many times for that to be his north star. Rather, the common thread throughout his career is his desire to remake the basic architecture of the federal government."[92]
• Ryan's budget "envisions continued increases in Pentagon spending" and "significant cuts to the much smaller appropriations for the State Department and foreign aid," with diplomacy and development spending being reduced sharply.[140]

Given all this, when I saw you remove the cited material from Hannity in which Ryan asserts his support for billions in defense cuts, I thought it was unjustified. I don't see how it is inappropriate.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess we both failed WP:AGF on this one. I see now that while your comment seemed to be a battleground attitude, the edit itself was in good faith. I hope you see the same. Cheers, Homunq (talk) 11:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fair enough. Thanks for coming here to express your concerns.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Senseless and unacceptable reverts on Authoritarianism article, call for mediation

Hi TheTimesAreAChanging, there's an ongoing edit war happening on the Authoritarianism article. Currently the user Zeraful and Cresix have been reverting all 3 of my edits on that article, for reasons that are not sufficiently justifiable and are totally senseless. The user Zeraful deleted some content critical of the Vietnamese gov't, like of how Hanoi blocked Facebook, how Vietnam is on the Reporters Without Borders "Enemies of the Internet" blacklist and how the Vietnamese government suppresses protests in the country like in 2011, in a paragraph in the article that are true and had proper and sufficient citations with sources to credible international news website articleslike Forbes and The Economist. Then, an ip user tried to reinstate those deleted items and added additional content. That ip's edits were reverted by Crecix (who used twinkle) with no reason provided. After that, after seeing what's going on in the article, I came in and reinstated the article version of that ip user, after checking the changes in content, and I saw nothing wrong with the change in content by that ip and nothing wrong with the sources they provided. I added an additional source to one of the deleted items as well, from the DART Center website from Columbia University. Then, my edits were reverted by Zeraful and Crecix, claiming that "sources are needed to back [the deleted content] up", and "verification of sources failed", even though the items in dispute do have sufficient and credible sources (you can check the sources for yourself as well). Can you please help in trying to resolve this issue? I would greatly appreciate your efforts in trying to find a resolution to this. As well on a side note, the user Zeraful has a chronic problem of blanking out content, that are factual and recognized by academics, that usually have sources to back them up, that are critical or exposing anything negative of the Vietnamese communist govt, and has done this in numerous articles in the past, like on the North Vietnam article, and imparting pro-communist POV statements in encyclopeadic articles, with no or invalid and unacceptable sources. Zeraful also engages in "wording wars", trying to change words used in articles to make articles sound less critical of the Vietnamese regime, often changing things to the point that sentences are grammatically incorrect.Nguyen1310 (talk) 03:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

ps. I'm sorry for not responding to your compromise edit in the Battle of Khe Sanh article, because i was just so frustrated of the comments and responses made by, again, Zeraful, about Vietnam War history, comments that are historically incorrect, and in denial of some things that happened during and after the war, but nonetheless i agree with your compromise edit there and appreciate your efforts in resolving the edit war there. Nguyen1310 (talk) 04:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I will help you as soon as I get a chance. I'm absolutely amazed by how flagrantly Zeraful has violated Wikipedia policy on that page, from euphemism to synthesis to original research to edit warring to personal attacks. More broadly, the whole paragraph has serious grammar problems and needs a rewrite.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks TheTimesAreAChanging for making a compromised edit for that paragraph. It was excellent and addressed almost all of my concerns on there. Nguyen1310 (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I just hope that Zeraful doesn't start edit warring again. He doesn't appear to understand Wikipedia policy.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Rtmcrrctr

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Rtmcrrctr (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rtmcrrctr. -- Homunq (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me, although I am surprised that you devoted an RFC to such a new user.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Add Hue Massacre photo in Vietnam War casualties

Hi TheTimesAreAChanging, I added a photo of the Hue Massacre in the "Specific Incidents" section. Since there's already a photo there of My Lai, it's important to also add a photo of the Hue Massacre, since Hue was the deadliest massacre committed by any party in the entire war, with a death toll of ~3000 - 6000, 10 to 20x more than My Lai. Hue is also one of the lesser known massacres in the war, far more unknown to the public than My Lai, (thank you foreign media for your "balanced and neutral news coverage"), even though far many more people died there, and it deserves to be more prominently displayed in order to attract more awareness of that tragedy. As well, by only displaying a photo of My Lai there, it implies that the Americans were the main ones who engaged in the killing of civilians, even though the communists were also very active in the slaughtering of civilians themselves. Nguyen1310 (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

You didn't need to tell me, or explain your motivations, although I appreciate that you took the time to do so. I'm actually glad you added the photo. Cheers,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban from Paul Ryan

Because of the ongoing edit warring on Paul Ryan, I am topic banning you from Paul Ryan until the conclusion of the RFC on the marathon issue. This topic ban may be appealed to Arbcom or WP:ANI. Under no circumstances may you edit Paul Ryan or Talk:Paul Ryan until the RFC has been closed by an uninvolved administrator. Also, you are placed on a WP:1RR on all 2012 Presidential Campaign articles until the expiration of the community article probation.--v/r - TP 22:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Why?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The continuation of the edit warring over the marathon issue.--v/r - TP 23:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought I was helping by restoring the material you said was acceptable. Note that I was against its inclusion.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand. I didn't say the material was acceptable, I said that the initial edit by Homunq wasn't exactly warring. However, when it was disputed, that brought it back into the WP:EW arena. I hate to ban over misunderstanding, but edit warring cannot be tolerated.--v/r - TP 03:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for replying.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I appreciate your understanding. It's tough to patrol these articles.--v/r - TP 04:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Why do we have to expand the boring and long details about the 20th century when we already have specific articles?

Please read this. For the article about history in general, let's try to shorten the part about the 20th century, not to expand them because we already have specific articles about them. Waorca (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• I don't "have" to do anything.
• The poorly sourced previous revision was inaccurate, at least with regard to war casualties. I mostly added sources or revised existing text; the net increase was only a couple of sentences.
• I'm not sure what you told the IP that you didn't tell me directly.
• You say that the 20th century is given disproportionate coverage, but that may be because it was a relatively significant part of Vietnam's history, or because the other centuries need expansion. I was only improving text related to highly relevant topics that were already considered important enough to cover.
• I do not intend to add more.
• Do you want me to trim the text I added (when I'm unblocked)? Is there anything in particular you want to see cut? We cannot go back to the old version.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, that's right, please do so. For the section about the Nguyen Dynasty and afterward, please summarize them and put in other main articles such as Nguyen Dynasty, First Indochina War, South Vietnam, Casualties of the Vietnam, and History of Vietnam since 1945. IMO, they make the 20th century so significance just because it just happened recently in the previous century. I linked to the talk page of IP because I'm lazy to rewrite those words. See also History of East Timor and history of Malaysia, guess what, I read those articles and think this is annoying when the contents about the 20th century cover half of all contents in each article. Doesn't matter how important a period is, I prefer all details about all periods have to equal in length. Cheer. Waorca (talk) 07:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I cannot help with all that. I'll just trim what I added.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Contacts

Hey, is there any way I can contact you privately?? I'm really busy for the next month, or longer, so my sessions here would be short and intermittent, I'm not like the griffon who has no work/commitments that she has to tend to in her life... Communists are always like this, they know history and politics, and society, are against them, so they do whatever they can to portray their POV and ONLY their POV, censoring out /suppressing anything critical of them, and funny how they accuse others of POV. Chien cong san!!! Nguyen1310 (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's be civil: Zrdragon probably isn't "demonic". Unfortunately, while I was happy to work with him when he was still being constructive, at this point his pathological edit warring and hostility towards discussion has me baffled! I'd rather not post my email address, unless it's really neccessary. In any case, please do not attack him in such strong terms because that only make him seem more reasonable.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. PBut can you please demand for an indefinte block, as Floquenbeam did warn Zrdragon that the next time she edit wars, they'll be an indef block, period. This is very unacceptable, and her presence doesn't help in building an encyclopedia, but rather turn an encyclopedia into some POV blog site. I'm not going to let this griffon drag me down to trouble like she did before. Nguyen1310 (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I took the complaint to ANI, but there has been no response. One editor did state that both User:Stumink and Zrdragon should be given an "equal block", but no admin has acted. While his behavior does merit another block--if not for a week, then at least a day or two--I don't think he's done enough to merit an indefinite block yet. Of course, I don't expect that he will ever change his ways....TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Your revert of IP editor for blanking and vandalism

Hi TheTimesAreAChanging! Thanks for your anti-vandalistic revert on the article History of the United States where IP editor User:68.185.245.210 both deleted a portion and vandalized it. Unfortunately, you did not warn the IP editor on their talk page, which is standard operating procedure that allows us to judge his further efforts, should they be vandalism. I have gone ahead and issued them a warning. Please make a note on the talk pages of suspected or undeniable vandals that their edit was reverted by you, and why. It really helps down the road if they continue in their ways, and allows for their blocking when they persist. Thanks, and if you want to reply, I will watch this page. Thanks again for helping to protect the encylopedia, Jusdafax 15:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I know I need to remember to do that!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

No worries. By the way, a vandal-only account like this IP can and should be reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. My report on the vandal just now led to a one-week block, which means if they resume their ways that the block will be taken into consideration of a longer or indef block. My best wishes to you, and happy editing! Jusdafax 16:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Zdragon edit wars ans attacks expanded to War Remnants Museum (Ho Chi Minh City)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_Remnants_Museum_%28Ho_Chi_Minh_City%29&diff=516900322&oldid=516898512 Zdragon removes sources one by one, 2 of which were very legit and acceptable, in order to delete material they hate. Yes, more trolling. Nguyen1310 (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm shocked below. TTAAC has been a moderator of sorts, compromiser and enforcer of Wiki policy, and yet TTAAC gets blocked... Nguyen1310 (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring is wrong, and you surely should know that by now, after a 1 week block for it just expired. However, I believe I've been set up into blocking you, so I'm unblocking; I'm no one's tool. But, don't edit war in the future or you'll likely be blocked again. A page can remain imperfect while consensus is sought out. let me know if there are any autoblocks, I didn't find any. Also, let me know if another IP or account starts re-adding whatever it was that Zrdragon was adding. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

If protecting your talk page for a couple of days bothers you, let me know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

War Remnants Museum

Hey there, is the museum a propaganda museum or not? I know this is random, but I would like to know what other editors conclude about this... Nguyen1310 (talk) 00:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I know nothing about it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Although it certainly sounds like it from the article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your response. I was wondering if other people see and say this too, or i'm the only one saying this... Nguyen1310 (talk) 00:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It's really not a matter of what any editor happens to think; it's a matter of what the reliable sources have to say.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes absolutely true, the sources on that article, and from other sources i've seen, and even the, unreliable, posts from travellers on travel sites explicitly said that the museum is a propaganda and very biased museum, but a user keeps objecting to it being mentioned and calls it "POV", even though the reliable sources used said explicitly as such, atop of my experience. Nguyen1310 (talk) 00:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I noticed, however, that you claimed Tijfo agreed with you in your edit summary; whereas he simply did not disagree. In the past, you argued there was a "consensus" that Ho Chi Minh was a "Stalinist", but this "consensus" consisted only of your own comments on the talk page and the lack of a rebuttal. I would advise you not to so misrepresent other editors' positions in the future.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I thought disagreement would be shown by a reply indicating their objection, and no replying implied agreement... Nguyen1310 (talk) 00:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Discussion of Cold War#Second Cold War#Soviet war in Afghanistan resumed here. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me; your proposed version is perfect. Cheers!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Did you watch the debates?

What did you think? --JTBX (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean all three?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, theres one with third party candidates tommorow moderated by larry king. --JTBX (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I think Peter Schiff provided the most incisive commentary. Schiff spoke about the second debate, but much of what he said can be applied to all three.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hah! I always knew you were a righ....nah I'm just kidding. Well theres a lot to say about Peter Schiff but sure, in the criticism of the debate he's right in that they are two sides of the same coin, which is generally the criticism everyone agrees across the spectrum. He's also right in his criticism, from a free market point of view, of the protectionism of the parties, making them anti-free market. But again theres a lot to say about all this. Cya man. --JTBX (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Latin America Edits under Richard Nixon

Greetings, TheTimesAreAChanging,

I had left earlier comments under the Talk section of the Latin America section, you've most likely already seen.

I changed the last sentence in that section as my understanding of the coup is that there was widespread economic, political, and social unrest. Much of it was precipitated by the US covert influence. I added a bit more supporting material on that on the Talk Page there.

My view is that the coup was primarily caused by the US covert interventions and that perceptions at the time were skewed by lack of knowledge as to what was going on. Schneider would not have been removed without that interference, and there would have been no coup. Black propaganda also targeted the military.

If I understand your view, it appears to be that the Chilean Congress wanted a coup and that Pinochet provided such. Can you clarify, and point me to sources that substantiate that point of view?

Thanks, very much. I think the Nixon Latin America section is much improved by our edits. Having different points of view can actually force us to refine our edits to precisely accord with the facts, and provide interesting discussion, too.

Veritas Aeterna (talk) 06:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree that "Schneider would not have been removed without [US] interference", because US arms or agents did not kill him, and Viaux had been discouraged from launching any attack. But even if the US did provide the arms that were used, the right-wing extremists had already attacked Schneider twice before, and there's no reason to think they would have been unwilling to do so again without American encouragement. Moreover, Schneider's removal may have been a necessary precondition for a coup, but it was clearly not sufficient to cause one; the whole nation rallied behind Allende in 1970. I'm skeptical of any claim that the US or CIA is particularly competent or capable of "creating" vast dysfunction in foreign nations with a few million dollars; many CIA operations have been complete failures or only succeeded through luck, and the CIA never keeps anything secret. The incredible inflation, destruction of the economy, and conflict between Allende and the Congress caused the coup. I already linked to the Chamber of Deputies declaration. Regarding the economy, as I wrote here: "Allende rightfully boasted that the Chilean military received several times more aid from the US under his socialist regime than it had in the years prior. The US continued humanitarian aid and never invoked the Hickenlooper Amendment; Chile's default alone was an effective transfer of resources greater by many orders of magnitude than that tendered to the Frei administration. The role played by US policy in creating Chile's economic crisis was minor--even if the net affect was negative (although certain US officials might prefer to believe in their own omnipotence). The US did try to hurt Allende at the IMF, but Chile still got $100 million in loans." Anyway, sources that I would recommend include Mark Falcoff's Modern Chile: 1970-1989 and "The Persistence of a Myth: Chile in the Eye of the Cold War Hurricane" by Joaquin Fermandois in World Affairs. But the truth is, Pinochet did not "provide" the coup (although he took credit for it in his memoirs). Pinochet was appointed by Allende because he was a military leader unlikely to support a coup; Pinochet was, in some ways, a progressive. Six hours before the coup, the rebel officers informed Pinochet that the coup was rolling. They gave Pinochet a piece of paper to sign ordering the army to support the coup, and told him that if he failed to sign it, this would "undermine the unity and discipline of the armed forces", which sounds a lot like "sign or die". Pinochet signed, then took off. Neither side could find him or contact him. They found him after the coup playing with his grandchildren and hauled him off to the bloodstained and still smoking presidential palace.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment

Thanks for spotting my mistaken edit of Democratic Kampuchea. While analysing the contribution history of User:90.191.206.10 (who I suspect of strong political WP:Bias), I erroneously restored an earlier version of the article. Thanks for your prompt revert. kashmiri 00:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! Cheers,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Removing unsourced text

Please do not revert the removal unsourced statements. WP:Verifiability says "All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." WP:CHALLENGED#Burden_of_evidence states that the "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material. Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article." Edit summaries such as "restore claim deleted based on laughable original research" are unproductive. I find many of your claims to be laughable original research, but I do not revert you when you delete something critical of the United States because it is "unsourced". Meanwhile, there is nothing ridiculous in my edit summary. Argentina's National Commission on the Disappearance of Persons estimates that around 13,000 were "disappeared" in Argentina's "Dirty War" alone. How many do you suppose "disappeared" in East Germany? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 13:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

No material had been challenged, by anyone, not even on the talk page. You have to tag it first. You are not adhering to standard policy, and should not pretend otherwise. But here's a reality check:

• "The Stasi was much, much worse than the Gestapo, if you consider only the oppression of its own people," according to Simon Wiesenthal of Vienna, Austria, who has been hunting Nazi criminals for half a century. "The Gestapo had 40,000 officials watching a country of 80 million, while the Stasi employed 102,000 to control only 17 million." One might add that the Nazi terror lasted only twelve years, whereas the Stasi had four decades in which to perfect its machinery of oppression, espionage, and international terrorism and subversion.

• To ensure that the people would become and remain submissive, East German communist leaders saturated their realm with more spies than had any other totalitarian government in recent history. The Soviet Union's KGB employed about 480,000 full-time agents to oversee a nation of 280 million, which means there was one agent per 5,830 citizens. Using Wiesenthal's figures for the Nazi Gestapo, there was one officer for 2,000 people. The ratio for the Stasi was one secret policeman per 166 East Germans. When the regular informers are added, these ratios become much higher: In the Stasi's case, there would have been at least one spy watching every 66 citizens! When one adds in the estimated numbers of part-time snoops, the result is nothing short of monstrous: one informer per 6.5 citizens. It would not have been unreasonable to assume that at least one Stasi informer was present in any party of ten or twelve dinner guests."

I know you're a communist, but if you actually believe what you wrote, you're just a fool. Over 100,000 East Germans were killed by the regime.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Please don't troll. Nope, I am not now (or ever have been) "a communist" and please take that label back. But I try to write encyclopedic material. Stasi did have more agents per population than the Gestapo, but that doesn't mean that East Germany engaged in the same level of repression as Nazi Germany or even states like Argentina during the Dirty War. Per capita, the Stasi in 1988 also had more agents than the Soviet NKVD in 1937. [2] Do you therefore also conclude that East Germany was more repressive than the USSR circa 1937? Wiesenthal was obviously not discussing the Holocaust, and he is already cited in the body of the article. If 100,000 East Germans were killed by the regime, you should really add it to the East Germany article. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 13:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Benjamin Valentino estimates 80,000-100,000 killings in Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the Twentieth Century, pg.75. So do news reports from the time. Hitler was not that repressive towards ordinary Germans, but I imagine he was more repressive than the junta in Argentina.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's a collection of sources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's a statement from Mass killings under Communist regimes. I'm obviously familiar with that, since I'm responsible for writing many of the anti-communists claims there. You will note that the section there reads "Between 80,000 and 100,000 people may have been killed in East Germany beginning in 1945 as part of political repression by the Soviet Union" because the USSR occupied the territory referred to as "East Germany" (including what is now part of Russia and Poland) as an Allied Power before the GDR - the state commonly referred to as "East Germany" - was formed and maintained a military administration until the East German civil government was formed 1949. The state referred to is "the Soviet Union" and the wording is "may have." What I'm seeing in the second link is "100,000 d., incl. 65,000 in or on way to post-war Soviet camps." Zloyvolsheb (talk) 14:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

So you concede the point. The GDR killed more people than the government of Argentina.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't concede the point. Reread what I wrote, or ask me to elaborate on anything specific that is unclear. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The source I linked to stated: "Up to 100,000 people are now believed to have died at the hands of East Germany’s former communist rulers and the Soviet occupiers that preceded them". You objected that up to 65,000 were killed by the Soviets prior to the establishment of the GDR. What happened to the additional 35,000?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The estimate wasn't that 65,000 were killed by the Soviets. It was 65,000 "in or on way to post-war Soviet camps." I'm not sure who makes that claim, since the text you linked to merely quotes a few newspaper articles. Even if we take the 100,000 as an accurate statistic of mortality, the question is how many were killed by the Soviet Union under military occupation. By the way, claims like that are generally sourced to better sources than 20-year-old newspaper articles. Given the amount of scholarship on history and politics, one would expect to see an estimate from a scholarly text. Yet another aspect is the fact that there was a dramatic difference between the Stalin era and what came after it. "Between 1960... and the Soviet collapse in 1990, the number of political prisoners, torture victims, and executions of nonviolent dissenters in Latin America vastly exceeded that of the Soviet Union and its East European satellites." [3] Zloyvolsheb (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Valentino is not an academic source? How about R.J. Rummel? I was using low figures: Rummel estimates 70,000 killings by the GDR from its founding to 1987! Coatsworth is a nutcase: Until the late 1980s, the Soviets ran 1,000 concentration camps where at least 2 million inmates endured constant violence--and there was no US domination of Latin America comparable to the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. Why doesn't he include Soviet satellites like Uganda, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Communist Afghanistan, ect.?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Valentino's "may have" been killed by the USSR, discredited R. J. Rummel, countries like Uganda as "Soviet satellites" and your claim about "1,000 concentration camps into the late 1980s." John Coatsworth is "a nutcase" and academics are in the business of crafting "conspiracy theories." You have a certain way of arguing. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

All estimates are merely estimates. It seems you have nothing to offer except denial: Denial that Idi Amin was supported by the USSR, denial that the Stasi executed anyone for political reasons, dismissal of all sources to the contrary. You want me to accept Coatsworth, while claiming Rummel is "discredited"? You want me to accept Argentina as a US client, while refusing to accept Uganda as a Soviet client? Here's a report from the time: "While the United States had supplied Argentina with considerable assistance over many years before 1977, it was only in 1976 that the truly repressive Videla regime came to power. Within a year of the coup, the United States terminated its arms sales to Argentina. Furthermore, the United States has continually denounced Argentinean repression in international forums, whereas the Soviet Union has come to their defense....Argentina has played a vital role in sabotaging the grain embargo on the Soviet Union." Here's another: "Argentina has redirected its normal pattern of trade to a greater extent than any of the other grain exporters in 1979. Pursuing an aggressive marketing strategy after abolishing its Grain Board some time before, the government allowed its companies to replace all the U.S. orders they could. It reduced customary exports to Italy, Spain, Japan, Chile, and Peru, selling nearly all of its exportable corn and grain sorghum surplus to the Soviet Union. In return, it received prices of almost 25 cents over the American selling price from the desperate Soviet foreign trade organization responsible for grain imports, Export Khleb. In addition, Export Khleb wooed Argentina into an agreement to sell 20 million tons of corn and grain sorghum, and 2.5 million tons of soybeans to the Soviets over the next five years. The Soviet Vice Minister of Foreign Trade even predicted in April a tripling of total trade between the USSR and Argentina in the next few years." And another: "This poor harvest did not prevent Argentina from expanding its grain exports to the Soviet Union." And another: "Soviet propaganda and other support for Argentina during the South Atlantic war contrasted favorably in Argentine eyes with US support for the United Kingdom."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What is it you'd like me to accept? That Uganda qualifies as a Soviet "satellite state" because they maintained friendly relations? That Uganda, Libya, Iraq, and Syria were all satellite states, according to you? I am not asking you to accept Argentina as a client state of the United States. Why are you telling me about Argentina's external trade? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I wrote a long and detailed response, but I deleted it. This conversation is pointless. You'll always find a way to imply things without saying them, go off topic, and deny facts. Argentina was irrelevant when you brought it up, and your belief that Argentina was "far more repressive" than East Germany is ludicrous. There's no reason for further discussion.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, there is no need to go on talking if you are just going to casually brush off to the side sources that explicitly say something you don't like (such as Coatsworth) and put "implied" things in my mouth. So there is no point in further discussing it. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Coatsworth's claim is empirically false. There were at least 2 million prisoners in the USSR until the late eighties.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

So, Coatsowrth must be false, but you don't have an alternative source. According to the Oxford-published Encyclopedia of Human Rights, "In the 1970s there were perhaps ten thousand political prisoners in the USSR out of a prison population of 1 million." David Fosythe (ed.) (2009).Encyclopedia of Human Rights, Volume 1. Oxford University Press. p. 519. But the USSR wasn't killing off its dissidents the way that the Latin American nations in the 1980s still were. So Coatsworth is completely correct when he says that the Soviet bloc was considerably less repressive than the authoritarian regimes Latin America after de-Stalinization. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 13:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "alternative source"? How many people does he say were killed or imprisoned in Latin America? Why are we even discussing this?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

By "alternative source" I mean another WP:RS contradicting the comparison of repression previously provided. We are discussing this because you have claimed that "Coatsworth's claim is empirically false. There were at least 2 million prisoners int he USSR until the late eighties." [4] In fact, there were "perhaps ten thousand political prisoners in the USSR out of a prison population of 1 million" in the 1970s according to the Encyclopedia of Human Rights. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Avraham Shifrin, The First Guidebook to Prisons and Concentration Camps of the Soviet Union, Bantam Books, 1982.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a very old book from a non-academic publisher. I haven't taken a look at it because I have neither the book nor a link, but pretty much all the Cold War era writings are outdated. The Soviet archives were only opened after 1991, leading to what has been called the "archival revolution." While not everything inside the archives has been made available, the data that was made available essentially forced academic writers from across the political spectrum to revise their estimates downward to a very high degree. For example, no specialist now accept the claim that 60 million people died because of Stalin, as claimed by Solzhenitsyn. Nor does anybody take Rummel's estimates seriously. No serious source current scholarship claims that there were 2 million political prisoners in the Soviet Union in the 1980s.

If Shifrin really wrote that there were millions of political prisoners in the USSR in 1982, he may be quite fringe even by Cold War standards. Christopher Osakwe's estimate "Due Process of Law and Civil Rights Cases in the Soviet Union" in Soviet Law After Stalin, cited an Amnesty International estimate of 10,000 political prisoners in the Soviet Union:

Amnesty International, a world-wide human rights organization, without defining the term "political prisoners", estimates that there are about 10,000 political prisoners (prisoners of conscience) in the USSR today.

– Christopher Osakwe (1977). "Due Process of Law and Civil Rights Cases in the Soviet Union". In Donald D. Barry, George Ginsburgs, and Peter B. Maggs (eds.), Soviet Law After Stalin. Law in Eastern Europe 20(I), University of Leyden. A.W. Sitjhoff.

Now, as for the post-Stalin Soviet prisoner figures produced after 1991, this is what Moshe Lewin, a professor of Russian history at the University of Pennsylvania and Gregory Elliot, a sociologist at Brown University, published on repression during the post-Stalin period in Soviet Century, 2005:

Most cases of a political character were brought for 'anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda', 'organization activities', defamation of the state, or (in lesser numbers) violation of the law on separation of Church and state. According to the KGB, 8, 124 trials were held for 'anti-Soviet manifestations' during the Khrushchev-Brezhnev-Chernenko eriods (1957-85), most of them on the basis of the articles targeting anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda and the deliberate circulation of calumnies against the state - the two most widely used articles.

For a period of twenty-eight years, the above figures seem 'disappointingly' low. let us turn to a statistical table drawn upby an authoritative source, furnishing data on repression in four four-year periods: 1959-62, 1963-6, 1967-70, 1971-74. The total number of cases is greater than that given by the KGB for the period 1957-85, because it includes all convictions for crimes against the state based on the six articles of the criminal code. For the four periods, the respective totals are as follows: 5,413, 3,251, 2,456, and 2,424. In the first period, an average of 1,354 persons per annum were charged; the figure drops to 606 for the last period. The majority of the accused were pursued for anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda: 1,601 in the first period and 348 in the last. . . . But we should also add the category of those who were not charged or convicted, but made subject to 'prophylactic' procedures: 58,291 between 1967 and 1970 and 63,108 between 1971 and 1974. The trigger for a 'prophylactic' intervention by the KGB was suspicious contact with foreigners, treasonable intentions or harmful political manifestations. 'Prophylaxis' could be carried on in the workplace and take the form of an official warning. In the event of recidivism, cases could be referred to the courts (this occurred in only 150 cases over eight years). Some publications supply different figures, using different timespans and recording the various alleged offences. But Pikhoia's data seems the most reliable (they doubtless derive from the presidential archive) and also provide information on categories of offence.

– Moshe Lewin and Gregory Elliott (2005). The Soviet Century. London: Verso. pp. 191-192.

In other words, the vast majority of dissidents were not imprisoned. And the number of people imprisoned for political offenses is in the range of people killed for political offenses in Latin America.

As far as a more general comparative analysis of repression in authoritarian states, here's a very recent source - Linda Camp Keith (2012). Political Repression: Courts and the Law. University of Pennsylvania Press. Professor Linda Keith writes that authoritarian Marxist / Marxist-Leninist regimes, as compared with other authoritarian regimes such as military juntas, are in fact less repressive than claimed - e.g.:

The expectation that leftist regimes are more repressive reflects the assumptions of Cold War hardliners but in part the association is linked to Marxist-Leninist tenets about the need for a dictatorship of the proletariat. More recent empirical evidence runs counter to these assumptions. . . (p. 87)

While it has been argued that “the tenets of Marxist-Leninist theory about the need for a dictatorship of the proletariat” would suggest that Marxist-Leninist regimes may be more inclined toward repression (Poe and Tate 1994, 858), my results here support Keith's (2002a) further explanation that in these regimes, control of society and of personal freedoms has often been so complete that the regimes might be less likely to need to engage in these more severe abuses of personal integrity rights, which is exactly what I find. . . . These results also support Davenport's (2007b) findings. (p. 110)

Sorry if you don't like it, but it is what it is. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

RE: Schiff Please consider my last edit comment with the word "MOREOVER" and then consider whether I "backed down" any assertion

This IP editor has been adding promotional material on the film to various articles. Please revert your last re-insertion. There's no reason to think this film will turn out to be notable and if you can find a RS that is discussing its prospective release you may have material for a valid mention here. Otherwise not. Please cut out the personal remarks. Thanks.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 03:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with the source?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Check the source and do some research. There is considerable reporting on the source by third parties, for example. [5]] Moreover, as I pointed out this IP user is putting promotional links on varous Wiki articles for the purpose of creating links back to The Bubble article that was created to promote the film and proposed for deletion because it lacked links to it. If this is notable, there will be other sources we can use.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

So, you want to get the article deleted, and to bolster your case you are deliberately trying to ensure it remains an orphan. However, you have no consensus for deletion, nor consensus at RSN that the source is unreliable. Instead, you are using harassment to sabotage a brand new article for political reasons. Have fun with that, and come back here when there is consensus on the matter. Cheers,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, no I have no concern about the movie article. I happened to see it by accident. Somebody else or a bot tagged it for deletion, as you can verify. I notice that you tend to be suspicious of others' motives, certainly of mine in 2 instances, but I think you could just as well verify that I'm a constructive and cooperative contributor here. To accuse me of harassment is unwarranted and contrary to the norms of the Wikipedia community. Do as you wish. It's a minor blemish on Mr. Schiff's article and I have no taste for conflict. If you'll recall last time you attacked me, on the attempt to label Mr. Schiff an economist, you wasted lots of time and eventually saw that I was correct. Try to avoid picking fights. Thanks.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Please Stop Edit Warring RE: Bubble

Please revert your recent changes on The Bubble film article. Otherwise, we will have to go through the process of having your re-insertion of these non WP:RS sources adjudicated. You must know that they would then be disallowed. The Houston Chronicle Blog is not a RS, nor is the Business Insider. All of the sources are quotes or paraphrases of promotional material issued by the subject of the article. The word "entirely" was left in the tag from the editor who originally tagged the article. I am removing "entirely." The Chronicle blog states a release date that did not occur. It's not a news article and not a RS. You reinserted other non-RS as well. If there really is going to be a film released and if it turns out to be notable, there will be many reliable sources for you and others to cite, either now or when a film is actually released. In the meantime, you should state your concern on talk and stop edit warring. Please revert your changes and be a constructive editor on this article.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)