Jump to content

Talk:Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Davide King (talk | contribs) at 19:14, 26 November 2020 (→‎Criticism: ce). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

V of CMF

A sloppy selection of the name: "Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation" :-) - Altenmann >t 17:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

people who got the medal

why aren't they mentioned in the article ?

http://victimsofcommunism.org/mission/history/ names

1999 "Soviet dissident Elena Bonner, Bulgarian Prime Minister Philip Dimitrov, Lithuanian statesman Vytautas Landsbergis, and longtime labor union leader Lane Kirkland"

2003 Vaclav Havel

2005 Pope John Paul II

Looks as if these six people were the only repicients . --Neun-x (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy section

Philosophy section as iyt stands has no relevnce to the foundation. Yes, the foundation may have philosophy and its goals. But such section must come from sources which specifically discuss foundation. Wikipedia already has hundreds of articles about evils of communist ideology, we cannot repeat them in this article. - üser:Altenmann >t 02:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "Only socialist countries have achieved the tragic distinction of launching rockets into outer space while millions of their citizens starve to death in famine."ref name="Smith"/" is not "philosophy", but ignorant propaganda bullshitting. Holodomor was in 1930s while rockets were in 1960s. Just the same we may speak about United States as "only capitalist countries launching rockets while genocide of its indigenous population or lynching negroes or not giving voting rights to women" and so on. - üser:Altenmann >t 02:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent IP edit now has sources

So maybe it's not a good idea to revert again without discussion. I may have missed something, but it looks more or less right. Doug Weller talk 18:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted. The WP:ONUS is on the IP to get consensus for their changes. And given they started without sources, it's clear a POV motivation is here. Those sources will need close analysis for reliability, NPOV, and WP:Due; I am highly skeptical about their changes. By no means is all or even most anti-communism "right wing" or "conservative", and these are clearly being used as snarl words. Even many socialists and other anti-capitalists oppose authoritarian Communism. Crossroads -talk- 19:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I see that the sources were being used in regard to the Black Book of Communism. We are not going to WP:COATRACK this article with one-sided criticism of that book. The sources at that article are clear that the book was praised as well. Crossroads -talk- 19:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation is one of the biggest tent anti-communist organizations around, many of the stakeholders and decision makers are right wing or conservative but many aren’t (for instance the current government of Taiwan). The Black Book of Communism has been debated to death, what we had before the IP’s addition was fair and I echo Crossroads’s coatrack concerns. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll take a look again tomorrow but it's now taking clearly fringe conspiratorial positions or at least it's taken one by blaming COVID deaths on Communism. Doug Weller talk 20:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is suggesting that we use them as a definitive source for anything but I don’t think their position is fringe or conspiratorial. Their logic appears to be that the CCP’s initial coverup and non-transparent governing mechanisms are responsible for turning what should have been a manageable regional cluster into a global pandemic, they then ascribe that specific failure by the CCP to prevent a pandemic to communism at large [1] which is pointy and oversimplified to the point of being a pretty much useless statistic but not technically inaccurate. The first half of that argument (that the CCP’s initial coverup and non-transparent governing mechanisms caused this to turn into a pandemic) is something you will find in the pages of any WP:RS, the only contentious thing is the attribution of the deaths to communism writ large. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think its a jump too far as theres nothing about health crisis coverups and non-transparent governing mechanisms inherent in communism, examples of both can be found in every system on earth to some extent, and it removes any responsibility for COVID deaths from other governments which I think is inappropriate at a time when so many are struggling to hold their own governments accountable for their response to the pandemic. I don’t see it as advancing any conspiracy theories, although I think it would be fair to characterize the claim writ large as hyperbolic. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye Jack: if not conspiracy, it's still fringe. As you say, it remove responsibility from governments and that view is definitely not mainstream. I just saw the figures for deaths per million, and the UK, whose government has been late and confused, is at the top, then the US. Doug Weller talk
Lets be clear about what part is fringe though, the fringe part is blaming global COVID-19 deaths on Communism. Blaming them on the CCP isn't fringe, I think its clear to everyone at this point that the CCP fucked up monumentally in containing this thing and warning the world about it. Everyone who trusted the CCP even a little bit has suffered, the only mostly uninfected major nation is Taiwan and thats because they started from a position of zero trust (well actually less than that, from a position of deep mistrust) in the CCP and took action when the CCP was (we now know dishonestly) saying no action needed to be taken. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I missed something but I saw no source for calling this organization "right-wing/conservative". I also don't get the need for adding all these sources when we already link to 'The Black Book of Communism' in the article (and ergo the controversy surrounding the body count). I also don't see the need for bringing out the fact that "historians, scholars, and analysts" have criticized the book.....rather than just noting them as critics here and letting the reader go to the aforementioned page to read deeper as to their background.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, gentlemen. Sorry for not taking part in this discussion earlier. I was busy with other matters before I noticed activity on this talkpage. Anyways, as I was stating earlier in my recent edit summary, while left-leaning individuals may express anti-communism themselves, the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation in particular has never supported any leftist causes, and the Foundation's chairman, Lee Edwards, is a conservative scholar and a distinguished fellow in conservative thought at the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing thinktank in the United States. Other conservative and right-of-centre leadership figures in the VOCMF include Lev Dobriansky (A member of the Republican Party and the Ambassador to the Bahamas under President Ronald Reagan), Paul Hollander (A Hungarian critic of communism and left-wing politics in general), John Kirk Singlaub (A US Major General and founding member of the CIA who criticized President Jimmy Carter's withdrawal of troops from the Korean peninsula and was directly implicated in the Iran-Contra affair), George Weigel (A Catholic conservative activist and supporter of authoritarian regimes), Jack Kemp (A conservative Republican and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under President George H.W. Bush), Sali Berisha (A right-wing conservative Albanian politician and former President and Prime Minister), Emil Constantinescu (A centre-right politician and former President of Romania), Mart Laar (A centre-right politician and former Prime Minister of Estonia), Vytautas Landsbergis (A conservative Lithuanian politician and former President of Lithuania), Guntis Ulmanis (A centre-right Latvian politician and former President of Latvia), Armando Valladares (A centre-right Cuban anti-communist activist and supporter of the Contras in Nicaragua), and Lech Walesa (A centre-right Polish politician and former President of Poland). All of these figures are at the very least, right-of-centre, and none of them have endorsed any left-wing organizations or activities. 195.91.48.221 (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lech Walesa was at one point in the 1990s center right, they certainly aren’t anymore though... I’d say they’re endorsing what at least in Poland are considered left-wing organizations or activities [2][3]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Civic Platform (PO) is not a left-wing party though, and it has never been. At best, it is a centre to centre-right liberal conservative political party in support of a free market, the European Union, and slightly more liberal stances on social issues, but by and large, PO is still right-of-centre. And not to mention that being concerned about liberal democracy is not a left-right issue, considering that any position on the political spectrum is capable of authoritarianism. 195.91.48.221 (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you see that Lech Walesa is a Civic Platform party member? I’m not saying its not true but its not supported by either the Lech Walesa page, the Civic Platform, nor does it come up in a google search. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that things like opposing a withdraw from Korea (which was opposed by people on both sides on the aisle) or being part of the CIA really reveals someone as right [or left] wing. Also, a lot of the foreign (to the United States) politicians you mention fall well outside of the spectrum of American right-wing politics. (Which I assume the basis of the right-wing declaration.) People like Lech Walesa and Guntis Ulmanis couldn't get elected as dog catcher in the GOP at this point (due to their stances on things like labor unions, health care and so on). The common thread among just about everyone you listed is someone who spent a large part of their career fighting communism and/or being victims of it. In any case, it's OR to start labeling this group as "conservatives" or "right-wingers" based on your assessment of their backgrounds. I see no RS on that. It's a relevance issue as well because (as others have pointed out) a wide variety of characters opposed communism during the Cold War (including liberal icons like JFK).Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the VOCMF was founded in the 1990s, way beyond JFK and related left-leaning US politicians' lifetimes, and none of them were members or leaders of the Foundation. Once again, we are discussing the listed leadership figures here, not other personas. They are not the topic of this discussion. And Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, not one written from a Americentric perspective. Whether the figures "fall outside of the American political spectrum" (Which is ironically original research in itself) is irrelevant, because in no way did I imply an American basis for such declaration, and they are right-of-centre precisely due to their support for free-market economics (privatization, deregulation, austerity, etc) and socially conservative policies. 195.91.48.221 (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's still OR. It also doesn't make a whole lot of sense (regardless of when it was founded) to label a organization "right-wing" that opposed a philosophy that also attracted opponents in socialist/left-wing politics in other nations as well. (The Labour Party in the UK is a example). Bottom line: you need some RS for this if you want support.....and even then, I question the relevance here. (Although RS would possibly garner support for your POV from others.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Right-wing anti-Communist" is a redundant expression similar to "left-wing anti-Fascist." Certainly while the center opposes both Communism and Fascism, the terms imply a much stronger antipathy which comes from the opposite end of the political spectrum. The section on the people involved clearly shows their right-wing credentials, that should be enough. TFD (talk)
To User:Rja13ww33: Let's get one fact clear here. While there are certainly centrist and even left-leaning anti-communists out there, the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation in particular is overwhelmingly led and staffed by figures who have well-established right-wing credentials, as their sections and related sources clearly show. Ergo, the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation is, at the very least, a right-of-centre organization, and this fact should be explicitly mentioned in the article's lede. 195.91.48.221 (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You need to get a RS for that. So far, all I've heard is your (questionable) evaluation of the backgrounds of the leadership of this group......that's WP:OR. I (also) still question the relevance of labeling this group "right"....but as I said, RS may garner your POV more support from others.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Lee Edwards et al are conservatives is obvious if you take a look at these sources in particular:

https://books.google.com/books?id=ZJ7phRjZmUsC&pg=PA81 https://books.google.com/books?id=Sag0i4r-Ic8C&pg=PR10 https://www.heritage.org/staff/lee-edwards https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/lee-edwards-when-the-new-right-was-new/ http://old.nationalreview.com/nordlinger/nordlinger200407221016.asp https://europeanconservative.com/2019/04/paul-hollander-1932-2019/ https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=I9kRAAAAIBAJ&pg=6859%2C844160 http://rightweb.irc-online.org/gw/2815.html https://web.archive.org/web/20081012074837/http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jzQtw1kATj1xCqPcAmwgCKDtNpDQD93LGSJG0 https://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/64535087.html?dids=64535087:64535087&FMT=ABS https://www.jstor.org/stable/25154655?seq=1 https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-cathedral-and-the-cube-reflections-on-european-morale/ https://www.thebostonpilot.com/opinion/article.asp?ID=186256 https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9504E6D7163EF93BA25756C0A9659C8B63 https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9407E5D71E3EF933A25757C0A9679C8B63 https://web.archive.org/web/20110524210141/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/articles/950213/archive_011365.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20110524205906/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/961209/archive_035121.htm http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,977006-2,00.html 95.102.240.38 (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While that's a valid argument, we cannot use it per "no synthesis." You would need a source saying that it was run by right-wingers, not just sources for each person running it that there were right-wing. Unfortunately, not much has been written about the group. I know that they received some coverage in Canada because they had to change the wording of their inscription and then their permission to use the original location was revoked. But it's probably a separate organization. TFD (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note for you: a few links didn't work. But the one on Paul Hollander illuminates what you are trying to do here. Even your source (which I am not even sure is RS) calls him a "anti-communist scholar" and later says "Hollander was often cited, particularly in conversations with libertarians, classical liberals, and conservative scholars (that is, those who best understand the threat of collectivism)". In other words, a critic of communism cited by other critics of communism. I don't think this really qualifies him as a conservative or right-winger. This is a lot of OR and SYN. And again I ask: what is the relevance (to the reader) as to whether this group is right-wing (or whatever) considering the broad coalition that stood against communism during the Cold War?Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. To even begin to consider this as a possibility, we would need WP:Reliable sources that state that this group is right-wing or conservative. Not just certain individuals associated with it - that's WP:Synthesis. And lest I later be accused of moving the goalposts, I will note that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: a communist-sympathetic opinion outlet that is just trying to tar all opposition to communism as right-wing would not be a good enough source. And it should be noted that the 1993 Act of Congress which authorized the memorial passed unanimously (i.e. by left-leaning and right-leaning members) and was signed by Democratic U.S. President Bill Clinton. The article Anti-communism also makes clear that anti-communism is not just a right-wing thing. So I do not see the utility of these labels at all. I think they would contradict the spirit behind WP:LABEL. Even though "conservative" and "right-wing" are not inherently value laden and are indeed in many cases both accurate and proudly worn by that to which it is affixed, in this case it misleads the reader about this group and about anti-communism and is clearly intended to be value-laden beyond what is appropriate. Crossroads -talk- 00:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it proves anything about the organisation, but Clinton's signature cannot be seen as endorsing it, even if he did. He had no choice. But it's true that we might have an article which shows that the organisation is basically run by conservatives but that we can't call conservative or right wing. Doug Weller talk 01:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: I see a slippery slope here, if we can characterize an organization by characteristics of its leadership without a WP:RS making the contention about the organization as a whole then it would be perfectly logical to go and describe the Republican Party as a “white male Political Party.” Likewise most corporations (especially outside the US and EU) could be described as a “male company.” If WP:RS say the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation is less big tent than I’ve been led to believe I can accept that, but I haven't seen it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What slippery slope? I said we couldn't call it conservative or right wing on the basis of its leadership. Doug Weller talk 16:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’m agreeing with your final sentence and explaining why I agree. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The real question (that no one will answer) is: why exactly is it relevant that they are right-wing (if they are)? (Given the history of this.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rja13ww33: I don't understand - are you saying that the politics of an organisation isn't relevant? For one thing, it's about aims. A right-wing anti-communist group likely has different aims than a left-wing one. Doug Weller talk 13:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Different aims? That's highly questionable. Different tactics.....that's for sure. Certainly there were people (for example) who agreed with our effort to contain communism/the USSR who opposed involvement in the Vietnam War and/or (say) Contra aid. But at the end of the day, they all saw containment as important. That's what is relevant in this regard in my opinion. This group is not about any specific action of the Cold War...just the object of it.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not questionable at all. To take the extremes, a left wing group might be wanting to replace Communism with a non Marxist-Leninist form of socialism, a rightwing group with fascism. Doug Weller talk 19:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To me it's highly questionable. It's sort of like labeling a group that fought the NSDAP as left/right. We are talking a broad coalition of opposition to a ideology.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In Roads to Dominion (p. 9), Sara Diamond writes, "At an elite level, anticommunism was about preserving economic inequality, the libertarian strain in right-wing thinking. At a more mass level, anticommunism was about obedience to authority and repression of domestic political dissent and deviant tendencies in the broader culture." She then explains how it provided a unifying cause for the U.S. Right.[4] Paul Hollander was definitely a man of the Right. TFD (talk) 02:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what exactly a quote from a (obscure) sociologist proves. The politics of this are quite clear. They brought into the same tent leaders like Konrad Adenauer (who was jailed in Nazi Germany) and James Callaghan with people like Thatcher, Reagan, Kohl, etc. This is not to mention the various parties in France, the UK, and so on that despite their leftist leanings were also (in some form or another) part of the Cold War coalition. As far as Mr. Hollander's views go, I see nothing that says he is a right-winger. Just that he was a critic "of communism and left-wing politics". Which doesn't automatically make him right wing. (He could be centrist for all this article says.) Bill Clinton ran (in 1992) criticizing a lot of left (and obviously right) policies. The coalition historically has been so broad that labeling any group as anything (other than anti-communist) is pretty meaningless.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sara Diamond is actually well known as a scholar of the American Right and owns the largest private collection on the subject, which is now housed at Berkeley.[5] Of your list of prominent Cold Warriors, all of them except Callaghan were right-wing. Adenauer, for despite being briefly imprisoned by the Nazis several times, had supported Hitler's rise to power. There's very little in Callaghan's entry in the Cold War Reference Guide to classify him as an anticommunist. When he was foreign secretary, Labour cut defense spending and as PM he negotiated loans for the Soviet Union and told the U.S. not to invade Angola. On the other hand, his support for detente was weak and he thought the USSR should also stay out of Angola and he wanted the UK to keep its nuclear weapons.[6] Whereas to Adenauer, fighting communism was the most important thing, Callaghan had it lower down the priority list. And it's questionable with his economic policies whether Callaghan was left at all.
It's like being pro-life, pro-death penalty, anti-Islamist, anti-same sex marriage, etc. They are not necessarily right-wing positions, just that they are central to the U.S. right and all the activists are right-wing.
To return to my main point, we don't have to say that an anticommunist group, especially one that exaggerates claims made in reliable sources is right-wing. The only people who want to re-fight the Cold War are right-wingers. I mean, how many of your Democratic friends do you think you could drag out to a demonstration against Castro?
TFD (talk) 03:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of her [Diamond]. I can't think of any text on the Cold War where I have seen her cited. And she is neither a historian nor a political scientist. Adenauer was right-wing? With all respect, that is preposterous. His stance (for example) on the social welfare state would get him called a socialist by most right-wingers. As for Callaghan, he knew exactly who he was dealing with in the Soviet Union.....saying this on arms control: "The Soviet Union's propaganda clearly wishes to use public opinion in this country to get the West to reduce its own arms while doing nothing themselves. In this way they would gain nuclear superiority. This is simply not on." It's important to note: this was at the same time when the nuclear freeze movement was gaining momentum in the United States and so were similar movements in Western Europe. (Like the Greens Party in West Germany.) If you are going to label everyone I list (short of someone who is an out and out communist) as being "right-wing".....I guess this is moot. But I'll leave this off by pointing out the Labour Party (in the UK) had plenty of Cold Warriors and no one in their right mind would call Labour "right-wing". In any case, if we are in agreement that this is SYN, there is not much point in arguing.Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should be aware that the German welfare state was first spearheaded by Chancellor Otto von Bismarck in the 1870s and 1880s, who was an ardent right-wing Prussian militarist conservative and a staunch anti-socialist. He instituted a welfare state solely to attempt to weaken the SPD, which ultimately failed however, since by the beginning of the 1910s, the SPD has become the largest political party in the Reichstag. As for James Callaghan's remark, it was said in the context of global nuclear disarmament, not a ideological opposition to communism. You yourself have stated that the remark was made at a time where a mass movement for global nuclear disarmament was gaining momentum, and James Callaghan of course was a supporter of it. Telling a world power to disarm and decommision their nuclear warheads is not anti-communism, but rather, anti-militarism. 95.102.240.38 (talk) 05:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly I am aware of it. But you yourself pointed out his motivation. Callaghan's remark came at a time when a lot of (far) lefties wanted a freeze regardless of what the Soviet Union did. He knew better because he realized who we were facing and the danger they posed. In any case, I'm not sure why exactly this is a point. The bottom line is: the opposition to the Soviet Union/communism became a broad group that included plenty of left-wingers. (By any sane measure.) Furthermore, this is a pointless argument since almost everyone here agrees this constitutes a SYN issue. (Regardless of who you want to call left or right.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 05:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the criterion for whether or not someone is obscure is not whether or not you have heard of them. If your reading is limited to people you believe will confirm your beliefs, you've probably not heard of many people unless right-wing sources choose to comment on them. Adenauer was a life-long Christian Democrat, which is the main right-wing party in Germany. Thatcher, Kohl and Reagan not only belonged to the right-wing party in their respective countries but belonged to the right-wing of those parties. Together they tried to restart the Cold War by cancelling detente and increasing military spending. While one may argue whether they were correct, it's clear that they were both right-wing and anticommunist. The position of left-wing, moderate and center-right politicians before them had been peaceful coexistence and detente. And in fact some Labour politicians have been called right-wing for support of the Cold War and defunding social programs. But again you are confusing opposition to Communism with anticommunism. Jews for example don't believe that Jesus was God, but that doesn't make them anti-Christian. TFD (talk) 05:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I checked some of the Cold War books by some of the heavyweight historians of the era. If she's in one: let me know. What you don't seem to be getting here is: I mentioned Thatcher, Kohl and Reagan along with Adenauer & Callaghan as obviously comparing left [Adenauer & Callaghan] with right-wingers [i.e. Thatcher, Kohl and Reagan] who all found themselves on the same side in the Cold War. (I was obviously not saying Thatcher, Kohl and Reagan were left-wingers.) Not that there were not some differences that developed along the way in terms of details/strategy.....but the goals were very much similar. In any case, if the point here is: all Cold Warriors/anti-communist were/are right-wingers.....we'll have to agree to disagree. But I'd say the point is moot (isn't it?) since we all (yourself included) consider this a SYN issue yes?Rja13ww33 (talk) 06:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adenauer was a man of the Right as leader of the Christian Democratic Union and before that the predecessor Center Party. On the spectrum they were between the conservatives and liberals, which is how they got their name. In the post-war era, the Right in developed countries supported social welfare programs. That doesn't mean they were left wing. And their other major objective was anticommunism. While all noncommunist parties opposed communism, the degree of opposition became increasingly extreme as one moved to the right. At the extreme, they were killed or outlawed, while the Left supported diplomacy or made alliances with them. Anticommunism underwent a revival in the 1990s as the European Right tried to justify its support of Nazism during WW2. Their argument was that they had supported the lesser evil. But of course Social Democrats had never supported Nazism.

I didn't say btw that Diamond was an expert on the Cold War. She is an expert on the American Right. Have you read any books about it?

TFD (talk) 08:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not really interested in debating left vs. right or something as silly as "opposing communism" vs. anti-communism if we are in agreement that this is SYN (as it stands now). Are you still in agreement that this is SYN? If yes, there isn't much to talk about.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's synthesis. My point though was that the description is redundant. We would expect that most if not all of the leadership would be to the right of mainstream Republicanism. TFD (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thats interesting, most are center-right (especially the Europeans) which is to the left of mainstream American Republicanism although whats "mainstream" for Republicans has drifted awfully right in the last few years. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reagan and Thatcher were clearly in the right-wing of their respective policy and had similar ideologies. Thatcher did not align with the U.S. Democratic Party even though her policies were to the left of them. In any case the leadership of anticommunist groups tends to come from people to the right of Reagan and Thatcher. Reagan and Thatcher at least eventually adopted a policy of diplomacy with Communism. TFD (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-communist groups or groups that (among their aims) are anti-communism? Because if the latter counts (and I think it should), there are plenty of groups that are left/center-left political organizations in the West that have taken a anti-communist stance. But in any case, if we are all in agreement this is SYN....this whole argument is moot at this point.Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you name any left-wing anticommunist organizations? TFD (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You need to re-read my last post and advise as to which one you are looking for.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

Regarding this, I do not think that just because it is an essay, it should be dismissed like that; it seems to make very fair or rational arguments; it just seems to be common sense to avoid a Criticism section and incorporate it elsewhere, unless we actually have a separate article about the criticism. which makes it especially notable. And I disagree that "this is not about the organization's history anyway" because it is actually about it, the narrative it is pushing and so is relevant there. Davide King (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we currently have a WP:DUE issue vis-a-vis Ghodsee. While she is a notable critic currently an extensive summary of her work is the *entirely* of the criticism section... I think we’re using her for too much. Surely this organization has any number of notable critics? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed it is too much, especially if other critics turn up. And the organization likely has supporters as well. If academic supporters turn up then they should be added and the section renamed "Reception". I still hold that putting this criticism under "history" doesn't fit because it isn't about the history of the organization. It's about the topic as a whole. It's easier to find as its own section anyway. Crossroads -talk- 18:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The organisation is one of the anti-communist organisations promoting the victims of Communism narrative. This narrative, which may have took its name from the organisation as it popularised the term, is well discussed in The Criminalisation of Communism in the European Political Space after the Cold War (2018) by Routledge. By the way, I just noted we have Democracy promotion as category but I am not sure that is warranted as the organisations in the Category are those whose main aim is that ("[a] central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article."). The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation's main aim is "educating Americans about the ideology, history and legacy of communism." Davide King (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we should avoid criticism sections. Also, I don't know if this is criticism, it's just an objective description of what the organization does. Calling it criticism is giving equal validity to a organization that promotes fringe views. TFD (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Four Deuces, I agree with that but unfortunately many users seem to take it at face value, hence why I felt the need for my additions, which were not meant to prove that they are or their narrative is wrong, just that they are pushing a popular among the public but fringe view within academia and scholarship. It is simply taken as fact that reliable sources, including academic ones, support the concept of Communist mass killings or Victims of Communism. No one denies the events indeed happened but a few authors and organisations such as this one make a connection that ties small-c communism, socialism and the broad left to mass killings, as George Watson, who also claimed Hitler was a Marxist, has argued in The Lost Literature of Socialism. Davide King (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have to explain that they see Communist ideology as the cause of the killings, although we don't have to get into details about academic arguments. The only thing we should point out is that their 100 million figure is unsupported in academic writing and perhaps explain that they chose an exaggerated number in order to prove their point that Communism was worse than Nazism. I don't think btw that Watson is read by many anti-Communists. While the typical right-wing narrative is that Nazism and Communism derived from Jacobinism, Watson saw them as deriving from anti-Jacobinism. TFD (talk) 20:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is good by me, but what is you proposed edit and how would you word it and reference it? Davide King (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does any of you see a problem with me putting this back? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victims_of_Communism_Memorial_Foundation&diff=990819724&oldid=990817531Davide King The Four Deuces.Isabella Emma (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Isabella Emma, we already say "[t]he 100 million estimate favored by the foundation is dubious, Ghodsee says, as their source for this is the controversial introduction to the The Black Book of Communism by Stéphane Courtois", so it is not a big deal to me. However, since the organisation is the one pushing the 100 million and beyond estimate, I think it is fine to provide context, even if it does not directly mention the organisation; what matters is that they mention the 100 million estimate which the organisation is pushing. My biggest concern is that we present Ghodsee as a criticism when, as noted by The Four Deuces, "it's just an objective description of what the organization does. Calling it criticism is giving equal validity to a organization that promotes fringe views." That is why it would be better to rename it Scholarly analysis and add more of, you guessed it, scholarly analysis. Davide King (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this revert by Opalzukor, citing NPOV, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view actually says "[a]ll encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." We do not give equal weight to scholarly analysis and fringe views. Davide King (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Victims_of_Communism_Memorial_Foundation&oldid=990831424"