Talk:Gulag

NPOV tag again

I am still waiting for concrete explanations of why the tag is being constantly restored. It would be also good if the person who is doing that provided concrete proposals how to fix the neutrality issue. If no concrete proposals will follow in close future I'll remove the tag.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Since I got no answer, I remove the tag. Please, do not re-insert it without explanations.--Paul Siebert (talk) 11:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I rather suspect the tag was related to the article as it stands being overly reliant on particular Russian-language sources as gospel and stating figures as facts with not much on the debate over how many went through the Gulag, in toto, not just the "official" GULAG, debate over victims, etc. I've added a section on Gulag overall population figures. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you to take into account that current scholarly consensus (expressed by such an anti-Communist scholar as Robert Conquest (Robert Conquest in "Victims of Stalinism: A Comment." Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 49, No. 7 (Nov., 1997), pp. 1317-1319 states: "We are all inclined to accept the Zemskov totals (even if not as complete) with their 14 million intake to Gulag 'camps' alone, to which must be added 4-5 million going to Gulag 'colonies', to say nothing of the 3.5 million already in, or sent to, 'labour settlements'. However taken, these are surely 'high' figures.")) is that, whereas the Getty's figures do not reflect the total number of the victims of Stalinist repressions, they correctly reflect the GULAG population. All needed information is in the article and in the talk page archive. I doubt it is possible to question the publication in The American Historical Review; it is equally impossible that Conquest's may have any pro-Soviet bias. Therefore, all your additions reflect just a history of the issue, and should be treated as such. Please, bring the text you add into the accordance with what reliable sources say. Please, keep also in mind that English sources are preferable in English Wikipedia.

PS I agree that the section devoted to the history of this issue (starting from the seminal Solzhenitsyn's "Archipelago") would be a very useful and interesting addition to the article, because a reader should know haw the views of the number of GULAG population evolved with time, however, this should be the historical section, because there is no debates in recent mainstream English literature on that account currently. I'll try to collect all relevant English sources on this account. Believe, by the end of April I'll be ready with that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I reuse a Russian source already in the article. Also, the odd use of numbers and other content from single Russian sources and represented as the facts of various situations is not of my editing, but does need attention as you indicate. As far as numbers go, while somewhat chronological in places, the section added is not intended as a history but as representation of a debate. I would note that debate becomes more, not less, complicated when one starts discussing mortality. Sources published over the last ten years—starting ten years after the availability, more then less, of access to Soviet archives—all reflect the full range of "historical" debate over numbers of victims and that the debate as to total population and how many died, while perhaps somewhat narrowed, is not settled. I would also suggest that unless the article is titled GULAG, see also Gulag, that we insure it addresses the wider picture. There appear to be areas of content which focus on presenting numbers which ignore the larger (and more appropriate) picture.

(ec) Where I see debate in English language sources, you see lack of same. I await your presentation of "no debate" in English language sources.PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you prefer to continue this discussion here or on your talk page (I left my last post there)?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Re "no debates", the quote is already here. Robert Conquest, whose anti-Communist viewpoint is well known stated:

" "We are all inclined to accept the Zemskov totals (even if not as complete) with their 14 million intake to Gulag 'camps' alone, to which must be added 4-5 million going to Gulag 'colonies', to say nothing of the 3.5 million already in, or sent to, 'labour settlements'".

As I already explained on this talk page, colonies' inmates served short terms (less then 2 years), not in the remote areas, so the colonies were not GULAG camps proper. Labour settlements were closer to exile, so, the number of people passed through GULAG proper was 14 million, and Conquest expressed a common opinion that Getty's figures were correct. There is no debates between serious scholars on that account. By saying that, I do not state that there is no debates over the total number of victims, and I can briefly outline major points. However, that belongs to another talk page, and I would like to return to that later.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

PS Btw, if some highly reputable source (and Conquest is reputable) expresses the opinion that consensus exists among scholars on some subject, it is normally sufficient to claim in the WP article that consensus exists, unless another equally reliable sources directly challenges this particular statement. I found no reliable sources that challenge this particular Conquest's statement, so we can safely speak about a scholarly consensus on that subject.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

In fairness if one wants to challenge the neutrality of an article one must present evidence that it does not provide proper weight to various points of view. What are these viewpoints and how do they differ from the one presented in the article. The political viewpoint of writers used as sources is irrelevant, so long as they are reliable. TFD (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Where are fair data about victims of Gulag?

Where are fair data about victims of Gulag, and who here is interested in hiding the truth about Stalin? He was the cancer of socialism so even socialists shouldn't be interested in producing such articles like this one. Discovering the truth about Stalin we find out that the fall down of socialism was not caused by its manifesto , but the simple fact that people's democracy in Russia wasn't democracy and even communism - citizen's supervision was too weak if anybody considers people's or standard democracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.36.50.84 (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The fair (official) data are available now, and as Michael Ellman argued, they are much better that the indirect data used during the Cold War era:

"The unofficial sources can be of great value for providing a qualitative picture of what happened and for conveying the subjective impressions of those involved. However, when comparing the value of these three sources, it is important to realise that the use of the unofficial sources for generating numerical estimates suffers from a major weakness."

I agree that the section about the size of GULAG population is poorly written. Firstly, it heavily relies on Russian online resources and ignore the conclusions made by western scholars, which have been published in reputable peer-reviewed journals. Although Wikipedia allows usage of non-English sources, the English sources, especially are preferable over non-English ones, and peer-reviewed sources are preferable over non-peer-reviewed online resources. In addition, many English sources have been presented in such a way that the undue weight has been given to old and obsolete sources, whereas good contemporary sources are underrepresented. I'll rewrite the section in close future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• There are no reliable data on the number of people in Gulag. Numbers given by different sources vary widely (actually, they vary 10 times for the number of prisoners). A source currently quoted in this article gives 1.6 million "casualties", but book Gulag by Applebaum gives 2.7 casualties in Gulag for the same period of time (not including executions that numbered at least 0.7 million during a few years of "Great terror"). Giving any definite numbers (especially with plots) in this article goes against NPOV. We should always give a range of numbers per sources. Yes, we should use RS, such as books by notable authors. Biophys (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
• I'd like to note that if we keep the range of numbers, it is better to make it clear that the official figures or at least the scholarly estimates are far more reliable than estimates by writers or journalists. Otherwise the latter two categories of sources should better be excluded altogether. GreyHood ^Talk

There are no "official" numbers on the subject. And even if there were any "official" numbers issued by official organizations, like US State department, KGB or whatever, we only have an obligation to follow reliable sources (and the "official" numbers are only a part of them). Also, we are not qualified to judge who was a "scholar" and who was not. It is enough to have a wikipedia article about the person and make sure the a book (a secondary RS) was independently published and qualifies as RS per policy. Biophys (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I would stick to scholarly estimates. That said, even those tend to reflect the bias, (a) Soviets were evil, (b) Soviets weren't as bad as (a) contend, of said scholars, as there are major discrepancies in official figures, e.g., far more hours worked by labor camp inmates (productivity) than inhumanly possible (resources available). Unfortunately some scholars (and editors here) prefer the lower official counts preferring to dismiss conflicting discrepancies as Soviet-bashing Cold-War originated overstatements. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

If you prefer to stick to scholarly estimates, you should accept what reputable scholars say on that account. They say:

1. "We are all inclined to accept the Zemskov totals (even if not as complete) with their 14 million intake to Gulag 'camps' alone, to which must be added 4-5 million going to Gulag 'colonies', to say nothing of the 3.5 million already in, or sent to, 'labour settlements'. However taken, these are surely 'high' figures". (Conquest, EUROPE-ASIA STUDIES, Vol. 49, No. 7, 1997, 1317-1319)
2. "The unofficial sources can be of great value for providing a qualitative picture of what happened and for conveying the subjective impressions of those involved. However, when comparing the value of these three sources, it is important to realise that the use of the unofficial sources for generating numerical estimates suffers from a major weakness. It is well known that the unofficial sources are frequently very unreliable as sources of quantitative data. An example of this is Antonov-Ovseenko's underestimate of the USSR's 1937 population. Antonov-Ovseenko fell into the trap of using a (downward) approximation of the normally enumerated population as an estimate of the total population (which also included those enumerated by the NKVD and NKO and those not enumerated at all). Furthermore, the use of unofficial sources introduces an important bias into our study of Soviet repression and penal policy, in favour of politicals and against criminals. Although only a minority of the inhabitants of the Gulag were officially classified as 'counterrevolutionaries'( although, as is agreed by all the participants in this debate, the division between criminals and politicals was blurred under Soviet conditions38)t, he unofficial or literary sources mainly derive directly or indirectly from the politicals and hence give a one-sided picture."
   "The number of people in the Gulag (camps and colonies) for shorter or longer periods just in 1941-53 was about 16 million. The number in the Gulag for shorter or lesser periods in 1934-40 was about 4,250,000.75 Allowing for the 1.5 million stock of prisoners at the end of 1940, this might seem to mean that 18.75 million prisoners flowed through the Gulag in 1934-53. Actually, the situation is more complex. Since some people were sentenced more than once, this figure contains an upward bias (it actually measures sentences rather than individuals). On the other hand, as a measure of total Gulag inmates, it also contains downward biases. It takes no account of the numbers in the Gulag prior to 1934 or after 1953. It also excludes some groups classified separately from the other prisoners but who were in the Gulag (or administratively subordinate to it) at certain periods. These included for example the so-called 'special contingent', 'labour army' and 'special settlers'." (Ellman. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 54, No. 7 (Nov., 2002), pp. 1151-1172).
3. "Western historians who consider that all these data were falsified 60 years ago, and then held in secret to be produced in order to disinform them, appear to be suffering from an exaggeration of their own importance. When Gulag officials were pleading for more supplies they had no incentive to underestimate the number of prisoners. When Gulag officials were planning production they needed to know the real number of prisoners. Their health departments needed to know how many were dying. When MVD leaders were briefing Stalin in their top security 'Osobye papki' reports they had good reason to avoid the charge of misleading him."(Wheatcroft. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 51, No. 2 (Mar., 1999), pp. 315-345)
4. "The fact that the amount of information being released from the archives is rapidly growing increasingly facilitates comparative assessments of data from the core source group. The new numbers for the population of the Gulag camps and colonies, quoted across the various articles which have revealed this archive material, are in agreement with each other, except for a couple of cases. The first of these is the changing figure for the camp population of 1946 (Table 2) quoted by Zemskov in different articles. In the broad sweep of necessarily impersonal enumeration, the precise number of camp inmates on 1 January 1946 is not a crucial statistic, and the very fact that Zemskov himself corrected the first figure to that quoted elsewhere suggests a one-off error rather than an indication of inherent unreliability." (Bacon Soviet Studies, Vol. 44, No. 6 (1992), pp. 1069-1086)

The main thing you guys cannot understand is that there is almost no disagreement over the official figures when the scholars discuss the GULAG statistics. The debates are over interpretations of these data in a context of the total scale of the Stalinist repressions. The difference is huge.

Firstly, the number of persons sent to GULAG is smaller than the number of those passed through GULAG (18.75 million), because many persons were convicted several times (Lev Razgon is a typical example).

Secondly, the number of GULAG deaths was higher than statistics tells, because massive releases frequently were used to conceal the camps' mortality (people were released to die).

Thirdly, the number of those repressed during Stalin times was greater, because the GULAG figures do not include prisons, exiles, special settlements, etc.

Fourthly, the number of those imprisoned for political reasons (not for ordinary crimes) is hard to estimate because the border between political and non-political criminals was blurred.

However, since the article is not about the repressions in general, but about GULAG, we can safely use the results of archival studies, because they are accepted by most Western scholars. Whereas they still disagree about the scale of repressions, the controversy about the GULAG statistics seems to be resolved, and we do know truth about the total number of GULAG inmates, although the question of the total number of Stalinist victims is still not completely resolved.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re the single example of discrepancies in the official figures provided by Vishnevskii in the article published in some Russian language non-peer-reviewed online resource, I do not see we can give an undue weight to this single piece of evidence. The works of serious scholars, such as Zemskov, Ellman or Wheatcroft cite a huge amount of primary sources, provide careful analysis of them and check them against each other. By contrast, the Vishnevskii's article that cites about a dozen of secondary sources and does just a superficial analysis of them, is hardly convincing. Just compare these two quotes (you all can read Russian, so, I believe non-translated quotes will be ok):

Vishnevskii:

"В. Земсков, возражая Максудову, клеймит «грандиозный миф о якобы колоссальных потерях депортированных во время транспортировки». «Г-н Максудов должен усвоить как аксиому, что если было выселено 194,1 тыс. крымских татар, то в места высылки поступило из них не менее 193,8 тыс. Смертность при транспортировке составляла, как правило, от 0,1 до 0,2%»85. В. Земсков верит в известные ему документы, но документ – это не обязательно – справка, составленная чиновником из «органов». Вот одно из свидетельств людей, переживших депортацию крымских татар. «В накрепко закрытых вагонах люди умирали, как мухи, от голода и недостатка воздуха: нам не давали ни пить, ни есть… Когда, наконец, открыли двери посреди казахстанской степи, то дали военный паек, не давая пить, приказали выбросить трупы прямо возле железнодорожного пути и не дали их закопать, после чего мы снова отравились в путь»"

Zemskov:

"В письме г-на Максудова встречаются парадоксальные выводы и аргументы, заключающиеся в приведении давно известных на Западе правильных цифр в сочетании с неточной формулировкой, из-за чего эти цифры превращаются в неправильные. Например, говоря о численности поступивших в места высылки крымских татар, он констатирует, что прибыло к 1 июля 1944 г. 151424 человека. Эта цифра правильная при условии, если употребить формулировку «прибыло в Узбекскую ССР к 1 июля 1944 г.». а при формулировке «прибыло в Узбекскую ССР и другие регионы СССР», что, очевидно, и имел ввиду г-н Максудов. не сделав оговорок относительно географии высылки, к указанному количеству (151424) надо прибавить еще более 42 тыс. человек. Эти неточности в формулировках способствовали рождению на Западе грандиозного мифа о якобы колоссальных потерях депортированных во время транспортировки. Грубо искаженные представления о масштабах этих потерь так прочно вошли в сознание, что приведение подлинной информации производит на многих западных исследователей эффект шокотерапии. Г-н Максудов не нашел ничего лучшего, как окрестить подлинную информацию «очередной туфтой». Вынужден разочаровать г-на Максудова, так как использованные мною документы по степени достоверности аналогичны докладной записке Кобулова и Серова от 19 мая 1944 г., которую он цитирует. Г-н Максудов должен усвоить как аксиому, что если было выселено 194,1 тыс. крымских татар, то в места высылки поступило из них не менее 193,8 тыс. Смертность при транспортировке составляла, как правило, от 0,1 до 0,2% (массовая же смертность началась после транспортировки)."

(It is important to note that the last sentence, carefully omitted by Vishnevskii, demonstrates that Zemskov does not deny the fact of mass mortality, as Vishnevskii' cherry picking implies).

One more point. As we can see, Vishnevskii is doing exactly what Ellman calls "attention to extreme cases", which "may distort understanding". In connection to that, Vishnevskii's writings deserve not more than a brief mention, and they cannot refute any conclusion made by serious scholars .

And one additional point. Ellman writes clearly that "ubyl'" is not equal to mortality, because it included releases, transfer from camp to camp, from category to category, etc. However, Vishnevskii does exactly what Ellman demonstrated to be wrong. That adds no credibility to the Vishnevskii's writings. I do not support the idea to rely on this source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

But the problem is that we don't need a confirmation of Vishnevsky's creditably made by you. First he is already creditable resource , second I am not sure that you a right person to decide who is creaditable and who isn't. Anatolyi Vishnevsky is

1. Doctor of Science (Economics)
2. Director of the Demography and Human Ecology Center Demography and Human Ecology Center,
3. Director of the Institute of Economic Forecasting
4. Russian Academy of Sciences.

He is a one of most important scholars from all of the mentioned here. If you are not convinced it is really bad for you. Celasson (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

We discuss not credentials of some particular scholar, but the works they authored. English sources are more preferable in English Wikipedia, and peer-reviewed sources are preferable over all others. In addition, Vishnevsky's credentials don't look too impressive as compared with those of, e.g. Conquest or Ellman: based on his background, he is not a historian at all.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Figures from the article ru:ГУЛаг in the Russian Wikipedia

Original text: “За 1920—1953 годы через систему ИТЛ прошло около 10 млн человек, в том числе по статье контрреволюционные преступления — 3,4—3,7 млн человек.”

Translation: “From 1920 to 1953, about 10 million people, including 3.4—3.7 million people convicted under article of counter-revolutionary crimes, went through the system of the forced labor camps.”

Source: Игорь Пыхалов. Каковы масштабы «сталинских репрессий»? Psychiatrick (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This source seems hardly reliable. We have good quality English sources that tell about 14 million passed through the camps, and 4-5 through the colonies.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I don’t ask you to use this source that is hardly reliable in my opinion, but I tell you that the Russian Wikipedia uses this source as a main one and relies on it. From the article about Игорь Пыхалов I have got to know that he is not a historian. His article Каковы масштабы «сталинских репрессий»? is located on the website praising Stalin and is not published in any academic journal. Psychiatrick (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The numbers by Zemskov and Pykhalov are not very different because they are both based on "data" provided by the KGB/NKVD about their own repressions. This is an organization notorious for producing disinformation. In fact, a lot of their archives have been destroyed and never opened to researchers. It does not mean that KGB data can not be quoted here. Of course they can, but not as "the truth".Biophys (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

NKVD data was intended for internal usage, and therefore they tried to make it as precise as possible. It is naive to think that they bothered about the effect those statistics would have in a distant future. Also, there were millions and millions of documents, it is impossible to forge so much or to forge parts of them without huge inconsistencies. As Paul Siebert said, the original data is quite uncontroversial, but the controversy arises when one tries to interpret it - too many different organisations, different categories of prisoners and different types of repressions, difference between sentenced/executed or sent/passed etc. GreyHood ^Talk 20:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

@Biophys. Pykhalov relies mostly on Dugin's and Zemskov's data, the same data used by Western scholars. Therefore, since we have much better sources, we have no need in this Russian web source.

@Greyhood. You are not completely correct. I didn't say that the data are not controversial, my point was that the archival work with the documents from GARF (which were moved there from TsGAOR, where the ariginal NKVD documents were sent in Khruschev's time) produced the results that are seen as uncontroversial by leading Western scholars, and that are confirmed by the data from local archives and by the demographic data. However, whereas Zemskov's results are believed to be valid, some of his conclusions are not. However, since the section we discuss deals with GULAG population statistics (the data presented in his tables), we can use these data quite safely, with several reservations, made by Conquest, Ellman and Wheatcroft (see the previous section).--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

@Greyhood. I am not sure what millions of documents you are talking about. A lot of official Soviet statistical data are known to be completely fabricated (including those for internal usage, such as secret reports by Soviet scientific institutions). The only why to establish the picture would be opening the archives. But they did not open their archives not only to public and researchers, but even to government-appointed commissions. The materials of Shvernik Commission have been destroyed (the commission found the number of Gulag prisoners during the war was closer to 15 million than to 2 million, according to Olga Shatunovskaya, if I remember correctly), and Lev Ponomaryov committee was disbanded after first reports about their findings by Gleb Yakunin. Western researchers, like Applebaum, do not rely on NKVD data; they simply quote these data as something that has been published, but not necessarily "the truth". Biophys (talk) 02:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Biophys, please, educate yourself. The sources provided by me are the top quality mainstream western secondary sources, and they tell that the data are trustworthy. The same sources tell that these data deserve more credibility than literary sources. In addition, the same sources directly warn against paying too much attention to extreme cases, and to the testimonies of political prisoners, because that may give a distorted picture. The authors I am talking about are quite familiar with the Memorial data, they discuss the Shvernik's report, and all memoirs and witness testimonies you mention. In that situation, your reasoning can hardly have any weight.

In addition, let me remind you that the ability to extract correct conclusion based on unreliable, or even biased data is one of professional skills of any good historian, similar to the physicist's ability to work with noisy data, or computational biologist's ability to build a mathematical model of some biomolecule without knowing exact values of some force field constants. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Biophys mentions specific instances. You (Paul) remind us of the excellent work you do and tell Biophys he is lacking in education. If you are going to respond to editors, please respond to their specific post, not with generalities, by insulting the educational level of editors who don't agree with you, or self-congratulations on your superior use of sources. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Since you joined the discussion, which lasts, with some interruptions (due to the sad accident both you and I are aware of) for more than three years, only recently, you probably do not know that Biophys seems to repeat his old arguments that I already addressed. Repeating old arguments and ignoring my points (supported by reliable sources, btw), is even a greater insult, because the work I am doing (a search and the analysis of the sources) does deserve some minimal respect (which should manifest itself in providing some counter-arguments of the same weight; unsupported claims made by some witnesses are not good counter-arguments). In connection to that, my suggestion to Biophys to educate himself is not an insult, but a request to familiarise himself with the subject, because I simply unable to tell on the talk page everything I have read. I always provide needed refs, and Biophys is perfectly able to read all articles I am citing. His refusal to do so suggests that he does not approach the discussion seriously, which is also an insult for me.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re Shvernik report, this quote may be useful:

"Instead of the Zemskov data giving a gross inflow into the camps of 9.8 million, they give a net inflow of 5.4 million. The Shverik report would indeed only allow one million 'politicals' to enter the camps, but the data on criminal sentences allow 7.6 million other prisoners to be sentenced to loss of freedom, and of these roughly 5.8 million were sentenced to more than two years. This will easily cover the net inflow of 5.4 million."(Wheatcroft. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 51, No. 2 (Mar., 1999), pp. 315-345)

Please, keep also in mind that our non-free content policy applies rather strict limitations on quoting of the copyrighted materials, therefore I am not sure if I can provide extended quotes, especially on the talk pages.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you might indulge other editors who might be interested in the topic instead of making out your insult of others to be an insult of yourself, no? If your response to Biophys in the past was in similar tone and content, then we can hardly characterize any points as actually having been discussed in detail. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You can find my responce to Biophys in the past in the talk page archives. This discussion took place before the you-know-what-concrete-incident-I-mean, and it was long enough to be found easily. Try to read it and make the conclusion by yourself.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) FYI, I've been watching the article since the beginning of 2006 and I believe it was back in 2008 that I disputed your POV attempts to eliminate any mention of Applebaum's work from the article. How quickly we forget (my joining the discussion only "recently"). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Dismissive and unhelpful. Pretend there are other editors here who might wish a fresh discussion. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you are familiar with my old arguments, why haven't you addressed them yet? You took from the articles available for you everything that supports your idea that the archival data are not reliable, and reject everything that contradicts to that. You downplay the importance of best quality scholarly sources and put undue emphasis on obsolete (Solzhenitsyn), questionable (Vishnevsky, Antonov-Ovseenko), or biased sources. BTW, your interpretation of good quality secondary sources is incorrect, because although these sources (e.g. Ellman) state that the number of the victims of Stalinism (especially of concealed camps mortality and secret police killings) cannot be automatically derived form these data, they do not question the validity of the GULAG population data. Since it is the latter what we discuss, this criticism is totally irrelevant.

Re your "Dismissive and unhelpful." What do you mean?

Re "Pretend there are other editors here who might wish a fresh discussion." I cannot educate every newcomer. Any fresh discussion is possible if people come out with some new arguments in addition to, but not instead of those that have been already put forward, which implies that new editors familiarized themselves with the previous discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

There might be some sense in creating an article like Historiography of Gulag or Historiography of Stalinism where you can describe various available sources and then easily provide a link to that article to newcomers. GreyHood ^Talk 09:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the idea is good, however, that does not resolve the issue we discuss. I plan to propose a new version of the section devoted to the GULAG population size which, in my opinion, more adequately reflects what contemporary mainstream reliable sources say.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

@Paul: I propose not, as "new version" is, IMHO, a euphemism for censoring the article to contain only numbers you approve of. As a microcosm of the archival numbers dilemma, consider the inmate population figures reported by the Office of Railway Construction for 1939: 94,773 prisoners at the beginning of the year, 69,569 at year-end. However, prisoners were reported as having worked an impossible 135,148,918 man-days—consistent with an average prisoner population four-and-a-half times larger working every day of the year. Given the precise accounting of population, we would presume an error in reporting productivity. However, given man-days were the “engine” that drove productivity—that is, directly correlated to that which cannot be falsified, such as kilometers of track laid, that rather points to man-days being the more reliable, the population figures much less so. Therefore the population figures cannot be reliable in this instance.

   I also think "Historiography of..." would wind up making this article essentially a POV-fork as historiography would be a full account while this article would be an attempt to create a POV subset which will wind up being endlessly argued over as the current article has been certainly since I first looked at it. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Rather than arguing over what to exclude I suggest working on what an inclusive version of this article would look like, covering both estimates and related challenges as in my example above, where the population and productivity numbers are so far apart that only one can be correct—the "most likely" answer is not a machination of calculations that produces something that is neither one nor the other. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

We have (i) early estimates, some of them (Jasny's or Timasheff's) are low, others (Solzhenitsyn's or Conquest's) are high; (ii) results of the archival research that produce exact figures for the GULAG population and GULAG deaths; (iii) later works, some of which question validity of these studies based on literary sources or extreme examples, whereas others disagree with such an approach and confirm the validity of these figures, with some reservations (namely, that some categories in these data may include concealed deaths, and that, whereas this statistics correctly reflects the amount of GULAG population, the total amount of the victim of Stalinism was different). I almost finished the draft of the section written based on this scheme, and I plan to add it to the article in close future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Once again, there are no exact numbers. That's the point. For example, a source currently quoted in this article gives 1.6 million "casualties", but the book "Gulag" by Anne Applebaum (and it is obviously very recent) gives 2.7 million casualties in Gulag for the same period of time (not including executions that numbered at least 0.7 million during a few years of "Great terror"). She gives 2.7 million as a lower and an uncertain estimate. This is very easy to source. Biophys (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that some sources question reliability of the archival data. However, the reference to Applebaum is hardly relevant, because it is more tertiary rather than a secondary source (a book written by a journalist based on the archival studies made by others). More relevant are the references to Vishnevskii or Rosenfielde, who point at local inconsistencies in the GULAG statistics data. However, other sources, do agree that the archival data are reliable and, importantly, self-consistent (Bacon, Wheatcroft), and they do accept their results (Ellamn, Conquest).

Regarding the 1.6 vs 2.7 million, please, read the discussion carefully. That is exactly what I meant when I wrote about different interpretations of the same data. We have at least three interpretations:

1. GRZ: the number of deaths caused by GULAG is equal to the number of those who were officially listed as dead in the GULAG archives;
2. Conquest, Vishnevskii, et al: the number of deaths was equivalent to the camps' "ubyl'" (another category of the official statistics);
3. Ellman: the official figures of the camps' "ubyl'" include deaths, however, the number of actual deaths was smaller than the camps' "ubyl'", although higher than the official number of camps' deaths.

You probably noticed that all these authors deal with the official data, so the dispute is over the interpretations of these data, not over the data themselves, so we do have reliable figures.

If you want to discuss Applebaum again, please, provide concrete quote to discuss it. I have no desire to do your job for you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about that Wheatcroft, that Vishnevskii and that Rosenfielde? No one knows about them. Even their inclusion in wikipedia is questionable. Let's use books by Nobel Prize winners and other notable authors, like Robert Conquest and Applebaum. Once again, even governmental committees were not allowed to work with KGB/NKVD archives.Biophys (talk) 22:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I am talking about the sources that meet all reliable sources criteria defined by our policy. Go to the WP:RSN and ask. The answer will be that the articles in peer-reviewed western journals specialised on this subject are mainstream reliable sources, and the obsolete book of the Nobel prize winner in literature is not.

To demonstrate how amateurish this your post is, let me ask a (rhetoric) question:

"Which source is more reliable for history of the Latin American revolutions: a Nobel Prize winner Gabriel García Márquez's One Hundred Years of Solitude, or the article of almost unknown Frederic F. Clairmont (What Next for the 'Bolivarian Revolution'? Source: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 39, No. 42 (Oct. 16-22, 2004), pp. 4623-4627)?"

--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

PS Let me also point out that contemporary western scholars never discuss Solzhenitsyn's figures seriously. They give a credit to this author for drawing the public attention to the issue, however, they do not consider Archipelago as a serious study. Moreover, according to Ellman, even such a reputable scholar as Conquest is not an expert in demography or penology, and the value of his works is consists in drawing "qualitative picture of enormous horrors to the general public", which he does admirably well. However, his qualitative conclusions are far less trustworthy. Regarding Applebaum, she is a journalist, and it is quite natural to expect that her book, which war written for general public, is more popular than the works of the scholars she used for her works.

And one more point. Our policy provides a very clear description of what the reliable sources are, and it is not in my habit to use sources that do not meet these criteria. If you doubt in any sources I use, please, go to WP:RSN, and, unless the verdict there will be that the source is unreliable, I'll disregard all your claims about unreliability of fringeness of the sources I use as unsubstantiated. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Paul Siebert said: “The answer will be that the articles in peer-reviewed western journals specialised on this subject are mainstream reliable sources, and the obsolete book of the Nobel prize winner in literature is not.” The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn is not an obsolete book. On 26 October 2010, the Channel One (Russia) announced that schoolchildren would study The Gulag Archipelago («школьники будут изучать “Архипелаг ГУЛАГ”». Source: [1]) It means that schoolchildren will study this book in every Russian school and will believe in numbers of the Gulag detainees presented by Solzhenitsyn in his book. In addition, his book contains many more concrete facts than any other books on this subject. Psychiatrick (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Schoolchildren in Russia study various books during their literature lessons, for instance, the books of Chekhov, Pushkin, Gogol and other world classics. That does not mean that all what they write is factually correct. With regard to the history lessons, I will oppose to any attempt to bring Wikipedia (both English and Russian) into accordance with Russian school program.

Regarding the facts, the difference between the books written by a writer and a professional historian is not in the number of facts they present, but in the way they are being interpreted. As I already demonstrated above, some concrete facts give totally distorted picture.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

@Paul: And "exact" figures ("(ii) results of the archival research that produce exact figures for the GULAG population and GULAG deaths") are personal interpretations of the individual researcher at best given demonstrated wild incompatibilities in data which should be congruent. As for "I will oppose to any attempt to bring Wikipedia (both English and Russian) into accordance with Russian school program", am I correct to anticipate that you will now defend both EN and RU WP against teachings that the Soviet Union liberated, not (re-)conquered and subjugated, the Baltics (occupied for half a century) and Eastern Europe (de facto occupied for half a century)? I look forward to your vigorous defense of WP against Russian history lessons. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. It's a welcome breath of fresh air that The Gulag Archipelago is off the Russian nee Soviet black-list. Perhaps there is hope for Russia's future after all. Perhaps Putin is starting to think about his legacy. Not very flattering at the moment. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Every mainstream reliable secondary source is a personal interpretation of some primary sources made by established authors. I repeat what I said to Biophys: if you have any doubt in teh sources I use, go to WP:RSN. In future, I will ignore the arguments of this kind from you, if they will not be supported by independent users on that noticeboard. Regarding " wild incompatibilities in data", we have the sources that state that the data are self-consistent in general, and the sources that point at some local incompatibilities (and draw global conclusions from that). You persistently ignore the former and overemphasize the latter, which goes against a common sense and our policy. Re Russian school program, it is a terrible mess of chauvinism (which you in Baltic call nationalism), Stalinism and anti-Communism. I have always been an opponent of what it says and how it has been built. Re your lovely Baltic issue, you already know my opinion on that: I equally oppose to the weird views of the nationalists from both sides.

re Solzhenitsyn, if I were you, I would oppose to any attempt to introduce him in Russian schools, because the effect will be the opposite to what you expect. Frankly speaking, I myself have no opinion on that subject, because all depends on the context Solzhenitsyn will be studied in. It may have a beneficial, totally negative, or no effect. If it will be presented as a historical study, the effect will be more negative: the facts are so unbelievable and ridiculous that that may create a block in the mind of young children, and they will simply ignore and disregard any information of that kind in future. If it will be studied during the literature lessons, the effect may be positive, provided, but only provided that the program will be balanced. In any event, that has no relation to the issue we discuss.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Solzhenitsyn - if I remember right, The Gulag Archipelago is to be studied in Russian schools in short and revised version, with many mistakes and controversial points removed. This is one more reason not to include Solzhenitsyn's work as a source at all or to include it with serious reservations only. There should be a difference between literary works and serious historiography. Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace is also good for literature lessons, but not for history ones. GreyHood ^Talk 10:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Correct. Whereas WP uses historians, such as Chandler or Reihn in the Battle of Borodino article, it discusses Tolstoy only in the "Legacy" section, together with the Lermontov's poem.

And, since we already have a clear and unequivocal statement of the established scholar about the danger of literary sources in this particular case (see above), and no reliable sources that state the opposite (namely, that the literary sources are preferable for drawing the qualitative picture), we mush stop put original research, and to follow what the reliable sources say. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

To Greyhood’s remark “The Gulag Archipelago is to be studied in Russian schools in short and revised version, with many mistakes and controversial points removed.” The Gulag Archipelago is to be studied in Russian schools in short version but not in revised version, because it is illegal to publish revised version of a book written by any author who died having not personally revised the book if it is not a schoolbook written in accordance with school program. Some concrete facts can be removed from short version of The Gulag Archipelago not to shock schoolchildren but the removal does not imply that the facts are mistakes or controversial points. To Paul Siebert’s remark “Whereas WP uses historians, such as Chandler or Reihn in the Battle of Borodino article, it discusses Tolstoy only in the "Legacy" section, together with the Lermontov's poem.” Compared to War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy and Borodino by Mikhail Lermontov, The Gulag Archipelago is not based on descriptions of fictitious characters. All characters described in The Gulag Archipelago are real persons because it is a non-fiction book. Psychiatrick (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The short version was made by Solzhenitsyn's whife, so she would have more legal possibilities to publish. And even if she didn't add any new text but only removed the old one, this shortening significantly revised the tone and impression the book might create. For example, the revised version does not discuss General Andrey Vlasov at all.

Here is an article by Alexander Reshideovich Dyukov on the quality of Solzhenitsyn's book as a source, though it discuss other issues than Gulag. Nevertheless it does describe how Solzhenitsyn worked with sources. Surely the book doesn't deserve to be described as a good or serious historic study. Of course, we can't blame Solzhenitsyn too much because he just didn't have access to the reliable data, but now we have access to better studies, and there is no need to put too much emphasis on obsolete and controversial sources. GreyHood ^Talk 12:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

@ Psychiatrick. Major historical figured in the "War and peace" are not fictional, and the book pretend to describe real historical events precisely and plausibly. In addition, this book contains large amount of philosophic considerations about strategy, the driving forces of history, etc, so the book creates an impression of historical study. However, it is not considered as such by historians.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• The "Gulag Archipelago" by Solzenitsyn is a research non-fiction book, exactly as he claimed himself in subtile. Hence it can be used as a supplementary material in schools and a reliable source here. Biophys (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Archipelago is not treated as a research book by contemporary scholars who work in the area of GULAG demography, and, as a rule, they do not discuss it seriously as a source. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

A non-fiction book quoted more than 4,000 times in Google Scholar, it clearly qualifies as RS per our policies. Just as any other source, it may or may not be right on specific subjects (the labor conditions, the number of prisoners, etc.), but this should be made clear to a reader by quoting alternative RS on the same specific subject per WP:NPOV. Biophys (talk) 02:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

For GULAG statistics, it is an obsolete reliable source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, for Gulag statistics, it may be an obsolete reliable source, but for Gulag description, it is not an obsolete reliable source. Psychiatrick (talk) 03:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Correct. But only partially, because the book makes too big emphasis on the fate of those convicted for political crimes. However, taking into account that majority of GULAG prisoners were ordinary criminals (present days US with 300 million population have about 2.5 million prisoners, so about 1.5 million would be a normal number of prisoners for the country with 200 million population), and, as Ellman says, the testimonies of political only prisoners, collected by Solzhenitsyn, create somewhat biased picture. One way or the another, let's remember that we discuss the numbers, i.e. quantitative, not qualitative picture here, and the numbers presented by Solzhenitsyn are not used as a source by present days scholars.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Quotation: “According to the calculations of IA Kurganov, a former professor of statistics in Leningrad, 66 million people were destroyed in the Gulag between 1917 and 1959.” Source: John Conway O’Brien (1994). "Solzhenitsyn and the Evils of Soviet Communism". International Journal of Social Economics. 21: 17. Psychiatrick (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The article the quotation has been taken from is not a demographic study, the author is not a demographer, the reference list of this article is short (just 28 references, mostly to Conquest and Solzhenitsyn) and it contains no references to the demographic studies (even the ref to Kurganov has not been provided, so it is unclear when Kurganov did his studies, what methodology and sources he used, and where these results were published, if published at all). The author himself (O'Brein) is not a demographer, his work is devoted to the ideological aspects, and it is quite understandable that he ignore fresh data and fresh studies that contradict to his ideological concept.

Obviously, the Werth's chapter in the "Black book of Communism" seems to be a higher reliable estimate of the number of the victims of Stalinism. He gives less than 15 million including the Civil war, famines, diseases, deportation deaths, executions, etc, and only minor part of those deaths were caused by GULAG. The best known estimate of GULAG deaths (including the death of ill inmates immediately after their release) is between 1.6 and 2.5 million, with the average mortality 6 to 8 times higher than among the free population of the USSR.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

66 million is a crazy figure. Surely such claims, if made in the Soviet era, would give the Soviet authorities a good excuse to enforce a psychiatric treatment. Totally inconsistent with the country's demography, with the development of infrastructure and penetentiary system needed for so many prisoners, and totally ignoring the fact that almost any post-Soviet family remembers some relatives or friends who were killed in World War II (27 million Soviet citizens) but far far less families have relatives or friends who died in Gulag. GreyHood ^Talk 18:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

According to Rudolph Rummel, 40 million died in GULAG. However, these figures and his approach in general have been widely criticised, and now no serious scholar treats seriously these estimates.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The article John Conway O’Brien (1994). "Solzhenitsyn and the Evils of Soviet Communism". International Journal of Social Economics. 21: 17. used Kurganov’s estimates cited by Solzhenitsyn in The Gulag Archipelago. Quotation: “According to the estimates of émigré Professor of Statistics Kurganov, this “comparatively easy” internal repression cost us, from the beginning of the October Revolution up to 1959, a total of ... sixty-six million — 66000000 — lives. We, of course, cannot vouch for his figure, but we have none other that is official. And just as soon as the official figure is issued the specialists can make the necessary critical comparisons.” Source: Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr (2007). The Gulag Archipelago Volume 2: An Experiment in Literary Investigation. HarperCollins. p. 10. ISBN 0061253723. Psychiatrick (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, Wikipedia reflects not the official viewpoint, but the viewpoint shared by majority scholars.

Secondly, we discuss not the number of victims of Stalinism, but the GULAG population. A consensus exists now about the latter, with 14 millions passed through GULAG camps plus 4-5 millions through the colonies as the high estimate (because some people were convicted more than one time).

The question about the victims of Stalinism is a separate issue and it belongs to a separate article.

I have read the O'Brein's article in full, and I can conclude that it devotes just a little attention to the GULAG statistics. According to our policy, "as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source, therefore, the sources cited by me, which are devoted to specifically this issue and discuss is in details based on all available reliable primary sources, are much more reliable than O'Brein. I suggest you to read the articles cited by me (see above), and I am waiting for explanations from you on what concrete weaknesses you see in them, and why, in your opinion, they do not represent the current mainstream viewpoint.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I have read the comment by Robert Conquest in Conquest, Robert (1997). "Victims of Stalinism: A Comment" (PDF). Europe-Asia Studies. 49 (7): 1317–1319. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) His comment states: “We are all inclined to accept the Zemskov totals (even if not as complete) with their 14 million intake to Gulag 'camps' alone, to which must be added 4—5 million going to Gulag 'colonies', to say nothing of the 3.5 million already in, or sent lo, 'labour settlements'. However taken, these are surely 'high' figures.” The first weakness is that the comment by Robert Conquest does not appear to be a serious study and has only eight references to sources that are not widely known. The second weakness is that Robert Conquest, referring to Zemskov, has provided no reference to a source, in which the study by Zemskov had been published, and has not explained which sources and methods Zemskov had used during his study. Psychiatrick (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I see you have found the tripod web site. Since I am not sure if the articles are placed there legally (most of them are copyrighted, and I expect this site to be closed at any moment), I advise you to download and save all of them. After that, I advise you to read them all. After reading these articles you will realise that the letter you refer to is just one small part of the long and extensive discussion between several renown scholars. Conquest, who is among the most notable scholars writing about GULAG, wrote this very brief article in a response to some concrete arguments put forward by his opponent, Wheatcroft. He provided no refs to GRZ simply because their article is well known, and all participants of the discussion are perfectly aware of what he meant. In any event, other articles of these two scholars are much more detailed and I strongly recommend you to read them all. In my opinion, Conquest is partially affected by Cold war stereotypes, although he had reconsidered some of his old views. Wheatcroft, who is more leftist, sometimes understates the scale of repressions, although he can hardly be characterized as Soviet apologist. Ellman seems to assume a middle position. You should read him too. With regard to Getty, Rittersporn and Zemskov, their article contains enormous amount of information (some of that you can find in the free online issues of the Russian journal "Социологические исследования", for instance here). These data are not questioned by most scholars (except Rosefielde, who seems to be too emotional), however, some GRZ's conclusions have been criticized. Have a nice reading.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I am already reading these articles. It is too bad that other archives containing, in particular, information of victims of Soviet political abuse of psychiatry are not still opened to researchers. See: Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union#Figures. Psychiatrick (talk) 06:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is the bottom line. There are debates about the subject. There are huge ranges of numbers according to different RS. These ranges of numbers must be presented per NPOV. This is not the case right now. A single number was provided in this article as "the truth" in a Table and in a graph. This should be corrected.Biophys (talk) 12:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I have found out what method Kurganov used. But it is too long story to explain right now. Psychiatrick (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

@ Biophys. Please, stop repeating the same nonsense. There is no debates about the size of population of GULAG, and both Conquest and Ellman clearly and unequivocally say that. The debates are around the total number of repression victims, and about the total amount of displaced persons and persons convicted for the forced labour (which included, e.g. the forced labour without incarceration, labour settlements, labour armies, filtration camps, where people were kept for short perion after the war, etc). However, all of that had no relation to GULAG, and we should just mention that in the article to make clear that GULAG was only a part of the repression system.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

@Paul, whenever someone argues sources unfriendly to the Soviet legacy are "obsolete" my radar goes up. The last time someone tried that tactic was at Holodomor regarding Conquest (and lying about what sources said), unsuccessfully. Until we can quote a clear majority of researchers and scholars as stating a particular source is "obsolete" and categorizing the many reasons why, it's not obsolete. And even if it is, it still remains in the article in a section on (presumably) earlier scholarship. You don't ever get to make the determination of what is obsolete. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Peters, I am sorry for discussing your person (your "radar"), but since you started first, I believe, I can continue in the same vein. Your radar goes up every time when someone tries to deviate from your lovely concept of the USSR as a manifestation of the universal evil. Every person who cites lower figures of Stalin's victims is treated with suspect by you. You seem to belong to a category of people who "knows the truth", and no sources and facts can shake it. (I will be glad if the proof of the opposite will be presented, however I had no chance to get a reason of apologising for being wrong).

I have no objection against citing earlier sources, I even prepared a table to add it to the article (see below). However, as you can see, earlier estimates were both high and low, and we should give them all. So the situation is different from the picture you draw: there were no "high earlier estimated replaced with lower contemporary data". In actuality, we have an absolutely different situation: early estimates ranged from 2.3 million to tens of millions, and new archival evidences confirmed the former. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Early estimates of the GULAG population size (in chronological order)

GULAG population	Date	Source	Methodology
9.6 million	June 1941	Unpublished German pre-war estimates	Reports of German economists from visits to the USSR after the 1939 Pact was signed
15 million	1940-42	Mora & Zwiernag(1945)	--
2.3 million	December 1937	Timasheff(1948)	Calculation of disenfranchised population
Up to 3.5 million	1941	Jasny(1951)	Analysis of the output of the Soviet enterprises run by NKVD
50 million	total amount of persons passed through GULAG	Solzhenitsyn(1975)	Analysis of various indirect data, including own experience and testimonies of numerous witnesses
16 million	1938	Antonov-Ovseenko(1980)	--
4-5 million	1939	Wheatcroft(1981)	Analysis of demographic data
10.6 million	1941	Rosefielde(1981)	Based on data of Mora & Zwiernak and annual mortality
5.5-9.5 million	late 1938	Conquest (1991)	1937 Census figures, arrest and deaths estimates, variety of personal and literary sources
4-5 million	every single year	Volkogonov (1990s)

Re the definition of what is obsolete, that is simple. Every concept is built based on some data. When new data have been obtained, the concept must either accommodate these data or explain why these data can be ignored. The concept that fail to do so is deemed obsolete. For instance, the early theory of the Universe claimed that the Universe is stationary. However, after discovery of the red shift by Hubble it became obvious that this theory is inconsistent with these data. Now this theory is believed to be obsolete.

The term "archival revolution" is used by scholars to describe massive opening of formerly secret archives before western researchers. Obviously, the concepts that existed before this archival revolution, and the concepts that failed to take into account new data (accept or convincingly refute) are deemed obsolete now.

For instance, the early views of Wheatcroft (4-5 million) and Conquest (5.5-9 million), who currently accept the results of the archival studies, which provided much lower figures, are obsolete, and they themselves reconsidered their estimates.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Re Holodomor. Frankly speaking, I do not monitor this article during last month, and initially I haven't realised that under "and lying about what sources said" you meant my humble person. Since it is not in my habit to misinterpret sources, or to lie, your claim is outstanding. The outstanding claims require outstanding support, and I expect this support to be provided.

Not only you falsely accused me in lying, you lied that my attempt to modify the Holodomor article was unsuccessful. I changed the Holodomor article [2], and my modification is still there [3]. Therefore, your claim contains a direct lie, namely, that my attempt to bring the article into accordance with what the sources say was unsuccessful.

I recall I voluntarily took an obligation to refrain from any actions that could lead to the administrative sanctions against you, and I promised to do so irrespective to your behaviour. I see no problem in dealing with rude and impolite users if such interaction leads to something useful. However, you seem to be a user having a strong POV who is not ready to accept to the facts and arguments from others, and in this situation I do not think your contribution to be useful.

I expect you either to provide strong evidences in a support of your claim that I lied about Conquest, or to apologise. Your failure to to so will result in my request for renewal of (recently lifted) sanctions against you immediately after similar accusation against me or other users (in a form of the talk page post of inappropriate edit summary) will be put forward.

I still strongly believe that I am wrong, and that the exhaustive explanations from you will clarify this vexatious incident. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

What exhaustive explanations for what vexatious incident? I indicated that you cannot be an arbiter of what constitutes "obsolete." As for lying, if I believed you were lying I would tell you straight to your face and tell you specifically what it is, so I really have no idea what you are going on about and why. You really should get out of the mindset that everything I say is a personal attack against you. You could have provided the table for discussion without the diatribe—which, quite frankly, I find offensive that you accuse me of attacking you over something I did not say about you. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You seek to omit sources you deem as "obsolete" and turn around to threaten me with sanctions. That's rich. If you strongly believe you are wrong, why the polemics? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Had I seek to omit obsolete sources, I wouldn't waste my time for preparation of the table that summarises them (it took several hours). What I argue against it the persistent attempts to build a narrative based on the obsolete sources.

Regarding my accusations, I still got no answer on

1. What concrete failed attempt to introduce a false statement attributed to Conquest into the Holodomor article are you talking about (with diffs)?
2. If you haven't blamed me, to whom your accusations have been addressed?
3. If you haven't blamed me, or another participant of this discussion, what was a connection between this discussion and the Holodomor article?

Until I get clear and strait answers on these questions, all what I have written remains in force, because per WP:DUCK the actions having all traits of personal attack are the personal attack.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Additional information

Additional information for Paul Siebert is the following. Viktor Zemskov used documents taken from only one archive (Central State Archive of the October Revolution). That is his weakness. Quotation translated from Russian: “No objective counting of the number of repressed persons is possible without fundamental analysis of archival documents. The difficulty of this method is that the required data are very diverse and are not in one archive. They are in the State Archive of the Russian Federation, in the archive of the Goskomstat of Russia, in the archives of the MVD of Russia, the FSB of Russia, the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation, in the Russian Military and Historical Archive, in archives of constituent entities of the Russian Federation, in urban and regional archives, as well as in archives of the former Soviet Republics that now are independent countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States and the Baltics. Where, for example, can one determine the number of people shot in the second half of the 1930s and in the early 1940s in the Kurapaty hole (estimate for them is from 30 to 100 thousand people or, by some estimates, up to 200 thousand)? Only in Belarus. The same can be said of other mass shootings and other forms of repression of victims of Soviet regime.” Source: Лунеев, Виктор Васильевич (2005). Преступность XX века: Mировые, региональные и российские тенденции. Wolters Kluwer Russia. p. 378. ISBN 5466000981. Information about the author of this book: “Виктор Васильевич Лунеев – доктор юридических наук, профессор, Заслуженный деятель науки Российской Федерации, полковник юстиции, лауреат Государственной премии РФ является одним из известнейших криминологов, криминалистов и практических деятелей в современной Российской Федерации.” Source: [4]. Psychiatrick (talk) 08:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Updated Psychiatrick (talk) 07:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You again mix two different issues: the number of repressions victims and the population of GULAG. The archive used by Zemskov is the former archive of the GULAG administration, which was moved to TsGAOR (now GARF) when GUALG was dissolved. It contains more or less complete information about GULAG, however, as Luneev correctly notes, no complete information about other repression victims has been found so far.

Let me point out, however, that the issue we are discussing is the GULAG statistics, not the number of the victims of Stalinism. Therefore, the data provided by Zemskov, which are consistent with old estimate made by Timasheff and Jasny, and which are in agreement with the data of some local archives, are quite trustworthy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The data obtained from the only one archive and used by Zemskov are not complete. To emphasize this issue, I would like to provide an example by citing the following quotation translated from Russian: “In one of documents I find such a text: “GUZHDS of the NKVD of the USSR was established by the order of the narkomat dated 4 January 1940. The new body was created on the base on the Administration of the Railway Construction of the Gulag ... Performance of its camps was not set forth in the consolidated accounts of the Gulag for 1939 (emphasis added).” Then it turned out that it was the Dalstroy administration, ie the Kolyma memorable to all, that at its initial stage was independent of the Gulag and even entirely independent of the NKVD (and was directly subordinate to one of the departments of the VKP(b) Central Committee and the government). And as it is known, hundreds of thousands of prisoners passed through the Kolyma.” Source: Лопатников, Леонид (2009). "К дискуссиям о статистике «Большого террора»". Вестник Европы (№ 26–27). {{cite journal}}: |issue= has extra text (help) Psychiatrick (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

In the last paragraph of his article, Lopatnikov makes a reservation that he is not a historian, and his article is not a historical study. For instance, his attempt to contrapose Zemskov and Tsaplin ("В этом смысле от работ Земскова выгодно отличаются статьи Всеволода Цаплина. Он почти каждую свою цифру подтверждает ссылкой: фонд, папка, номер документа, страница. ") demonstrates the Lopatnikov's unfamiliarity with Zemskov's works: in his main articles, Zemskov provides enormous number of references to concrete archival documents, and every his statement is supported by such a reference. However, Lopatnikov is partially correct, especially regarding the execution of the Poles: this execution was not and could not be reflected in the GULAG statistics, and Zemskov's attempts to essentially equate figures of the GULAG victims and the repression victims are not correct (however, I already wrote about that). Regarding Dalstroy and other divisions of GULAG, I recall I saw the discussion of Dalstroy in the articles of western scholars who discussed the data obtained by Zemskov. I need to check it again, but I do not remember about any major inconsistencies.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

For this edit, there is also the Russian version of the article by Nicolas Werth: [5]. Psychiatrick (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The fact that major part of local archives was destroyed does not mean that the data from central archives were incomplete, because they simply summarised what the local archives were telling. In addition, Werth does not question the conclusions about the overall size of the GULAG population, he just demonstrates that many details are very hard to establish. However, that has no relation to the statistics issue. On the first glance, your edit seems to have some synthesis issues. I have no time to look at it more carefully, so I'll return to that in close future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Range of et al.

I'll think more about the reorganization of figures. I am, however, disappointed at the general trend, which involved removing reliably sourced content from current scholarship indicating possible underestimation while vastly expanding the narrative about doubts, overcounting, double counting, not "technically" GULAG (all capitals) and confusing, etc., etc., etc. Since I see absolutely no recent talk page discussion or postings related to Paul's reorganization of figures (does not involve POV, goodness) or to Paul's overhaul of the timbre of the content in question (that would be POV, for example, Ellman related to potential underestimation disappeared), I invite discussion here. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

BTW, do we mention where the keeper of the census was shot for population figures Stalin didn't like? I continue to have major issues with contentions of the reliability and completeness of Soviet era archives. The article also needs more about incongruous archival data. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Unlike widely publicized census data, the GULAG archives were intended for the internal usage only and therefore were kept as accurate as possible. Nobody was interested in underestimating them: the GULAG officials needed more finances dependent on the number of prisoners, and the government needed more workers for the GULAG projects. Early overestimated figures (before the limited opening of archives) made confusion and later gave rise to speculations about "underestimation". But even Conquest accepted Zemskov figures afterall. The "narrative about doubts, overcounting, double counting" etc. nicely explains the typical ways to get higher figures and is highly relevant. Better let the readers judge themselves how those figures are got and which components they have, not hide all that counting machinery behind the scenes. GreyHood ^Talk 17:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• I did not read anywhere that "Conquest accepted Zemskov figures". Neither does Applebaum in her book "Gulag". She only cites these data, with critical comments. And there are authors (in particular Anton Antonov-Ovseyenko) who still consider these data to be a fraud, with a reference to other archive data that contradict NKVD data. Hence we need a range of numbers.Biophys (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

During the past discussion between you, Celasson and me I posted the ref and quote to this Conquest's article. I made that on 02:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC). How can your above post be characterized in light of this fact?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• • Conquest cite related to Zemskov is presented in the article. Applebaum is a journalist. Anton Antonov-Ovseyenko is a former GULAG prisoner and not a neutral observer here. GreyHood ^Talk 19:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Odd, those who have survived repressive regimes elsewhere and gone on to be scholars thereof are highly regarded. Why should Soviet victims (Antonov-Ovseyenko) be singled out as unreliable? Sorry, unless you have reliable research debunking him as a quack or somehow aligned with political extremists, you can's decide to censor sources. (Same for Applebaum's work being highly regarded.) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Peters, the potential underestimation noted by Ellman refers not to the Gulag statistics, but to the scale of the repressions, which is the different subject (Ellman argued that it would be incorrect to non-critically accept Zemskov data as the total number of the repression victims). Therefore, it does not belong to this article. Regarding the sources I removed, I am not sure I removed anything significant, just shifted the weight on English scholarly sources. In addition, in any event I added much more sources than removed, however, if you have some cincrete source in mind, just let me know.
I plan to discuss the scale of Gulag deaths, because most scholars disagree with how Zemskov interprets the mortality figures. I agree that they are significantly understated by the official statistics. However, I would like to discuss it in the separate subsection, and, since, as you can see, I am somewhat busy with the MKuCR article, I cannot do that soon.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Penalty for jokes (ridicule of authorities)

Let's not delete cited content based on personal interpretations of RSFSR penal code section 58. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, in addition to famous 58th article, they made many other "laws" (or rather orders) including the famous Law of Spikelets,NKVD orders, etc. Biophys (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Actually it wasn't a personal interpretation, but the law is straightforward and the subsection 1a is short. The law is also thoroughly analyzed from the juridical point of view in a book by Dmitry Lyskov, «Stalin Repressions». A great lie on XX century ISBN 978-5-699-33737-8. I agree however that in a certain number of cases, there may have been misinterpretations of the law that led to unlawful rulings, however it doesn't mean systematic or lawful nature of these decisions, as currently suggested in the article. This either needs clarification or it can be reverted to my edit. Are we in agreement? BesterRus (talk) 09:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)