Talk:Victims of Communism Memorial

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Where is the "Victims of Capitalism" monument? 01:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not built yet. The article explains. —dm (talk) 06:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I said Victims of Capitalism, not Communism. Since communism's never existed, no one's died from that, yet. 15:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. My mistake. Maybe the memorial should be called "Victims of Despotic Regimes Claiming to Be Communist Memorial"? --dm (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually communism has existed a number of times, but it's always been taken over by despots or military dictators before the ideals of the original movement have had time to sink in and last. That's why communism fails. But you can still give it a C for the effort, right?
You both aren't using the term "communism" in the same way. Some believe communisim won't exist until the whole world runs only a socialist economic model which at that point the world would have achieved communism. That's why the USSR wasn't the USCR. REL, 15 June 2007

Model more like delusion the fact is that true communism can never exist because without a state to controle it wealth Will automaticaly start to gather in the hands of the people who are most capible of weilding it and also making the

Best worker earn as much as the worst worker is little more then theft and opression causing discontent and ultimately

Leading to a capitalist counter revolution and also theres the fact that we are hardwired by evolution to desire more then

Others in order to obtain a genetic edge and all those who dont desire it effectively end their genetic line

The closest you can get to true communism is in a totalitarian regimeIrishfrisian (talk) 03:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I would say that the move from socialism to communism is not political, but technological… In communism, the worker decides everything about his participating in the entire economy for himself (like today he might work together with a first company of people for one goal, and tomorrow with a second company for another goal, it's he who decides whether this change is a good thing); in socialism (at least, in a healthy version of it), he delegates some of the decisions to the social institutes (simply speaking, to the state). When technology does not allow to overcome enough risks related to scarcity (you can't waste people's energy for their experimentation, if you can't feed all of them while they do), there must be some people who decide for other people and restrict their economical (not political or personal!) freedom; in capitalism, these are capitalists and the need to have money in order to claim one's right for resources, in socialism, these are statesmen and, again, the need of individuals to have money in order to claim their right for marchandise. The closest one could get to true communism in the current state of technology is: 1) open-source movement; 2) Wikipedia. - (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Communists and Facists are indentical on that aspect - instead of accepting the past, they say 'but it was not real X...'.

Beside, the regims called themselves communists, were definitly dictatorials and arguably far-left in nature. So there.

And the wikipedia is not a democracy and neitheir a place for debates.

Why is my link continuously removed? There are plenty of right-wing links in support. I am not changing the article, only putting up access to an opposing viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"I said Victims of Capitalism, not Communism. Since communism's never existed, no one's died from that, yet."

Ummmm… why don't you go to some former (non-)communist countries and explain to the relatives of the victims that "no one's ever died from" communism, "yet." I can't imagine why they wouldn't be dying of eagerness to sympathize with your obvious avant-garde views along with, naturally, the resentment in your tone… Of course, you can go on to tell them — i.e., the Poles, the Hungarians, the Estonians, the Slovaks, the Laotians, etc etc etc — to what extent they are wrong to embrace something as obviously despicable as capitalism and how much they can expect to suffer from their tragic mistake. Good luck! (You will need it.) Asteriks 08:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know where you get your avant-gard views, Asteriks, but could you name some instance of "killing people with communism", please?.. Most of the horror stories that I heard have nothing to do with communism as a system of economy (or with socialism, for that matter; the two are quite different), and other stories have to do with them rather little. It's like when a capitalist murders his wife, it's not a "capitalist atrocity" for the simple reason that his murdering his wife has nothing or little to do with his being a capitalist. - (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
In fact, saying that those people, some of them communists, who suffered in the socialist countries, (Russia, Poland, China, Cuba, etc) suffered because of communism is yet another insult towards them and towards their relatives.
Let's take Russia as an example. When the USSR of 1980s did not let its citizens express their opinions, it was an "evil state" and an "evil country"; where the Russian Empire of 1860s did the same and much more, treating its citizens worse than it did in 1980s, it was not. Where is logic? Very evident that Bush, as well as those Americans who announced things in the same way their state did, had no care about people who suffered whatsoever, that all they respected was their habitual modes of thinking and their feeling of false superiority, that they lied about their care or sympathetic thought, and not only about that. If I was such aggrieved person, I would be so furious at those who try to make use at the expense of other people's disgrace while lying. - (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Tsarist Russia is irrelevant other than establishing the continuity of the worthlessness of human life whether Tsarist or Soviet Russia. Soviet communism was an instrument of oppression, plain and simple. Study some history. Come back to contribute something to the topic (that top being the the memorial, not to soapbox Woe Is The Unfairly Attacked Soviet Union). VєсrumЬаTALK 01:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
The Tsarist Russia, after 1861, was capitalist. Still, I know of no monument to "victims of capitalism" in Russia. The Soviet Russia was socialist; idem for that. You are the only one who has ever discussed here the topic you named; the title is, "Woe Are Unfairly Attacking United States", and their formulations are taken out of the blue, but this is already a commonplace… It seems, USSR had provided US with a meaning for life, and now they can't stop referring to this meaning. ;) - (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Study some history is what I advise to you. Even officially, there was never communism in Russia; the more so when we apply more strict criteria than termings used by officials; all this is plain and simple. However, this is mostly irrelevant to the fact that this memorial is an insult to the victims, because it was made for no sincere feeling of humanity, as is demonstrated by my example. Other reasons were at stake, and of foul nature. You seem to be unable to read and understand the words you are reading. The point is not that the attack is unfair (in the meaning, claiming deeds that did not happen), the point is that the attack is unfair: in the meaning, the reasons behind it are unfair and foul, and also it is made using washwords. It is no memorial, it is an attack. This is what is important.
Not strictly to the topic, but if even if we rephrase your phrase as 'the Soviet ideas were an instrument of oppression', this statement is the same as 'the American ideas are an instrument of oppression': certainly true (how much people may lose because of lack of freedom of political and cultural speech, and how much people lose because of advertisements and inconsistent ideals), but losing a lot of points (both of these sets of ideas were very fruitful for people, both of these sets could not evade existence, still most people did not feel oppression in USSR of 1970s and most people do not feel oppression in US). - (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
As for "the closest one has yet ever got" to communism, this is the Open Source movement. As for 'embracing despicable things', you are forgetting that one thing is to level everything in the plane of political friends and political enemies and be atrocious towards those latter, like Mr. Bush or Mr. Stalin did, and the other thing is to think, live, and feel. As for "the victims of capitalism", those are probably going to be North Koreans, as they have to build, and already have partly built, a capitalist system along with a real dictatorship. - (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Ummmm… why don't you go to some former (non-)communist countries and explain to the relatives of the victims that "no one's ever died from" communism, "yet." Easily. It does not matter what terms evil-hearted people use: communism, capitalism, or anything else. Do you have a monument to the 'victims of Christianity'? Sorry, you are either being deceived or deceiving other people yourself. - (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Updated a bit--dedication has been scheduled for morning of June 12, 2007. RUReady2Testify 04:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think strongly that:

(1) the dedication graf should be near the top (above the explanation of the bill in Congress) because: (a) it shows that the memorial is not just a plan but it exists and (b) that info will be edited in a few days to say that the memorial HAS been dedicated and DOES exist etc. and what dignitaries attended the dedication (c) it is important to tell anyone researching this topic that the memorial is in existence and you can go see it;

(2) the info on who was invited is important because it shows that the monument itself is important and to what degree (the degree that X will attend buy y will not: many members of congress will be there but the President will not, although the mention that the President was invited is also important because it shows that: (a) the organizers thought it was appropriate to invite the President and also possible that he might attend.

Inviting the president of the United States to attend any ceremony is an extremely big deal. One does not lightly or humourously invite the President to attend a function or lightly or humourously announce that he has been invited. It is only done when there is a realistic expectation that he might attend.

When an organization invites the President to something, such invitation is ALWAYS announced as part of the general announcement in order to give hearers and readers the information they NEED to asses the importance of the event. In short, the announcement or inclusion here of a statement that the President was invited is shorthand for stating the importance of the event.

It is therefore indeed quite important and quite relevant and will be in the history books 50 or 100 years from now and should be in this one today. RUReady2Testify 14:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. The President must have many many invitations he cannot fulfil and this on its own is not noteworthy. I also eliminated the double listing of the opening date. --John 16:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your reason is insufficient to delete someone's work. It is apparent that you have followed me here, as you have never edited this article before. It is claear that you have made your changes for the purpose of bullying me. This behavior of yours, if it does not ceasde, will cross over into vandalism--please re-read the rules on vandalism. Therefore I ask you to cease. Cease editing and or recverting my work. If you wish make any further changes to anything I have done, I ask you to get the agreement of at least two people whom you have never been in contact with before. My edits are: (1) reasonable, (2) in good faith--i.e. not for the purpose of misinforming, vandalizing, altering POV, and so on, (3) well constructed, without errors, and (4) helpful and informative to the reader, and (5) most importantly factually true and verifiable.

If you persist in bulying me--by following me to articles that you have shown no prior interest in and edit or revert my work when my work is reasonable and accurate, when your only reason given is your persional opinion that you do not think it is important, and that your view "must" be the case, using the word "must" to indicate pure conjecture whenI have given a reasoned explanation for my inclusion of a certain TINY TINY point that is expressed in a SINGLE SENTENCE--I will have no choice but seek to have you blocked. There is no doubt you are violating the easiest rules to abide by--do not bite the newbies and remain civil. RUReady2Testify 16:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I was the first person to delete your edits and I have been editing this article long before you got here so please stop the personal attacks and threats. I agree with John's edits. They are clearly not vandalism and he as much right to edit this article as you do.
Inviting the president is not a big deal at all. Anyone can do it. Look: "I hereby invite Pres. George Bush to my apartment tonight for dinner." Should my dinner party have an article? He might show up. He hasn't even declined the invitation yet. The fact is, who is and is not at the dedication ceremony is tangential to describing the memorial. The lead paragraph should have the basic facts: what is it, where is it. --D. Monack | talk 19:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear Monak: "I don't agree." " ... I have been editing this article long before [John] got here so please stop the personal attacks and threats. I [dis]agree with John's edits. They are clearly not vandalism and [I] [have] as much right to edit this article as you do [or he does]." If these are sufficient reasons for makeing an edit, then they are sufficient reasons for my recent edit too. Thanks. RUReady2Testify 22:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Inviting the president is a big deal if, as is the case her, it is done in a serious way with serious expecations. As I said, humourous or specious "invitations" such as yours were specifically excluded. And (this is a pint that will be lost on you) your "invitation" did not succeed in inviting the president. Demonstration: I could invite my best friend over for dinner and I am sure he would accept if ther is no conflict, but If I call him up angrily chastising him for not showing up after I invited him by posting it on a discussion page on an obscure Wikipedia entry, I think he would rightly assert that he was not in fact invited under these circumstances, and further that he would be justified in avoiding contact until he is sure I have no communicable diseases that may have caused delusional thinking. Further, if you attempt to invite the president in a serious way to a ridiculous function, there will be consequences for you. Perhaps jail time. Perhaps not, but your legal fees will not be insubstantial.
Therefore I say again with a reasoned argument--which you have not provided for your position--that it is a big deal for an organization such as this to have invited the president. Also, there is no shortage of space here: You criticise my addition of one or two sentences as tangential. I respond: Therefore what? Every article that is useful has tangential information. And as far as what goes in the lede graf (not "lead paragraph" as you put it) is a matter of editorial discretion. I am an editor. You are an editor. If you do not like working with other editors, go where you are the only editor. The list of people gives an important and nontangential short-hand of how important the whole thing is. It should be there and it should be there in the lede. Obviously.
Finally, if you are the editor of this piece and the final arbiter of what should go in or not, why were you derelict in your duties? Wy di you leave it to chance that someone else would update this CURRENT EVENTS entry? Then you have the audacity to (1) delet the work, (2) criticise it in unfriendly terms and make personal attacks (your specious invitation argument is a personal attack (in that it takes the discussion to a moronic and childish level) as is your accusation against me of making personal attacks).

RUReady2Testify 22:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The president receives countless invitations to a variety of events most of which he declines. These invitation are serious even if the president is likely to decline. I am willing to wait to see if my invitation is successful. I've sent an email to the White House for the president to come to my apartment on any date with sufficient notice and I would be happy to host him for dinner. This is a serious invitation which I intend to honor if accepted. Like I said, anyone can invite the president to any event. It is not a crime, there are no serious consequences for doing so even for a joke invitation (which mine is not).
I am not "the editor". I am only one editor and not the final arbiter and neither are you. No one has a "duty" to edit this page. I edit when I feel like it and my only obligation is make sure that what I write is as accurate as possible. What "unfriendly terms" did I use? When did I attack you personally? My argument about presidential invitations was slightly satirical but it didn't mention you in any way. The personal attack I accused you of was when you claimed John was "bulying" (sic) you. Accusing someone of bullying (besides being incorrect in this case) is a personal attack and should be avoided. --D. Monack | talk 23:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
To D. Monak: I am sorry, but I am going to have to ask you be be more civil in your tone. You know very well what personal atacks you have mad here, and you know quite well that your attitude and posture is deliberately snide and condescending. Using sic to point out a typographical error in this manner is an attempt to belittle that you rather undeftly failed to pull off. This comment page is not edited text prepared for publication, and such typos reflect nothing about the typist. However, the use of sic reflect on you quite poorly. You have thus betrayed your nature. YOU did previously as well with some rather surly and abrupt comments to another Wikipedian who asked a simple question.
As for your other comments on bullying and personal attacks, since it is evident that you did not bother yourself to see what these two people might be talking about--despite the clues about "following me over here"--and so the only comment you deserve in response is a reminder to think before you speak. Find out what people are talking about before you add your two bits.

On the use of sic: Do you really want me to go through all your work and point out your errors. Before you claim such superiority--highlighting typos in dashed off notes that have not gone through the editorial process and never will--be sure your own house is in order. Typos here should be kept reasonably low if you can, but the point her is to communicate between editors, this is not published for public consumption and no doubt will be deleted some day. That is why editors use shorthand terms like "lede" and "graf," and so on. A good introduction to the editorial process is available in any bookstore or on the web.

You know full well that you do not have to "mention," as you put it, a person by name to make a personal attack. Faining ignorance of standard etiquette and the norms of social interaction will only highlight you lack of qualification to edit any entry. Your "argument," as you call it, about presidential invitations is no argument it is a condescending schoolyard taunt. To say now that it was "slightly satirical" can only say one of two things about you, neither is very flattering, and you can take your pick. That comment was either silly or rude to put it in the least offensive terms. To defend it now, rather than apologise, is beyond the pale of civilised behaviour. Yet you persist in asserting that your invitation to the President (posted her on this page) is on the same level of seriousness as that of the memorial's organisers. This alone disqualifies you from further adding to or deleting from this entry. I ask you therefore to desist from further editing or commenting on this entry. I think this is a reasonable request, as there are plenty of other things you can work on, perhaps where you have not offended anyone yet. RUReady2Testify 00:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for my use of "sic". That was rude and I apologize. But to be fair, you previously corrected my use of "lead paragraph" which I is fine English. I choose to use standard English rather than journalists' jargon because many editors here are not professionals.
I'm sorry but I just don't understand why you have taken offense at my example. Why is satire offensive? My invitation is serious. Why am I not allowed to invite the president to my home? Honestly, I'm not being sarcastic here. My invitation and my argument are sincere.
I believe that nothing I have written disqualifies me from editing this or any other article. I will try to be more civil and if I have offended you in some way I am sorry. --D. Monack | talk 01:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, in defense of my satirical example. I offered it as a concrete counterexample to an assertion you made. I was satirizing your assertion and not you personally. That's within the scope of civilized discourse and I don't consider it a personal attack. I'm sorry that you disagree. --D. Monack | talk 01:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I did take the time to read what John had written elsewhere and I find his comments quite civil and patient although I can't guarantee I've read all of what you have written each other. I don't think he is bullying you in any way. --D. Monack | talk 01:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Putin's reply[edit]

See here. --Ghirla-трёп- 15:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Sounds like Vladimir Putin is engaging in WP:OR and disregarding WP:NPOV. :) Turgidson 17:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

oh ye, Putin is the greatest сommunist of all time213.80.170.74 (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Italic text==Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much POV==

This article is like an apology for the Victims of Communism memorial, rather than an explanation of it, written obviously by either a dedicated fascist or capitalist. You have to be open to other views on Wikipedia articles. Some serious editing needs to be done here. FitzCommunist 17:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Then what are you doing here you clearly show a close minded attitude and also you ruined this page the criticissim section is disgusting a few comments by a handfull of extreemists dont belong on this page and should be removedIrishfrisian (talk) 02:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's written like an apology nor should it be. That would presume there's something to apologize for. OTOH, a communist (or aesthetic, etc.) critique of the memorial would be a good addition as long as it's not original research. Could you be specific about where the POV is? --D. Monack | talk 20:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well there isn't blatant POV as such, however it only explains the views of it's supporters. It does not once mention that there is any detractors. I'm sure one guy encouraged that Putin's response be put on here (that's as important a view as any other), however he was ignored by another editor. NPOV is essential. Oh, and by the way, there's a lot of original research here as it is. The article asserts that: The intended purpose of the memorial is "that the history of communist tyranny will be taught to future generations." Really now? Is it? Who said that? The article does not specify a source, and, unless one can be attained, that statement should be removed.FitzCommunist 10:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Want more POV? Sure! "Among the hundreds of invited guests, there were people who directly suffered from Communism regimes". Even though there may be some truth in it, it's hardly written in neutral wording. Most of the people on this talk page are closed-minded and arrogant as far as other viewpoints are concerned, and that's not necessarily something to be proud of...FitzCommunist 09:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

So what would be NPOV version? "Among the hundreds of invited guests, there were people who directly suffered from Communism regimes, as alleged by many historians and sociologists."? Quite frankly, I do not understand what is the problem. Are there sources saying that those people did not suffer during Communist regimes? WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not valid reason for POV accusations, would you kindly come up with specific grievances, present valid, reliable sources supporting the other viewpoint and suggest other wording to improve the article? -- Sander Säde 10:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No I did not say they didn't suffer from Communist regimes, [if you actually paid attention to my post you would have noticed me acknowledge that there is "some truth in it"] but that isn't neutral. Whatever happened to WP:NPOV? I'm sorry, but the truth is that personal preference, at least in the cases of admins who ignore the other POV, comes before the truth. i.e, note how Fidel Castro's article intro asserts that he is a dictator, and yet the article on Augusto Pinochet, the Chilean butcher, has no mention of it? I'm gonna start looking for sources in a minute, just don't bother calling right-wing preference "NPOV". FitzCommunist 14:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Pinochet article uses the terms "dictator" and "dictatorship" at least 10 times (including in the second paragraph) in addition to detailing his regime's many human rights violations. Castro's article uses the term once in the fourth paragraph and couches it in the weasel words of "is largely recognized". That article has much more about the U.S. attempts to overthrow him than the many human rights violations of his regime. If anything, the Castro article is more of a whitewash than the Pinochet one. That said, I welcome any suggestions you have to make this article better. --D. Monack | talk 18:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you're correct about the Pinochet article, it's changed a heck of a lot since I last saw it...anyway, I'll try get some sources to make the article FULLY neutral. FitzCommunist 11:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is a "valid, reliable" source supporting the "other" viewpoint (well, it's the "World Socialist Web Site", so whether you agree with it or not, it can't immediately be dubbed "original research")...I wonder if we could mention it in, perhaps, just one sentence of the article? If we can get more like this, and consensus is built (after all, one user did state that "...a communist (or aesthetic, etc.) critique of the memorial would be a good addition"), I suggest we add it in. BTW, I changed my username, so everyone knows. Thanks, Sporker (talk) 11:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


That new section -- it's all fine and dandy, but what does all that stuff about Lantos and Schroeder and Chirac have to do with the Victims of Communism Memorial? I think the whole thing gotta go, unless there is a clear, direct, and relevant connection with the Memorial -- and even then, it should be waaaaaay shorter and to the point. (On the other hand, it can go into the articles on Lantos, Schroeder, Chirac, whatever.) Turgidson (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose, since I'm the one that added it, it's my position to justify the addition: It's relevant because, as it explains, Lantos said this at the dedication, because it was said at the time the article subject was revealed, it's completely relevant here. Also, several of the sources here did mention it, but the information was not brought to light in the article, so I believe it should be, as the media went in a frenzy over it. It did cause some ruccus in Germany, so I don't know what you mean by "it should be more to the point..." It caused a backlash from the German government and the media frequently mentioned it, and it's got a connection to the memorial because Lantos said that the two men had supported their [the U.S's] fight on "fascism" and (dictatorial) "Communism", but did not support the Iraq war, hence being against them on the "fight" on Islamic Extremism. If you want to do a little cleanup, be my guest, but I just can't agree with you that it's simply "irrelevant." Thanks! FitzCommunist (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


One crucial thing is missing here: a description of the monument. Is it just the replica of the Goddess of Democracy, or is there more to it? LordAmeth (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is this memorial so tiny? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is this monument in Washington DC?[edit]

There is no explanation in this article as to why this monument is in Washington DC. To my knowledge, there have never been any victims of communism in the United Sates. It's like putting up a monument to Lives Lost at Sea right in the middle of Iowa.

Can we have a little more background?Jarby (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Because it's a propaganda tool, and as such it will have the most influence on peoples opinions if they see it on the same day as seeing the list of the dead of the Vietnam war and other memorials, thereby leaving an ingrained feeling that Communism in all it's forms is evil, and no one should even consider it as a political philosophy. (talk) 10:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Their is also a holocaust memorial museum in washington dc but no one calls that propaganda even though it is used for the same reasons against fascism (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Relevant AfD[edit]

Users at this article may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation‎ which came about as the organisation page lacks any demonstration of notability. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality issues[edit]

I'm removing the boldfaced text below since it is somewhat misleading; the refrenced link is from the website and is not say, a quote from the sculptor nor does it bear any other relevance to warrant its inclusion in the paragraph. Secondly, the rather specific inclusion of the 100 million figure is just a sentence cherry-picked from the official memorial page. The included link did not directly state a stated purpose (pardon the redunancy), it was just picked from a page titled "History of Communism". Furthermore, the 100 million figure is well known to be an exagerrated figure from the 1997 "The Black Book of Communism"; contributors to the book even later spoke against the author, claiming an obsession to come up with a 100 million figure. Lastly: This article is titled Victims of Communism Memorial, the intent of the memorial is within the title. This seemed like a bit of a dirty writing trick to me. Attempting to either attribute the sculptors intent as a "false" direct quote or to insert a commonly inflated figure as fact or both.

--Tunafizzle (talk) 04:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

In November 2005, the National Capital Planning Commission gave approval to the monument's design, featuring a 10-foot (3 m) bronze replica of the Goddess of Democracy erected by students during the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. The monument's design and the statue are works of sculptor Thomas Marsh. Its stated purpose is "to commemorate the more than 100 million victims of communism."[3] After raising over US$825,000 for construction and maintenance costs, the ceremony was held in September 2006.

Yeah, this is WAY too POV. I'm gonna start neutralizing real soon. Commissarusa (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Victims of communism?[edit]

How can they be a "victims of communism", when communism wasnt built in any country?..omg americans are so pathetic —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing the article itself, not the subject of the article. Please limit comments to ways the article might be improved. Thank you. —D. Monack talk 01:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

File:The Victims of Communism Memorial.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:The Victims of Communism Memorial.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

File:012 2007 Monumentul Victimelor Comunismului.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:012 2007 Monumentul Victimelor Comunismului.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Similar attempts to delete Goddess of Democracy images from Wikicommons can be found here, and here. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Another memorial one block away[edit]

Does anyone else think it's worth mentioning the Holodomor memorial being constructed one block away? Here is some background info via The Washington Post, The New York Times and Roll Call. APK whisper in my ear 06:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that its worth mentioning, since the Washington Post and New York Times articles both discussed the relative distance between the two memorials. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Critical reaction section[edit]

It can be argued that the section labelled "Critical reaction" is a criticism section. It only list negative reactions, and no neutral or positive reactions. As such one can argue that it should be balanced due to neutrality.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Victims of Communism Memorial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)