| Revision as of 21:19, 2 July 2010 editAmateurEditor (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,553 edits →Essay Template Message: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:21, 2 July 2010 edit undoThe Four Deuces (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers50,495 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 264: | Line 264: | ||
| Please post examples below of editors' personal reflections or opinions currently in the article so that they can be discussed. I will remove the template after a week if no examples are offered. ] (]) 21:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC) | Please post examples below of editors' personal reflections or opinions currently in the article so that they can be discussed. I will remove the template after a week if no examples are offered. ] (]) 21:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ==Reply to four sections set up to discuss templates== | |||
| This article was created by the blocked editor ] as ''Communist genocide'' and was quickly adopted by members of the Eastern European Mailing List. When the article was listed for deletion, they decided off-wiki to rename the article. However the new title does not exist in academic sources. So basically the article is not supported by any sources and represents a far right view of history. There have been a number of attempts by the far right to create articles, including one about how the Jews control Hollywood. The argument they presented was that since some people believe that the Jews control Hollywood there is a controversy meriting a separate article. Fortunately the inherent bias and anti-Semitism of that article was obvious and it was deleted. Unfortunately the inherent far right racist and anti-Semitic bias of this article is less obvious, which is why it has not been deleted. But it does explain why it can never be a neutral article. ] (]) 23:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:21, 2 July 2010
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mass killings under communist regimes article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60Auto-archiving period: 14 days  |
 | Due to recent revert warring, be advised that reverting more than once without discussing it on the talk page is considered disruption, and users doing so are subject to being blocked. Please see this notice about recent edit warring. |
 | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
1RR restriction
I have been following this discussion for some time, and I have concluded that additional remedies are needed to stop the edit warring. Per the discretionary sanctions authorized in the Digwuren case and clarified to apply to this article by the Arbitration Committee, I am hereby placing this article under 1RR. Any violation of this restriction will lead to either a block or a ban from this article and its talk page. NW (Talk) 22:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- The time stamp above has deliberately been altered. The original message was placed on 22:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC). NW (Talk) 03:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Request For Comment
This text has recently been added and then reverted out.
On the 22 of December 1989, Romania's communist leader Nicolae Ceausescu was overthrown in a revolution. Both he and his wife Elena Ceausescu were executed on the 25 of December 1989 by firing squad for the mass murder of 60 thousand people during the course of the Ceausescu regime. The provisional government announced that they had rejected the charge of genocide Romanian State Television said the charge of Genocide covered the deaths of 60 thousand people
In his book Genocide in international law: the crimes of crimes William Schabas wrote, "The allegations concerned mass killings during the December 1989 popular uprising as well as other victims of the Ceausescu Regime"
- Lauter, David (December 26, 1989). "Ceausescu, Wife Reported Executed Secret Trial Condemned Dictator; Bucharest Calm Romania: The army announces plans for a 'final offensive' against the security forces loyal to the ex-ruler". Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 7 June 2010.
- Horsley, William (22 December, 1999). "Romania's bloody revolution". BBC. p. 1. Retrieved 5 June 2010.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - "Television shows last hours of the 'anti-Christ'". The Guardian. Guardian News and Media Limited. 27 December 1989. p. 1. Retrieved 7 June 2010.
- Brumley, Bryan (Dec 27, 1989). "US Sending $500,000 aid package to Romania". Herald-Journal. AP. p. 2. Retrieved 5 June 2010.
- Schabas, William (2009). Genocide in international law: the crimes of crimes (2 ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 624. ISBN 9780521787901.
I believe wider community input is required here to decide if these sources used support the proposed text. mark nutley (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Comments by Involved users
I insist the question has been incorrectly stated. Of course, the sources ##2 and 3 support the fact that NC and his wife were executed for genocide. With regard to the source #1, it is not clear from it if those 60,000 were killed during the revolution or before that.
However, that is not the major issue. The fact that NC was tried, convicted and executed for "genocide of 60,000 people" is well established and unquestionable, however, the question is quite different. Correct formulation of this RfC should be:
- "Are the materials on NC trial and execution relevant to this article?"
The answer is not as obvious as someone thinks. Firstly, killings in Socialist Romania were hardly a genocide. On the page 391 of his book (ref #3) William Schabas writes that legislation in Ethiopia, Spain, Bangladesh, Cambodia and Romaina use a non-conventional and too loose definition of genocide. In other words, the Romanian definition of genocide is wider than that defined by UNO convention.
Secondly, on the page 392 William Schabas noted that the accusation of genocide was based solely on the large number of victims, and that this number was determined incorrectly:
- "...prosecutors appeared to have taken in views that genocide was the proper charge solely because of the large number of victims, believed, erroneously, to have numbered in thousands"(ibid)
In other words, whereas the source #3 confirms that NC was convicted of genocide, both the conviction and the number of killed has been questioned by the source.
Thirdly, this article tells about mass killings perpetrated by Communist authorities in some Communist states, not about the biographies of their leaders. Therefore, the sources and facts telling about NC, not about mass killings in Socialist Romania shed no additional light on the events described in this article, are irrelevant and misleading.
My conclusion is: the sources carry no information about mass killings and, importantly, are presented in such a way that they create a false impression that the events in Romania were genocide. That is not what the sources say, therefore, this text was correctly removed per WP:NOR.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
PS. A direct comparison of the source #3 with the RfC text demonstrates that mark nutley committed misinterpretation of the source. Although I believe that has been done unintentionally, it would be good if he commented something on that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Question Which part of ref 3(now ref5) do you think is misinterpreted? mark nutley (talk) 09:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Firstly, the ref was incorrect. The text you refer to is on the page 391-2, not on the page 624. Secondly, the source states that
- "The allegations concerned mass killings during the December 1989 popular uprising as well as other victims of the Ceausescu Regime"'
- on the same page the author specifies that he disagrees with that conclusion:
- ...prosecutors appeared to have taken in views that genocide was the proper charge solely because of the large number of victims, believed, erroneously, to have numbered in thousands"
- In other words, according to the author, although NC was tried and convicted of genocide it is incorrect to speak about genocide in this case, because (i) genocide was not a proper charge, and (ii) the number of victims was determined erroneously. By providing the first quote and omitting the second one you presented the author's description of the event as his conclusion, although his conclusion was quite different. You distorted the author's idea to push your own POV. That is a major violation of the WP policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- You are conflating two issues, one is the amount of dead during the uprising. The second is the amount dead during the time C was in power. The ref`s used above all talk of the amount of people killed during the regime, not during the uprising mark nutley (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Also prosecutors appeared to have taken in views that genocide was the proper charge solely because of the large number of victims, believed, erroneously, to have numbered in thousand refers not to C but to four of his aides, and their part in the uprising mark nutley (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- It is not clear form the sources how many people did he killed during the time he was in power. Provide extended quotes to demonstrate your idea.
- Re: "refers not to C but to four of his aides" The book has no other mentions of Ceausescu. Does it mean that Ceausescu was not charged of genocide?--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- PS. I noticed you continue to collect the sources that reproduce the official Romanian reports on circumstances of Ceausescu's death. Since all of them are just a repetition of the same information (and since noone questioned he was executed for alleged genocide) I doubt it to add more weight to your statements. All these materials are unquestionable, and all of that is irrelevant to the article's subject.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Also prosecutors appeared to have taken in views that genocide was the proper charge solely because of the large number of victims, believed, erroneously, to have numbered in thousand refers not to C but to four of his aides, and their part in the uprising mark nutley (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- You are conflating two issues, one is the amount of dead during the uprising. The second is the amount dead during the time C was in power. The ref`s used above all talk of the amount of people killed during the regime, not during the uprising mark nutley (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- I would recommend you reread this ref, you appear to be getting confused by it. This refers to C "The allegations concerned mass killings during the December 1989 popular uprising as well as other victims of the Ceausescu Regime"' the second part prosecutors appeared to have taken in views that genocide was the proper charge solely because of the large number of victims, believed, erroneously, to have numbered in thousands refers to four of his aides and their part in the uprising. I am unsure why you are finding this so difficult to get? mark nutley (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Can you please explain me what concrete idea this source is supposed to support and how all of that can be relevant to this article ("Mass killings under Communist regimes")?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- I would recommend you reread this ref, you appear to be getting confused by it. This refers to C "The allegations concerned mass killings during the December 1989 popular uprising as well as other victims of the Ceausescu Regime"' the second part prosecutors appeared to have taken in views that genocide was the proper charge solely because of the large number of victims, believed, erroneously, to have numbered in thousands refers to four of his aides and their part in the uprising. I am unsure why you are finding this so difficult to get? mark nutley (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
WP policy dictates that material from reliable sources be used for any claims. If someone has a different POV to give, then it is proper to add reliable sources for differing claims. Removal of the initial claims, moreover, violates WP:NPOV ab initio. There appears to be no argument that the sources I offered (NYT and Guardian) do not support the claims made (it is not up to us to "know" (WP:Josh Billings) anything about a topic, only that we accurately assign claims to the sources). Collect (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) No. WP:NPOV cannot come in a contradiction with WP:NOR. There is no explicit statements in the sources about mass killings committed (not allegedly committed) in Romania, so you must prove you performed no synthesis by adding this material into the article. Let me also point out that the synthesis can be performed even by combining several verbatim quotes form reliable sources even if no other text is added at all.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Collect are you saying the removal of the above text was in fact a breach of policy? mark nutley (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Removal of synthesis is not a breach of WP policy. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- What part of the proposed text do you think is synth? All is sourced and quoted correctly there is no synth that i can see mark nutley (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- The mention of "mass killings during the December 1989 popular uprising as well as other victims of the Ceausescu Regime" that have been reproduced by many sources is just a quote from one single primary source (that, obviously, was considerably biased). None of the secondary sources neither confirm nor refute these accusations. Therefore, by providing the quote without reservations you push the idea not explicitly stated in these sources. Moreover, the fact that after more that 20 year passed from NC death no reliable secondary sources exist that describe the details of mass killings committed by his regime means that the issue is not as clear as you want to present. I personally am very surprised that neither you nor Collect were able to find anything serious on that account.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- That is not synth, that is stating what the sources say, your argument about synth is a fraud, the book itself is a reliable secondary source, as are the other refs per wp:rs and wp:v mark nutley (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- The fact that the book is a reliable source (btw, why did you decide that I disagree with that?) does not mean that you can arbitrarily take short fragments from there and to use them to demonstrate the idea not explicitly stated by this reliable source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- I`m not, i`m quoting what is in the book, it is you who are conflating two entirely seperate statements in the book not I mark nutley (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, you are quoting the book, but you do that selectively. Can you tell me what is the main idea William Schabas is trying to convey on the pages 390-393?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- In addition, the author's remark ("... romanian prosecutors ...etc") seems to summarise the whole para, not just the case of Ceausescu's assistants. In other words, it seems to be equally relevant to the circumstances of Ceausescu's conviction.
- In other words, you quoted Schabas' words where he reproduced what the newspapers say about Ceausescu's death, however, you omitted the Schabas' own opinion on that account. In actuality, in this part of the book Schabas analyses the examples of incorrect applications of the accusations of genocide. He consider the cases of Ethiopia, Cambodia, Spain and Romania. In the Romanian case, his conclusion (quoted by me above) was that both accusations and the number of victims were incorrect. Obviously, these words have a relation to all accusations, including those put forward against Ceausescu. (Interestingly, NC was not mentioned by Schabas at all, the only person mentioned explicitly is the Nicolae Ceausescu's son. So, formally speaking, this book, that does not address the NC conviction explicitly, cannot be used at all. Of course, by writing that I just point your attention at the danger of a formal approach.)
- From your comments I conclude that you made this misinterpretation unintentionally, because you simply didn't understand what was the major author's idea. However, now, when I explained you what was your mistake I expect you to stop insisting on your wrong interpretation of the source, otherwise it will be hard for me to assume your good faith.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- And again you are either misreading the ref or are doing so intentionally, I`ll quote the lot for you as you are having such difficulty with it. "Several Romanian leaders including the son of nicolae Ceausescu were tried in 1990 for abetting genocide. The allegations concerned mass killings during the december 1989 popular uprising as well as other victims of the Ceausescu regime." This is entirely separate to the section about the four aides which says "Four Ceausescu aides were convicted of complicity in genocide at Timisoara" This was two separate trials and verdicts which you are lumping into one, read the ref properly please. mark nutley (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- I`m not, i`m quoting what is in the book, it is you who are conflating two entirely seperate statements in the book not I mark nutley (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- The fact that the book is a reliable source (btw, why did you decide that I disagree with that?) does not mean that you can arbitrarily take short fragments from there and to use them to demonstrate the idea not explicitly stated by this reliable source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- That is not synth, that is stating what the sources say, your argument about synth is a fraud, the book itself is a reliable secondary source, as are the other refs per wp:rs and wp:v mark nutley (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- The mention of "mass killings during the December 1989 popular uprising as well as other victims of the Ceausescu Regime" that have been reproduced by many sources is just a quote from one single primary source (that, obviously, was considerably biased). None of the secondary sources neither confirm nor refute these accusations. Therefore, by providing the quote without reservations you push the idea not explicitly stated in these sources. Moreover, the fact that after more that 20 year passed from NC death no reliable secondary sources exist that describe the details of mass killings committed by his regime means that the issue is not as clear as you want to present. I personally am very surprised that neither you nor Collect were able to find anything serious on that account.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- What part of the proposed text do you think is synth? All is sourced and quoted correctly there is no synth that i can see mark nutley (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Removal of synthesis is not a breach of WP policy. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
re: "read the ref properly please" Well, the chapter we are talking about is "Prosecution of genocide". On the page 391 the authors writes that "several national jurisdictions have prosecuted mass killings and atrocities under the label of genocide. In some cases, national law had changed the definition of genocide to give it a wider reach. Prosecutions pursuant to these idiosyncratic definitions of genocide have been indicated in Bangladesh, Cambodia, Romania and Spain"
On the next pages Schabas analyses all these four cases of application of these idiosyncratic definitions of genocide separately. Each para, devoted to the analysis of each case, starts with a brief description of the events and ends with the author's comments. The para about Romania is quoted below in full:
- "Several Romanian leaders, including the son of Nicolae Ceausescu, were tried in 1990 for abetting genocide(a ref to eric David). The allegation concerned mass killings during December 1989 popular uprising, as well as other victims on the Ceausescu regime(the refs added to NYT and WP). Genocide charges were also filed against former police officers for their participation in killings in Timisoara in 1989 where nearly 100 people died(ref to NYT). Ceausescu's son was acquitted of complicity of genocide(NYT), but the former dictator's brother, Nicolae Andruta Ceausescu, was convicted of indictment to genocide(NYT). Four other Ceausescu aides, Emil Bobu, Manea Manescu, Ion Dinca and Tudor Postelnicu, were convicted of complicity in genocide for their role at Timisoara(WP) Romanian prosecutors appeared to have taken in views that genocide was the proper charge solely because of the large number of victims, believed, erroneously, to have numbered in thousands"
In other words, all but the last sentence is a brief summary of what newspapers wrote about the events in Romania. Just a brief comparison of this para with other paras devoted to other three countries demonstrates that it was not a Schabas' goal to educate a reader or just to reproduce what newspapers wrote on that account, because his actual goal was to come to some conclusion. Obviously, the author's conclusion is made in the last para's sentence, and this conclusion is about the Romanian case as whole, i.e. about the whole paragraph, not to the penultimate sentence only.
And, finally, please, note that the para and the book itself tells only about trials of Ceausescu's brother, son and his aides, not about Ceausescu himself, so formally it supports nothing. I already wrote about that but you seem to ignore this my point.
In summary, after reading the book carefully, I have to re-consider my initial opinion: not only this source cannot be used per WP:NOR, it even has to be excluded per WP:V, because it contains no information on Ceausescu himself. As a result, the only sources the proposed text is based upon are the 20 years old newspaper articles that cite a single source: revolutionary Romanian mass-media. All these source just transmit what the Romanian mass-media did write about Ceausescu conviction. No independent verification of these facts has been done, according to the sources you provided. The fact that no scholarly articles have been written so far on the subject is an indication that the mass killings you refer to hardly took place in actuality, or that the documentary evidences do not exist (see, e.g. Valentino) --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Comments by uninvolved users
I had been editing this article before, but I stayed out of this particular dispute, so I consider myself uninvolved. Apparently, some people argue here that there is a difference between the BBC quote
- In a summary court martial held in secret, Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu were accused of ordering the deaths of 60,000 people
and what was added to the article
- Both he and his wife were executed for the mass murder of 60 thousand people during the course of the Ceausescu regime.
So my question is whether there is an RS supporting the latter? (Igny (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC))
- Yes, The Ceausescus had rejected charges of of causing the "genocide" of more than 60,000 people during their 24 years in power, the provisional government announced. mark nutley (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- And this one also The genocide charge, the announcer said, was based on an estimated 60,000 killings during the dictator's rule. mark nutley (talk) 09:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- So, ok. There was a revolution and new government brought charges against the old government, convicted and executed the previous head of state. That was not the first time something like that happened in history of revolutions and it has been known that such charges are quite often made up and had little basis on actual events. Now, is there an independent verification of whether the charges were true? Nearly all statements in the current version of the text deserve characterization as "alleged" or "allegedly" at this moment. (Igny (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC))
- I am unsure as to what your question means? The LA times says it was an estimated number, the guardian says the rejected the charge of genocide. Neither says allegedly. The first four refs do not say alleged or allegedly at all in fact. However i don`t understand why this actually matters? The ref`s support the proposed text right? mark nutley (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- No. The sources say that according to the provisional government blahblahblah. The provisional government is not an independent source. Is there an independent researcher confirming the findings of the new government? (Igny (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC))
- I am unsure as to what your question means? The LA times says it was an estimated number, the guardian says the rejected the charge of genocide. Neither says allegedly. The first four refs do not say alleged or allegedly at all in fact. However i don`t understand why this actually matters? The ref`s support the proposed text right? mark nutley (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- So, ok. There was a revolution and new government brought charges against the old government, convicted and executed the previous head of state. That was not the first time something like that happened in history of revolutions and it has been known that such charges are quite often made up and had little basis on actual events. Now, is there an independent verification of whether the charges were true? Nearly all statements in the current version of the text deserve characterization as "alleged" or "allegedly" at this moment. (Igny (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC))
- Comment - This apparently reliable source gives the figure of 1,104 deaths during the 1989 revolution: http://www.euranet.eu/eng/Dossier/The-fall-of-Communism/The-Romanian-revolution-and-the-price-of-freedom Are you talking about deaths during his entire time in power? Here is his obit from the NY Times - no mention of allegations of genocide: http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/c/nicolae_ceausescu/index.html I also posted this at the RFC above. You could say he was accused of killing 60,000 at his trial, but it was later found that this was not substantiated and give more reliable figures. Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- That seems like an excellent compromise, especially given the point about independent confirmation for the 60,000 figure pointed out by Igny above.--204.75.125.136 (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The convictions exist and are not "alleged." Adding what we WP:KNOW is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR - the policy is to cover what is in the source without editorial comment from WP editors on any side. Collect (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Collect, the findings of a tribunal do not establish fact. Incidentally it is part of U. S. law that only judgments of courts of record may be considered conclusive proof and even then only within the jurisdiction of the court (see Hilton v. Guyot. TFD (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- I find it extremely unlikely that a Romanian revolutionary tribunal presented a neutral or factually accurate view of Ceausescus, bearing in mind that it was essentially a summary trial. The short amount of time taken to try him prevented any accurate data concerning his abuses of power being collected at the time. The reason he and his wife were machine-gunned was that the anti-communist revolutionaries wanted to eliminate a political threat, not because he was a mass-muderer (which is almost certainly also the case). Claritas § 16:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Actually the tribunal that executed him was also Communist. However User:Collect and User:marknutley believe that Communists are more reliable than "Western" academic sources. Comrades, I disagree. TFD (talk) 02:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Moved Comments From The Question Section
- Setting up an RfC when an RfC already exists on substantially the same topic is disruptive editing. Editors may comment on it at ANI I am prepared to set up an RfC about the conduct of User:Marknutley if anyone has the time to join in. I choose not to participate in this RfC and ask User:Marknutley to close it. TFD (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, it is not "disruptive editing" as I have seen such in the past on other articles. As for soliciting people to join in an RFC/U, such CANVASSing is highly improper in the first place. Thanks! Collect (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- IMHO, the references to policy violation, complains to ANI etc, is the last resort of those who appeared to be unable to continue a normal dispute. I even see no problem with canvassing: if new people present new arguments, is is always good, if their participation is limited with just "support X", then their opinions have a zero weight per WP:DEMOCRACY. One way or the another, mark nutley seems to exhaust his arguments, so if he will not come out with some new sources in reasonable future the RfC will be closed. BTW, if he will be able to provide new and reliable sources demonstrating his point, I'll be satisfied too.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, it is not "disruptive editing" as I have seen such in the past on other articles. As for soliciting people to join in an RFC/U, such CANVASSing is highly improper in the first place. Thanks! Collect (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- You should read WP:Canvass and not accuse other people which is a personal attack: "Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and may be considered disruptive (my emphasis). For example if you were to secretly write to editors you believed would support your views on articles such as left-wing nationalism or the Daily Mail, that would be disruptive editing. But if one is editing an article where an editor is being disruptive and one openly recommends an RfC, then one is not being secretive and not trying to influence the outcome. Perhaps you could explain to me why your opinion is that User:Marknutley is not being disruptive. TFD (talk) 02:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Moved this off topic junk from the Question section to here. mark nutley (talk) 07:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- You should read WP:Canvass and not accuse other people which is a personal attack: "Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and may be considered disruptive (my emphasis). For example if you were to secretly write to editors you believed would support your views on articles such as left-wing nationalism or the Daily Mail, that would be disruptive editing. But if one is editing an article where an editor is being disruptive and one openly recommends an RfC, then one is not being secretive and not trying to influence the outcome. Perhaps you could explain to me why your opinion is that User:Marknutley is not being disruptive. TFD (talk) 02:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Reliable sources noticeboard
These is a discussion about the reliability of the Black Book and the Victims of Communism at RSN. TFD (talk) 21:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
How about Ukraine???
Why isn't there a mention of the mass killing by the Communists in Ukraine? 30 million were either shot, hung, or starved by the communists??? There should be a mention of this.--InaMaka (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- It is mentioned. TFD (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Since Ukraine was one of four co-founders of the USSR (and continued to be a member of the USSR until 1991) it should be covered in the USSR section. With regard to "30 million were either shot, hung, or starved by the communists???", I would like to see your sources (of course, Rummel, or similar controversial writers is not an adequate support).--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Dear Paul: Give me some time. I will get you sources. If this wasn't Misplaced Pages--I choose to remain anon--I would share with you a picture of my family--I adopted my children from the Ukraine--standing in Independence Square in Kiev, in front of the memorial to the 30 million. Have a good day!--InaMaka (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- I have no doubts that the number of 30 million is being frequently quoted by some nationalists. In addition, I also know that previous Ukrainian government made extensive efforts to victimise Ukrainians, partially to distract public opinion from catastrophic effect their own rule had on their country. However, neutral sources (I mean the articles in Western peer-reviewed scientific journals) disagree with that. It is generally accepted that totally not more than 15 million people died prematurely in whole USSR/Soviet Russia during 1917-53 as a result of actions of Communist authorities, including famine, executions, GULAG prisoners mortality, civil war, etc. I fully understand your emotions and assume your good faith. However, again, reliable sources do not confirm your assertions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Dear Paul: Give me some time. I will get you sources. If this wasn't Misplaced Pages--I choose to remain anon--I would share with you a picture of my family--I adopted my children from the Ukraine--standing in Independence Square in Kiev, in front of the memorial to the 30 million. Have a good day!--InaMaka (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ukraine is an independent state - thus it is properly treated as one. As for evaluating bias of sources, WP policy is that is not the function of editors to WP:KNOW the truth. Collect (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well, did I understand you correct that you imply that Communist mass killings took place in independent Ukraine, or you propose to split the Soviet Union section onto 15 sections corresponding to presently independent post-Soviet states?
- Re truth. WP is supposed to be based on reliable sources, and these sources state that Rummel is a controversial writer that is prone to exaggerations.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Consider that during WW II, Poland was part of Germany. We do not, however, say that incidents in what is now Poland took place in Germany! WP uses current place identifications -- Beethoven was not born in "Germany" but it is clear that he was born in Germany - get the picture? Ethiopia was part of Italy during WW II -- yet we refer to events there as being in Ethiopia, not as being in Italy. As to the second comment - the WP policy is to add contrasting opinions rather than delete the opinion one does not like. Collect (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- False analogy. Occupied states are not considered to be part of the conquering power. Where maps have been redrawn we use the borders that existed at the time. Otherwise we have St. Patrick going from the U. K. to the Irish Republic, the Pilgrims going from the U. K. to the U. S., and ancient Italians saying "Tunisia must be destroyed" and "All France is divided into three parts". (Commentarii de Bello Gallico). TFD (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- So Beethoven was born in an "occupied state"? Nope. BTW, in the UK, the nation in which Plymouth is located is England. Nor is silliness regarding quotations proper argument here. The fat is that under the USSR, the nation was officially Ukraine, and that Ukraine is no longer a part of the USSR. Period. Collect (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Collect is correct, even when a part of the soviet union all the country`s within still retained their country`s name. mark nutley (talk) 13:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Re: "So Beethoven was born in an "occupied state"?" Germany is not a good example, because during the major part of its history it was a conglomerate of smaller states. The term "Germany" was used since Roman times to describe territories populated by German speaking people.
- Yes, the nation was officially Ukraine, but the state was the USSR. However, if you propose to discuss mass killings committed separately by Ukrainian, Russian, Belorussian and other national Communist regimes, let's talk about that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- False analogy. Beethoven is called German, because he was an ethnic German, not because he was born in what is now Germany. Notice that Germans born in the Sudetenland and East Prussia are normally called Germans not Czechs and Poles. Germans who lived in E. Prussia before 1871 are called Prussians. However if we write about the history of the states where these people lived, we write about Prussia, Westphalia, etc. Re: England - the name of the country the Pilgrims sailed from was England. Collect ignores the reference to St. Patrick who sailed from what is now England but there was no England then. And no when we have articles that discuss government policies throughout the world we would not for example have separate sections for income taxes in England, Wales, etc. TFD (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Re: "the nation in which Plymouth is located is England." I am not sure if it is possible to say in English that something is located in the nation. By contrast to "country", "nation" is not a geographical term.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- 1. See England 2. Note that Ukraine was one of the founding members of the UN. Clearly Ukrainians viewd Ukraine as a nation. 3. Trying to parse a difference between "country" and "nation" reaches new depths.
- Re: "the nation in which Plymouth is located is England." I am not sure if it is possible to say in English that something is located in the nation. By contrast to "country", "nation" is not a geographical term.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- False analogy. Occupied states are not considered to be part of the conquering power. Where maps have been redrawn we use the borders that existed at the time. Otherwise we have St. Patrick going from the U. K. to the Irish Republic, the Pilgrims going from the U. K. to the U. S., and ancient Italians saying "Tunisia must be destroyed" and "All France is divided into three parts". (Commentarii de Bello Gallico). TFD (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Consider that during WW II, Poland was part of Germany. We do not, however, say that incidents in what is now Poland took place in Germany! WP uses current place identifications -- Beethoven was not born in "Germany" but it is clear that he was born in Germany - get the picture? Ethiopia was part of Italy during WW II -- yet we refer to events there as being in Ethiopia, not as being in Italy. As to the second comment - the WP policy is to add contrasting opinions rather than delete the opinion one does not like. Collect (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Since Ukraine was one of four co-founders of the USSR (and continued to be a member of the USSR until 1991) it should be covered in the USSR section. With regard to "30 million were either shot, hung, or starved by the communists???", I would like to see your sources (of course, Rummel, or similar controversial writers is not an adequate support).--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
na·tion (nā'shən) n. 1. a.A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.
b.The territory occupied by such a group of people: All across the nation, people are voting their representatives out.
c.A federation or tribe, especially one composed of Native Americans.
d.The territory occupied by such a federation or tribe.
coun·try /ˈkʌntri/ Show Spelled Show IPA noun, plural -tries, adjective –noun 1. a state or nation: What European countries have you visited? 2. the territory of a nation.
So while "country" has some geographical connexion, trying to claim they are different when dealing with entities such as England or Ukraine is silly. And so the nation Plymouth is located in was, and remains, England. Collect (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well, could you please summarise the point you are trying to convey? Did I understand you correct that instead of discussing mass killings in the USSR you propose to discuss them separately in Ukraine, Belorussia, Russian Federation, Georgia, etc? Or your point is that position of Ukraine in the USSR was different from that of other republics?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- As I made no such statement, the queestion is non-utile. The question posed was about Ukraine, which was a UN member. Georgia etc. were not UN members. The concept of the UN is that members are nations. Clear? Collect (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- By that logic, we should exclude China, because they were considered to be part of the anti-Communist Republic of China until the 1970s and the Baltic states because they were never recognized as part of the U. S. S. R. Also, you ignore the fact that the U. S. S. R. government was recognized as the government of the Ukraine. TFD (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- IMO, to observe the most basic formal logic rules is absolutely required in any serious discussion. Firstly, "UN members are nations" does not mean "non-UN members are not nations". Secondly, the USSR was also the UN member. Does that mean that "Soviet", "Ukrainian" and "Belorussian" were three different nations? If yes, it remind me the Holy trinity paradox. Thirdly, Ukraine and Belorussia became UN members due to Stalin. Does it mean that you support the idea that Stalin, "a peoples' father", was authorised to decide which ethnicity constitutes a nation and which is not, and do you support his decision?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Read the section title. Any other speculation is wondrously irrelevant here. It is, moreover, clear that Ukraine is a nation in all definitions of the word. Collect (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- 1. Ukraine is the nation and was a co-founder of the USSR and was the part of the USSR during the period of time discussed in the article.
- 2. There is a section in the article devoted to mass killings in the USSR, which includes mass killings in Ukraine.
- 3. Therefore, a separate section devoted to Ukraine cannot be included because the same events would be discussed twice. In addition the Holodomor section is already in the article that discusses famine in Ukraine (although not all sources agree that we have sufficient ground for that).--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- I suggest using the sources themselves as indications of where the information should be located. If the source says "USSR" and mentions the Ukraine en passant, then that source should be placed under "USSR" while any source referring primarily to "Ukraine" and only en passant to the USSR, belongs under Ukraine. Saying that a source which specifically mentions "Ukraine" must be placed under "USSR" for the reasoning you give, fails the common-sense test of how sources should be used. Collect (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Since Ukraine at this time is a part of USSR, it should go under USSR. If there is enough, a subsection is warranted, but under USSR. This is pretty self-evident. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Agree. Just because Stalin said it was an independent country does not make it true. TFD (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Since Ukraine at this time is a part of USSR, it should go under USSR. If there is enough, a subsection is warranted, but under USSR. This is pretty self-evident. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- I suggest using the sources themselves as indications of where the information should be located. If the source says "USSR" and mentions the Ukraine en passant, then that source should be placed under "USSR" while any source referring primarily to "Ukraine" and only en passant to the USSR, belongs under Ukraine. Saying that a source which specifically mentions "Ukraine" must be placed under "USSR" for the reasoning you give, fails the common-sense test of how sources should be used. Collect (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Read the section title. Any other speculation is wondrously irrelevant here. It is, moreover, clear that Ukraine is a nation in all definitions of the word. Collect (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- As I made no such statement, the queestion is non-utile. The question posed was about Ukraine, which was a UN member. Georgia etc. were not UN members. The concept of the UN is that members are nations. Clear? Collect (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Albanian anti-Communist law
There is a discussion about renaming the article On Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity Committed in Albania during the Communist Regime for Political, Ideological and Religious Motives, which was created by the now banned editor User:Altenmann. If anyone would like to comment on it the discussion is here. TFD (talk) 07:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Cleanup template messages
There are cleanup template messages at the top of the article which have just been sitting there being ignored. We should either address them or remove them. The "may not include all significant viewpoints" is probably still relevant and may be useful to keep as either a notice to new editors who could contribute or a reminder to old editors who have been busy. The "needs attention from an expert" message is old and should be either removed or reposted. The middle three require discussion, and I will start a talk page section for each to identify examples and work through them. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Neutrality Template Message
Please post examples below of non-neutral language currently in the article so that they can be discussed. I will remove the template after a week if no examples are offered. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Synthesis Template Message
Please post examples below of sentences containing synthesis or unverifiable facts currently in the article so that they can be discussed. I will remove the template after a week if no examples are offered. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Essay Template Message
Please post examples below of editors' personal reflections or opinions currently in the article so that they can be discussed. I will remove the template after a week if no examples are offered. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Reply to four sections set up to discuss templates
This article was created by the blocked editor
Categories:- All unassessed articles
- Start-Class history articles
- Low-importance history articles
- History articles needing attention
- WikiProject History articles
- Unassessed politics articles
- Unknown-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- C-Class Human rights articles
- Mid-importance Human rights articles
- WikiProject Human rights articles
- C-Class socialism articles
- Mid-importance socialism articles
- WikiProject Socialism articles
- Old requests for peer review