Misplaced Pages

The top margin is no more than 20 million

You just wrote this, and it has me confused, are you saying only 20millions died under communist regimes? You also need to write an alternate lede for the RFC. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You are the vehement proponent of the Black Book. Did you read it? Read the Werth's chapter.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

PS, given majority of sources say Stalin killed around 15 to 20 millions then how do you conclude that the total for all communist regimes were only 20millions? Mao is estimated to have killed 60millions or more, Pol Pot between 2 and 2.5millions that alone gives a total of 82.5millions high figure for these three alone. Your contention that only some 20millions were killed is belied by these very simple math. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, I thought I explained that many times. Stalin's policy lead to significant population losses. Part of these losses (a small part) were direct killings (executions and murders). About 1.5 million (or more, I don't remember correctly) were killed in such a way. Others died during deportations, and similar events. A greatest part of the deaths were famine deaths. Although Stalin was totally responsible for these deaths, it would be incorrect to say the he intentionally killed those people (as Hitler was killing Jews). The situation in China is probably the same, although, as far as I understand, the regime was much more brutal there, probably, due to long autocratic traditions. The last case is Cambodia. This case is more clear: it was a direct genocide of rich urban population, part of those were non-Khmer, by poor rural Khmers, whose economic situation was literally desperate before the revolution, and who were driven primarily by the revenge. So we have about 2-3 million of killings sensu strioto in the USSR, I guess, somewhat larger number in China (probably, proportionally to the size of population, or somewhat higher), and 2-3 million in Campuchea. Totally it will be hardly more than 10-20 million killed in the same sense Hitler was killing Jews, Poles, Russians, etc. However, if we take into account all premature deaths, the figures will be higher for the USSR and China, but not for Campuchea: 15 million for the USSR and more than 30 million for China. However, only some authors call these deaths "killings". I believe I explained you the origin of the range.

It is also necessary to note that, according to serious studies, the life expectancy of Soviet population was steadily growing and mortality was steadily declining during the whole Soviet period, so the great famines of 1922, 33 and 46 were more exception than a rule. This growth is partially explained by the same effects that caused the famines, i.e. by industrialisation and urbanisation. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

RfC for Holodomor

Qwyrxian suggested RfC and some other measures at Talk:Holodomor. What do you think about that? Given the contradictions and the lack of most important (onto)logical connections (I mean holonymy) in the current version of the article, I wonder whether there is a noticeboard which address logical fallacies and other such stuff. Also, there is an issue with "relief prohibited by state" (as far as I remember, you demonstrated the sources which prove otherwise).

If you agree there is any sense in starting RfC any time soon, we should prepare a short list of contentious points including those above. GreyHood 17:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

As you can see, I am currently focused with the MKuCR article, which involves mostly the same persons (can you comment on the last discussion there, btw?), so I am not sure I can devote myself fully to Holodomor, but I can try to provide all possible help. If you will start this list somewhere, I'll gladly join.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I was already writing comments there. As for the RfC proposal, I'll try to prepare a short list and few arguments in a day or so. Actually, all is already said for multiple times at Talk:Holodomor. We just need more fresh-minded editors to judge the situation. GreyHood 18:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hm, since there is a prospect of mediation I'll wait until the situation is clear.. GreyHood 11:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

RfC for Mass Killings

Please see my proposed intro. I think we might even be ready to go within the hour if everything goes right. Smallbones (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You did a great job finding refs and sources. Upon meditation, I decided to add some refs to the version1 (mostly from the article), because that would help to the new participants of the RfC to compare these versions more adequately. I will probably modify some wording, so let's open the RfC tomorrow, as we agreed. I'll notify you when I finish, so you have more time to have a look at your version again.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, early am is better, but before noon NYT in any case (except on the very unlikely chance that I get stuck somewhere). I do think the intro should be short and to the point. There might be technical problems with 2 reflists, but that can be overcome. Smallbones (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with having just one reflist, especially taking into account that our references partially coincide. The ref to Valentino I use is already in "your" reflist, so new references I plan to add will appear there too. However, again, I do not see any problem with that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Ready to go? Note that I just changed the intro. Smallbones (talk) 11:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll be offline soon for several hours. If we have to wait for both of us to be online, we may not get this done until midnight! I'll check in before I go, so I'll start it up soon. If you think that I've done anything wrong, feel free to remove your signature. Smallbones (talk) 12:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Going live. Smallbones (talk) 13:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Not yet.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Mälksoo

Is the Mälksoo you mentioned on Occupation of the Baltic states this person? And if so do you respect their opinion? The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

No she is a different person. I am not familiar with her works.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Would you consider her a scholar and a probable reliable source for information? The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

In each particular case a decision is taken separately. What concrete statement do you mean?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair and balanced?

user:collect left a message on my talk page concerning a comment you made regarding mass killings in communist countries. I left a lengthy comment on Collect's talk page. I checked the talk page of the article and see that the thread in question is now closed, so you may not care about my comment. In it I tried to be neutral and fair, as well as constructive. If you do care and take the time to read my comment, let me know if you think I failed in my efforts to be fair to you, and wish me to strikeout or modify anything. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I know what Jews, Bolshevicks, and Cossacks are and I do get that it is a double oxymoron. I never thought it was an antisemitic remark and I just hope that is clear to anyone who read my note. If it was not clear originally I am pretty sure that edits since then mke it clear. Anyway, good luck with your own work! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

1R

You do realize that by changing the lede after reverting me means you have broken the 1r restriction on the artcile? 19:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, you are wrong.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Tag teaming

Do not accuse me in that manner again, thank you. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Why?--Paul Siebert (talk)

Because painting any group of editors (group = more than one) who disagree with you as a conspiracy as opposed to each having arrived at disagreeing with you for their own individual reasons and acting independently in disagreement with you is a personal attack. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

You and Martin display a similar behaviour (removal of the POV tag despite the fact that most article's POV issues remained unaddressed). In addition, it his last post on the article's talk page Martin accused me in edit-warring (a typical strategy of tag team members, who know that their opponent will exceed the 3R limit first). Therefore, I expect you to demonstrate that you are not tag teaming (taking into account your past history, presumption of innocence does not work here).--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no justification of retaining the tag if you are not prepared to continue in discussion, it seemed that after no comment from your after two days you had run out of arguments and lost interest, this impression being reinforced by the fact you appeared to have moved on to mediation on the Holodomor article. Knowing that mediation can take months, it is unacceptable to maintain a POV tag while you are elsewhere engaged. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 05:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Two days pause is not an argument. In addition, as I already explained, that issue was just one of several issues. You haven't addressed one of my concerns (see talk); the issue with the first sentence has not been resolved; I see no signs of evolution of the article's language, etc. All of that warrants the tag, and your tag teaming tactics is highly inappropriate in such a situation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Really, "taking into account your past history, presumption of innocence does not work here", as I explained at EEML, I read my personal mail after having already participated by watching pages and checking to see what articles were of interest lately—and categorically did not respond to any emails. Do not engage in such personal attacks again. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

There are many different way for off and on-Wiki communications, and many experienced users simply do not need to communicate with each other to act in concert, especially for tag teaming. Let me also remind you that that is my talk page, and it was not me who started this thread. You want my opinion - you get it. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

PS As I already explained elsewhere, I found any references to the EEML case redundant and inappropriate, because most ex-EEML members (whom I absolutely respect, although frequently disagree with) had learned due lessons from that incident and abandoned their past tactic. Therefore, my above post has no relation to the overwhelming majority of the ex-EEML members...--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

PPS It is interesting to learn that you continue to use e-mail for Misplaced Pages purposes. By contrast, after the EEML story I had disabled my wiki-related e-mail account, so nobody from the Misplaced Pages community can contact me via e-mail.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if I have a file to share, I do that offline. Your PPS is offensive. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. Whereas I have no doubt that you use your e-mail for purely legitimate purposes, I just informed you that I, for example, disabled any possibility to contact me via e-mail, and I did that specifically after the EEML case, and as a result of it. That is just an information, not an advise to do the same.--Paul Siebert (talk) 10:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

As the entire planet has my email address, disabling mine makes no difference. I won't ask for your logic on how "interesting" is not innuendo. And (on earlier) recall I "started" this thread to request you cease your personal attacks regarding tag teaming, which you then compounded here with yet another personal attack. Your show of bad faith is discouraging. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Re your "I "started" this thread to request you cease your personal attacks regarding tag teaming", you are wrong, and you know that by yourself. It was not me who started this discussion, however, as soon as you started it, let me tell you what I think about you and the EEML team as whole. After all your team had been severely (although deservedly) punished, I totally removed the abbreviation EEML from my active vocabulary (may be, it would be more correct that I stick with the "no ask, not tell" strategy it that respect). Moreover, I sympathised to many of the ex-EEML members, and I am very glad to see that most of them abandoned their old tactic, and, despite serious disagreement with many of them, I respect them very much.

Unfortunately, not all of that can be applied to you and Martin. Being experienced editors, you are perfectly able to observe proper decorum, however, sometimes your behaviour reminds me of the worst days of the EEML story. By emphasising the word "something" I imply that you frequently are prone to dialogue, and such a dialogue is really possible with you. Going back to the example we discuss, I see no explanation for your and Martin's behaviour other than blatant tag teaming tactic. Martin unilaterally removed a POV tag under an absolutely artificial pretext, and without discussion the issue on the talk page. I restored it, and you reverted it back, also without discussion. After my second revert, Martin accused me in edit warring on the talk page, despite a fact that several POV issues raised by me on the talk page had been unresolved, and remain unresolved now. All of that was clearly the preparations for filing ANI request against me, and the question whether you communicated off-wiki or not is of secondary, or even tertiary importance here (I personally am sure you were not communicating off-Wiki. However, taking into account that you are watchlisting the same pages and you perfectly know each other and you share the same views on most EE related historical events, no off-wiki communication is needed in this case). Yes, you observed all possible decorum, however, for it is clear for every reasonable person that you were tag teaming.

Taking into account all said above, I expect you at least to stop your ridiculous posts: I have a very serious ground to suspect you both in tag teaming, and you have no reason to accuse me in that. That is not a personal attack, that is truth.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Really, I could just as easily attack you, TFD, Igny and others of tag-teaming or being members of some clique but I refrain from doing so because that is time away from discussion of content. You would do well to consider the same and step away from the hatchet. If you refrain from raising the hatchet, I shall have no need to observe you are holding one. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You should refrain from attacking me for being a member of some clique simply because that is not true. With regard to your advise to step away from the hatchet, I don't think your advise is relevant. I neither rise nor even hold any hatchets, and I do not accuse your in anything. This particular case in not an accusation, it is a statement of fact: you and Martin have been tag teaming in this particular case, although I have to concede that that is not your standard and usual tactic. Do not tag team in future, stick with your usual editorial behaviour, and we will have no such incidents.

BTW, last spring we were discussing the modification of the edit war policy proposed by me, which is directly relevant to this particular case: I proposed to replace "3RR per user" with "3RR per opinion". Interestingly, some of your ex-EEML colleagues (e.g. Piotrus) supported this proposal, although with modifications, however, other ex-EEML members rejected it. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Doctor, heal thyself. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The moral here is,

• no accusations = time spent on content,
• accusations of any sort of impropriety = acrimonious and massive waste of time and energy.

Let's not spend time on this again. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

@ Martin. Glad to see that you show some interest to studies of Bible, although you quote it not accurately. It says "Physician, heal thyself". Your second mistake is more dangerous: you consider every reverts made by more than one user as tag teaming. However, that is not the case. I made two reverts, followed by one Igny's revert, I did no other steps after that, so any accusation of me in tag teaming are absolutely baseless from the point of view of policy letter or spirit. By contrast, your own behaviour is a direct demonstration of the opposite: after making your coordinated reverts, you made a following post on the article's talk page , accusing me in edit warring. That ridiculous accusation (whose purpose was quite self-evident) is a typical manner of experienced tag-teaming edit warriors. This, as well as similar examples of your hypocritical behaviour is specific for you, and it distinguish you from other ex-EEML members, whom I sincerely respect. Regretfully, I cannot tell the same about you. --Paul Siebert (talk) 11:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

TLAM AE

See here. I am sure TLAM would notify others. (Igny (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC))

Imo, that is at least premature.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I am willing to take the chance of no action from the AE admins, I am just fed up with consistently rude and disruptive behavior by TLAM. (Igny (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC))

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation

Dear Paul Siebert: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Misplaced Pages dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Steven Zhang, at their talk page.

MedcabBot (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:AE#Collect

Thanks for your report. Some notes:

1. The submitter's name is supposed to have the date and time of submission next to it
2. Your report is missing a number of usual headings, including the heading for the Result section
3. The proposed sanctions sound like what Collect is supposed to do anyway, per item 2 of Template:Editnotices/Page/Mass killings under Communist regimes. What is new about this request? Do you just want admins to ask Collect to follow these steps?

It would be helpful if you can address these. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanations. I added missing sections. Please, let me know if I missed anything.

Regarding the proposed sanctions, the first problem, as I see it, is persistent refusal of Collect to accept the edit restrictions imposed by Sandstein on the MKuCR article, so the explicit request to follow these rules would be very helpful. In addition, since Collect demonstrates the same editorial behaviour when he works on other Communism related articles, a probability of edit wars would be significantly decreased if Collect had been enforced to observe the same rules in other Communism related articles. In my opinion, that is the only reasonable solution, because short block or even long topic ban will have only temporary effect (and the example of some, very few, ex-EEML members clearly demonstrates that). In addition, I do not think it would be correct to prohibit anti-Communist editors from working on Communism related articles, because that would make these articles less neutral. However, it is quite necessary to force those editors to observe minimal decorum, otherwise it is simply impossible to improve the article's quality.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

You made this comment during the RfC, indicating you had decided to revert the lead. It looks like you are shooting yourself in the foot, because this is the same type of violation you are accusing Collect of in the AE. You did not obtain consensus for this revert. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

That is the problem, and I think that its roots are in the ambiguity of Sandstein's edit restrictions. After filing the AE request I realised that literal interpretation of the Sandstein's procedure do not allow reverts, even if the changes that are being reverted have not been supported by consensus. However, that creates several problems. Firstly, that means that virtually every revert of the changes made without consensus should be done via AE mechanism. If we interpret the rule in such a way, then we have to agree that even full protection of the article with subsequent editing via the "editprotect" template would be less awkward procedure. Secondly, whereas Sandstein applied these restrictions, he explicitly noted that the 1RR remained in force, which implies that reverts of inappropriately added materials do not fall under these restrictions. Obviously, if reverts of illegitimately added materials were supposed to be announced at the talk pages 72 hour before they are made it is simply technically impossible to make more than 1 revert per day. In addition, based on my experience with the WWII article, the situation when everyone can revert the change made without proper discussion provide a good opportunity to avoid edit wars. I interpreted the restrictions (their spirit) exactly in this way, and this interpretation seems quite reasonable from the commonsensual point of view, otherwise we would have a ridiculous situation: a group of editors can introduce some disputable edits using, e.g., tag-teaming technique (without obtaining consensus) and then obstruct any attempts to revert the changes referring to the need of consensus for doing that. By the way, that is exactly what we have here: the same editors who added the materials without obtaining consensus are referring to the need of consensus for its removal. That is simply ridiculous.

In connection to that, I think that the Sandstein's restrictions should be clarified, and it should be explained that the edits made with violations of the Sandstein's procedure are tantamount to vandalism, and therefore can be reverted by anyone.

Regarding "shooting yourself in the foot", I do not see any problem with that even if we interpret the Sandstein's procedure literally: the article currently contains no my edits that have been made in violation of this procedure, and I cannot self-revert even if I wanted to do that. Therefore, any action against me would be purely punitive, which is not in accordance with our policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

PS. In addition, one has to keep in mind that the situation here is opposite to the standard 3RR or 1RR edit war: in the latter case the sanctions are usually imposed on the user who exceeded the 3RR limit first, because first three reverts are not a violation of the policy letter. By contrast, in this case (undiscussed edit - revert) the sanctions are supposed to be applied on the user who made the first edit, because it is the first edit that is a violation, so the second user acts in response, and, from commonsensual point of view is doing a right thing (restores the status quo before the violation). It our case this user is TLAM. However, it would be incorrect to apply any sanctions against him, because his edits have been reverted and he didn't restore them (in other words, such sanctions would be purely punitive). Therefore, the only person that should be sanctioned is Collect, who restored the undiscussed edits and refused to self-revert.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Question As my name is being bandied around am I allowed to comment on the matter? As PS has made an error in the timeline of this rather sorry saga. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, you are definitely allowed to comment. However, if someone will decide to report you for that we can present that as our private conversation unrelated to the subject of your topic ban.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Note this my edit Paul, I believe it is important. GreyHood 23:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I totally agree.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Mihailović: Draft for new section on "Collaboration"

During the Mihailović mediation, we agreed to discuss two additional topics on the article talk page: 1) Ethnic conflict and terror tactics, and, 2) Collaboration. The former was completed some time ago. Nuujinn has now drafted a proposed section on the latter subject. I am contacting mediation participants, and others who commented on the article talk page post mediation, to see if they wish to comment. The draft can be found here. Any comments would be most appreciated. Sunray (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the way that I and my friends treated you

I know this is the second time I'm saying this, but I've really seen what a jerk I was and how I told my friends a very one sided story about you. --Anonymiss Madchen 16:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Someone was impersonating you

Did you ever register an account called Tommygun on a wiki about World War II? --Anonymiss Madchen 16:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

No.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I suspected that. The person who did it even mentioned on another wiki which we run that he was going to go to our WWII wiki to spread libel there. Thanks. --Anonymiss Madchen 17:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Udibi

He recently pushed for a revisionist analysis at Rape during the occupation of Germany. I left a reply to one of his comments. --Anonymiss Madchen 18:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI discussion regarding a user from Rape during the occupation of Germany

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

--Anonyma Madel 22:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand your emotions, however, I think your ANI report is at least premature. You definitely need to be more patient.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see

User_talk:EdJohnston#User:Paul_Siebert_at_Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes

Smallbones (talk) 14:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Unacceptable

This personal attack is unacceptable. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Which concrete person has been attacked by me in this my post? Maybe, you deny the fact that the EEML cabal actively participated in early AfDs?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You invoke EEML, you refer to me. There is nothing "impersonal" about it. Period. Considering the so-called "findings" against me were a lie, I strongly suggest you deal with content and not resurrecting past conflicts. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't refer to you neither directly nor indirectly.

You also should remember, that I did not participate in the discussion of sanctions against your cabal when the EEML case had been open.

I even refused to read the EEML e-mail archive, despite the fact that some users pointed my attention at the fact that your cabal had been contemplating the actions against me (which failed simply because you appeared to be unable to do anything).

As far as I understand, I could learn something from your e-mails that could add more evidences against your cabal during the AE discussion, but I preferred not to do so.

However, can you explain me, please, why the fact that you had served a long topic ban nullifies all misdeeds your cabal committed in the past? Why do you believe that I cannot refer to this cabal (without calling concrete names) when it is appropriate?

Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

"EEML" refers to myself, regardless of whether you believe that is direct or indirect, I am a member of that collection. You refer to the whole, you refer to its parts. You propagate the meme that on-Wiki actions taken by a collection of editors (who, I should add were in no manner unified as to their individual POVs) reflect an organized attempt to propagate an editorial POV which would otherwise not succeed in the open, hence the need for a conspiracy (includes myself): that is false; also, that certain on-Wiki actions succeeded or failed owing to said conspiracy (includes myself): that is also false. Had my ban been for simply discussing WP off-Wiki, I would have respected that decision. That it was based on findings which called me a liar is equally deserving of my disrespect. I've already apologized for the group having been sucked down the WP rathole, that was neither its original intent nor my purpose in participating, no actions are being "nullified."

Please feel free to point to any edit by anyone on the EEML list which is not entirely consistent with edits before or after the existence of said list and which is not based on reputable sources or a fair representation thereof. If you find what you believe constitutes such an edit, I will be glad to discuss and defend its merits with you.

In the meantime, bringing up the EEML "cabal" as the reason for your or others' personal failings in editorial persuasion is resorting to name-calling discussing the editor, not the edit. Don't discuss the editor again if you wish to continue to represent yourself in any manner as discussing content in good faith. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:EEML refers to a group of users, who, using massive canvassing, as well as other similar tools, affected outcomes of the consensus building process in various EE related articles. This refers to a long list of users, and I concede you had been its active member. I do not know the details of the MKuCR campaign, however, since the e-mail archive can be easily found on the Internet, I can try and read it (a step a user Viritidas suggested me to do from the very beginning). By the way, I was told I myself had been a subject of your discussion, so it would be, probably useful for me to learn about the details of what concretely did you contemplate against me.

Therefore, if you want to develop this theme, please, give me a time to find your archive and familiarise myself with it. However, if you prefer not to develop this theme further, just stop it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Paul. Even if you talk about users who were sanctioned in this case, there is no mailing list for two years. Does not it belong to WP:STICK? Would not you agree not to blame people of belonging to "EEML cabal" anywhere? Biophys (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You are right. There is no list for two years. However, since some users repeatedly return to the past AfDs, some of which took place during the period of the EEML activity, I believe to mention EEML was quite correct.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Paul, I did not bring up EEML, you did. As for your characterization here, unfortunately the vast majority of correspondence had nothing to do with Misplaced Pages, so to say EEML conducted "massive cancvassing" is a gross overstatement since no one offered an editorial position or participated any different than they would otherwise and by already watching 100's of articles. Certainly, I did not. Where you and I are concerned, I believe my only comment (ever) was that I was disturbed by your habit of quoting Soviet archives as if the "AMEN" in church. Please do stop beating about with the WP:EEML stick, it serves no useful purpose other than to generate antagonism.

As for Viriditas, he and I have long since buried the hatchet, I rather suspect his advice to you was in the heat of the moment during which he was alleging another conspiracy on the part of some EEML members, myself in particular. Certainly the level of acrimony between you and I of late pales by comparison, yet Viriditas and I made peace and moved on. All you are accomplishing at the moment is to make me deeply regret to abide by ArbCom's ruling and topic ban pursuant to findings which, regarding myself, were not factual. Let's agree not to pursue past history further.

(post "ec") As for past AfD's, the participants, the votes, and the results would have been the same, EEML list or no EEML list. The sooner you believe that the sooner we can resume debate in good faith. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

What Paul tells is actually this :"I'll approach to that seriously, and the article will be deleted, either by normal AfD or by arbitration". Yes, he can do it. He only should not mention EEML, and you should not react. But this is only my suggestion. You people do whatever you want. Biophys (talk) 02:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'll speak for myself. During the MKuCR talk page discussions, some users frequently resort to this argument: "don't change the text of the article; it survived 5 AfDs, which means that the current text is supported by community". However, this argument is false for several reasons. Firstly, early AfDs took place during the EEML era, so their outcomes (the most likely) were affected by EEML canvassing. In connection to that, only recent AfDs can be used as the arguments. Secondly, during recent AfDs I did not support the idea to delete the article, which also could affect their outcomes. Thirdly, failure of an AfD means that the community believes that the topic is notable, however, that tells nothing about the article's quality. That were the points I wanted to make when I referred to EEML. I do find the reference to EEML quite relevant here (because we discuss the past events, not recent behaviour of ex-EEML members), and I do not find Peters' post appropriate.

Regarding the Biophys' quote, please, read my MKuCR posts carefully, and do not cite me selectively. My major point was that, since the analysis of the sources demonstrated that most sources used by anti-Communist users are garbage, the POV issues with the MKuCR article are much more severe than I thought initially. Therefore, it should either be rewritten (my first choice) or, if that will appear to be impossible, deleted (my second choice). If the events will develop according the the second scenario, "I'll approach to that seriously, and the article will be deleted, either by normal AfD or by arbitration". How can you work with sources, Biophys, if you cannot avoid selective quotation even when you deal with my posts?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Re "As for past AfD's, the participants, the votes, and the results would have been the same, EEML list or no EEML list." I never tried to question that obvious fact. However, in this case, we have to speak about just two or three AfDs, not five. And, remember, the situation changed since those times. Now I changed my opinion, and I believe that, under some circumstances, the article may deserve deletion. If the situation will require deletion, I believe, I'll be able to provide exhaustive evidences in support of that. However, again, I still hope that we will be able to resolve the issue without any AfDs.

Regarding burying the hatchet, frankly speaking, I have an impression that your behaviour has become more combative during last year (despite your peaceful phraseology). I suggest you to think about that. With regard to myself, I am always open for collaboration.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Paul: I've explained that MKuCR past votes were not materially affected. There are new editors to the topic who equally disagree that the only solutions to the article are either of yours (rewrite to your liking or eliminate), so let's keep that conversation there and in the present. Dredging up the past contending it is of material consequence to the present will only poison the atmosphere. If I am to take your participation elsewhere regarding conflict resolution (Holdomor, mediation) in good faith, that good faith must have the ability to apply to all our interactions.

BTW, I am not more combative, I simply object to abuse and relitigation of the past. Those are the lessons Misplaced Pages has taught me. I find you more strident in your defense of the Soviet legacy since the year of my absence from the topic area, as if your collaboration with some more radical editors has rubbed off somehow. Our mutual perceptions are informative but, equally, meaningless as collaboration is the only meaningful option. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

No "more strident in your defense of the Soviet legacy", please. I see the issue totally differently. Whereas I am not a professional historian, my university provides me with an access to a large amount of scholarly literature. Upon having read these sources I realised how deep is an abyss that yawns between the sources available for lay public and the sources written by scholars and published in peer-reviewed journals. They treat many subject quite differently. Accordingly, the authors, who are popular among lay people are not always regarded as serious scholars by peers, and vise versa. Concretely, whereas the authors like Rummel are being widely cited in popular literature, they appear to be almost totally ignored by the scholars who write about Stalin's repressions or Great Leap Forward famine. Therefore, you see a conflict from the absolutely wrong point of view: it is not a conflict between me (as a defender of the Soviet legacy) and you (as an opponent of the advocacy of Communism), it is a conflict between two visions of Misplaced Pages: (1) Misplaced Pages written for lay people based on questionable quality sources that amplify common stereotypes, or (2) Misplaced Pages written based on the best quality secondary sources that educate lay people. My choice is No 2.

BTW, to call me a defender of Soviet legacy is somewhat insulting. By making this statement you refuted your own major thesis, namely, that you have abandoned your combative behaviour.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You guys simply should not battle for years around the same articles. There are lots of other articles in a really poor shape. Sourcing them to any books that qualify as RS would be a blessing. Biophys (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Biophys: I agree we are both better off debating sources and thank you for your words of wisdom here. I would disagree a bit, perhaps, on the disengaging as I still have faith that Paul and I can come to mutual agreement as ours is, at the end, still a conversation driven by sources and their interpretation and not by unsourced personal opinion.

@Paul: I do completely agree there is a dichotomy in sources where the legacy of Communism is concerned—apologist at one extreme, utter condemnation at the other. However, I see that dichotomy in both sources written for the masses and in sources written for academia. So, with regard to reputable sources and a range of opinions, I advocate for inclusion of all reliable and relevant while, at times, your advocating for inclusion of the "best" would require elimination from articles of sources which do not fit your editorial POV. I am not calling you anything; I am giving you my honest feedback that something changed over the year we were not constructively engaged (that was my sentiment despite our disagreements) so that we might better appreciate each others' positions informed by an awareness of how we currently come across to each other. And so I take it as honest feedback that you find mine more combative than in the past. Collectively, we appear to believe the other has hardened their positions on topics, so it's all the more important we be mindful of how we come across and set an example to debate only on the sources and their representation in inclusion. (And so, to my original complaint, requesting we not get stuck in the past—we already know what that looks like and I have no desire to return to it; unfortunately, every mention of EEML in current debate effectively re-litigates the past and opens old wounds across the board.) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The division is not between "apologists" and "condemnation", but between poorly written, inaccurate sources that provide dramatically oversimplified view (popular among lay readers), and well written sources that take into account all aspects of the issue they discuss.

The mention of EEML is relevant to the discussion of some past events, and I do not see why I cannot refer to it when it is appropriate.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, we will have to agree to disagree on both points in the area of contentious subjects. We are not scholars reviewing the work of others; as long as sources are out in the literature and widely cited, which is the more true is not up to us to decide. WP policy explicitly states that the ultimate WP:TRUE of a source is irrelevant, only that it is deemed reputable and reliable. Conquest, for example, falls into that category. There are, of course, blatantly unreliable and inaccurate sources; but those fall into the realm of propaganda, not scholarship. Picking and choosing sources, thereby creating a particular POV, runs against proper writing about history, which writing should be inclusive of reliable and reputable sources, past and present. Nor am I advocating you should leave out what these sources might state about each other; rather, just the opposite: that such dialog should be represented IN the article; it is not dialog OUTSIDE the article to decide which sources to promote and which sources to censor.

On EEML, you can choose to believe that it materially affected past outcomes. Should you follow a past path of nominating particular articles or genres of content for deletion, etc., the results will not change. I see no point to bringing up EEML other than to generate sympathy for your editorial viewpoint (i.e., editors of your viewpoint were in the editorial right but were stymied, stonewalled, and had their proper content suppressed by a nationalist cabal). I would think you would wish to pursue more constructive, non-antagonistic, avenues. The choice is yours, of course. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You are totally wrong: we can review the works of others. Our policy forbids us just to publish our original research. However, we are free to analyze the sources for professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments, and to chose those sources that meet RS criteria better. Any attempt to present a garbage source (for instance, highly criticise essay with no references) as having greater weight than a good quality peer-reviewed article go against our policies.

Regarding EEML, if you believe it should not be mentioned, don't do that. With regard to myself, let me make decision in each separate cake separately.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

We both know that neither of us is going to bring a garbage source to the table. As for high criticism, there's a wide latitude in literature on particular subjects, e.g., Holodomor, so such criticism rightly belongs in the article and not in a discussion regarding the preemptive exclusion of resources. If you wish to play the EEML card, I would request you include what specific interpretation(s) of what specific source(s) you believe was/were erroneous in each case where you allege the so-called cabal acted against fair and accurate representation of reputable, reliable sources. That will avoid constructs of "XYZ failed because of the cabal" which make accusations without providing the substance upon which the accusation is based and therefore comprise a personal attack, which is what I objected to. I trust that explains the completely valid basis for my objection. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, look at my criticism of the Black Book of Communism (its introduction) as a source for figures. That is only a part of well sourced criticism. Obviously, the fact that noone was able to counterpose anything to that is a clear indication this source is garbage for the statement about universally accepted range of estimates of mass killings. I am sure that all participants of the discussion have read that, and, judging by the absence of the answers, they have nothing to argue. Nevertheless, those who concinue to resist against the removel of those figures knowledgeably support a garbage source. Therefore, a claim that we "both know that neither of us is going to bring a garbage source to the table" is an exaggeration.

In connection to that, I suggest you Peters to do one step that will convince me in your good faith. As a person responsible for addition of those figures to the article (to the footnote), try to convince other users to remove this source and the figures as seriously contested, and to add it to the article's body, along with needed criticism. If you will be successful (and I know that you can be persuasive when you want), I will accept your thesis that "neither of us is going to bring a garbage source to the table." However, for now, sorry, I respectfully disagree. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You may provide, if you wish, some sourced criticism of the statements about the BB's figures. If you will convince me that I was wrong, I'll withdraw my above statement. However, if you have nothing to argue (with sources) and still find this my proposal unacceptable, I see no value in further discussion. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

1. The BB figures were already in the article, I only documented the footnote for editorial transparency. I found your subsequent threats to report me for enforcement when not one iota of article narrative itself was changed both inappropriate and unnecessarily combative.
2. The BB is listed as a reference by a highly respected genocide scholar, whose latest text has gotten glowing reviews regarding his scholarship. See this comprehensive bibliography. "Stéphane Courtois et al., The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999. Massive indictment of communist regimes; includes Nicolas Werth's study of the USSR, 'A State against Its People.'" Done, BB stays.
3. Writing about history requires inclusion of resources, not exclusion, and then explaining what is the same, what is different. Until you come to appreciate that, your attempts at crafting historical narrative will diverge from, not converge to, a solution achieving consensus. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Re 1. You violated the Saidstein's edit restrictions, and had I reported you immediately after that (instead of futile attempts to persuade you), you would be either blocked or topic banned. So, instead of typing this nonsense you should appreciate my generosity.

Re 2. The BB has been listed because of Werth's section; as I've already explained, Werths criticized Courtois for his figures, so your argument is totally irrelevant.

Re 3. This is a pure hypocrisy. By adding Courtois figures you implied that they reflect consensus. That means that all sources that disagree with Courtois have been left beyond the scope. I would say, it is my version that is inclusionist: remove all disputable (and disputed) claims from the lede and add them to the article's body (where it can be properly discusses).

One way or the another, I have to concede that our discussion will not lead to anything useful. May I ask you to stop posting on my talk page (unless you will find some reliable peer-reviewed sources that refute my viewpoint)? You are welcome to make posts regarding other issues, however, this discussion has no perspective.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree we're not going to achieve consensus here. (1) As I added transparency, not content, no violation. (2) Your interpretation of why it's listed, the entire BB is the "massive indictment". (3) You can't be "inclusionist" and follow by "anything that anyone disputes anywhere is removed", there will ALWAYS be disputes on contentious topics. It is not up to us as editors to resolve those disputes, only to document them.

Well, we might not have made progress, but if anyone passes by, perhaps they will find our dialog informative even if we feel like we're finishing up where we started. Best, PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Your straw man fallacy is a demonstration the reason why consensus has not been achieved: you accuse me in adherence to the "anything that anyone disputes anywhere is removed" paradigm, despite the fact that I clearly wrote that the solution I propose is "remove all disputable (and disputed) claims from the lede and add them to the article's body". I again respectlully request you to stop this discussion, because it will lead to nothing useful, and I don't want my talk page to be spammed with demagogy, nonsense or straw man argumentation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear Paul Siebert: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Steven Zhang, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 12:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

MkuCr Terminology section wording

Paul, what do you think of my second proposal for wording introducing the terms? (I will only be able to post in the evenings each workday). AmateurEditor (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempt to address my criticism. It still has problems, however. Thus, Mann and probably Semelin clearly write that most mass mortality events under Communists were not intentional. Can we use these two authors in the section that starts with "Scholars use a variety of different terms to describe the intentional killing of large numbers of noncombatants"?

In addition, I realised that detailed analysis of each paragraph of this section will reveal serious POV or/and OR issues. Maybe, we should (together) go through each of them first? I propose to use my talk page. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. It's a good idea to use your talk page. The article talk page is very tumultuous at the moment.

Regarding intentionality, isn't the placement of that clarification better for the lead than the "Terminology" section? (The current lead does mention it obliquely, but I think this point could and should be made more clearly there.) After all, the only events that should be included in the article to begin with are those where at least some reliable sources attribute deadly intent by the regimes for the deaths. That there is disagreement among sources on the intentionality of some events doesn't really relate to the terms, does it? That's more for the "Controversies" sections.

I agree that the wording for each term will also have to be changed and I am committed to doing that with you here, but I do not want to move our discussion yet again without having agreed upon anything. Let's start small and agree on the introduction to the terms. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's start with the first sentence. However, we have to keep in mind that after finishing with other parts we will probably need to return to this sentence again. As I already explained, your last proposal is a big progress, however, I see some problems here. The article (currently) deals with up to 100 million "mass killings", most of which were just population losses (including ca 30 million infants that had not been born due to Great Leap famine). Only very few authors (Valentino, Rummel, Rosefielde, and Goldhagen, who just repeats Rummel's data and is not considered as a serious author by peers) believe all those population losses were mass killings. Other authors simply do not speak in those terms, preferring to focus on some local examples. How can we make clear that other authors simply do not consider overwhelming majority of those mass mortality events, and that they did not plan to embrace all of them with the terms they used?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Do you mean the first sentence of the Terminology section? Because I don't see the value in starting with the first sentence of the lead if we are going to change most of the body of the article. The lead, after all, is supposed to reflect the article, not the other way around. So we would definitely have to rewrite it at the end.

2. I have not come across the "30 million infants that had not been born due to Great Leap famine" point in any of my reading. Valentino cites the upper bound estimate at 110 million, with 70 million as the upper bound for the big three, and I am fairly sure that he does not include precluded births in his analysis. Are you sure about that point? I would definitely want to double check it.

3. I don't understand what the issue is with using both broad-scope authors and narrow-scope authors as sources for the terminology section. Are you saying that only those terms which have been applied to all Communist killings can be listed? Because I do not agree with that. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

4. I will assume that I misunderstood you. Please alter the below text with strike-throughts and bolded additions as you feel is necessary. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

"Scholars use a variety of different terms to describe the intentional killing of large numbers of noncombatants because the study of genocide is a relatively new and unsettled field. There is also no consensus term for the killings under Communist regimes specifically. Therefore, the following terms are not specific to the events under Communist regimes except where otherwise indicated.

(I believe you don't mind me to number the paragraphs in your post for convenience).
Re 1. Yes, you are right.
Re 2. See, for example, Shujie Yao. A Note on the Causal Factors of China's Famine in 1959–1961. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 107, No. 6 (December 1999), pp. 1365-1369: "In total, there were 18.48 million extra deaths and 30.79 million lost births in 1959–61." Carl Riskin (China Economic Review, Volume 9, Number 2, 1998, pages 111-124) provides good analysis of sources and gives an example of typical misinterpretation of above figures: Washington Post of July 17, 1994 reported that "National Defense University professor Cong Jin estimated that 40 million died between 1959 and 1961," although, in fact, was a number reflected both increased mortality and reduced fertility. I recommend to read Riskin if you have an access to it. Obviously, decrease of fertility has absolutely nothing in common with mass killing, independently on how loosely this term is defined. However, even that is not a full truth. As Cormac Ó Grada noted "births in 1962 exceeded those in any year since 1951, and in the following three years the birth rate also exceeded that in any other year in the 1950s and 1960s. Indeed, the surplus over trend in 1962–5—insofar as any pattern can be detected from these data—far exceeded the deficit in 1960–1. Therefore, the ‘lost’ births seem to have been ‘postponed’ births to a considerable extent."(Economic History Review, 61, S1 (2008), pp. 5–37) Moreover, the same author explains that famines were not unusual events in pre 1960s China, and the famine under Communists was not something outstanding (although it was greatest in absolute figures). All of that is being totally ignored by "genocide scholars" (Rummel & Co), who prefer to speak about "decamegamurders". Interestingly, the "genocide scholars, in turn, are being ignored by the authors like Ó Grada, Yao, Riskin, and others.
Re 3. The issue is as follows.

1. The article starts with "Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century with an estimated death toll numbering between 85 and 100 million." That implies that consensus exists among scholars that mass killings (i) occurred under Communist regimes, (ii) their scale was not smaller than 85 millions and not greater than 110 millions, (iii) they were a separate phenomenon (which implies a common cause);
2. The "Terminology" section, by virtue of its title implies that the authors listed in this section do not question the basic idea (see #1), and the source of disagreement is in terminology only.
3. However, we list Mann, who argued that most deaths under Communists were not intentional murders (p. 319). That means that he applies the terms "politicide, fratricide, and classicide" to just a minor part of those alleged 85-110 killings, and, as we see from his chapter, he does not consider major part of "MKuCR" as killings at all (see, for example, his discussion of Great Leap famine and Irish famine).
   We list Wheatcroft, whose major point was that "Stalin ... can be charged with causing the purposive death of something in the order of a million people.", and "only when we get into the broader categories of causing death by criminal neglect and ruthlessness that Stalin probably exceeds Hitler," however, he doesn't characterise those deaths as mass killings.
   In other words, if an author A applied "classicide" to describe, for example, Cambodian genocide, and an author B used "repressions" to describe Great Purge, it is incorrect to write (in the "Terminology" section):

"Scholars use a variety of different terms to describe the intentional killing of large numbers of noncombatants...

....

• Repressions According to B, this term can be applied to describe some mass killings...
• Classicide According to A, classicide is applicable to

That is synthesis. Those terms were not proposed to describe MKuCR. If you want to include them, the section must be re-organised: it is necessary to explain what each concrete term means, why it has been proposed, to what type of killings it had initially been applied, and to what concrete cases (discussed in this article) they have been applied.

Thus, if you want "genocide" to be included, the "genocide" paragraph should start with the explanation that that term had been proposed by Lemkin specifically to describe Nazi policy towards Jews. Then it is necessary to explain that Lemkin persuaded the USSR and most other states to sign a convention (and removed the clause about political persecutions for that), and then was unsuccessfully trying to persuade the US to sign it. However, refusal of the US to sign the convention forced Lemkin to extend the meaning of this term to demonstrate that the US may use it as a tool against the USSR. As a result, many mass death under Communists fit the loose definition of genocide, however, genocide defined in such a way becomes something too trivial, and can be applied to many cases of mass mortality under democratic regimes (Source: Weiss-Wendt, Anton (December 2005). "Hostage of Politics Raphael Lemkin on "Soviet Genocide"". Journal of Genocide Research (7(4)): 551–559)

That would be correct and neutral description, however, that require us to fully modify the structure of this section. Do you agree to start this job?

Re 4. I think, we can use your wording as a first iteration. Let's work with the section's body, and after that we will see what concrete modifications of the first sentence are needed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC

2. I read Yao and part of Ó Gráda (I did not find an accessible version of Riskin). I agree that births which did not occur due to pregnancies not occurring do not apply to our topic. Miscarriages would. These sources do not seems to distinguish the two types of "lost births", which makes sense for scholars focused on the demographic effects of a famine. However, if the high-end range number used in our article incorporates the first type of "lost births" (which is very possible), it would be a clear mistake on the part of those sources and this must be explained in the article. The article should have a section devoted to explaining the range of death toll totals given and breaking them down into their constituent parts anyway. I think that section would be the appropriate place for explaining this issue.

3. Only those terms used to label "intentional killing" should be included in the list to begin with. If the term covers intentional killing as well as other things, then this must be explained in the section. I do understand also that the issue of intent is disputed in some cases. But I do not think that we must go into such extreme detail as you suggest with "genocide" when we can simply explain the nature of the issue and provide a link to another article where the history of the term can be read. There are many options, such as Genocide, Genocide definitions, and Genocides in history. I think we can come to an agreement on wording that does not take up too much space. Synthesis can be avoided with the proper descriptions.

4. Ok. I think we should work on one term at a time, in the order that they are currently listed, then go back to see what other changes we should make to the entire section based upon what we did. I want to use the expanded versions from my sub-page here as the base text to alter in the hope that some of it will be acceptable. Please change it with strike-throughs and bolded additions as you see fit. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Genocide:

Under the Genocide Convention, the crime of genocide does not apply to the mass killing of political and social groups. Protection of political groups was eliminated from the UN resolution after a second vote, because many states, including Stalin's USSR, anticipated that clause to apply unneeded limitations to their right to suppress internal disturbances. However, as genocide studies developed and it became more apparent that political groups were being targeted, this restriction has been re-evaluated. Mass killing by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia has been labeled genocide or auto-genocide and, although it remains controversial, the deaths under Leninism and Stalinism in the USSR and Maoism in China have been investigated as possible cases. In particular, the famines in the USSR in the 1930s and during the Great Leap Forward in China have been increasingly "depicted as mass killing underpinned by genocidal intent." According to Alexandra Laignel-Lavastine, "historians and philosophers close to politically liberal groups" in Europe, especially in Romania, have made the term Communist Genocide part of today's vocabulary. Genocide is a popular term for mass political killing, which is studied academically as democide and politicide.

Re 2. Miscarriages are not considered as killing even according to penal codes of most countries, how can we speak about "mass killings" in this case? In addition, that is not the only problem: you forgot about the Ó Gráda's thesis about "postponed births". In addition, even when we speak about mortality, it is necessary to remember that the excess mortality was obtained by subtracting "normal mortality" from total mortality. However, the latter was enormous in those times' China (life expectancy was ca 40 years), so even small errors in estimates lead to huge uncertainty. Another problem is that the timeframes of the famine were not strictly defined, so some authors include even 1958 deaths. That is another source of mistakes. And, finally, we again totally forget that China was a country where huge famines were normal events, so to speak about "40-60 million mass killings by Communists" in a situation when ca 80% of those "victims" were just population losses as a result of GLF famine is ridiculous, taking into account that pre-Communist era famines killed more (in relative numbers), and are NOT considered as "nationalist mass killings". And, importantly, all authors who do careful analysis of sources and discuss this famine in details do not speak about "Communist mass killings". Only some "Genocide scholars", for example, Valentino, who did no his own studies of famines, speak about "tens of millions mass killings". I think, the works of serious single society scholars has greater weight than superficial interpretations of the authors who are not specialists in Chinese history (and in famines). One way or the another, this part of discussion has no direct relation to the "Terminology" section, so I suggest to postpone it.

Re 3. If we include only "intentional killings", the lede should be purged from "tens of millions victims". That is a requirement of our neutrality policy, and that is not negotiable. The only ways to mention "100 millions" in the lede would be to say (in the very end) that "The main cause of excess mortality in early USSR and China were famines, camp and deportation deaths. Some authors (an exhaustive list should be provided in a footnote, if we exclude those who just repeat the words of others, such a list will not be long) believe that such mass mortality events were parts of Communist program of mass killings and conclude that the total scale of mass killings amounted to 100 million (without lower bound)." If you agree on that (I mean if you agree to help me to achieve this result, we can move further).

Re 4. I think, each term should be described according to some uniform scheme: (i) brief history of the term, (ii) name of the author who tried to apply this term to MKuCR, and an explanation of (iii) to which concrete case this term has been applied, and, finally, (iv) problems with the usage of this term in a context of MKuCR. In addition, I have some concern about formatting: the section formatted in such a way creates a (false) impression that MKuCR (as whole) have been described as "genocide", "politicide", etc, so MKuCR as whole are ("genocide", "politicide", etc, according to those authors). In actuality, the section is devoted to both applicability, and non-applicability of the discussed terms (thus, majority of the authors disagree that MKuCR can be considered as genocide (with few obvious exceptions). If we agree about that, I can try to prepare my version (using your text as a base).--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

2. I agree that we should postpone this issue.

3. I believe "intended" killing also includes conscious decisions by leadership not to take basic available steps to alleviate the famines and thus prevent the resulting deaths, so I am unsure exactly how that should be dealt with at the moment. I definitely agree that the 100+ million figure must be in the context of why those sources include famine deaths and why they include the particular estimates that they use for those famine deaths. It is possible that some estimates have used poor judgement in choosing their estimates. I think the future section on the different estimated numbers should include the details, but I don't see any problem with separating the low and high estimates in the lead and explaining the differences there.

4. I agree that we should be as specific as possible in relating the terms to their use in the context of the topic, whether a term is used generally or specifically to one part, and I do not have a problem with including some brief history as well as disputes regarding the applicability of the terms. I would add that we should cite everything we write because what we agree to will likely be criticized (fairly and unfairly) when we present it to the rest of the interested editors on the article talk page. I also think we should try to be as concise as possible. I look forward to seeing your version. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Re 3. Let's be consistent. (i) British administration consciously refused to take basic available steps to alleviate the famines in Ireland and India. How frequently is it being accused in "mass killings" of Irish or Bengal population? Similar examples can be provided for the policy of Belgian administration in Africa, etc. Yes, some (few) authors try to accuse them in mass killings/genocide, however, that is hardly a commonly accepted point of view. (ii) If we (quite substantiatedly) claim that the famine deaths were a direct consequences of the policy of Communist authorities, we need to analyse all aspects of this policy. If we look at the century long trend of population's life expectancy and welfare in the USSR, we will see that mortality was steadily decreasing under Communist rule, and the magnitude of this decrease was unprecedented by world standards (comparable only with that in Japan). If Soviet authorities should be blamed for blatant mistakes that lead to famine (and population losses), should they also be credited for long term effects of their policy, which lead to remarkable decrease of mortality? I think, yes, and that is a dramatic difference between the, e.g., Soviet and Nazi policy towards European population: I cannot imagine (even hypothetically) that Jewish or Slav population could have any benefits from German regime (even it remote future). regarding Chinese famine, it is necessary to remember that it was a last famine in Chinese history: although major famines were frequent in pre-Communist China (in 1930s, in 1940s), there were no famines after GLF famine. Therefore, if we agree that famines were not intentionally designed, but were a result of mistakes (that authorities appear to be unable and/or were unwilling to fix timely), by focusing just on mistakes we create a totally biased picture ("desperately inefficient Communist regimes that starve their own population to death").

Re 4. I encountered several problems with writing the genocide paragraph. The major ones are as follows. Firstly, the opinion spectrum is dramatically wide: from Fein who claims that Communist regimes are 4.5 times more prone to genocide than other non-democratic stated to Harf who lists just few Communism related mass mortality events in her comprehensive list of genocides. Moreover, Eric D. Weitz argues that the term "genocide" is prone to inflation that serves political purposes but obfuscates far more than it explains. Interestingly, he concludes that regimes can be divided onto genocidal and those that commit genocide. He groups Khmer Rouge and Nazi into the first group, and the USSR, along with many other (not only Communist) regimes, to another. This article (Eric D. Weitz. Racial Politics without the Concept of Race: Reevaluating Soviet Ethnic and National Purges. Slavic Review, Vol. 61, No. 1 (Spring, 2002), pp. 1-29) is one from many examples when the authors apply the term "genocide" not to MKuCR as whole, but to few selected cases, by contrast to many others. In that situation, it would be totally incorrect to write, e.g.

"According to Eric D. Weitz, the term "genocide" can be applied to Communist mass killings"

because in actuality the author (i) writes that this term is applicable to one case and is not applicable to majority of others, and, importantly, (ii) he simply does not consider those mass killings in a context of Communism, preferring to analyse them separate from each other. Another problem is that many authors see not much parallelism between the KR and other Communist regimes. Thus, Ben Kiernan in his comprehensive "The Pol Pot regime: race, power, and genocide in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, 1975-79" argued that Pol Pot's regime was a "unique amalgam of communism and racism" (p. x). Helen Fein (Revolutionary and Antirevolutionary Genocides: A Comparison of State Murders in Democratic Kampuchea, 1975 to 1979, and in Indonesia, 1965 to 1966 Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 35, No. 4 (Oct., 1993), pp. 796-823) concludes that "upon closer examination, the xenophobic ideology of the KR regime resembles more an almost forgotten phenomenon of national socialism, which Becker (1986) calls fascism. Such regimes themselves evoke the threats that demand purges, promoting paranoid myths of persecution or anticipated persecution as a means of inciting solidarity." Therefore, many serious writers point at uniqueness of this case, and at dramatic difference between Kampuchean ultra-agrarian regime and, e.g., urbanistic Soviet Union. Taking into account that KR mass killing is the only event that is being described as genocide by almost all authors, can we make any generalisations? I am not sure. I would like to discuss that with you before starting to write anything.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

3. I hope you don't mind, but I would like to postpone this issue as well because it is not strictly related to the Terminology section. It will come up again when we get to the individual country sections and/or the Controversies section.

4. I suspect that "genocide" will be the most difficult term, so it is good that we are starting with it. I would like the Terminology section to focus on the broad strokes of what the individual terms mean (or their range of meanings) and how the individual terms are used (and/or disparaged) in relation to either Communist regimes as a group or individually, and not to get into the weeds of the particular details of a particular academic's work (such as the Fein research about Communist regimes being 4.5 times... etc., which is more appropriate to a more detail-oriented section). The most valuable sources for this, then, are those which characterize the use of the term by the field as a whole. I understand those may be rare. Failing that, I think the best we can do is to try to convey the wide range of opinion about the term by either citing sources which discuss that range (the preferred solution) or by citing both opposites (that is, at least one source which says it is appropriate, and at least one which says it is not). As part of the latter approach, Weitz' saying that the term "Ukrainian genocide" and "Red Holocaust" are "hyperbolic and politicized" and "class genocide" is a "travesty" would help. I think it is important to avoid tangents and bloat, especially with such an amorphous and loaded term as "genocide", where each source might use it's own definition or have it's own unique opinion about the applicability.

I agree with you that your example sentence for Weitz is incorrect to the source. The base text I offered above already says that KR killing specifically is described as genocide but that the term is controversial when applied to events in the USSR and China. It also attributes the popularization of the term "Communist genocide" to "historians and philosophers close to politically liberal groups". I suppose it would be helpful to have a sentence following this which conveys the objections to it by others.

With the weekend here, I have more time for this and I hope we can make more progress. If you tell me what you think of the base text for "genocide", including 1) what you think is OK, 2) what you think needs to go and why, and 3) what specific points you are looking to add or to find sources for, then I can help us find such sources and we might be able to move on to the next term before Monday. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Re 3. Unfortunately, it has a direct relation to the terminology section, because the introduction clearly says about intentional killings, thereby setting the section's scope. However, by replacement of those words with less controversial "excess deaths", "excess mortality", or "excess premature deaths" this issue could be resolved.

Re 4. The term "genocide" is hardly amorphous. In actuality, the authors who use this term are divided onto two camps: first camp prefer to stick to the initial definition, mostly because "if everything is genocide, nothing is genocide". This type authors consider only those events where (i) the intent of perpetrators to eliminate some group is obvious, and (ii) the target is some national, ethnic, religious or similar group. Other authors use the term "genocide" liberally, as a synonym for killing/death of large number of people, and they prefer to ignore the fact that that makes genocide a quite common event. It is the second meaning of this term that is amorphous, ambiguous, hyperbolic and politicized, and we need to explain that. If Soviet famine was genocide, then, according to the same standards, Irish of Bengal famines were genocides too. However, if they were not genocide then only few events associated with Communist rule can be considered as genocide, and KR genocide was the most notable and uncontroversial. In connection to that, I suggest you to read this article Michael Ellman. Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932-33 Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 59, No. 4 (Jun., 2007), pp. 663-693). The author provides good analysis of the genocide issue in a context of Great Soviet Famine only (last section), however, many his conclusions are more general, and can be used for the section we are discussing. Try to read it by tomorrow, and then we will continue.

I also suggest to start this work with creation of the list sources that cover all general aspects of genocide, especially, in a context of MKuCR. Below, I started this list (I'll add more sources later), supplementing it with brief explanation of why each particular source is relevant. Feel free to continue. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you please explain what your strategy is here? I had assumed that it would work as follows: I propose text; you criticize it and propose specific changes; we alternate doing this until we reach a consensus for a term, then we repeat this process with the next term. You seem to be taking a very different approach. Many of the sources I read months ago. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Your assumption was correct. However, I just wanted to collect all sources that we see as relevant together.

With regard to criticism, here it is:

Genocide:

• "Under the Genocide Convention, the crime of genocide does not apply to the mass killing of political and social groups." As I already explained, few words should be added to explain the history of this term, and why concretely the initial focus was made on persecution of ethnic groups.
• "Protection of political groups was eliminated from the UN resolution after a second vote, because many states, including Stalin's USSR, anticipated that clause to apply unneeded limitations to their right to suppress internal disturbances." I think, the explanation should be provided why political groups had been excluded. The second ref (Schaack) explains that the main argument (Polish) was that genocide is directed against the group of people who had certain stable and characteristic features in common, and "political group" does not meet this criterion. The source tells about the position of Latino-American states, and totally ignores Soviet position, therefore I don't see a need to mention the USSR explicitly. However, if we decide to do that, it would be necessary to mention another aspect of this story: a persistent refusal of the US to ratify the Convention, which urged Lemkin to overemphasize the anti-Soviet nature of the Convention (and to modify the term to make it more anti-Soviet).
• "However, as genocide studies developed and it became more apparent that political groups were being targeted, this restriction has been re-evaluated." That is simply incorrect. I would say, some authors attempted to re-evaluate this definition, so it became a kind of umbrella term for mass killings. However, as the sources provided by me demonstrate, many modern authors criticise these attempts.
• "Mass killing by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia has been labeled genocide or auto-genocide and, although it remains controversial, the deaths under Leninism and Stalinism in the USSR and Maoism in China have been investigated as possible cases." Need to be split onto two separate sentences. First sentence should be devoted to Kampuchea only; it must explain that, according to many authors (Kiernan, Weitz) the KR regime was an unique amalgam of communism and ultranationalism, or even fascism (Fein), and this case fits a definition of genocide, although other authors prefer to speak about politicide. Regarding the second part, firstly, "Leninism" is not used to describe the period from the October revolution to the beginning of the Stalin's dictatorship. Secondly, I am not sure what concrete cases in pre-Stalin's USSR had been described as genocide. And, finally, we need to list concrete cases, because otherwise we create an impression that this term refers to the Stalin's rule as whole (by analogy with the KR regime), which is not the case. I suggest to mention Lemkin's view of Stalin's deportations as genocide, and supplement it with the Weitz's criticism.
• "In particular, the famines in the USSR in the 1930s and during the Great Leap Forward in China have been increasingly "depicted as mass killing underpinned by genocidal intent."" I suggest to use the sources that analyses the issue in details (Ellman, Wheatcroft), not those who just mention the issue tangentially. In addition, "have been increasingly" is non-neutral editorialising, because I do not see that the opinia spectrum is shifting towards "genocidal" viewpoint. Thus, the most recent Ellman's article rejects the idea of genocide of Urkainians, Russians or Kazakhs, although he speaks about possible genocide of Kuban cossacks. However, the scale of this genocide (ca 150,000) does not allow us to do any generalisations.
• " According to Alexandra Laignel-Lavastine, "historians and philosophers close to politically liberal groups" in Europe, especially in Romania, have made the term Communist Genocide part of today's vocabulary.Are Romanian writers talking about their own country or they speak globally? Is their opinion notable enough? In addition, by labeling the proponents of the "Communist genocide" term implies that such authors as Weitz are not liberals. Is it correct, in your opinion?
• ""'Genocide" is a popular term for mass political killing, which is studied academically as democide and politicide." That "genocide", in addition to his strict legal definition, is an umbrella term for most mass killings, and is being used as such in popular literature is correct. However, the wording is not optimal. "Democide" is a Rummel's term that is not being used widely (just compare with "politicide"). I would suggest that the last sentence should explain the limitations of the term "genocide", which is the reason for development of other terms.

If you find my arguments reasonable, I'll propose my modification of your version.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding earlier today. I was busier than I anticipated (and it is after midnight now). Please, propose your version. I only ask that the sentences be sourced (I meant to go and double-check the accuracy of the current citations to the current wording before responding, but didn't get to it). AmateurEditor (talk) 05:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I also appeared to be busier than I expected. I've already started to work with my version yesterday, but I am not sure if I'll be able to finish it today. But I'll try to do my best.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Something like this;

The term Genocide had been initially coined by Raphael Lemkin to describe Nazi policy in occupied Europe, and The Holocaust in particular. This term had been formalized by the UN Genocide Convention, which defined it as an act committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, etnical, racial or religious group; genocide defined in such a way is a crime punishable according to international laws, thus applying limitations on the sovereignty of governments that destroy their own peoples. The legal definition of genocide has several limitations that made it inapplicable to many mass killing and mass mortality events in XX century. These limitations are as follows:

1. Protection of political groups was eliminated from the UN resolution, because many Eastern Bloc, Latin American, and some other governments anticipated that clause to apply unneeded limitations to their right to suppress internal rebellions.
2. The highest level of specific intent needs to be established for conviction of genocide.
3. The intent to destroy some group in part may fit the genocide definition only if the perpetrators view the part of the group they wish to destroy as a distinct entity which must be eliminated as such.

As a result, most mass killing and mass mortality cases in Communist led countries do not fit the legal definition of genocide as the acts against political groups (Great Purge, Cultural Revolution), or the cases with not established intentionality, or as the acts affecting just small part of some group (Soviet Famine of 1932-33, Great Leap Forward famine).
Some modern scholars proposed that the term "genocide" should be defined more widely that would allow expansion of protection of Genocide Convention on political groups, inclusion of both specific and constructive intent (i.e., the cases when perpetrator should realise that his behaviour makes the harm likely), and bringing the term "in part" in accordance with lay people's understanding. If this definition will be commonly accepted, it can be applied to most cases of violence in Communist led countries. However, such an approach has been accepted with skepticism by other scholars, who argued that loose definition would make genocide not a uniquely horrible and rare event, and large number of cases, starting from colonization of America and ending with the economic sanctions against Iraq would fit such a definition.
Nevertheless, many authors use the term "genocide" as metaphors for various forms of lethal and non-lethal violence, including the violence under Communist regimes. Limitations of the term "genocide" prompted scholars to propose alternative terms describing lethal forms of mass violence, which are being discussed below.

Paul, can we please continue this discussion after January 8th? I simply don't have the free time this time of year, which is why I have not been commenting much at all on the MkuCr talk page. I promise that I will pick this up again after the holiday season, but work is simply too busy for me right now to give this discussion the in-depth attention it deserves. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I am also busy, so it would be great if we postponed the discussion to Jan 8. Happy New Year.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Paul, I am going to need at least another month and maybe two. I am currently working 11 hours per day, six days per week and I have at least a full month's backlog to get through. I am sorry that I am not available for this right now. If you are willing to wait, that's fine, but if you would rather make progress by continuing this with another editor, I understand. If the latter, I would suggest trying to get article talk page approval for this one term change before spending time working on the others to test the waters there. If you would rather wait, you should know that some of the reasons I have not simply agreed to your proposed wording as is are as follows: I have not checked all the references for myself yet; I believe the UN definition is not the only legal definition for the term genocide because certain states have their own legal definitions which differ from that of the UN, although I do not remember where I read this; I take issue with your objections to the sentence about "historians and philosophers close to politically liberal groups" popularizing the term in this context; I would add some mention of the term being preferred by some because of its moral weight, rather than any strict legal applicability. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

As you can see, I am also not very active in Misplaced Pages now for the same reason: I am also busy in my real life. Take your time, and let me know when your schedule will become less tough. Good luck.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Weiss-Wendt, Anton (December 2005). "Hostage of Politics Raphael Lemkin on "Soviet Genocide"". Journal of Genocide Research (7(4)): 551–559. Describes evolution of the Lemkin's concept of genocide in a context of the USSR. Analyses strengths and weaknesses of the idea to expand the scope of this term beyond the UN definition.
2. Michael Ellman. Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932-33 Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 59, No. 4 (Jun., 2007), pp. 663-693. Discusses applicability of the UN definition of genocide to man-made famine in the USSR. Analyses the recent judicial interpretations of "in part" term.
3. Eric D. Weitz. Racial Politics without the Concept of Race: Reevaluating Soviet Ethnic and National Purges. Slavic Review, Vol. 61, No. 1 (Spring, 2002), pp. 1-29. Points at the difference between truly "genocidal" regimes and the regimes that commit genocide (the latter category includes both the USSR and many western countries starting from XV century). Additional arguments in favour of the UN definition of genocide.
4. Midlarsky, Manus. The killing trap: genocide in the twentieth century. Armenian Research Center collection. Cambridge University Press, 2005, ISBN 0521815452, 9780521815451, p. 309-325. Contains a comparative analysis of what is believed to be a genocide in Cambodia with such commonly recognised genocide cases as Rwandian genocide.
5. Helen Fein. Genocide. A sociologocal perspective. in Genocide: an anthropological reader, Volume 3 of Blackwell readers in anthropology. Blackwell Anthologies in Social and Cultural Sociology. Alexander Laban Hinton, ed. Wiley-Blackwell, (2002) ISBN 063122355X, 9780631223559. Provides an alternative definition of genocide.

Footnotes

1. Williams p.190 . ...the majority of deaths resulted not from direct execution, but from the infliction of 'conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction' of a group, in the language of Article II(c) of the Genocide Convention. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
2. Williams p.190 . ...the majority of deaths resulted not from direct execution, but from the infliction of 'conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction' of a group, in the language of Article II(c) of the Genocide Convention. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

References

1. Wills, David C., The first war on terrorism: counter-terrorism policy during the Reagan administration, p. 219, Rowman & Littlefield, 2003
2. Adam Jones. Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction. Routledge; 2 edition (August 1, 2010). ISBN 041548619X p. 137
3. Beth van Schaack. The Crime of Political Genocide: Repairing the Genocide Convention's Blind Spot. The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 106, No. 7 (May, 1997), pp. 2259–2291
4. ^ Williams, Paul (2008). Security Studies: An Introduction. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-415-42561-2.
5. ^ Rousso, Henry & Goslan, Richard Joseph (Eds.) (2004). Stalinism and Nazism: History and Memory Compared. U of Nebraska Press. ISBN 978-0-803-29000-6.
6. ^ Wayman, FW; Tago, A (2009). "Explaining the onset of mass killing, 1949–87". Journal of Peace Research Online: 1–17.
7. Adam Jones. Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction. Routledge; 2 edition (August 1, 2010). ISBN 041548619X p. 137
8. Beth van Schaack. The Crime of Political Genocide: Repairing the Genocide Convention's Blind Spot. The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 106, No. 7 (May, 1997), pp. 2259–2291
9. Raphael Lemkin. Genocide as a Crime under International Law. The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 41, No. 1 (Jan., 1947), pp. 145-151.
10. Beth van Schaack. The Crime of Political Genocide: Repairing the Genocide Convention's Blind Spot. The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 106, No. 7 (May, 1997), pp. 2259–2291
11. ^ Michael Ellman. Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932-33 Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 59, No. 4 (Jun., 2007), pp. 663-693.
12. Beth van Schaack. The Crime of Political Genocide: Repairing the Genocide Convention's Blind Spot. The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 106, No. 7 (May, 1997), pp. 2259–2291
13. Adam Jones. Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction. Routledge; 2 edition (August 1, 2010). ISBN 041548619X
14. Helen Fein. Genocide. A sociologocal perspective. in Genocide: an anthropological reader, Volume 3 of Blackwell readers in anthropology. Blackwell Anthologies in Social and Cultural Sociology. Alexander Laban Hinton, ed. Wiley-Blackwell, (2002) ISBN 063122355X, 9780631223559, p. 74
15. Weiss-Wendt, Anton (December 2005). "Hostage of Politics Raphael Lemkin on "Soviet Genocide"". Journal of Genocide Research (7(4)): 551–559.

Clean Wehrmacht myth

Would you be interested in assisting in creating a Clean Wehrmacht myth article?

I created some basic start, and would welcome any contribution. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I need to look in the literature if the topic is notable. I found few books on that subject, but I haven't read them yet.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Why Holodomor is used only for Ukraine's famine?

Why term Holodomor is used only for Ukraine's famine? We use the same term in Southern Russia for what had happened there in the 30s. The famine there was just as bad as it was in Ukraine. I guess when our right to use this Russian/Ukrainian term is rejected, the implication is that ethnic Ukrainians somehow suffered more than the ethnic Cossacks in Southern Russia (population decline of roughly 30%) or ethnic Germans in Southern Russia (population decline of roughly 30%) during Holodomor. And yes Cossacks are now a recognized ethnicity, just like Pomors, and have been recognized as such in Population Census years 1926, 2000, 2010. With best wishes for the holidays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.203.19 (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear Paul Siebert: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Steven Zhang, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear Paul Siebert: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Steven Zhang, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Once again: Template of WW2

Please, make a review of sources given in Template talk: WW2InfoBox — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.111.134.242 (talk) 10:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear Paul Siebert: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Steven Zhang, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 12:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Image that may interest you

First, I am suggesting this to you because I will not be editing the article in question that I think it should be added to, and so I obviously won't add it there myself. There's too much drama with that page, and I'm not going to be involved with it.

File:German women with Russian soldiers.jpg

As you can see, I think this disproves a lot of the Nazi apologist claims of Nazi women being raped. That seems to fit the focus of the article, so it might be good to add or at least suggest on the talk page. Anonyma Mädel (talk) 06:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It disproves nothing but the idea that the Soviet actions towards local population were uniformly brutal. As I already wrote, many serious authors, including even Naimark, note that the spectrum of the attitude of Soviet military to German local population was extremely broad, from looting, killing and rapes to very kind relations and even fraternisation. I saw many photos similar to that you found.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Mortalité et causes de décès en Ukraine au XXe siècle

Hello Paul! Nice to see you back from vacation! (I was already starting to worry, a pity I couldn't send you a mail).

Are you good at French? What would you say about this source: Mortalité et causes de décès en Ukraine au XXe siècle? This looks like a demographic study, page 16 mentions Conquest and seems to dismiss his estimates, while pp. 16-30 discuss various factors in population loss in Ukraine,and p. 30 gives a summary table. GreyHood 18:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Note also this source: Famine in the USSR 1929-1934. New documentary evidence, esp. pages like 184. GreyHood 18:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

An English work written by the same author on the same subject is available:

Jacques Vallin, France Meslé, Serguei Adamets, Serhii Pyrozhkov. A New Estimate of Ukrainian Population Losses during the Crises of the 1930s and 1940s. Population Studies, Vol. 56, No. 3 (Nov., 2002), pp. 249-264. Published by: Population Investigation Committee. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3092980

Since it is English Misplaced Pages, I suggest to rely on this source for the Vallin's opinion. He says:

"In total, in the absence of crisis, the 1939 population would have been 35.5 million inhabitants instead of the 30.9 million observed at the 1939 Census. In other words, some 4.6 million people were missing. This gap gives a rough estimate of the net effects of exceptionally lower fertility and higher mortality during the crisis, but also of migration. This result is very consistent with the figure of 4.5 million found earlier by Serguei Maksudov (1989)."

In other words, the number of ca 4 millions includes excess deaths, and decline of fertility, and migration. Vallin estimates that "the mortality effect of the crisis seems to account for 2.6 million of the total losses over the period 1927-38." By the way, Maksudov also seems to be very reliable source, taking into account his profound mathematical education, deep familiarity with the subject and high motivation (he is a professional mathematician, a descendant of a Soviet party functionary, who was executed in 1930s for raising his voice against the party's policy towards peasantry; Maksudov himself was a former dissident who emigrated from the USSR and started to do his own demographical studies in the US).--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Re the second source, it seems to be a primary source, so I am not sure if it would be correct to use it in our discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, I've changed my addition to sources dump taking your comments into account. As for the archival evidence collection, yes, this is mostly a compilation of primary sources. We could not make it the base of our approach to discussion, especially the discussion of the numbers (the numbers in fact are not discussed there) but still we could use it to establish some simple facts, such as that documents exist that the food relief was provided (and so that such secondary sources which do not take it into account or deny it are not entirely reliable). Also, since that collection of evidence is nicely compilated and has a good layout, we could add it to External links or Further reading section or so. GreyHood 19:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

burden of proof

plz direct me to the wp:policy you cite? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Answered on the article's talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

apparently a fail as per talk, do you have a different policy you can cite, if not, would you consider a self-revert? Darkstar1st (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Paul Siebert, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User talk:Paul Siebert.

• See a log of files removed today here.
• Shut off the bot here.
• Report errors here.
• If you have any questions, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Raising a flag over the Reichstag

You have shown great interest in this photo as to the "Battle of Berlin" article; in both the past and recent times. As you may know, the iconic raising of that flag photo has its own article. There is suggestion to rename it on the talk page of the article. Perhaps you would like to comment on the matter. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

For your information

Dear Mr Siebert, be informed that User:Imperator Sascha is nobody else than the user who operated the accounts "Anonymiss Madchen", "Sascha Kreiger", "Genocide Denial Watch" etc. Best regards and take care. --JohnCrehan (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit: And of course also of User:Anonyma_Mädel. --JohnCrehan (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Since despite our views often being different, I find your attitude very reasonable, could you perhaps see my enquiry here. Your opinion would be welcomed. Best regards. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Help with Wilfred Burchett article needed

Would you have time to look at this? Burchett talk It is rather self-explanatory. It started out when Burchett was accused of "being a paid KGB agent" based on a scanned document from KGB archives. I reverted, it was modified but still using the primary document. Jayjg protected it for three days, but Karlkuzmich insists on using the primary document. His suggestion of a verification tag doesn't change that. I have searched all over the place for secondary sources and have found nothing which surprises me since Burchett was a controversial character to say the least. Still if the statement is allowed to remain, it will pop up on all Google searches for Burchett and KGB. Can you help, or point me to somebody who understands historical research and can help me. If nobody else edits it, I will revert again and I don't really have the time or inclination for an edit war. Joel Mc (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Beria, Gulag & Radzinsky

Hello, Paul. There is an interesting discussion at Talk:Lavrentiy_Beria#Content_deleted_again. Among other things we discuss Edvard Radzinsky and the question whether Gulag was "slave labor camps". Those two questions are minor in comparison to the main issues discussed there, but since you have some expertise on Gulag & Radzinsky, and since Gulag & Radzinsky should be treated consistently accross different articles, it would be nice if you throw in your opinion. GreyHood 01:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed responce. I was busy in my real life. Although I totally support your view of Rarzinsky, Faria cites him as a source, so in this case his mention is justified. Regarding Gulag as "slave labor camps", I didn't follow the discussion, however, such a description is partially correct. I'll try to read the talk more carefully in close future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Burchett again

Jayjg has responded to my call for help, but admits that he know nothing about the subject. I contacted you because of your experience working with primary documents. Karl Kuzmich doesn't seem to understand what a reliable secondary source is. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the primary document is only in Russian which has been "translated" by another editor.Burchett talk--Joel Mc (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Paul, thanks for the work you put in on this. I do think that it is an important issue in general, and had been in touch with a couple of Australian academics which reinforced by feeling that we were on the right track in this specific case.--Joel Mc (talk) 11:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome. Sorry for the delay, I was busy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Military occupation

Please see Talk:Military occupation#Military occupation in the lead -- PBS (talk) 11:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of a book search :-) eg (from the first 10 returned):

• Hew Strachan; Sibylle Scheipers (2011). "Definitions". The Changing Character of War. Oxford University Press. pp. 203-ff]. ISBN 0199596735.

--PBS (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting reading, however, it tells nothing about occupation. Yes, we know is that Geneva convention does regulate civil wars, however, I never saw the term "military occupation" applied to the control of the state's own territory by one of the rival party.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

See here (pages 21,22) "Military Government and Martial Law" I am not sure of the date but it is post the Hague conventions that are mentioned elsewhere in the book. -- PBS (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

That is a good source that explains everything. However, the source provided by you does not change the general concept, it just specifies that the rebel forces are seen as foreign for the purpose of the military occupation law. Therefore, we do not need to change anything, we just need to add this explanation to the already existing text.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

We could use a SME here

Paul, you seem to know a lot of WWII. There's dispute at Western betrayal over the article name. Discussions are found at Title POV concerns, RFC on article focus and title and Rename? Perhaps you could take a look and help us out? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep focus on Western Betrayal Please

Your input on the Western Betrayal talk page is balanced and much needed. Please don't forget about it! A group of Polish editors, all of whom were disiplined in the Eastern European Email List episode (banned from Misplaced Pages or in he case of Piotr had their admin status revoked) are, as usual,gang editing and attempting to keep this article exclusively pro-Polish and anti-American/anti-British. Of course the Polish apologists can have their views aired when it's supported in academic publications etc..., but likewise the opposing view (which is that Poland is actually responsible for its own history and problems) likewise belongs in the article. The article as it is now is little more than a hyper-Polish fantasy of how they desperately hope the world will view Poland, it is an essay, an appeal, an advertisement for a POV. Note how the same editors appear and simply wear down anyone who edits, also be sure to look up editor name changes and other histories, sometimes available more easily with a google search. ... Do wiki a favor and keep pushing the direction you are on and don't give up in the face of those trying to use Wiki to hide, obscure and tilt history. 98.92.207.190 (talk) 04:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Please take another look at the talk page for the article Western Betrayal; the article's owner happily deletes talk page entries with which s/he disagrees; this same editor goes so far As to delete comments on admin personal talk pages complaining of his/her behaviour. This article is in a hostage situation and other editors are terrorised if they attempt to edit or redress errors. 03:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.36.234.102 (talk)

Since I agreed to make a 24 hr break, I will take no steps during that period. Meanwhile, I strongly recommend you to do the following:

1. To follow MyMoloboaccount's advise and to take a break.
2. During this break, to create your own account. That will give you many advantages and will not create any problems for you.
3. After 24 hr period, to start polite discussion. Discussion of someone's behaviour on the article's talk page is not what we need. If you believe some users violate WP policy, the most appropriate place is WP:ANI, not article's talk pages, which are intended for the discussion of the article's content.

According to my personal experience, the user with whom you have a conflict is quite capable to accept correctly formulated arguments, especially when they are supported with good quality sources. Probably, your problem with that user can be resolved, at least partially, by improving the quality of your own arguments and by using better sources.

Happy editing. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

hello again, thanks for your thoughtful response. I have to strongly disagree with you about the owner of the Westen Betrayal article: he has spent his entire time here circumventing both the spirit and specific guidelines of this encyclopedia. In his previous username, which is publicly available, he was proven to have a deliberate agenda of modifying wiki articles and calling in collaborative editors/admins to eliminate contrary editors. In his new guise he likes to quote wiki law and policy to intimidate the merely mildly interested editors who show up on an article - as his agenda of POV pushing remains. What you are suggesting is fine, I guess, but really you are just saying that the only ones who can edit Wilipedia are those with the excessive time on their hands to become a wiki lawyer and sponsor their edits to the extent of those who are old cynical pros at tihis game. In any event, best wishes, thanks for your time, please keep the devotion to Npov as much as you can and watch the Western Betrayal article if ou can.184.36.234.102 (talk) 06:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

You have made some useful comments in Western betrayal, but it was in threads that were not helping advance the development of the article hence my reason for capping them. So if you want to make the points again then please do so. But do not remove my collapse boxes -- If you want them removed them ask as ANI to do so.
One of the problems with parts of your comments is that you are explaining US/UK actions (which are the standard explanations given in English language histories), but that just inflates the talk page comments on alleged betrayals when what is needed is details on the what are currently rather vague comments. So we need the editors who are saying that there are allegation to provide sources that make the betrayal statements with quotes in English on the talk pages if needed.
We also need to keep the conversation focused on the current text and go through the article section by section and if needed paragraph by paragraph asking for sources and how that information in that section/paragraph relates directly to the alleged betrayals. Using WP:PROVIT and WP:SYN to remove irrelevant information. (PS I have not forgotten about the occupation article and a Google search on "Spanish Civil War" "Military Occupation" returns several sources that show examples). -- PBS (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure ANI is needed to remove collapse boxes: addition of such boxes without a user's consent can be done only by uninvolved admins/users, I guess, and you are by no means uninvolved. However, I'll not remove collapse boxes in this concrete case, because, upon meditation, I came to a conclusion that the posts you collapsed were more distracting than helpful.

Regarding the occupation article, I think the problem is that some authors use the word "occupation" inaccurately. I found similar problem with the term "genocide", when some authors use the term in its strict legal sense (an apply it to a narrow set of events), whereas others use it allegorically (and apply it to whatever they want). Although the second type sources are quite abundant, they cannot be used as a sources for legal definition of genocide. We need a source that specifically deal with the legal aspects of occupation during civil wars, and I am not aware of such type sources. I do not insist I am right and you are wrong, so if you provide the source discussing occupation during civil wars (in general), that would resolve this controversy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

PS. I noticed you took some administrative actions on the WP talk page. I fully support the actions per se, however, as far as I understand, such actions were supposed to be made by uninvolved admins. In my opinion, you should have to ask other admins to do that for you, otherwise some users may complain for fully formal reasons.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC) (Sorry, I haven't noticed your remark about an uninvolved admin. By doing that you recognised your involvement, so everything should be ok.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC))

PPS. I looked through this list, and I failed to find any source where "military occupation" and "Spanish civil war" have been contextually linked. One of the sources from this list (Applicability of the Geneva Conventions to the Global War on Terrorism, The D Jinks - Va. J. Int'l L., 2005 - HeinOnline) explains that Geneva convention is applicable to civil wars (which were regulated by domestic laws in past), although it tells nothing about occupation in this case. We need more concrete sources to resolve this issue. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

European security system

It is an interesting take to view the UK-SU-French talks as start of international security system, but considering that regionally vital countries weren't invited(or in some cases their independence would be abolished), this is rather doubtful that it would be one, rather than classical triumvirate of global powers, don't you think? I have seen such argument before, but if it only concerned three major powers, while ignoring the rest of Europe... --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The UK-SU-French talks were not a start of the international security system, just an unsuccessful attempt of revival of this idea. This idea had been proposed earlier by Maxim Litvinov, and one of the major consequinces of the Western betrayal of Czechoslovakia were discrediting of this idea and dismissal of Litvinov as its major advocate. It was quite possible that had Litvinov not been dismissed, the triple negotiations would be successful.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, they would be succesfull between UK, France and SU. This would be not a international security system, but rather a standard alliance between major global powers(excluding others). And IIRC this would also mean ending of sovereignity of Finland and Baltic countries. As said I have seen this been argued as international security system, but since most European countries were excluded and others would be violated as result, this seems to me a bit too exaggerated.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course, it would be an international system of European security, and it would prevent the WWII: without the war, Hitler's regime would not last long.

Re the Baltic states and Finland, we can just speculate. Although I have no unambiguous answer, I personally think that, for instance, in the Finnish case small territorial concessions (+ friendship with the latter) was the only thing the USSR needed from Finland. It is quite understandable that, having started the Winter war, Stalin could not limit himself with just small territorial acquisitions: in addition to those territories, he got a hostile Finland, which simply had to be subdued and absorbed. However, again, it is quite possible that by ceding small territory near Leningrad and by leasing Hanko Finland would avoid the war, because, probably, Stalin didn't need anything else there. Of course, I do not pretend to tell ultimate truth, my point is that this scenario was quite plausible.

The problem is that we judge about the events retrospectively, however, the real intentions of the Soviet leadership were absolutely unclear: it is quite possible that their major concern was security, not expansionism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your notion about "regionally vital countries" (I guess you mean primarily Poland), you are not completely right. As I already explained elsewhere, Poland herself refused to be associated with a four-power guarantee involving the USSR. This proposal was made by Britain (not the USSR) in late 1938 (or early 1939), and Polish categorical refusal may serve as an explanation of why Poland was not invited to participate in the tripartite negotiations. --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Encouragement

Your work on the Western Betrayal article is good and long overdue. IMHO the article is nothing but a pure slander piece against the WW2 allies. May I also add that everyone trying to actually argue for their national interpretation should be ignored or quickly quited by admin action. Everyone suffered in the war, but some are still arguing their suffering was greater and that those who ostensibly suffered less were therefore betrayers. THe only fair way forward is to either present all the various POVs in the article wih equal space, or, as you are trying to do, sort out a more neutral approach that we might ascribe to a hypothetical 21st century observer with no national baggAge or axe to grind. Your chosen approach is harder but your approach is admirable! MarshallGeorgyZhukov (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Restricting access to users in Armenia-Azerbaijan

I would like to pick the brain of more experienced users about the ongoing exchange between and a couple of administrators. Grandmaster suggests to restrict access to some and potentially to all articles in Armenia-Azerbaijan by excluding new users . You can reply on my home page if you wish. Dehr (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and help needed

Hi, thanks for welcoming me. I took some time to add a very well sourced edit to the Western Betrayal article that was immediately deleted, can you take a look and offer an opinion? MarshallGeorgyZhukov (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Paul Siebert. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Misplaced Pages, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang 11:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Hello, I am trying to go through the Western Betrayal article to add sources. While working on that today I discovers an entire large section was plagiarised verbatim from another document on the web, itself unsourced and of questionable liability. The original document that was plagiarised is here,

http://www.minelinks.com/war/bad_harzburg_doc5.html

and you can see where I removed it on the article history page, and I also mentioned it on the talk page. I mention this too you because this article is so contentious and in case you have other suggestions about how to deal with plagiarism. ThanksPultusk (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I looked through the wep page provided by you. Are you sure it is plagiarism? As the disclaimer at the bottom says, the text is not copyrighted. The most probably, the text was taken from Misplaced Pages, and, if that is the case, we cannot speak about any plagiarism here. However, by writing that, I do not imply that I see no problem with this text: it seems to me it has serious OR problems, so its removal was probably justified.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

TFD at WQA

I noted your warning to TFD about his multiple personal attacks at WP:WQA Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. Obviously, this good faith user made his comments out of frustration, because it is really hard to deal with you. The major reason of this my advise (not warning) was to protect him from you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi

How are you going, Paul Siebert? What's going on in your life, and which topics are you the most interested in right now? Btw, what do you think of this? Nanobear (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Currently, I am somewhat busy. With regard to the topics, I need to finish with one chapter in the Nazism article, as I promised (although I have a hope that that may be done without my participation; I monitor what is being done, and currently they are moving in correct direction). We still have to continue improvement of the WWII article. I also hope to start working on the European theatre of WWII article (which is in usatisfactory shape). GULAG needs in some (probably minor) modification. Soviet offensive plan controversy requires serious re-write: upon meditation, I realised that major part of Suvorov related content should be moved back to the article about this author, because Suvorov was not an originator of Soviet offensive plan theory. Soviet occupation may need in serious modification, although it depends on whether Vecrumba will come out with any reliable source (as he announced) to support the major article's claim, or not. And, last but not least, we need to do something with the Mass killings under Communist regimes article, which is terribly POV.

With regard to your question regarding Latvia, that is just a part of the long lasting POV problem. What concrete subject do you want me to comment?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Gulag

Paul, over here you made an edit with the summary "Replaced old Ellman's article with newer one, removed repetitions. The general idea was preserved, and the figures not changed". However, the source used still seems to be Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 54, No. 7. Did you mean another article? Because the convenience link should be put back if you meant to refer to the same one. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 08:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You are right, the source is the same. I thought the reference was to some earlier Ellamn's article, however, upon re-reading I realised both new and old versions cite the same 2002 article. I re-added a convenience link as you proposed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

ping

In case you hadn't seen it, I responded at Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes. I suspect you may not like my reply, but I also imagine you're accustomed to disappointment on that page (seriously, I admire the tenacity of any editor working on a page with a 1RR and a requirement of consensus. How is that possible)? Again, if you think that I have missed something important, please say so. I know the feeling of filing thoughtful RfCs, only to have random interlocutors come by and give perfunctory replies without having read or considered the material in question. I hope I haven't done that here. Homunculus (duihua) 15:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I might disagree with you, but I have no reason for not liking your reply. --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Reversion at Communist terrorism

Hi Paul, I'm doing my best to assume good faith here about your total revert of my copy editing on Communist terrorism. Could you explain why you felt the need to do that? I'm assuming you didn't like some change of content I made, as there were pretty clearly some issues of grammar, punctuation, usage, etc. to be fixed. I mean, if you just disagreed with a few things, I could understand that, but you said "by no means" were my edits copy editing. I'm just puzzled. --BDD (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the CT article needs in serious modification and extensive copy editing. However, the changes made by you seem to be more serious than just copy editing (although I agree with some of them). If you are still interested in this work (and I hope you are), let's to it together step by step in June (I am somewhat busy right now). That work may be difficult because conflicting views of CT exists: some authors (and users) see it as a synonym of Left-wing terrorism, others tend to combine LWT and Red terror into the single concept of CT, some users believe that "Communist terrorism" (a concept) is merely the terrorism committed by Communists, other users think to claim that would be original research or non-neutral statement. In any event, whereas the CT article is in my to-do-list, I cannot start this work alone, but I'll gladly participate in this work if you still want to do that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I think I see where you're coming from. I agree that my edits included changes besides pure copy editing, but that was the main thrust; like many GOCE members, I try to generally improve articles in addition to fine-tuning issues like grammar. If you think I made any individual changes that violate WP:NPOV or some such policy, please feel free to address or modify some of those. I hope you'll agree I did a lot of worthwhile cleanup that need not be thrown out with that bathwater.

I did pick up on some of those problems during editing. I think there's a bit WP:UNDUE coverage of Lenin, and when you get to the examples from around the world, it really begins to read more as a list of terrorist acts committed by communist groups. To some extent, that contradicts the article's lede, which seems to posit "communist terrorism" as a specific type of terrorism. I think the main challenge is going to be distinguishing "terrorism carried out in the advancement of, or by groups who adhere to, Communism," as I summarized it. I think there's a pretty clear distinction between acts specifically advancing communist goals and actions like the Vietcong atrocities mentioned in the article; I think a lot of the latter have much more to do with the fact that the VC was at war then that fact that it was a communist group. Anyway, much still to do. Let's do some work in June. --BDD (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I see our visions of this issue are pretty close. One more point: there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism, and the consensus exists that such a definition is not possible to propose even theoretically. Therefore, the word "terrorism" is more a label than a term (you may find the references to all needed sources in the talk page archive). Therefore, the article should not be about any specific concept, but about examples of usage of the term "Communist terrorism" to describe the events each of which, such as Red terror, Left-wing terrorism, Malayan emergency already have their own articles.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Eastern Front

Hi, I just found a few more sources for Spanish involvement in the Eastern Front. I'd be grateful if you and your friends could pay attention to this. Vulturedroid (talk) 09:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Spanish Blue Division was involved in the Eastern front hostilities is indisputable. However, this division was a Wehrmacht 250th Infantry Division composed of Spanish volunteers. Therefore, this division was not Spanish, and the Spaniards could not be considered as separate belligerents.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Then, how do you explain the fact that, German High Command, the dominating Axis command on the Eastern Front, listed the Spanish division as ally? How do you view that the Croatia unit on the Eastern Front was also given a German formation title, while Croatia is still listed a belligerent in the info box? Vulturedroid (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

It is suggested we go to the talk page for further discussion, shall we?Vulturedroid (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The explanations may be different. For example, they wanted to create an impression of wide support of the Nazism by as many nations and states as possible. That does not change the fact that Spain did not declare a war on the USSR, remained a neutral country during whole WWII, and had no control over her volunteers fighting in the East. In addition, the opinion of German High Command is a primary source, which is insufficient for this purpose.

Regarding the talk page discussion, I suggest you to read the archives first, because you brought no fresh arguments so far. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

First, I still suggest we go to the relative talk page. You forget one thing, neither you nor your friend effectively countered my point in the past, I gave up only after seeing how your friend came to your aid repeating the same things that have been proven wrong.

Then, your alternative explaination is not feasible, because:

1st,It was the German High Command's calculation for planned summer offensive, not the ministry of propoganda's poster campaign. 2nd,Had the Germans wanted to demonstrate a "wide" support, why would not they prolong the list even further? There were Croatian, Belgian, French, Norwegian, Danish, Russian, Ukrainian volunteer units fighting there, the list could've been much longer should the Germans wanted so. 3rd,The Spanish government maintained final control over the division, as they withdrew the division back to Spain in the end of 1943. Had it been merely a volunteer unit of Germany, how can a foreign government withdraw a German unit from battlefront? 4th, How is the German High Command's insufficient? Vulturedroid (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The Spanish government maintained no control. To withdraw the division, they started negotiations with Hitler, and when this common (German-Spanish) decision had been made, the order to withdraw was made by German command. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

It was no surprise that the German and Spanish governments held talks before mutual agreement to withdraw. The Blue Division was on a battlefront, you can't simply withdraw a unit without consulting with your ally, without making plans of how and when, what troops would come to replace it, and what route and transport would be utilised for withdrawing. The Germans by the end of 1943 were increasingly facing pressure from Red Army, every man power was valuable to them, by this time the Germans would have no motivation to reduce a whole well-equipped division, so the Spanish government had the final say.

And, the decision was made by "German" command, and the very same German Command said Spanish division "allied".Vulturedroid (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Soviet memorandum on Spain presented on the Potsdam conference said:

"In view of the fact: 1. That the regime of Franco originated not as a result of the development of the internal forces in Spain but as a result of the intervention by the principal Axis countries: Hitler's Germany and Fascist Italy, which imposed upon the Spanish people the fascist regime of Franco; 2. That the regime of Franco constitutes a grave danger to the freedom-loving nations in Europe and South America; 3. That in the face of brutal terror instituted by Franco, the Spanish people have repeatedly expressed themselves against the regime of Franco and in favour of the restoration of democratic government in Spain, The Conference deems it necessary to recommend to the United Nations: 1. To break off all relations with the Government of Franco; 2. To render support to the democratic forces in Spain and to enable the Spanish people to establish such a regime as will respond to their will."

Had Spain been considered as a co-belligerent by any Ally, this argument would be immediately used by the Soviet side. However, even the Soviet delegation didn't resort to the argument about Spain co-belligerence. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The declaration had implied Spain's co-bellgerent bahavior by saying Franco Regime constitues a grave threat to the freedom-loving NATIONS of Europe, not just Spain. It did not elaborate because it was a general public declaration, supposed to be short and summarizing, not court files aiming to clarify all details. Neither did the declaration elaborate on any other Spanish agression/assistance to Nazi, like signing anti-comintern pact, Spanish invasion of Tangier, supply of key raw materials, diplomatic and intelligence support etc. Instead, all these were merely summarized as Spanish danger to European nations. Vulturedroid (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Vulturedroid, you've provided a single source (The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich) which doesn't say what you claim it does. It only refers in passing to a 'Spanish' division, and doesn't actually say that Spain was a combatant, or that the German high command regarded Spain as a participant in the war. Shier actually describes the Germans' frustration with Franco's decision to stay out of the war earlier in the book, and (correctly) never states that he changed his mind. As Paul notes above, and I noted on the talk page, the 'Spanish' division was actually a German Army unit made up of volunteers from Spain, and was not under the command of the Spanish government. Paul any myself have provided multiple sources which explicitly state that Spain wasn't formally part of the war. Nick-D (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Nick D. Stop targetting an editor, as per your own interpretation of "targetting". This is really not helpful. You can not even tell the difference between "allied" and "volunteer". You used a book to prove William Sherir's book not reliable, but the author of the same book replied my inquiry by saying the book is reliable. You have a tendency to label anything going against your point as not reliable, while you make one mistake after another. I wonder how it feels to be disagreed by the author of the very source you used as proof? Vulturedroid (talk) 00:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Going back to the discussion during the Potsdam Conference, the positions of the leaders were as follows:

"Again it was Churchill who replied to Stalin, reiterating that he was not prepared to resort to drastic measures 'unless he were very sure of the favourable result' and that there was no danger of damaging 'very important trade relations' between Spain and Britain. He expressed his understanding of the Soviet hostility towards the Spanish regime given the activities of the Blue Division, but recalled that Franco had not entered the war nor had he hindered the Allies' landing in North Africa. Stalin replied immediately that Great Britain 'had also suffered at the hands of Franco Spain, since bases had been provided for German submarines' and that 'all the Powers had suffered in this or other ways'. However, in another calculated conciliatory gesture, he stressed that he did not wish to deal with the subject 'from this angle' (collaboration with the Axis), but rather from the point of view of the 'grave danger' that Francoism represented to Europe. For that reason he reiterated the need 'to say that we were not in sympathy with the Franco regime and that the aspirations of the Spanish people towards democracy were just'. Consequently, he proposed that the Council of Foreign Ministers attempt to find 'a milder and more flexible method than that suggested in the Soviet Delegation paper to make this clear'." (Enrique Moradiellos. The Potsdam Conference and the Spanish Problem. Contemporary European History, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Mar., 2001), pp. 73-90)

As you can see, whereas Churchill conceded that the Soviet hostility towards Spanish leadership is understandable, neither Churchill nor Stalin considered Spain a German co-belligerent. Stalin's remark about a danger of Francoist regime referred to some future events, not to the WWII.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes and thanks, let's go back to the true topic. Churchill admitted in his words that Spanish regime was directly connected to the Blue Division, and he understood the Soviets were hostile towards Spain because of this division. Had the blue division been merely a volunteer unit of Nazi Germany, the Spanish regime would not have been held responsible for it(a foreign unit in that case), just as Sweden and Switzerland governments were not held responsible for the true volunteers acting on individual wills to join German military. And Stalin merely avoided the topic on the Blue Division, without elaborating how he perceived the unit, without elaborating on whether it was co-belligerenting with Nazi or not. I can't find the word "co-belligerent" in the given words of Stalin.

Besides, the German High Command was still the supreme commanding organization over German army. If it did not recognize the Blue Division as a German unit, and mentioned it as "allied" in their own calculation for military operation, then we should repsect it.Vulturedroid (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

These are just your speculations. In Potsdam, Spain was not considered as Axis co-belligerent by the Allies: Churchill pointed Stalin's attention at the fact that Franco had not entered the war, and Stalin did not question this statement. They discusses Spanish collaboration, but not co-belligerence. There was no bellum between Spain and any Allied power, there were no alliances signed between Spain and any Axis power, so Spain was neither Axis co-belligerent nor ally, although Franco did collaborate with Hitler during the first half of WWII. I believe there is no need to return to this issue any more, unless you come out with some authoritative source that explicitly says otherwise.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

No, Misplaced Pages is not a place for playing tricks-of-words, we are not compilling a dictionary or discussing every word's meaning. Just be simple, do not keeping avoiding the topic, how can people say the Blue Division was a German unit when the German High Command said it was not??? Is anyone here holding more authority over German military than the Germans themselves???Vulturedroid (talk) 02:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I do hope you appreciate that this is not about personal grudge, but only about historical facts. It is not helpful to Misplaced Pages by finding one reason after another to deny well established facts. Vulturedroid (talk) 02:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

"By the end of July, the 18,000 Spaniards had arrived at the German Army training center at Grafenwohr, where they were created into the 250th Infantry Division of the Wehrmacht.(...) Following their absorption into the Wehrmacht, the volunteers were required to take the standard personal oath to Hitler, under whose authority they were to be fighting." (Spanish Volunteers against Bolshevism: The Blue Division Author(s): Arnold Krammer. Source: Russian Review, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Oct., 1973), pp. 388-402)

In other words, they were not a Spanish units, but Spanish citizens serving in German Army. Yes, Franco allowed then to do so, he was sending reinforcements, but the decision to withdraw the Blue Division was made by Germans after long negotiations with Spain. I do not see any value in continuation of this discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the continuation will be meanless if you keep avoiding to explain how you can counter the German High Command's opinion. The German title/oath issue had been raised and countered many times before, just look at Croatian Legion, I am fed up about countering the same set of points so many times. Vulturedroid (talk) 03:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The single phrase you quote has also been raised and countered many times. The German High Command opinion was simple: so called "Allied" Blue Division was 250th Infantry division of Wehrmacht and was directly subordinated to German Army Group North. I am not aware of any Croatian legions, I know about Croatian regiment, and I don't understand what concretely do you mean. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It was never effectively countered. Nick-D used a book to prove Sherir's book unreliable, yet the book author said the book was reliable, completely opposing Nick-D's misinterpretation, then he began repeating other old statements and avoided this topic.

The very article on 369th Croatian regiment said it was commonly called Croatian Legion, how can you do not know? The Croatian regiment was given a German title as a Wehrmacht regiment, wore German uniforms and swore oath to Hitler, the same as the case of Blue Division.Vulturedroid (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

...then it should not be considered as a separate belligerent. If you have a reference to the source that confirms that fact (and can share with me), I'll modify all Croatian legion related articles accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Re request

Could I ask you to please clarify exactly what is being proposed on the talkpage? There certainly were communist atrocities in the aftermath of WWII in Yugoslavia, and they should be covered, but the issue of whether Tito (and the section is entitled "Tito") is directly responsible is very controversial indeed. He certainly shares some indirect responsibility, being commander-in-chief, but that's all I could find in sources. In fact, I found a sources attesting to a telegram by Tito explicitly forbidding any killings. -- Director (talk) 09:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Judging by your post on the MKuCR talk page, you understand the situation quite correctly, so my explanations are not needed. Thank you for your help.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack by Sander Säde

Considering Vecrumba's recent contributions have been involving a dispute with us, I am pretty sure that this was a gross personal attack aiming at us. While I understand that our dispute got hot at times due to a flood of personal attacks by our opponents, they usually stayed borderline civil. Calling any of us "racist" was well over the line. (Igny (talk) 00:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC))

In actuality, that was a good advice. Although I am usually quite tolerant to what Vecrubma says, in that particular case I was almost prepared to report him, because he almost openly blamed me in supporting of the Nazi racial theory. In that situation, Sander's friendly advice was quite appropriate. With regard to the concrete wording, I do not care. What is more important is the result. It is not my intention to become a frequenter of the AE page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Nug issued a complaint about Igny at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. I quoted you. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, I read your comments on the above page, Paul, and I agree that it's worrying how ex-EEML members changed their names yet still are acting in ways that are reminiscent of their EEML activities. Most recently, Biophys/Nodja Nasreddin/My Very Best Wishes came to my talk page, under his most recent name, to warn me in a 'friendly' way (it was friendly, but it seemed as if he was a new editor that I wasn't aware of, and therefore utterly unbiased) to be careful in interacting with Radeksz/Volunteer Marek. Later comments by MVBW became less neutral, suggesting that I'd get myself banned for trying to tackle what I perceive to be VM's disruptive behaviour over the last year or so. Furthermore, last year when I clashed with VM, I had know idea for quite a while that he was Radeksz - who'd voted in an AFD debate to delete a page I created (the page was later reinstated due to 6 members of the EEML popping up and voting for deletion). Lastly, Piotrek - also from the EEML - frequently pops up on my talk page to warn me that I've been, e.g., rude to VM.
• Hence, to some up, I agree that ex-EEML members seem to have too close a relationship nowadays - and their change of name - to disassociate themselves from their past activities - works only in their favour, because it stops other editors from realising who they are and that they may not be neutral. I wasn't sure if it was appropriate to add these thoughts to the Arb page, but I just wanted to let you know I share your point of view regarding this issue :) Regards, Malick78 (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

An apology

(in case you missed )

Paul, I sincerely apologize for any anguish I might have caused to you. I would never call you a racist troll. We have our differences of opinion, but I've never doubted your editorial integrity.

--Sander Säde 16:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, your mistake is quite understandable, taking into account the length and complexity of our debates with Peters. In actuality, your advise was quite useful, because (I believe, as a result of that) my dialogue with Peters has become mush less hostile.

Cheers, --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I would second the improvement of our dialog, for which I've extended my thanks.

I do have to mention I'm concerned by your (my perception) pursuit of collective guilt, off-wiki collaboration unless proven otherwise, and self-imposed topic bans as a "sign of good faith" regarding a number of editors who would generally compose part (not all) of your editorial opposition. While you have not stated it as bluntly as I have, I hope you appreciate that this is the only conclusion anyone on the (my perception, again, myself) receiving end of your proposals could draw.

When we agree to leave EEML in the past, that means more than not invoking it by name, it means leaving everything associated with it in the past. We cannot institutionalize conditional good faith targeting any identifiable community of editors.

Let's not get into a conversation over this, simply mull over what I've said. I'm only raising the red flag that your current good-faithed attempt to de-escalate cannot succeed as it has as its basis--and I expect as the proposer you likely do not realize this--an implicit assumption of continuing guilt which runs contrary to all things Wikipedian. If you can't trust me, that is your problem, not my problem. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Reply

With regard to this your statement. First of all, I am fully responsible for the current version of my statement , with the paragraph about you removed. I removed it because it was indeed irrelevant to the subject of AE request. For the same reason I am not going to look for any diffs about your previous statements. This is simply not related to AE discussion (it was about Igny). Secondly, I feel that it would be inappropriate for me to retire after this your statement until the matter would be resolved, so I must undo my notices. Regards, My very best wishes (talk) 03:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

So, I hope this issue has been resolved? BTW, I saw your discussion about UUNC and quickly checked if he could be an alternative account. Although there are other people who share similar POV and edit on Russian and English wikipedias (e.g. Fuseau (talk · contribs)) ), I did not find evidence to justify an SPI request at this point. My very best wishes (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The issue has not been resolved. You made a false comment about me on the AE page, and you didn't apologize. Since the page has already been closed, you lost your chance to apologize publicly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear this. No, I did not make any false comments in my statement. But whatever, everyone is entitled to his opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you still maintain that your previous statement about "desire of Paul to bring the "EEML" argument in every dispute" was not false? You retracted it as irrelevant, but you refused to acknowledge it was false. If you insist you made no false statement that is simply a personal attack.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

AK and Red Army in Vilinius

re: EW etc.

I am not concerned much about this piece of wiki ancient history, it doesn't surface much nowadays, and when it does, to little effect. I would still support your EW proposal, but I don't know how can we get it more heard than last time. If you'd like me to comment on it or potentially endorse it anywhere, do let me know and I'll take a look. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I always prefer to reply on your page, and have your replies on mine. Btw, I see your proposal as something benefiting the entire project, with little particular relevance to the EEML case.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok. If you don't mind, I'll reply here, because otherwise it is hard to follow the course of the discussion.

With regard to EEML, let me explain something before we will move further. I fully understand your desire to be disassociated from this story and I promise that it will be the last time when I mention the EEML in our dialogues with you. The relevance to the EEML case seems to be quite obvious. When the users had been previously caught and sanctioned for off-wiki coordination, it is extremely hard to prove that no coordinated editing take place. The steps that may convince us in the good faith of such users may be (i) abandonment of the area of contention, or (ii) full and unequivocal abandonment of the partisan behaviour, or (iii) some extraordinary step that dispels any doubts in the user's good faith. For me, your support of my EW proposal is a rock solid evidence that dispelled any remaining doubts if your good faith. In connection to that, my yesterday's proposal was an attempt to provide some EEML members, who are still demonstrating partisan behaviour, with an opportunity to step up and propose: "Guys, we fully realise how harmful off-wiki coordination and tag teaming can be for Misplaced Pages, and we propose some changes to our policy that will make edit warring much more difficult". In my opinion, such a step would allow those users to fully clean their good names, and that would be much more efficiently than name changes. However, all of that is up to them. I made this proposal, they are free to accept it. If you are not willing to try to persuade them to accept it, I fully understand that. Forget about that.

However, revenons a nos moutons. Upon reading Nug/Martin's post on your talk page, I got a following idea. What if we initially propose this modification not for the EW policy as whole, but only for the areas covered by discretionary sanctions? For example, we can specify that any user has a right to warn a user who joined a chain of reverts about a violation of the "collective 3RR". Upon obtaining this warning, a user must self-revert. If he does not self-revert, or if he is not reverted by other members of his team, a whole team can be reported for collective violation of 3RR. What do you think about that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd advise against collective guilt. Editors should not be punished for what others did. Only the editors who continue to revert should be punished; the editor who in good faith might have reverted first or second should not be faulted for actions of others. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. The problem is, however, that the sanctions cannot automatically affect a user who made his revert and who was not aware of the edit war. What do you think about that:

1. If the fourth revert is made by some participant of the talk page discussion, who, by virtue of his participation, could not be unaware of the ongoing edit war, he may be reported and blocked.
2. If the fourth revert is made by some new user, or by a user who have been involved neither in the work on this article nor in the talk page discussion during last year nor (and, therefore, we have a reason to expect that he is simply unaware of ongoing edit war), such a user may be warned by anyone (probably, by placing some special template on his talk page), and, if he does not self-revert, he can be reported.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Warnings should come from uninvolved third parties. Combatants warning each other winds up being little more than baiting. Involved parties cannot act as self-appointed policemen of their own conflicts. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Why? Had the criterion proposed by me been subjective, it would be possible to speak about baiting. However, since the revert count is an objective criterion, I don't see why involved parties should not be allowed to issue such a warning. Indeed, you must agree that ANI report of 3RR violation can be made by anyone, including the involved users, and noone can speak about any baiting.

Again, you have to concede that, had such a rule been in force during the EELM activity, the off-wiki communication between their members would be much less fruitful, and, probably, they would prefer to abstain from their activity. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

DSBs

I saw your comment about what is evil about DSBs. If you are interested, please see my sandbox. There is a draft there for DNA damage, with references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nenpog (talk • contribs) 17:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw your second comment. I didn't mean to hijack the discussion there to my particular problem, or to forumshop, so I preferred not to comment in there about my particular problem. But since you have become familiar with it, thanks to Guy Macon chasing me around, I understand that there isn't a problem with weight, and maybe there is a problem with synth. I just want to show you the source for that part (though I have newer possibly better version in the sandbox), I want to verify/understand better where is the synth or how to avoid it: The ionizing radiation in the form of x-rays used in CT scans are energetic enough to directly or indirectly damage DNA.

Source5: Ionizing radiation, such as x-rays, is uniquely energetic enough to overcome the binding energy of the electrons orbiting atoms and molecules; thus, these radiations can knock electrons out of their orbits, thereby creating ions. In biologic material exposed to x-rays, the most common scenario is the creation of hydroxyl radicals from x-ray interactions with water molecules; these radicals in turn interact with nearby DNA to cause strand breaks or base damage. X-rays can also ionize DNA directly.

Source11: Energy from ionizing radiation can break chemical bonds in DNA and proteins, either directly or by releasing gene-damaging free radicals and ions.

In each cell tens of single strand breaks, and about one double strand break are induced for each 20 mGy of absorbed ionizing radiation.

Source10: Radiation induces thousands of single strand breaks per Gray, but only about 50 double strand breaks.

This and other types of DNA damage are occasionally not corrected properly by cellular repair mechanisms.

Source5: Most radiation-induced damage is rapidly repaired by various systems within the cell, but DNA double-strand breaks are less easily repaired, and occasional misrepair can lead to induction of point mutations, chromosomal translocations, and gene fusions, all of which are linked to the induction of cancer.23

Such damage to the genes that control cell division (mitosis) or programmed cell death (apoptosis), occasionally lead to cancer.

Source5: Most radiation-induced damage is rapidly repaired by various systems within the cell, but DNA double-strand breaks are less easily repaired, and occasional misrepair can lead to induction of point mutations, chromosomal translocations, and gene fusions, all of which are linked to the induction of cancer.23

Source11:Carcinogenesis (cancer induction) is another long-term effect that follows damage to the genes that control cell division (mitosis) or programmed cell death (apoptosis).

source11:Genetic damage and carcinogenesis are stochastic outcomes of ionizing radiation. In other words, a given exposure may or may not damage genes in a manner that eventually induces cancer.25,26 Because DNA repair mechanisms exist, it does not necessarily follow that radiation damage to genes will induce carcinogenesis. However, because of radiation’s stochastic effects on cancer risk, we assume that no threshold dose exists below which radiation exposures are completely safe.25 This linear/no threshold model of radiation risk predicts that as the cumulative exposure to radiation increases, so does the probability of carcinogenesis.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nenpog (talk • contribs) 21:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the sources are correct, however, your attempts to add this material to the CT article are not. I've made some independent literature search and I found that DNA damages per se do not automatically lead to cancer, so the source is needed that explicitly connect X-ray irradiation (at the intensity similar to that during CT) with the increase of the onset of cancer. By adding a source X that says that CT causes DSBs, and the source Y saying that DSBs cause cancer you imply a conclusion that CT causes cancer (at least, I am sure, a reader without special knowledge will come to that conclusion), which, as far as I know, is currently a subject of debates, and is not an established fact. I would say, everything can cause cancer, the question is in the relative efficiency of this process. For example, what is a relative carciogeneicity of sun irradiation and CT?

In summary, I don't think you are right in this case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that damage to the DNA does not automatically cause cancer but (I will bold above and add a source11 quote above at the end) the sources, and my text didn't assert automatic causation of cancer. The sources and my text do state that DNA damage occasionally cause cancer. Ionizing radiation can cause DNA damage, occasionally the caused DNA damage is not repaired, occasionally from all the parts of the DNA the part of the DNA that cause cancer is damaged and not repaired. There is also the paragraph you quoted from source11 furlow: "a CT scan of the heart can cause 1 case of cancer in every 270 women aged 40 ", which say that CT cause cancer.

"By adding a source X that says that CT causes DSBs, and the source Y saying that DSBs cause cancer you imply a conclusion that CT causes cancer". But I didn't add two sources X, Y in that way. Source5 (NeJM) include all of CTs, dna damage, DSBs, and cancer, and source11 (furlow) include CT, dna damage, and cancer. Maybe because I quoted small bits it appear that way. Here are quotes of whole parts: --Nenpog (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Source5:Biologic Effects of Low Doses of Ionizing Radiation-Mechanism of Biologic Damage -Ionizing radiation, such as x-rays, is uniquely energetic enough to overcome the binding energy of the electrons orbiting atoms and molecules; thus, these radiations can knock electrons out of their orbits, thereby creating ions. In biologic material exposed to x-rays, the most common scenario is the creation of hydroxyl radicals from x-ray interactions with water molecules; these radicals in turn interact with nearby DNA to cause strand breaks or base damage. X-rays can also ionize DNA directly. Most radiation-induced damage is rapidly repaired by various systems within the cell, but DNA double-strand breaks are less easily repaired, and occasional misrepair can lead to induction of point mutations, chromosomal translocations, and gene fusions, all of which are linked to the induction of cancer. Risks Associated with Low Doses of Radiation- Depending on the machine settings, the organ being studied typically receives a radiation dose in the range of 15 millisieverts (mSv) (in an adult) to 30 mSv (in a neonate) for a single CT scan, with an average of two to three CT scans per study. At these doses, as reviewed elsewhere,24 the most likely (though small) risk is for radiation-induced carcinogenesis.

source11: Energy from ionizing radiation can break chemical bonds in DNA and proteins, either directly or by releasing gene-damaging free radicals and ions. The resulting short-term tissue damage can include skin burns and hair loss, with cataract formation as a form of long-term damage. Carcinogenesis (cancer induction) is another long-term effect that follows damage to the genes that control cell division (mitosis) or programmed cell death (apoptosis). Genetic damage and carcinogenesis are stochastic outcomes of ionizing radiation. In other words, a given exposure may or may not damage genes in a manner that eventually induces cancer.25,26 Because DNA repair mechanisms exist, it does not necessarily follow that radiation damage to genes will induce carcinogenesis. However, because of radiation’s stochastic effects on cancer risk, we assume that no threshold dose exists below which radiation exposures are completely safe.25 This linear/no threshold model of radiation risk predicts that as the cumulative exposure to radiation increases, so does the probability of carcinogenesis. The model assumes that physiological DNA and cellular repair mechanisms do not substantially influence the linear dose/risk relationship.

source11 at an other location:For example, a CT scan of the heart can cause 1 case of cancer in every 270 women aged 40 years and 1 per 600 men aged 40 years. In contrast, head scans represent a lower risk of 1 cancer in 8100 women scanned and 1 in 11 000 men scanned. These risks are twice as high for individuals aged 20 years as for those aged 40 years. --Nenpog (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

This is now at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Nenpog. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Swedes

hello! there is a ongoing discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Swedes about as to describe the swedish people as germanic or not, i invite you to join the discussion due to your good knowledge about the subject and i will support you there if i must 95.199.210.15 (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.

Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-office IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

From Talk:Occupation and illegal annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union (1940)

Since discussion this matter on the move request section of the talk page in question is detrimental to the whole process i decide to post my comments regarding your posting here. Fact still is that you resorted to twisting what other editors had stated, namely what Lothar had stated. Besides your definition and statements regarding Nug and Peter already border on questionable claims. On top of that you admit yourself of being willing to make bad faith edits. None of that is beneficial in any way to the discussion at hand. So i only ask you to either remain polite or then say nothing - as per non-official suggestions on WP:ABF. Offering underhanded statements which could be understood as insults benefits no one. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for moving this part of the discussion here.

Secondly, please, re-read Lothar's post. It starts with the words "Support move back to former title of Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union (1940). The current title is a result of a strange unilateral move by User:Nug earlier this month...", and this is his major point. Of course, he made some reservations later, however, I don't think by citing his major point I twisted anything. Please, do not twist my words in future.

Thirdly, you should have noticed that my post was a response on Nug's accusation in bad faith, so it would be quite correct from my side to respond in the same vein (especially, taking into account that I do have what to say).

Fourthly, going back to "twisting what other users say", could you please quote my post where I "admited of being willing to make bad faith edits". I do not remember when and where did I make such a post, and you should either provide necessary evidences or apologize (taking into account that you yourself initiated the discussion about "twisting what other users say", I insist on apologies).

Fifthly, please, explain which my statement was not polite. Yes, I lost any illusions about good faith of these two users several years ago, and I do have some serious reasons for that. I initially assumed their good faith (the examples can be provided upon request), however, I don't have to assume good faith infinitely. Yes, I do not assume their good faith any more, however, I do not see anything impolite in my posts. You should either provide the examples, or apologize.

In any event, thank you for posting here.

Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Lets see then

(ii) Lothar explicitly stated that he was amenable to the removing 'annexation' from the topic if there was support or 'general desire' for it, and by the time you made the post there was plenty of support for it. Hence your statement on Lothar's part could be understood as a fallacy.

(iii) That is still no excuse to continue the discussion on article talk page - nor was that the point of RM. You can agree to disagree but so far it has not helped achieving consensus on the issue at hand. Also since you do represent the (nearly) sole voice of opposition it is not really that unexpected to see such comments. After all you did first google scholar search, which was refuted, then moved to emailing Mälksoo and so on - while i don't agree with the sentiment i do understand it.

(iv) Paul Siebert: "I reserve a right to join and abandon the pro forma discussion at any convenient moment." - this right after you have made it obvious in the post that you used pro forma discussion as a reference to 'bad faith' editing. In other words stating that fellow editors are making bad faith edits and then immediately after stating that you are willing to do so as well when and where ever you see fit.

(v) Inserting insults, or even statements which can be understood as insults such as accusing opposing editors (again, see WP:ABF), is hardly polite manner of discussing the matter and certainly not fitting even for a article talk page. - Wanderer602 (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Re ii, see Lothar's explanations of the talk page. Who twists whose words?

Re iii, this is a long dispute, and sometimes one or another party appears to be represented just by one user. However, that situation can change quickly. And, as you can see, I am not a sole person opposing to the move.

Re iv. I wrote that Nug and Peters conduct this discussion just pro forma. By writing that, I meant that the purpose of this discussion is just to create a visibility of the efforts to achieve consensus: their position never changes, and they return to the same arguments when new audience is not aware of the fact that those arguments have been properly addressed in the past. In that situation, I maintain the discussion just pro forma, awaiting for new good faith users (Lothar, Jaan, you, of someone else) to join it. Since the discussion with Nug is conducted just pro forma, I see no reason to address every his comment. Of course, all of that has no relation to my discussions with majority of other users. Is it clear now?

Re v. I see no insults here. The two users accused me of filibustering, disruptive editing, they did that several times, and I believe some degree of sarcasm in my post was an absolutely adequate reaction on that. In any event, you should either provide examples of alleged insults, or apologize.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Using something which took place after the matter was discussed as a proof that of the discussed issue when the matter was being discussed is rather bad argument (post ex facto). That you see no insults and that there are no perceived insults are two very different things. Accusing other editors without proof and be construed as being an insult in itself. For that matter sarcasm does not translate over text very well something most editors are well aware of. You did insert underhanded comments into your post, whether it was due to sarcasm or not it can be understood as an insult your intent notwithstanding. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand you. Lothar's last post demonstrates that I didn't twist his major idea. Last comments on the talk page just demonstrate that the situation when I act alone is temporary (I didn't act alone in past, and I my expectation that I'll not be the sole person objecting to the rename appeared to be correct). Therefore, you point is invalid.

"Perceived insult" - what does it mean? If someone believes he is insulted, he is free to express his concern. However, in this particular case I simply acted per WP:DUCK: some behaviour is disruptive and should be I characterised accordingly. Of course, had I used this sarcasm to characterize good faith user, it would be an insult. However, in this particular case it is simply truth. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Re Mediation

I'll comment after some thought. Thanks for informing me. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

UrbanNerd

Hi Paul, You may wish to check out UrbanNerd (talk · contribs)'s block log. He or she has form. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, the number of editors associated with the various Eastern European-related disputes hanging around the World War II article seeking to push their POV is getting pretty concerning. Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem is not with EE or other nationalist editors, but with the users who are pushing their viewpoints irrespective to the counter-arguments presented to them. You and I know at least one EE editor who is absolutely capable to accept the arguments from his peers, who is trying to convince others, and, simultaneously, is prepared to accept other's point of view when opponent's arguments appear to be stronger. In contrast, a number of editors, not only from Eastern Europe, ignore all arguments, and participate in discussion just pro forma. That is sad, and I fully share your concern.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It is a wide brush with which tar is being applied. One could argue you don't listen to counter-arguments, so let's not go anywhere with general comments which imply the superiority of one's own position to the detriment of others. Feel free to delete this after reading, no offense taken. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me you believe I kept you in mind when I was writing that. In actuality, I really kept in mind just a handful of users, because overwhelming majority of Wikipedians are quite prone to dialogue. Therefore, the brush was very narrow, and by no means affects all EE editors, many of whom I genuinely respect. Whether you belong to this category or not, you can decide by yourself...

I can provide many examples when I changed my viewpoint in a responce to reasonable arguments from others, and that is a feature of all good faith editors. Can you provide at least one example when you changed, or at least significantly modified, your point of view during a dispute with me? I cannot remember even a singe example...--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I've changed my mind over many things in researching topics for WP, aside from generally becoming better informed. The times I have changed my mind based on another editor's exposition of position on specific points are far fewer. Both these are as they should be.

That we have not persuaded each other on anything isn't really relevant. For example, you believe the USSR, an ally of Germany at the beginning of the war and guilty of dividing Eastern Europe and sharing responsibility for WWII (actually, the embraces of multiple non-aggression pacts dooming all the territories in-between as Snyder has argued) belongs atop the list of Allies fighting the Nazis. I find that position informed more by your self-stated defense of the USSR against the anti-Soviet nationalist hordes than by historical appropriateness and therefore irrecoverably flawed. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately, I am more interested to know the examples when someone has managed to persuade you in anything...--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Acrimony

Thanks for the perfect description and word choice. Acrimony describes it perfectly. I, along with many other editors, have suffered for years with the disingenuous "Cheers". The palpable disdain for any contrary thought, and the obvious forethought in the misuse of the what should be a friendly "Cheers' speak volumes...much more than his didactic diatribes. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Civility Soup

I see you have a pot of Civilty soup on the back burner. I wonder if I might add the following:

Writers of Encyclopedias have always corresponded...always been collaborators. The “back and forth” between editors/encyclopedists/collaborators MUST be congenial. For generations, writers of all kinds have corresponded and worked out their differences without conflict. In order to maintain a working relationship they rarely, if ever, attacked each other. We do not create articles or edit them in isolation. By that I mean we are not constrained within, and limited to, our own race or religion or ethnic background. Collaborators are challenged to see the bigger picture, to stretch their minds from the teachings of adolescent control and open themselves to new possibilities. Many times, editors are not satisfied with the results of consensus. They start to build a hornets nest of resentment. When you stumble upon a hornets nest, you don't hit it. You back up...for your own well-being. I have learned not to get stung. Misplaced Pages editing should be enjoyable, not aggravating. Arguing is stressful, aggravating and, most importaly, polarizing. Collaborating is goal oriented, unifying and stimulating. ```Buster Seven Talk. Before I read your reply I should point out ...this was meant more for your page stalkers than for you. :~) ```Buster Seven Talk 22:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

That reminds me a prisoners dilemma: if everyone will accept this your advice, Misplaced Pages will become a very comfortable place ... for aggressive editors and POV-pushers. Indeed, you will enjoy editing until the first arrival of some aggressive POV pusher on the page you are working on. Then you move to another place, then to the next one... until every page will become dominated by aggressive editors, who will easily realise that for thier viewpoint to prevail they simply have to be aggressive enough. I see two problems with that: 1. Misplaced Pages will not be a collection of good quality and neutral content, and 2. when only aggressive users will remain in Misplaced Pages, how will they collaborate with each other?

I would say, your advice is quite valuable ... when you are dealing with civil users. Meanwhile, I've just realised I developed a formula, which is a paraphrase of one famous aphorism:

"God, give me ability to friendly collaborate with a user who is willing to collaborate,

Courage to resist to a civil POV-pusher, and

the Wisdom to distinguish the former from the latter."

With respect, --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Respect, in return. See User:Buster7/Incivility for some of my gatherings on the subject. Since my focus has become new users, my conversation with them is along the lines of staying out of the bramble bushes of working with aggressive and abusive editors. I in no way mean to imply that WE sacrifice the Encyclopedia to the "grenades" as I refer to them. But we both know that it takes a concerted effort not to go toe to toe with them. And new fragile users don't stand a chance. They need the fertilizer of success to strengthen themselves for the inevitable conflicts of WP editing. ```Buster Seven Talk 02:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Totally agreed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Archaic Words

Somewhere, recently, I read a comment about how editors using archaic words are actually showing disrespect for their fellow editors. Was that comment yours and if so where? Or maybe you remember seeing it? Thanks, ```Buster Seven Talk 14:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Totally disagreed. The problem is that many native English speakers simply do not know their own language, and find this situation normal. My own experience with bilingual high school students demonstrates that situation is quite paradoxical. You know that many English words came from Greek, Latin, French etc, so in many "archaic" English words have their twins (with the same root) in other European languages. I was shocked to learn that, whereas the bilingual students know and actively use majority of such words from their another language, they have to study in school English twins, because their native English speaking classmates simply do not know and never use those words. In other words, despite the fact that English is extremely rich language, native English speakers know just a small part of it.

Therefore, in my opinion, not only the usage of "archaic" words does not show disrespect, it encourages fellow editors to learn their own language.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm wavering back and forth...and for different reasons in each direction. It's not that I agree about the disrespect factor, its just that my poor memory only remembers that "hook". I read it somewhere about the time we started to discuss this and that. I just thought the comment might be yours. One of the Sunday News shows had a segment about high-tech companies and their inability to fill jobs. The CEO of one company stressed how amazed he was that most College grads could not write a simple grammatically correct sentence and many of their resumes used HS level English. I don't mind having to look up the definition for an old word. I'm just not inclined to use them. ```Buster Seven Talk 17:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure I made that comment.

Regarding "old" words, a significant part of students seem to believe that English words they don't know are "old", and that is partially true: if the next generation will stop to use them, they will become obsolete.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

using fake "quotes" from editors

Is quite likely to be viewed by others as contrary to collegiality, collaborative editing, and to truth. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Answered on the article's talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler lead discussion

Hello Paul, many thanks for your tireless and pointed efforts in the current debate on the Hitler entry. I agree with you that the time has come to consider an ANI if the editor arguing for deletion of the lead sentence continues to revert the established consensus and/or to string the discussion further. I'm prepared to weigh in at the ANI should we need to go that route. Thanks again. Malljaja (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Paul. You wrote: "I did not read the rest of your post: you ignore my answers" and "If you want to present new arguments, please respond on my arguments first."

As I feel your answers are outside of the specific point of dispute, I answer them here.

But, if you will not read my answers how can you fairly accuse me of not answering your points? I actually did attempt to answer specifically your question, even taking some time to provide you with sources. Here is the answer I previously gave which you admit you didn't read:

"As for the rest you keep widening the conversation by posing what I consider only loosely related questions. But to humour you: what exactly were the peace proposals that Churchill refused in 1940? Do you know? ...they did include an independent Poland and "(ii) vacating the territory of France he occupied in 1940" . Of course without Hitler and his "policies", the situation would never have arisen in the way it did. But I have not been arguing against that (your own strawman?). I am arguing there were other leaders' "policies" involved. E.g. regarding: revoking the Treaty of Versailles; the fear of the spread of communism; fear of a socialist United States of Europe; fear of the international rise of Fascism, especially in Italy (Mussolini), Spain (Franco), Britain (Mosley), France (Bucard), ... etc., etc., etc. Which all I think demonstrates AGAIN the oversimplification and thus inaccuracy of the disputed (and I argue unverifiable) sentence that we are discussing. But this is a side shown to my main point, (which was my original third point): can the disputed sentence be verified by the cited source of Rummel. I say not. Can you humour me and show how it can, please.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is an answer on responsibility of outbreak of war to other factors than just "Hitler's policies".

H.G. Wells, in his 1933 The Shape of Things to Come, wrote: "Creation of the Polish Corridor was part of the Versailles Treaty, intended to weaken Germany whatever the specific issue. The Poles and their aspirations were cynically used for this purpose, against the true interests of Poland itself."

You have since asked: "do you have any evidences that by signing a separate peace with Hitler Churchill could prevent any death?"

Naturally no evidence can be presented for something that never happened. We can only conject. What we can do when writing history is record the intentions of the protagonists. Exactly my issue with the disputed sentence. In that regard I link you to this speech:

http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/speeches/1939-10-06.html

"...In my previous speeches in the Reichstag I made proposals with this end in view. At that time they were rejected - maybe for the simple reason that they were made by me.

...these problems must be solved sooner or later, then it would be more sensible to tackle the solution before millions of men are first uselessly sent to death and milliards of riches destroyed. Continuation of the present state of affairs in the West is unthinkable. Each day will soon demand increasing sacrifices.

... One day, however, there will again be a frontier between Germany and France, but instead of flourishing towns there will be ruins and endless graveyards. Mr. Churchill and his companions may interpret these opinions of mine as weakness or cowardice if they like. I need not occupy myself with what they think; I make these statements simply because it goes without saying that I wish to spare my own people this suffering. If, however, the opinions of Messrs. Churchill and followers should prevail, this statement will have been my last. Then we shall fight. ...Mr. Churchill may be convinced that Great Britain will win. I do not doubt for a single moment that Germany will be victorious. Destiny will decide who is right. One thing only is certain. In the course of world history, there have never been two victors, but very often only losers. This seems to me to have been the case in the last war. May those peoples and their leaders who are of the same mind now make their reply. And let those who consider war to be the better solution reject my outstretched hand."

I presume you agree that these words were made publically by the subject of the article under discussion? If you still maintain that we must ignore these, becaue Hitler's words are not trustworthy, then I hope you will also agree that ALL sides distort and lie. Churchill himself wrote:" In time of war, when truth is so precious, it must be attended by a bodyguard of lies." Therefore an accurate history can ONLY be reached by analysing all the evidence without bias. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 10:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

You correctly write that "naturally no evidence can be presented for something that never happened, we can only conject". In connection to that, did I understand you correctly that your conjecture that by signing peace with Germany Britain could stop WWII is a solid ground for you conclusion that Britain shared with Germany a responsibility for continuation of WWII?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

You previously asked: "do you have any evidences that by signing a separate peace with Hitler Churchill could prevent any death?" I HOPE YOU AGREE that I have now shown that this was not a helpful question in discussing the DISPUTED SENTENCE. Regretably, I feel your reply above merely asks another unhelpful and irrelevant question, as what you are I think is of little importance. Q: Is the disputed sentence accurate and can it be linked to verfiable reliable secondary sources. Could you answer my question above please (which you have now ignored twice), viz. can the disputed sentence be verified by the cited source of Rummel. I say not. Can you humour me and show how it can, please. (Here it is in its latest form: "Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies... indirectly and directly caused the deaths of an estimated 50 million people during World War II.")--Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For protecting the Vietnam War article Zeraful (talk) 08:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, however, I saw not much vandalism in the VW article. Just a normal content dispute. In any event, thank you very much:) --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, when there are people who would go into any length to "defend" their point of view and the sources that support it, I'd call it vandalism :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeraful (talk • contribs) 10:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Please, re-read WP:VANDAL. By no means the people you are talking about fit this definition. They even cannot be considered disruptive editors, although I partially share your concern about some problems with their behaviour.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Point taken--Zeraful (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"Communist Mass killings" article

Can you tell me more about the article? It seems to be a locked for a long period of time, and not even long term users can edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LucasGeorge (talk • contribs) 14:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

That is a long story. Briefly, the article had been locked as a result of the permanent edit war (where a currently banned user and his sock had been deeply involved). Currently, some group of users vetoes any changes using purely procedural means. The situation is unique, and I am currently pondering about possible steps to resolve the issue. If you have more concrete questions, feel free to ask. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, this is the first time I've dealt with a major edit war, and I'm rather annoyed by Collect's strawman arguments on the talk pages and attacks on my suggestions. Here he also tracked down some of my edits on the Mao's Great Famine and removed some of the criticisms.--LucasGeorge (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Massacre at Hue

It seem that TheTimesAreChanging have brought his source to the article, and removed source from Porter, Sheehan, etc...labeling them as "not neutral". Could you do a checkup?--Zeraful (talk) 06:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Porter has been declared an unreliable source per a consensus on a previous Vietnam War-related article. Nice try with your attempts at pro-communist cover-ups, delusion, lies, extorting and propaganda spreading. Nguyen1310 (talk) 08:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, Porter's "Myth of the Hue Massacre" is less reliable and less mainstream than his "Myth of the Bloodbath," which was declared unreliable at RSN. I don't recall any "Sheehan". Mainly I was removing an excessive amount of dead, dubious, or repeat external links per WP:ELNO. I probably removed as many anti-communist sites (like Rummel) as pro-communist sites. At the same time, I lowered the exaggerated estimate that the communists massacred 6,000 unarmed civilians, indicating my good faith.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Nguyen1310, I'm speechless. But TheTimesAreAChanging, which still have enough decency to make a proper reply (which I really grateful for it), let just say that the opinion regarding Massacre at Hue was controversal, with sources from one side portraying it as conducted by the communists, while others saying that the mass grave are the result of the indiscriminate bombing in the 45-day siege, and probably an attemp to cover up a massacre conducted by US and ARVN forces. Also most authors based their information on Douglas Pike's report, which was also subjected to as much debate as Porter's account. And again, you used RAND. So, it would be best if you can check the information used in the article, and for future edit, remember to notice other in the talk page first, especially with large edit like this.--Zeraful (talk) 10:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

"The mass graves are the result of the indiscriminate bombing." Such an absurd and implausible argument is almost automatically fringe. Porter co-wrote his piece with Edward S. Herman, who denies the Rwandan and Cambodian genocides. Herman has a history of denying massacres. For example, he wrote that "The evidence for a massacre, certainly of one in which 8,000 men and boys were executed, has always been problematic, to say the least....the 'Srebrenica massacre' is the greatest triumph of propaganda to emerge from the Balkan wars....the link of this propaganda triumph to truth and justice is non-existent". Unfortunately for Herman, investigators of Srebrenica have already found over 6,000 people in mass graves, and named some 8,100 victims. In light of communist forces repeatedly admitting their responsibility for the killings at Hue--and the clear evidence that those in the mass graves had been beaten, strangled, or buried alive--and the wealth of documentary testimony from survivors who said it changed their view of the communists--denial that there was any massacre at all is silly. Herman is given no attention at Srebrenica Massacre--why should his denial of the Hue Massacre be more mainstream? But if you would like to discuss this further, or challenge any other edits I might make in the future, perhaps we could talk somewhere else besides Paul Siebert's page.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

@Zeraful: Despite staunch US and ARVN attacks on Hue to recapture it, they couldn't have killed thousands of people in a very short period of time in an attack which didn't flatten Hue and reduce it entirely to rubble. Remember, they also had street battles and house-to-house battles as well, so they can't "indiscriminately bomb" Hue and kill their own troops and civilians trapped there, and i find that comment completely absurd. On the other hand, communists have been long known for indiscriminately slaughtering and massacring its own people en masse. Look at the North Vietnamese land reform and purges for one. Look at the violent quash of peasant revolts in Nghe An in the 1950s. Look at the Hue Massacre and Dak Son Massacre. Look at Mao's Cultural Revolution and land reform and purges. Look at Stalin's Great Purges and forced Ukrainian famine. I'm not done with this list, but there's a sample. Why would VNCH and the US fight difficult street battles and struggle to liberate Hue, losing many of their soldiers, instead of easily bombing Hue until it's flat and killing everyone, if they wanted to massacre people? You know why your communist regime hasn't built memorials to Hue and Dak Son Massacre victims like they did for My Lai? You know why your beloved communists remain silent or deny the massacres? Because they know they massacred these innocent people, they know their guilt. If the US/ARVN committed these, i guarantee you that thy will build memorials and publicize these massacres to try to denounce their opponents. You called me an "idiot" in the HoChiMinh article talk page, well i just proved otherwise, haven't i? Very amusing to see when someone's attacks on someone else backfires. Guess what, i came from Hue and have heard and seen enough for myself that this massacre took place, those mass graves and rotting bodies, so go ahead, lie in my face that this never existed or that you communists haven't committed it. And, you've once again proved yourself to be a chuyen gia but chien (Hanoi-paid online propagandaist and troll). Nguyen1310 (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

TTAAC, firstly, I don't remember that the RSN conclusion was that Porter is unreliable. Only Vecrumba said that, and he refused to provide any argument in support of that his claim. Moreover, I am not satisfied with the way you presented these sources in the Vietnam war article. I am going to return to this issue when I'll have more time.
Regarding the rest, you gentelmen seem to speculate too much: remember, you are not allowed per our policy to reject the sources just because you see inconsistencies or flaws in what the author says. The arguments like "Herman is given no attention at Srebrenica Massacre--why should his denial of the Hue Massacre be more mainstream?" are totally unsatisfactory. You cannot reject sources on that ground. I have no opinion on Herman (I simply didn't read him), however, if he is revisionist and apologist, some reliable source probably reflected that fact, and the only correct approach is to identify and present such a source. If no sources exist that support the idea that Herman is revisionist or denier, then you cannot reject him, independently on how many errors do you personally see in what he writes. You also can reject him is you demonstrate that he is non-notable, non-scholarly or fringe, however, that is a quite different story: in that case he can and should be ignored because the lack of criticism is because the author is totally ignored by serious scholars. If you follow this approach, which is in full accordance with our policy, your opponents will have no choice but to agree with you. However, if you will continue to act in the way you are acting now, the most probably you will be sanctioned.
Let me re-iterate:

1. If some author is a reputable scholar and his works have been wetted by a scholarly community, you cannot reject him independently on how many sins or mistake the author committed, in your opinion;
2. If you believe the source is not good, it can be rejected for a very limited set of reasons: (i) irrelevant (just tangentially related to the topic); (ii) not notable (no citations, or not wetted by a scholarly community: for example, published in some obscure journal, blog, commercial web site, etc); (iii) severely criticized (many negative reviews in peer-reviewed journals); (iv) obsolete (new sources exist that provide fresh evidences contradicting to what the disputable source says). I strongly encourage you to use the arguments of that type, and to abandon your current rhetoric.
   Good luck.
   --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Itsmejudith also stated that "Myth of the Bloodbath" is unreliable.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Itsmejudith's posts from that RSN discussion are reproduced below:

1. "Reliable. He was proved wrong on Cambodia, but he was not the only one, and that was at a time when there was little or no information coming out about Cambodia. Here, he has a reasoned argument, which I don't think anyone has been able to refute. I would not consider Chomsky's writings on Cambodia RS for Cambodian history. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC) "
2. "WP:HISTRS should apply to this article, and Porter's article does not meet it by the usual criteria, except for the fact that his point has been accepted by later academic writers. If Vietnamese government propaganda is to be distrusted, that does not mean that all pro-American sources are automatically correct. Both could be wrong. It would be really useful to know what recent Vietnamese historians are writing on the topic. I don't know if it is possible to do an online search of the journals. Would someone like to,post on WikiProject Vietnam for advice? Itsmejudith (talk) 07:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC) "

I don't think her words can be interpreted as "unreliable": it meets V (a policy) but does not fully meet HISTRS (an essay). That means the source is acceptable, but, since we have better and newer sources, we should use them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

And we would goes on and on about who think what source is unreliable? First is, the only "communist" source that confirm the massacre is Truong Nhu Tang "Memoir of a VC", which no matter how well put, could not be taken as official about the matter. "Official" communist statement is that the mass grave is for the VC fighters and civilians died during the battle, which if you look at it from a Vietnamese perspective, is plausible. And you might take a visit to the talk page, it seem there are people who put doubt on Pike's account.--Zeraful (talk) 04:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice of complaints filed against you

You are the subject of complaints filed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents by Paavo273 (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

SPI Case

An SPI case has been filed against you here. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

That was probably the worst SPI report I've ever seen, and was basically harassment. I'd suggest that you ask an uninvolved admin to follow up on this. Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Nick. I'll think about that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Adolph Hitler".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 11:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Baltic blowups City, Soviet Union (now 'new country') isn't my primary choice, It's merely a compromise proposal. My primary choice is City, Soviet Union or City, SSR, Soviet Union :) GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC) See my talk page answer. I find your "City, SSR, Soviet Union" incorrect. We should write either "City, Esttonian SSR, USSR", or "City, Estonia, Soviet Union". However, that would be correct had the USSR been currently existing. Since it split apart in 1991, we should reflect that fact, so "City, Estonian SSR (then in USSR)" is more correct. However, since the name "Estonian SSR" disappeared in 1991, we should use a current name, so "City, Estonia (then in the USSR)" is the most correct. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC) To clarify: City, Lithuaninan SSR, Soviet Union; City, Latvian SRR, Soviet Union; City, Estonian SSR, Soviet Union are acceptable. Otherwise, go with City, Soviet Union. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC) As you can see, it's a long process, when dealing with SPAs. GoodDay (talk) 03:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Mass killings under Communist regimes I did read all of your arguments. TFD did object to the inclusion of famine, but as the article discusses famine at length in other sections, and addresses the controversy of their inclusion in depth, that seemed a question of larger scope for another, wider discussion, one which I think is worth having. At the same time, he voiced no opposition to the other additions in the new text. I happen to agree with you that that one !vote didn't add anything to the discussion, so I didn't even consider it. But since your objections to Rummel's estimates would apply just as well to the current text, and those were the only two options put forward, it seemed that the net consensus was in favor of the new. For what it's worth, I think the other editors might have responded better to your concerns if you had proposed alternative texts that you could endorse. Laura Scudder | talk 14:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Unfortunately, you seem to be unfamiliar with previous history of this article. After the article was fully protected, I tried to propose many different changes, including the changes that are directly required by our content policy, and all of them were rejected by the same group of users (although supported by others). By the way, it is exactly the same group of users that rejected our proposal for mediation. Therefore, I had no hope that in this concrete case my proposal would be accepted. Regarding famine, this is a major subject of the dispute. The article does discuss famine at length, moreover, famine death constitute lion's share of deaths under Communist regimes. One group of authors include famine victims into the "mass killing/democide" category, and draws far reaching conclusions (including comparison of Communist and Nazism), however other authors severely criticise such an approach, and majority of single society scholars characterise famines not as mass killings. In other words, this article has a serious POV problem, and your edit just exacerbated this problem (by giving even more weight to the first viewpoint). Again, I respectfully request you to self-revert.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC) You write: "I think the other editors might have responded better to your concerns if you had proposed alternative texts that you could endorse", however, this argument is totally unsatisfactory. In my 10 February 2013 post I did propose an alternative scheme: I described the scheme that would allow us to avoid already existing POV issues. Obviously, before starting to write anything I expected to see comments on this scheme. Instead, Nug just !voted, and Darkstar left an absolutely insulting post. In that situation, it was quite correct to conclude that discussion had ceased, and no consensus had been achieved (at least, my reasonable concern was totally ignored). Therefore, your conclusion about some alleged consensus was incorrect. I again request you to self-revert, otherwise I'll have to resort to arbitration (remember, the article is under WP:DIGWUREN). --Paul Siebert (talk) 13:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC) I don't think it is a good idea to start WP:THREATENing the closing admin. FWIW you cannot dismiss my input as a !vote, I reviewed the text and found that it complied with WP:NPOV and WP:V policy and said so. --Nug (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Thank you for regularly reading my talk page. Please, keep in mind, however, that to address to AE is a standard way to resolve an issue with the article under discretionary sanctions, and I am talking not about the sanction against a closing admin, but about reverting the action that is a violation of a procedure. I am somewhat busy during the next week, so I'll return to that later. Meanwhile, could you please explain me what criteria do you use to discriminate !vote from a balanced decision made upon careful reviewing of the subject? I recall during the last Baltic related RfC you dismissed all opponents' opinia as !vote. Double standards?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Sorry for the slow response. It's spring break on campus, which means I've been making the best of a library without undergrads. I am not intimately familiar with the history of this article, but that's rather the point: to have someone without a vested interest in any particular outcome assess consensus. But I went back and reread the discussion, and it, quite frankly, still looks to me like there was consensus for the change. Laura Scudder | talk 19:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC) Sorry, Laura, but I cannot understand your logic. During that discussion, two users (TTAAC and Smallbones) supported the proposed text (Collect brought no fresh arguments, so his opinion can be ignored per !vote), and two users (TFD and I) expressed a reasonable concern based on the analysis of the sources. Later, I proposed an alternative scheme of the section, however, this my proposal was totally ignored: Nug just !voted (no arguments were presented), and Darkstar made an absolutely offensive remark, which meant the discussion had died and degenerated to an ordinary quarrel I didn't want to be a part of. In that situation, it is hardly possible to speak about any consensus. I would say, had my last post been properly addressed, we could speak about some emerging consensus (two parties proposed different concepts, which could theoretically been reconciled during a subsequent polite discussion), however, since no polite discussion occurred (remember, my proposal was totally ignored, in an absolutely insulting form), we cannot speak about any consensus here. For a third time, I respectfully request you to self-revert, otherwise I'll have to ask the arbitrators for a help.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC) You are flogging a dead horse Paul. As I said, I took time to review the text and found that it complied with WP:NPOV and WP:V policy, so please stop dismissing my policy based conclusion as merely an "!vote". Feel free to take it to the arbitrators if you feel your POV wasn't embraced, but I think you will find that they do not review content issues. --Nug (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC) You provided no arguments, so it was not clear from your post if you really did any analysis, or just presented your opinion. Since your post contained no arguments and looked like !vole, it should be treated as such per DUCK. Sorry. By the way, your unsolicited comments on this talk page are not welcome. I would be grateful if you limited yourself only with those posts that are required by our rules (formal notifications, etc). Thank you in advance for your understanding and cooperation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC) WW II PR I've requested a PR for World War II, and thought you should know, as you seem to be a regular editor of that article. -- Aunva6 13:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union Certain editors with declared membership in eastern orthodoxy are engaged in persistent edit-warring and the imposing of dubious materials based on unreliable sources. . The user My very best wishes is tag-teaming with them. 75.51.174.240 (talk) 02:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC) Dear anon IP, problems at the article started when you came in and deleted stable, sourced, content. Don't canvass responsible editors to join your campaign. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC) Splitting the Battle of Kursk article? As you might remember, I've proposed splitting the current Battle of Kursk article into its three component operations, Operation Citadel, Operation Kutuzov and Operation Rumyantsev. There's consensus among three of us that this is a viable idea, but you haven't made any comments lately, so I'm pinging you to see if you'd like to make any comments before we proceed with the split.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Hi What happened to you? Did you leave Wiki? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC) Just to let you know -- Missing Wikipedians You have been mentioned at Misplaced Pages:Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC) Belligerents order in World War 2 There is a discussion about belligerents order for WWII in the talk page which challenge previous consensus. Current change for WWII article is ranking USA above United Kingdom, ranking France above China and adding the leaders of Romania and Hungary into Info box. I thought you should know, as you seem to join the previous discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.38.217 (talk) 01:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC) Holodomor question Hi, I hope you can offer an opinion on my dillema. I recently posted on the Holodomor talk page - Lead para, and was politely, but firmly rebuffed by user Iryna Harpy, who appears to be heavily involved with the article. I concur with them that I should have done some research on the topic first before posting. So that's how I came across you name - see Archive #13 I generally agree with your position: "My conclusion is, Holodomor was a part of the Soviet famine, although, taking in account Kuban', a major part. Nevertheless, one has to have a respect towards other victims. The analogy with the Holocaust seems to be incorrect, because many sources disagree with that. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)" "Since I know at least several other sources that support Ellman's ideas, I don't think the statement that Holodomor was a deliberate measure to kill Urkainians (or other statements that are based on this idea) can be placed in the lead. (Although, of course, this point of view can and has to be discussed in the article itself.)--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)". I hold similar views and therefore I was surprised to find that such strong notions - Holodomor as genocide and Holodomor as Holocaust - were supported by such weak language (suppositions) and even weaker sources. I much prefer the statement from Holodomor genocide question: There is no international consensus among scholars or politicians on whether the Soviet policies that caused the famine fall under the legal definition of genocide. As of April 2008, the parliament of Ukraine and the governments of 19 countries have recognized the Holodomor as an act of genocide. Compare to: The loss of life has been compared to the Holocaust. If Soviet policies and actions were conclusively documented as intending to eradicate the rise of Ukrainian nationalism, they would fall under the legal definition of genocide. (From Holodomor) This former is factual and unemotional, as Misplaced Pages should be. The latter is weakly sourced, vague (compared by who?) and suppositions. As a prior participant on the Holodomor topic, do you have any advice for me? Should I drop the topic? Any insights on the prior consensus that may have been reached? K.e.coffman (talk) 07:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC) ArbCom elections are now open! Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC) Collect essay; second bite at the cherry You participated in an MfD discussion about an essay by Collect that was in mainspace. The result was userfy and it was moved to user space accordingly. The essay has been moved back to mainspace. There is a discussion as to whether it should be renamed and moved. The discussion is here. Writegeist (talk) 00:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC) Welcome Back! You've been missed. AmateurEditor (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC) -) Paul Siebert (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC) Welcome back from me as well Paul. It's great to see you at the World War II article. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC) Thank you, Nick. Paul Siebert (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC) WW2 talk Dear Paul Siebert, I cannot quite understand why you keep trying to debate me when all I am doing is providing some observations and suggestions (which may not even be relevant at all and can safely be ignored). Getting yourself all worked up on such heavy issues is no good, believe me. Regards, --Prüm (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC) I am sorry that it looks like I am debating. I am just providing my observations in response to your observations. Regarding your suggestions, as you can see, I mostly agree with what you propose. Cheers. :-) --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC) Ok, but just for an example: Do you really believe that Ribbentrop, of all people, was "masterful", as you put it? I could not believe it when I read that, indeed, I think that he was as trite and foolish as people can get when they do not have their head straightened sometimes. gn8, --Prüm (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC) I think he was a brilliant diplomat. Until the end of 1940, foreign policy of Germany was extremely successful. When you compare Halifax and Ribbentrop during spring-summer of 1939, you should agree Ribbentrop was much better. Many Nazi supreme officials were very talented. The problem was the major strategic goal they were pursuing was fundamentally wrong. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC) Actually, Ribbentrop was much smarter than Hitler. He was a strong advocate of a full scale alliance with the USSR. Actually, Stalin was prone to a kind of Nazi ideology (the only thing that stopped him from becoming a real Nazi was Marxism he inherited from Lenin; he could not abandon it quickly. Only by the end of his life he unleashed his anti-Semitism). We are extremely lucky that Ribbentrop ideas found no support from Hitler, because otherwise Nazi-Soviet alliance would conquer the world. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC) YMMD, Nazi-Soviet alliance 8-) Then the U.S. would have developed nuclear weapons in 2 years instead of 4 or some such and we would still be living in nuclear ice age. To be honest, you're running after mirages here. Ever caught one? You could also be playing too much with alt. hist. games, which would be shameful. --Prüm (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC) In the case of Nazi-Soviet alliance the US would never developed nuclear weapon. The US and Britain would spend all resources for naval warfare and survival. By the end of 30s, about a half of Nobel prize winners lived in Germany. Germany was a leader in rocketry, computers, it was one of the leaders in nuclear physics. Nuclear project was not something outstandingly challenging from scientific point of view, even after some brilliant physicists escaped to the West, Germany had a lot of second rank scientists who were quite capable of doing this job. In a situation when a huge resource base of the USSR would be fully available to Germany, and Eastern front was absent, Germany would have enough opportunity to make an atomic bomb first. All strategic objects would be moved to the East, and that would make German industry non-vulnerable to strategic bombing (and the US would have no resources for doing them). The US and Britain would never survive against Germany+Italy+USSR+Japan.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC) PS I never played alt history games, but I was thinking about history a lot. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC) OMG, you're getting it wrong all over again. The situation you describe was the one before WW I, not WW II. It was actually during the reign of the hated Wilhelm II that the sciences flourished in Germany. Who among the best scientist would have worked for a bad demon like Hitler and felt ok with that? I give it up, I will no longer try to convert you. --Prüm (talk) 04:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC) P.S.: And as for your Nazi-Soviet alliance: I bet everyone else would have shat their pants. NOT, because everyone knew only one of Hitler and Stalin could come out victorious, and that's exactly what happend. --Prüm (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2018 (UTC) Just take a look at the list of Novel prize winners. Yes, a rivalry was very likely. I don't think you need to convert me. My point is that Hitler was much more dangerous than people think, and America would not defeat it alone. Yes, a long time friendship between Stalin and Hitler was not realistic. My scenario is more relevant to the case if Germany defeated USSR in the same way Japan defeated China. That would create huge problems for the US and Britain. You are looking at the US from a present day's point of view, but America was not as strong as modern people usually think. It emerged as a superpower only after WWII, and as a result of it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC) I don't subscribe to the Anglo-Saxon worldview prevalent in the 1920s and 1930s that pitting "Hitler" against "Stalin" was "the proper thing to do". That's the long and short of it. --Prüm (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC) I am not sure I understand you. Hitler became an influential figure only in 30s. Britain had no well articulated policy towards Germany. There were at least three fractions in British government that proposed different strategies. The idea that Britain was "pitting "Hitler" against "Stalin"" is an obsolete stereotype: actually their actions were indecisive and inconsistent, which looked they are pitting "Hitler" against "Stalin".--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC) You are mistaken again (sigh). The "H" guy was influential at the very least since 1923, when he marched on the Feldherrnhalle in alliance with that other guy (who was very influential indeed during WW1, but whom am I trying to coonvince?). As to your other ramblings, I said that the idea of pitting one against the other was prevalent, i.e. it was being toyed with/entertained in certain circles, not that there was much of a coherence to it. That same idea had worked before oh so many times, so why shouldn't it work again? I'll tell you what I think: you, sir, are nothing bit some meatpuppet posing as a learned scholar when indeed you totally suck at history or at least pretend to. So I am afraid I'll have to stop this little chat before this gets totally ridiculous. --Prüm (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC) Pitting Communists against Nazi (in Germany) is one thing, and pitting Nazi Germany and USSR - quite another. I agree about the first, but I read history articles about British foreign policy in 30s, and they did not consider provoke a war between Hitler and Stalin. That is an old post war view advocated by leftist historians. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC) So you mean to say that British appeasement vs. Germany never had anything to do with the silent hope that Herr H. would draw the "right conclusions"? That the British activities in Spain, its policy towards fascist Italy, to name a few, were totally innocuous? I beg to differ. --Prüm (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC) I would say, there was a fraction in British establishment who wanted to direct Hitler's aggression to the East. However, they never had a majority. There were no majority at all, so British policy was reactive, opportunistic and very stupid in general. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC) DS notice This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Misplaced Pages. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date. Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. Template:Z33 My very best wishes (talk) 02:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)