Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:04, 1 September 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mass killings under communist regimes article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Human rights Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Socialism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 July 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Article milestones Date Process Result August 10, 2009 Articles for deletion No consensus September 1, 2009 Peer review Reviewed October 2, 2009 Articles for deletion No consensus November 15, 2009 Articles for deletion No consensus April 22, 2010 Articles for deletion Kept

Template:Controversial (history) Template:Pbneutral

Warning: this article is subject to a 1RR limitation. Per the discretionary sanctions authorized in the Digwuren case, this article is subject to 1RR. Reverting more than one time in a 24-hour period may result in a block or a ban from this article and its talk page. All reverts should be discussed on the talk page. This is a bright line, not an entitlement, and reverting exactly once per day is considered disruption, and users doing so are subject to being blocked. Please see this notice about recent edit warring. Editors wishing to make controversial edits are strongly advised to discuss them first.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mass killings under communist regimes article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60Auto-archiving period: 14 days

1RR restriction

I have been following this discussion for some time, and I have concluded that additional remedies are needed to stop the edit warring. Per the discretionary sanctions authorized in the Digwuren case and clarified to apply to this article by the Arbitration Committee, I am hereby placing this article under 1RR. Any violation of this restriction will lead to either a block or a ban from this article and its talk page. NW (Talk) 22:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The time stamp above has deliberately been altered. The original message was placed on 22:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC). NW (Talk) 03:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Blokhin's role wasn't a cause

C. J. Griffin's recent edit seems to have put historical material on Vasili Blokhin in the wrong part of the article, since it confuses a notable detail with a historical cause. The subsection "Personal responsibility" is part of the section on proposed causes suggested as explanations for the mass killings discussed. Though he's certainly mentioned as "the greatest executioner in history" by C.J.'s source Michael Parrish , there is no discussion of Blokhin as a person as a cause of the mass killings–though no doubt personally responsible as an executioner, he was in the larger perspective only an able instrument eagerly following the lead of his superiors -- not actual organizer like Stalin, Beria, or Yezhov. Since the section's sources discuss the personal factors at work in the cases of Stalin and Yezhov, whereas they simply document Blokhin's personal involvement in the violence but do not theorize about him as a cause, mentioning him is hardly relevant (and to me personally it amounts to something of a distraction), and I am going to remove him from the section. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

concur --Snowded 10:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree, is their another section it can go? Although such a thing would not really belong in this article, perhaps Worst Mass Killers or similar? mark nutley (talk) 10:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

definition of "mass"

apologies for my confusing tag here. the quoted material is from the definition of the term "mass", not the outcome of the poison, which was always death, varying in suffering and time. The fact that poisons were tested on gulag prisoners resulting in death is not disputed. the previous undo made the comment "how is this relevant to the page?" my tag was to clarify the link was not in relevance to the 5-6 notable victims killed by the poisons, but rather the "large number of people" killed in testing of the poisons. i think paul undid the previous link thinking 5-6 deaths did not qualify as "mass killing", which i agree. however the "mass killings" of those whom served as guinia pigs, should justify the link remaining. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Poison laboratory of the Soviet secret services does discuss human experimentation, however it is sketchy on deliberate killing people and the scale of the killing. Care to provide a RS linking poison experiments to mass killings? (Igny (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC))

isn't testing poison on people "deliberate" no matter your intent? Oh well i love wp for just this very reason, prove it. so i concede the point, however, since the article is about the masses of people who did die, does it actually have to be a "mass" in each specific method or could we combine all the gulag death into the term mass? one of the rare methods was the "hose and froze" the victim would be hung by her hands, stripped naked, and sprayed with a hose until she became encased in a block of ice. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The "Poison laboratory of the Soviet secret service article" tells nothing about of the scale of these tests and about the amount of the victims. Therefore, unless evidences are presented that this secret program lead to mass deaths, it is irrelevant to the "mass killings..." article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems pretty tangential. TFD (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

@tfd wp:idontlikeit @Paul: "Those methods included killing the oldest son in any family known to have had contact with the insurgents and attacking the insurgents in their forest redoubts with poison gas. This was the first use of poison gas against a civilian population ever, and it was successful. The peasants’ rebellion was suppressed. But the conditions that had led to that rebellion caused mass hardship in the countryside and eventually a famine in large parts of Russia and Ukraine. It was only timely American assistance that prevented an even greater catastrophe. It is nonetheless estimated that 5 million people died of starvation." http://www.fpri.org/footnotes/1217.200706.satter.sovietgulag.html would this do? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, instead of the link you provided, could you provide a reliable source for your assertions. I do not like it not because I do not like the contents but because it is an unreliable source. TFD (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, frankly, I have no idea what relation your last post has to the subject (secret tests of poisons). Use of poison gas by Tukhachevsky has nothing to do with these tests, simply because it occurred earlier.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

@paul, actually it did exist, "1921: First poison laboratory within the Soviet secret services was established under the name "Special Office". @tfd, a yale published moscow correspondent and author is unreliable? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, the source is the Foreign Policy Research Institute, which was formerly led by Daniel Pipes. David Satter is Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution. These are partisan, not scholarly, institutions, and to make things worse they have been wrong too often about too many things, from the Cold War to the War in Iraq. Being a professor does not mean, like Jesus, that everthing that proceedeth out of one's mouth is gospel. Find a reliable source where he published his thoughts. When someone presents views outside the academic process, they are not reliable sources. Do you really believe that mainstream academics would believe something just because it had been published in a neoconservative or for that matter liberal magazine? BTW, Joseph Goebbels had a doctorate from Heidelberg University, but that does not mean that everything he wrote is reliable. TFD (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, is there any evidence that (i) by 1921 this secret laboratory was different from similar laboratories that existed in other European countries (where mustard gas was invented), and (ii) the gases used by Tukhachevsky were not those used by all parties during WWI, but were developed and produced in this secret lab and (iii) these gases were used as a part of secret program devoted to tests of new toxic substances? If yes, the link is relevant, if not, your arguments are fully irrelevant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"is there any evidence that (i) by 1921 this secret laboratory was different from similar laboratories that existed in other European countries" 1. how is that relevant? the article is about communist, not Europeans. wasn't the majority of the ussr in asia anyway?

2. why does it matter the type of gas was used to kill? the result is the same no matter how many different regimes produced it. 3. the facts remain, soviets tested gas on humans, and gassed humans outside of the lab/test environment. the article about poison appears to be relevant. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: "1. how is that relevant? " Because if this was just an ordinary poison gas laboratory (which seems to be highly plausible, because poison gases were widely used by all WWI parties and were not banned by that moment, Geneva Protocol was signed only in 1925) then the fact that such a laboratory was established is not something outstanding.

Re: "2. why does it matter the type of gas was used to kill?" If the gas used during Tambov rebellion was from the stocks remaining from WWI (which is very probable), then this fact has nothing to do with the secret laboratory;

Re: "3. the facts remain, soviets tested gas on humans, and gassed humans outside of the lab/test environment. " Noone questions these facts, the problem is that I don't see the relevance of these facts to the mass killings of non-combatants under communist regimes.

I cannot understand your logic. If I understand your correct, your premises are: (i) the poison laboratory was established in Soviet Russia in 1921; (ii) in the same year some rebels were gassed during anti-partisan warfare in Central Russia; (iii) new substances were being tested on humans as a part of some secret program devoted to development of new poisons for GPU/NKVD/KGB, although the amount of victims is unknown. Based on that you conclude that the article about these tests is relevant to the "Communist mass killings" article. I definitely see no linkage.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

PS. Re: "the article is about communist" No. The article is about mass killings under Communist regimes. Please stick with the article's subject and explain me what is the relation of this link to the subject.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, can you provide reliable sources that support your claim? TFD (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

@paul 1. i still am not sure what Geneva has to do with whether or not the gas/poisons killed people, or if other regimes killed people. no one is disputing whether or not the soviets had the legal right to kill prisoners. i think we both agree the lab killed people, we seem to be stuck on how many constitutes a "mass". my larger point is the soviets killed massive amounts of people in a variety of ways, each deserves mention here, unless it is your opinion that only the killing where machine guns mowed down herds of people in seconds be included here. is there a time/location/kill ratio at play here, is so, it would be helpful to define

@tfd, yes, see the sources listed in the lab article, challenge/remove any you feel inaccurate. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, I get into the same disputes with American liberals too. Dr. X is a professor at Harvard etc. and therefore what he said on Saturday Night Live belongs in the article. Let us keep to reliable sources and forget all the polemical writings. TFD (talk) 05:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

kinda a moot point since the gassings and the gas/poison lab cant be linked. ironic tho both happened in 1921 cccp under the same command eh? Darkstar1st (talk) 06:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: "my larger point is the soviets killed massive amounts of people in a variety of ways, each deserves mention here" Yes, each separate case of mass killings can be mentioned. However, that does not mean that each case of (non-mass) killing (or of killings of combatants) can be combined together in this article to reach an impression that it was a single event of mass killing of non-combatants. Whereas links to the articles devoted to some separate mass killing cases can be added to this articles, the link you advocate tells nothing about the scale of killing, so it is your burden of proof to demonstrate that it tells about mass killings (more than 50,000 for 5 years or less). With regard to Tambov rebellion, please, keep in mind that the gases were used against combatants, the gases were not banned by international laws, so according to those times' laws there were no difference between usage of them and, e.g. anti-infantry mines.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

What we need is a source that says that mass killings of some sort happened there. Otherwise I don't think this article would be improved by marginal or doubtful inclusions. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Paul you have made your case well. i have nothing to prove the lab killed 5000 people in under 5 years. until evidence surfaces or the rumored mass gulag deaths related to this lab, consider the topic hibernated. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Good. I am ready to renew this discussion when (or if) new reliable sources on the subject will be available.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

PS. A similar link to North Korean experiments (this poorly sourced article tells nothing about mass killing) should be removed also. I believe, noone minds me to do that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

For North we just have Rummel's estimates with no details about how he derived them or how accepted they are, which makes this section POV. TFD (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

According to professor Michael Ellman...

The words:

"According to professor Michael Ellman, the National operations of the NKVD, which targeted "national contingents" (foreign ethnicities), such as Poles, Ethnic Germans, Koreans, etc., may constitute genocide as defined by the UN convention."

are taken out of context. The full quote is:

"It should be noted that there are other actions of Team-Stalin in the 1930s that might well qualify as genocide as defined in the UN Convention. In particular this concerns the ‘national operations’ of 1937 – 38 (but not the victims of the operation against the ‘Harbintsy’ since these were former railway workers rather than an ethnic group). Of these, the ‘Polish operation’, which led to 111,000 death sentences, seems to have been the biggest (Petrov & Roginskii 2003). There are three objections to treating the ‘Polish operation’ as genocide. The first is that NKVD order no. 00485 of 11 August 1937 (the order for the ‘Polish operation’) does not explicitly target Poles as such, but only members of a (former and in 1937 already for many years non-existent) Polish organisation, POV and certain specific groups of Poles.38 However, in implementing order 00485, NKVD officers interpreted it as an order to arrest Poles (since they could not arrest members of POV because nonexistent members of non-existent organisations cannot be arrested). In its implementation it was predominantly an example of killing people (and sending them to the Gulag) based on their ethnicity.39 The second objection to treating the ‘Polish operation’ as genocide is that only a minority of Soviet Poles were victims of it. According to the 1937 census there were 636,000 Poles in the USSR in January 1937, but the number of persons sentenced in the ‘Polish operation’ was ‘only’ about 140,000 or 22%. Whether this is enough to meet the UN Convention criterion of ‘in whole or in part’ depends on the interpretation of ‘in part’ (see above).40 The third objection that many of those sentenced (about a third) in the ‘Polish operation’ were not in fact ‘Poles’ (Petrov & Roginsky 2003, pp. 166 – 171). Since no legal tribunal to try the crimes of Stalinism has been established, there is as yet no authoritative ruling on the legal characterisation of the ‘Polish operation’ and the other ‘national operations’ of 1937 – 38"

In addition, in actuality the Ellman's article, as well as his conclusions, are much more general. According to him, at least two different definitions of genocide exist, strict (UNO convention) and loose, and one can come to different conclusions depending of which one is used. He concluded that whereas Stalin's action fit a loose definition of genocide,

".... such a broad definition would mean that genocide was no longer a rare and uniquely horrible offence. A large number of historical events would become genocides (Jones 2006), ranging from the expansion of the Zulu kingdom in early nineteenth century South Africa, to the Atlantic slave trade, the European colonisation of the Caribbean islands and American continent, the atom bomb on Nagasaki (and possibly also the one on Hiroshima), and the economic sanctions of the 1990s against Iraq. This also means that countries such as Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, UK and USA, which participated in or were responsible for one or more of the events in the above list, would become guilty of genocide."

I removed the above words because they have been wrongly attributed to Prof. Ellman.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well. The words have been restored without discussion. I am waiting for explanations of that step on the talk page, otherwise I'll remove them again.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Um, like there is a big difference between "may constitute genocide as defined by the UN convention," which is how I paraphrased Ellman, and what he actually said: "might well qualify as genocide as defined in the UN Convention. In particular this concerns the ‘national operations’ of 1937 – 38." Nothing is taken out of context here.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I can not believe that I might know the subtle difference between "might" and "may" better than native English speakers. If that were the case, then I might believe you that you did not take the phrases out of context or did not change their meaning. But I am afraid I may not. (Igny (talk) 00:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC))

The issue is not only in might/may. Ellman cites (i) the claim, (ii) three objections to this claim and (iii) some objections to these objections, and, finally, (iv) he concludes that it is not possible to legally characterize these events ("genocide" is a legal term); it is not easy to extract his own position from that. He tries to be neutral (and he succeeds in doing that). By contrast, C.J. Griffin arbitrary takes only one piece of the text (#i), attributes it to Ellman (although it is not clear from the text if it is the Ellman's own opinion or he cites others) and presents it as a correct transmission of the article's idea. That is exactly what is called selective or arbitrary citing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is correct. Ellman raises the theoretical possibility of an argument, but that is all. We would need a source that positively support the argument. --FormerIP (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

In addition, Ellman does not explicitly discuss national operations others than Polish. However, I think this source does positively support some argument, although the argument is different. The argument is that, although it has been proposed that the national operation (Polish) had some traits of genocide, no decisive arguments can be proposed that unequivocally support or refute this point of view. IMO, we don't have to find a source that support existing article's assertion, but we have to bring the article in accordance with what existing sources state.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom

I have commented on the conduct of an editor of this page (and cited another editor) here. Further and more informed comments are welcome.

1. Michael Ellman, Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932–33 Revisited Europe-Asia Studies, Routledge. Vol. 59, No. 4, June 2007, 663–693. PDF file

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class history articles
• Low-importance history articles
• History articles needing attention
• WikiProject History articles
• Unassessed politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class Human rights articles
• Mid-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• C-Class socialism articles
• Mid-importance socialism articles
• WikiProject Socialism articles
• Old requests for peer review