Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

My Talk Archives

User talk:Paul Siebert/OldArchive/2010/June

Welcome!

Hello, Paul Siebert, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Arnoutf (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks your thoughtful and helpful comments at WW2 discussion. I'll soon respond there. Regards. Communicat (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we might have met personally in London, in the distant past -- Think Kings Cross / student essays / things people do for money -- about 20 years ago. If I'm not mistaken your Phd thesis had something to do with comparing WW1 with WW2, the former as a labour-intensive war, the latter as capital intensive. If you're not the same Paul Phd, my apologies. Regards. Communicat (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, not. I am not a professional historian and my PhD had nothing to do with history. Let me also point out that, in my opinion, the style you conduct your discussion on the WWII talk page in not satisfactory: in actuality people are much more friendly than you think. Try to focus on providing more concrete arguments and more sources, and avoid general comments on the article as whole (which in general is in a good shape) and on concrete editors. Otherwise, your activity will have the effect opposite to what you want to achieve. BTW, I myself is not fully satisfied with this article, but I believe its improvement can be done gradually and in much peaceful manner.
Cheers,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunatly, Paul Siebert, you have difficulties to define , what is a curriculum is [[1]] and thinks that it should be written by students.In what field you earned his PhD.If I may ask?Celasson (talk) 13:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is the first warning to stop vandalize the article GULAG.Celasson (talk) 13:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul, I don't have much of a dog in this fight but this edit [2] (in particular the "notorious bands in the service of the Polish army") is quite POV and inflammatory. Another concern is that it conflates two distinct issues: 1) A "notable victory". The part which says Perhaps the most notable victory of the Bułak-Bałachowicz's group took place on September 26, when its forces once again broke through enemy lines and captured Pinsk. The city was the most important rail road junction in the area and was planned as the last stand of the Bolshevik forces still fighting to the west of that city. After it was lost, the Red Army central front collapsed and the withdrawal turned into a panic retreat. This text is obviously about the importance of the military operation concerned and it describes a tactical/military victory. The part which you added; committed a series of Jewish pogroms (sic). There were hundreds of victims of rape and murder in Pinsk and in the vicinity. is about what happened afterwards (like I said, I don't have much of a dog in this fight). At the very least, both things should be described - the military importance of the capture of Pinsk by BB and then what happened afterwards. Regardless, wording such as "notorious bands in the service of the Polish army" needs to be obviously avoided. This edit is also very uncharacteristic of you, if I may say so.radek (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This wording was taken from the cited source, I just slightly softened it. Since nothing is said in the article about anti-Semite atrocities of Bułak-Bałachowicz, I think this wording should stay. In addition, the source tells that Bułak-Bałachowicz's "bands" just entered a city after withdrawal of the the Soviet troops, so the role of Bułak-Bałachowicz in Pinsk capture is controversial. In any event, the role of Bułak-Bałachowicz in pogroms should be described in more details.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, ok. Two separate issues. One is how the military operation should be described. And the wording that was there which you removed addressed that. So even, if the text added is legit, that is not a reason to remove the text that was there before. If you want to discuss the "controversial" participation of BB in the capture of Pinsk then the text should be about the controversial capture of Pinsk by BB. There's no reason to remove the text that was there before.

The second, separate, issue is the participation of BB's troops in any kind of pogroms that took place. I agree that if there are sources for this then they should be included. But this is a separate aspect from the military importance of the capture of Pinsk which you removed. I'll look at the sources later.radek (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, there is already an article on the Pinsk massacre - so just linking to it, while discussing the military operations, would probably be sufficient.radek (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for removal of the text was that it, as well as most of the article is unsourced. I replaced a piece of unsourced text with the text taken from a reliable source that states that:

"The cruel excesses committed on Jews by the notorious bands of General Bulak-Balachowicz in the service of the Polish army, which entered Pinsk in October 1920 after the evacuation of the Soviet troops, constitute another chapter of the martyrdom of the sorely tried Jewish community. There were hundreds of victims of rape and murder in Pinsk and in the vicinity."

Regarding sources in general, the situation is as follows: there is almost no English sources about Stanisław_Bułak-Bałachowicz. In this situation, the article should rely on other sources. What sources they could be? In my opinion, Jewish, Polish, Russian and Belorussian sources should be represented equally, because the Bułak-Bałachowicz's activity affected the representatives of all these nations. Obviously, the description of such a controversial figure would depend on the source's language. Thus, Jewish source describes him as a bandit and criminal, Russian sources tell about him as about filcher, bandit and advenchurer, contemporary Polish and Belorussian as about a talented commander or a national hero, accordingly. The article in its present form is a nationalist Polish-Belorussian views. That should be fixed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Pinsk massacre, the source tells about it separately. The extended quote is below:

"Then came the horrible day of April 5th 1919, when 35 Jews who had gathered in the Beth Am at a meeting on relief activities were dragged out by Polish soldiers, put against the cloister wall and mercilessly executed. The cruel excesses committed on Jews by the notorious bands of General Bulak-Balachowicz in the service of the Polish army, which entered Pinsk in October 1920 after the evacuation of the Soviet troops, constitute another chapter of the martyrdom of the sorely tried Jewish community. There were hundreds of victims of rape and murder in Pinsk and in the vicinity."

In other words, according to the source, the atrocity of Bulak-Balachowicz's "bands", which were just "in the service of the Polish army" was a separate event that took place after the Pinsk massacre proper(which, according to the source, was committed by regular Polish Army).. In addition, the word "notorious" means that Bulak-Balachowicz's troops were known to commit such pogroms systematically.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Ok, I'm probably not being clear. Your edit [[3] replaced text which was already in the article with new text. This means that there's two issues here. First, whether or not the text that was already there in the first place deserved to be removed. Second, whether or not the text you replaced it with is NPOV. It's sort of like two-reverts-in-one. My sense is that the answers are no, and no. But let's leave the second issue - of the text you inserted - out of it for a second. The first issue - that the capture of Pinsk was a notable military phenomenon in the war under discussion - is important in and of itself and therefore should remain in the article. Hence I am going to put it back in, though keeping the text you added (for now). The second issue - the pogrom that might have happened and how to describe it - we can deal with afterwards. Do you agree with this?radek (talk) 04:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it seems that there is no agreement between sources about the role of Bułak-Bałachowicz in capture of Pinsk. At least one source states that his troops just entered the city after evacuation of Soviet troops. How do you propose to resolve this issue?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gulag. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. VQuakr (talk) 03:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Paul Siebert. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Doc9871 (talk) 12:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mass suicide in Demmin-a very strange article. Perhaps you know some sources about this story which could make the article more neutral.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites the Goeschel's book, although only the number of victims has been taken from here. I found the article written by the same author (Suicide at the End of the Third Reich Author(s): Christian GoeschelSource: Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 41, No. 1 (Jan., 2006), pp. 153-173) where he analysed the causes of mass suicides in Germany and explains them mostly not in connection with the Red Army's atrocities.

"It is perhaps this wave of suicides, a highly individual phenomenon that sheds light on wider trends and mentalities, which illustrates very clearly the violent breakdown of German society in 1945 that included the collapse of moral, psychological and religious norms and values.00 For the mass of Germans, life had been restructured to promote an eventually suicidal war campaign, and when this failed, the prohibition on suicide was lifted, and killing oneself became culturally and socially acceptable in a culture of suicide in defeat.1'0 The lack of hope in the future was felt by the German people in general, and found expression in the common fears and common language they used to describe them. With each suicide having a profound impact on friends, families and relatives, they all had to come to terms with their losses on a very personal and emotional level. Since the suicide epidemic mainly occurred in East Germany, it is reasonable to speculate that the emotional and psychological burden on those in the East was much greater and drastic than on those in West Germany."

In connection to that, I believe the stress which has been made on the atrocities committed by Soviet military (with has been made using standard cliches) seems to be redundant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is another aspect to this; the number of women committing suicide is often used as proof of "Mass rape of German women by Soviet Red Army" and of the barbarity of the rapists. The truth seems to be that suicidality was part of the Nazi psyche, like Hitler they just could not stand defeat. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This does not contradict to what I read. However, none of the sources I read draw this conclusion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a useful source.

• Christian Goeschel (2009). Suicide in Nazi Germany. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0199532567.

You do not seem to have email enabled. Can you email me. I am drafting something and would need help with sources. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. – In fact Molobo has started an article at Mass suicides in 1945 Nazi Germany. He seems to have the book, as he is using it as his primary source. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.P. – I thought the photo on the book cover was staged, but in fact it is authentic, see here File:Leipzigsuicide.jpg. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The book seems to be an extended version of the article I quoted on the top of the section.

I disabled my email after notorious EEML case to eliminate any possibility to communuicate with me off-Wiki. I personally see no problem with off-Wiki communication between good faith users (and also I saw no problem with off-Wiki communication between EEML members per se, provided that they use it for creation of good context, not for falcification of the consensus procedure). However, taking into account the recent development of the EEML issue, and, whereas I don't see why good faith editors cannot contact openly, I prefer to avoid any e-mail contacts (and do not recommend you to do that). If you experience problems with sources, please, let me know. I have an access to some databases and I believe I will be able to provide you with needed refs and quotes (if they exist; otherwise, I'll let you know that such sources do not exist, or represent minority views, so they should be treated with cautions).
Sincerely, --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Request for mediation concerning World War II (overview article), to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 20:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Sorry if there was any edit conflict...did not realizes you were editing the page at the same time... All good ..Moxy (talk) 04:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:-)
--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[4] As of January 31, 1951, the amnesty legislation had benefited 792,176 people. They included people with six-month sentences, but also about 35,000 people with sentences of up to one year who were released on parole. Frei specifies that these figures include a bit more than 3,000 functionaries of the SA, the SS, and the Nazi Party who participated in dragging victims to jails and camps; 20,000 other Nazi perpetrators sentenced for "deeds against life" (presumably murder); 30,000 sentenced for causing bodily injury, and about 5,200 charged with "crimes and misdemeanors in office

Btw-the Denazification article on Wiki needs serious rewrite to be more informative and neutral.Right now it is very apologetic, with claims inserted like "witch hunt" regarding denazification.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I found some sources on that account, and I will try to do something in close future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I have some sources of my own regarding acceptence of Nazis in West Germany and protection of war criminals, so I can certainly contribute to this article and cooperate with you on expanding it.Have a good day.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Spanish cruiser Vizcaya might well have qualified as the most powerful war ship on the Atlantic, if only her armor had not been breached by the main guns of U.S. battleships Texas, Iowa, Oregon, and Indiana and the armored cruiser USS Brooklyn.

More at Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes#According to professor Michael Ellman.... -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)'[reply]

Agreed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read trough the original source you provided and immediately realized that I had seen this wreck of a straw man argument before on Wikipedia (see right). Anyway, here is a barnstar for you. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. – I do not think tendentious editing is the right expression – that is what the article is full of. I think this is a more willful misrepresentation of sources. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your resilience in verifying sources. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[5] I knew there were previous discussions, but I had no idea where to even start to look. Great job finding them so quickly! Jmlk17 17:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-) --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Paul I've concluded my research do you mind popping over and reading what I've found? Chandler's book was written in 1966 and his line seems to be in line with the historiography of the Soviet period at that time. We need to discuss it a bit.Tirronan (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the work you have done is generally good, although some issues still remain. Firstly, the lede still reflects only the Riehn's position. I also see some inconsistency in the infobox: if the battle was French victory, how can it be a French strategic loss? IMO, if the sources don't tell otherwise, the outcome should be "tactical victory" and "strategically indecisive" (neither French nor Russian strategic situation changed appreciably as a result of the battle). --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Soviet flag on the Reichstag roof Khaldei.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. J Milburn (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to add a section based on what I read in German 1945. I'll publish it on the talk page first so changes can be made.

Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you intend to change the section heading here? VernoWhitney (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Have no idea how did it happen.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, I don't know if we will prevail as to the "photo issue". Irregardless of the outcome, we should write a stub or article as to the "raising the flag over the Reichstag photo" such has been done with that other iconic photo from WWII (by other editors) of US Marines in the PTO, Raising the flag on Iwo Jima. We could then put the photo you have obtained up and link it to the "Battle of Berlin" article. What do you think? Kierzek (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an alternative (File:SovieticsAtBrandenburg.jpg), but I really do not understand, how this could be {{PD-self}}! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is hardly {{PD-self}}. If I am not wrong, last time when I looked at this photo, it was not PD-self. More importantly, we need the Reichstag and nothing else: the taking of the Reichstag was the political goal #1 since 1943; it effectively marked the end of the WWII in Europe, and that fact is important enough to warrant inclusion of the photography of this event into the WWII related articles.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I made that edit I was restoring the Talk page to Nick-D's version. [6] I was acting under the impression that Communicat had refactored Nick-D's comments. Apologies for the misunderstanding. Edward321 (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see what you are talking about. I accidentally removed this. [7] Apologies, I clearly screwed up there. Edward321 (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it was done by accident.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, just drop it. You're really starting to wear me down, which would hardly constitute a reasonable conclusion. We don't need these masses of debate- please, you know more about this topic than me, you'd easily be able to resolve this issue in minutes if you wanted to. Why do we have to go through all this? Are you enjoying it? I'm certainly not... J Milburn (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be egocentric. For me, it is also not a light chat. I am also somewhat tied. However, we need to end this dispute with some general agreement, because I have a feeling that in future we may encounter each other on WP pages again and again, and similar dispute will be resumed. I propose to take a break for few days to allow passions to settle down. During this period I promise not to undertake any actions regarding this image, and expect you to do the same. I have to think not only about new arguments for the future dispute, but also about possible solutions, which would take into account some of your concerns. Agreed?--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS. The words "you'd easily be able to resolve this issue in minutes if you wanted to" are a hidden accusation in bad faith. Although such words have no effect on me, I advise you to moderate your tone in future discussions which involve other editors: you lose your patience too frequently(I mean, too frequently for an experienced editor and administrator). Try to be more friendly, peoples in actuality are better than you think. :-) --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was no egocentricism, and there's no assumption of bad faith here. I just don't know why we need to go on and on and on and on. We should all be doing our best to minimise non-free content- we should never ask the question "Am I allowed to use this here?" we should always be asking the question "can I get away without using this here?" J Milburn (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, we two belong to two different camps, and, accordingly, we see the purposes of Wikipedia differently. You goal is to make Wikipedia as free as possible, although you don't mind it to be a good encyclopaedia, whereas place these two tasks in a reverse order. Your position has nothing in common with a desire to protect Wikipedia from possible lawsuits: for instance, you opposed to inclusion of the Rosental's photo into the Iwo Jima article despite the fact that AP explicitly granted a right to use this photo for WP purposes, so the usage of this photo will not result in any lawsuits against Wikipedia. I have to say I understand your position, moreover, in this particular case I share it: the Battle of Iwo Jima article has a lot of good free photos which cover all important aspects of the battle (including the free photo of the flag on Suribachi). Moreover, we have a US postal stamp there, which is in actuality a precise and detailed reproduction of the Rosental's photo (which makes, in my opinion, the former to be a derivative work of the latter, however, I don't care). In other words, in this situation we probably have a good opportunity to create the article which is totally free from any non-free media (although, in my opinion, the last word belongs to those users who work on this article and are more familiar with the subject). Note, I agree with you in this particular case not because you are formally right, but because I feel that the absence of the Rosental's photo is really not detrimental for the article, and the article's ability to achieve its educational and encyclopaedic purposes is not affected (or just negligibly affected) by the removal of this photo.

In other words, I think that the main problem with your vision of the issue is your belief that formal application of the policy without going into details of every particular article gives you a correct and indisputable answer about the fate of one or another non-free image. This position is deeply flawed in my opinion, firstly, because WP policy was not conceived as a collection of formal rules, and, secondly, because formal application of policy rules is harmful for Wikipedia.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Well, you've misjudged my position, my intentions and the nature of the NFCC in one fell swoop, there. If our positions are really as incompatible as you make out, just give up now, stop wasting my time... Frankly, I'm not interested in dealing with editors who suggest that I "don't mind [Wikipedia] to be a good encyclopaedia". J Milburn (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take offence. In actuality, I just tried to explain you how your position looks like: your behaviour on the BoB talk page creates an impression that the quality of this WP article is not your primary concern. It is very good if I was wrong. Again, I propose you to think about my words and ask yourself: if several editors who worked on WWII related articles for a very long time strongly oppose to removal of this particular photo (note, I never opposed to removal of any other non-free photo so persistently and stubbornly, you may check my history if you have any doubts), then, probably, there is some serious reason behind that, which you overlooked?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that the photo is important- I see several articles in which the photo/variants of the photo are used absolutely legitimately. The thing is that it can't simply come down to "those users who work on this article and are more familiar with the subject" to make judgements on issues like this- for a start, their involvement with the article automatically means that they look at the issue in a different way. It's comparable to how we ask outside editors to copyedit. Equally, the editors of the article may not fully understand/care about the particular policy issues. For instance, at a recent FAC, an editor thought it was "a shame" that a copyright violation would end up deleted, and continually asked reviewers to ignore the images, and focus on the prose, when the images were (at that time) the real problem. Equally (and I speak with first-hand experience here) people can often be a little more willing to include things like non-free content, trivial information, plot information and so on in their own articles, while they would support the removal (or even actively remove) comparable material in other places. J Milburn (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your "...people can often be a little more willing to include things..." As I already said, I never opposed to justified attempts to delete non-free images from the articles I work on, and you had an opportunity to see that I am always ready to find a free replacement for non-free images (even when such replacement is not fully adequate). For instance, I noticed that something is wrong with one of the original images the EF collage is made from. I am going to fix it in close future (in connection to that, please, do me a favour, don't remove this collage from the EF infobox: I remember about this problem and I'll replace it with something else soon.) Consequently, this your argument does not work here, moreover, that adds additional points to my position: since my attitude towards non-free media is reasonable in general, the fact that I oppose to the removal of this particular image means that there is something here that you overlooked.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, it does, but I think you misunderstood what I was saying- people can generally be more inclined to include NFC in their own articles, while still fully respecting the NFCC elsewhere. Originally (if you'll excuse the very trivial subject matter...) I used an image that was completely unwarranted in Connie Talbot, while spending a lot of time cleaning up other non-free content. It's harder to look with objective eyes at articles on which you have worked- that's why processes like GAC/FAC exist. It would be a little silly if we just left that to "those users who work on this article and are more familiar with the subject". J Milburn (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't misunderstood, just didn't make myself clear enough. Of course, you are right, an opinion of non-involved person is sometimes very important and helpful, however it does not mean his word has always to be the last one. In most cases it has to: as a rule, when someone replaces non-free images with free alternatives (even of poorer quality) or even removes these images, neither I nor other editors take any steps to revert that. I am watchlisting most Eastern Europe related history articles and I see that many images, which appeared to be non-free, are gradually disappearing form there. I do not oppose to this process, and I see that other editors also take no steps to prevent that. However, that does not mean that we all accept the idea that the last word always belongs to non-involved editors whose decision is based mostly on the (formally understood) NFCC rules. And this particular case is a rare exception.

I cannot say this image is non-replaceable. I know several alternatives, however, all of them are not free. That is a major problem of the EF related article: the photos are scarce, and even those few photos which are available are non-free per new Russian legislation. I know Russian WP even send a request to adjust Russian copyright law to make usage of this images possible in Wikipedia, however, I doubt something will be done in reasonable future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to the first- if they're on Commons as CC from the German archive, they're fine for our purposes. I have no opinion on the wider issue, I can't say it's anything I really know about. In answer to the second- yes, but, that's not necessarily the same thing as "public domain". J Milburn (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This caught my eye. The claim in the hook seems pretty stunning. Maybe you will find it interesting too. In case you have expertise about the subject, I'm wondering what your opinion about the claim is? Offliner (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a review of the source used. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that some plans existed to bomb Baku is well known. However, the way the article is written is hardly correct. The information is presented in such a way that a reader gets an impression that only German actions against the USSR and France prevented the bombing. However, in actuality even after Sept 1 1939 Britain still hoped that the USSR would eventually become the British ally, so the British policy towards the USSR was "frigid, but non-provocative" (I can provide sources if necessary). The attack of Baku would contradict to British grand strategy, so this attack was considered as possible, but unlikely step.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt there would have been voices who hoped that the USSR would eventually become an ally of the British, which you can no doubt find sources for. There were also those who advocated making peace with Nazi Germany too, remember the Munich Agreement? The fall of France was a game changer, it is Osborn's conclusion that this effectively stopped the operation. Recall that the British attacked the French fleet in Operation Catapult as a result, so it really isn't inconceivable that Britain was seriously going to attack the Soviet Union in 1940. Osborn documents that this operation had gone beyond the planning stage; serious preparation was being undertaken: airfields being built, bombs stockpiled, aircraft transferred and recon flights undertaken. Osborn also mentions Churchill's long standing anti-Bolshevism, his strong advocacy of foreign intervention in the Russian Civil War, etc, as a factor affecting his thinking too. --Martin (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the professional and balanced discussion about GULAG statisticts! I had a similar discussion regarding the Russian Wikipedia article on stalinist repressions (it is a pity that such an comprehensive if unfinished article (ru:Сталинские репрессии) with numbers of victims per categories and different sources is missing in the English wiki).

I would just write what I wrote in the Russian Wikipedia discussions about the number of victims - in an English-language album about the Holocaust it is written that the arguments about the corect number of victims actual dininish the value of EACH perished life. If you say that Solzhenitsin's or Conquest's estimates are exagerrated and the official archive figures should be trusted it does not mean that you try to acquit Stalin. Olegwiki (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree that the discussion of the number of victims should be more detailed in English Wikipedia. I believe the Russian article will be helpful for that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul, Would you be able to provide a citation to support the material you reverted back to here? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 08:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are:

1. Земское В.Н. К вопросу о репатриации советских граждан. 1944-1951 годы // История СССР. 1990. № 4 (Zemskov V.N. On repatriation of Soviet citizens. Istoriya SSSR., 1990, No.4. This is the article from the late Soviet/Russian scientific journal. The figures I refer to have been taken from this and other articles of this scholar. Unfortunately, this concrete article is in Russian, so it would be senseless to provide a quote here. However, Zemskov's data are being widely used by Western colleagues, e.g.
2. Edwin Bacon. Glasnost' and the Gulag: New Information on Soviet Forced Labour around World War II. Source: Soviet Studies, Vol. 44, No. 6 (1992), pp. 1069-1086.
3. Michael Ellman. Soviet Repression Statistics: Some Comments. Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 54, No. 7 (Nov., 2002), pp. 1151-1172.

Although these authors do not reproduce the figures on ex-POWs, they confirm existence of special filtration camps, which were different from GULAG camps, they confirm that many of the filtration camps' inmates were sent home (although they add a reservation that those who died in these camps were also considered to be sent home: "The postwar filtration statistics, which purport to show that as of 1 March 1946, out of the 4.2 million people checked, 58% had been sent home, include those who died in the filtration camps among those 'sent home'." Ellmann, op. cit.). In addition, these, as well as other authors, including even late Conquest, widely use other Zemskov's figures, and do not question reliability of the data obtained by Zemskov. See, e.g., the Edwin Bacon's conclusion about the documents used by Zemskov:

"The arguments in favour of the archive revelations' worth are strong. The possibility of their being a recent fabrication is virtually inconceivable, as several scholars have worked from them, and in any case the atmosphere of glasnost' prevailing in the last years of the Soviet Union militates against a convincing motive for such subterfuge. Therefore, genuine secret state documents of the era are being dealt with. It may be supposed that the authorities wished to have the correct facts available to them, and hence sought to ensure that the reported figures were reliable and comprehensive. Many of the data, notably with regard to the labour settlers, sub-divide the numbers involved in terms of gender, age, nationality, offence of which they were convicted and geographical location. The various types of forced labour and definitions of categories also serve to increase knowledge in a previously sketchy area." (op. cit.)

I think what should be said in the article is that "Soviet ex-POWs and repatriated civilians were treated with great suspect as potential Nazi collaborators, and that some of them were sent to GULAG upon check by NKVD." --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Paul. A rate of 42% of 4.2 million people being sent to prison camps seems higher than the wording "some of them" implies though. It might be best to quote this statistic in the text. Nick-D (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood the quote. Neither Zemskov nor Ellman implied that all the repatriants were send either home or to GULAG. The actual state of things was much more complex. In actuality, a full statistics is as follows:

Results of the checks and the filtration of the repatriants (by 1 March 1946)
Categogy	Total	%	Civilian	%	POWs	%
Sent home (including those who died in custody)	2,427,906	57.81	2,146,126	80.68	281,780	18.31
Conscripted	801,152	19.08	141,962	5.34	659,190	42.82
Sent to labour battalions of the Ministry of Defence	608,095	14.48	263,647	9.91	344,448	22.37
Sent to NKVD (spetskontingent)	272,867	6.50	46,740	1.76	226,127	14.69
Were waiting for transportation and worked in Soviet military units abroad	89,468	2.13	61,538	2.31	27,930	1,81
Totally:	4,199,488		2,660,013		1,539,475

You can see how deceptive statistics can be: although only 58% of the repatriants were released (and some of them in actuality died by that moment), only 6.5% were to NKVD as spetskontingent (the latter not necessarily meant they were sent to GULAG: sometimes, very frequently, that meant just 6-year exile to remote parts of the USSR.). The discrepancy between the number of sent home and the number of spetskontingent is quite simple: the heavily devastated country simply could not afford a luxury to allow these people just to go home and recover. Many ex-POWs and young civilian were conscripted to serve in the Red Army, others worked in labour battalions to rebuilt the infrastructure destroyed during the war. The labour battalions were closer to military service rather than to GULAG, and, accordingly, these battalions were run by the Ministry (Narkomat) of Defence. Of course, according to contemporary moral norms such a treatment of the peoples who survived in German captivity was inhuman, however, it is necessary to take into account that other Soviet people suffered in about the same extent during the war, therefore, our contemporary criteria of humanism are simply inapplicable to those time situation.

In addition, you have to agree that 226,127 real or alleged Nazi-collaborators out of more than 30 million of serving in the Red Army during a four years period is a quite realistic figure.

The number of those who died in filtration camps (i.e. of those who was released but didn't arrive home) was 32,381. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for that Paul; I agree with your wording in light of those statistics. It might be best to copy and paste this discussion to Talk:World War II so there's a rationale for the change. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Paul Siebert (talk) 11:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Paul Nick-D (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here mark nutley (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you verify the source here on Trotsky stating statements about Lenin's famous quote? Is it a valid RS for the following stament anyway?

It is said that when he heard of the execution Lenin calmly replied, "There is another way," never becoming involved in a plot to kill the Tsar or other high officials. Leon Trotsky, though, states it is highly unlikely that Lenin made the statement, knowing that Lenin was a supporter of terrorism until the early 1890s,

(Igny (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Paul, I belatedly responded to more than one of your posts about the POV template. TFD suggested that the way I did it might be easily overlooked, so here is the diff. (I have noticed your response to one part of my responses, but just in case you didn't see the others...) Thanks. AmateurEditor (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing. Please, read my last post there [8]. Although it is not a direct responce to your post, it probably may help to come to some consensus.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from WP:RPA "Removal of text

There is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate. Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack."

I'd say being described as an apologist for terrorism is a personal attack. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a personal attack. It is a legal threat. However, since your removal does not work (the text is being restored again), it would be better not to join a talk page edit war.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be right. Per WP:LEGAL, "Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to immediately delete libelous material when it has been identified. If you believe that you are the subject of a libelous statement on Wikipedia, please contact the information team at info-enwikimedia.org." However, again, since the editor persistently re-inserts this materials it would probably be better to leave the text as it is.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep out of this until it is resolved, unless JM repeats the specific remark, or something similar. I'm in no mood to engage in calm debate, but I'll reserve my right to remove any more such personal attacks on me. It would probably be better for non-involved parties to try to sort this mess out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have moved your post to a previous section discussing the same editor, per my action here. I have kept the header used by you as a sub-heading in the existing discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima is not comparable to the Holocaust, though civilians died in both events, one was genocide and the other a military operation against military and naval targets. It was not an action that targeted civilians and therefore the opening section should not state that it was. Whether minor or not that is a matter of opinion but the fact that American air forces targeted military bases is not. Please do not revert my edit. --$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 04:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Holocaust goes first, your edit understates intentionality of the Holocaust, and, therefore, is unacceptable. Try to propose another solution.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't help noticing this above. US Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS) noted that both cities, Nagasaki in particular, were civilian centres and not noteworthy military targets. Communicat (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul, I've started reworking the main Aftermath article (with predictable disruptions by edward321). How 'bout getting involved in improvement of same? Regards. Communicat (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Siebert, please see my response to your post on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. As already stated, all you need to do is retract and apologize for your false statements, and I will retract any of my own statements should it be established beyond reasonable doubt that they can be construed as "offensive" in the context. Regards, Justus Maximus (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion has begun about whether the article Soviet occupations, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet occupations (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. – I went through the edit history, and it seems that all other editors involved in the article are banned. topic banned or have left Wikipedia, so I am only informing you. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like you to know that I am half Russian. I was never told about the genocide by anyone in my family until I wanted to know about it; I could have easily started toward denial of it, especially considering the guilt it has caused. My people raped my boyfriend's grandmother in a concentration camp, and I have to deal with that. Yet I don't deny it. Why are you so focused on minimizing what happened?

No hostility,

--Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 04:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I am not focused on minimising that, just on finding truth. When I looked through the sources, the only source that provided more or less precise numbers was the Johr's book about Berlin. This procedure is reproduced in details on the talk page. Although this procedure is very unreliable, it is the only numerical data available for me. All other sources just repeat this estimate, as well as the Johr's extrapolation to whole Germany, and I doubt we have to reproduce all subsequent exaggerations, which are based on hearsay or even on virtually nothing.

Frankly speaking, the story of rapes per se is a genocide denial. These mass rapes cannot be compared with mass murders of peoples in Eastern Europe committed by the Germans. Even if we exclude the Holocaust, the number of people who were executed, bombed, starved to death etc, far exceeded the number of raped German woman. Yes, these woman were raped, and that was bad. However, taking these events out of their historical context means presenting the Germans as victims, not perpetrators, which means denial of genocide.

We don't have to forget neither rapes, nor their historical context (what the sources do in actuality). Therefore, by writing what it wrote I just restored balance.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no hostility. You just should read more.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, taking these events out of their historical context means presenting the Germans as victims, not perpetrators, which means denial of genocide.

According to that, the Rape during the occupation of Germany must have a section about what happened to Anna Beshnova, otherwise she would be portrayed as a victim rather than a perpetrator. She was a member of the Russian Nazi party, try to think about that.

I once again support adding such a section.

--Нэмка Алэкс/Nemka Alex^Talk 19:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know who Anna Beshnova is, and what is the connection between the "Russian Nazi Party" and rapes of German women. However, if you explained what concretely do you mean, I would be able to express my opinion on that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With its present title the Holodomor article can never be much more than a politicized POV-fork of the Soviet famine of 1932–1933. I think it should instead concentrate on something different: the "Holodomor industry" itself. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Holodomor was a major part of this famine, this term is widely used now, so I see no problems with the title per se. However, this title has become an attractor for various Ukrainian nationalists, and the only thing we can do is to prevent them from converting this article into a piece of nationalist propaganda. I believe we are able to do that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just notifying regular editors who had not yet voiced an opinion. Considering the limited scope of notifications, it's hardly canvassing. Quite frankly I don't know who would and would not be in favor of merger. Limited and neutral notification is not canvassing. I was about to notify user:Snowded as well, but I will refrain. Mamalujo (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CANVASS says that "[P]osting messages to groups of users selected on the basis of their known opinions – for example, sending notifications only to those who supported a particular viewpoint in a previous discussion..." is an example of inappropriate behaviour. You selected JM[9] and Collect[10] on the basis of his opinion. That is highly inappropriate. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notified 2 users, which is limited, my message was neutral - I wasn't campaigning or advocating a position, and finally I don't know what their positions on merger are. And again, I was about to notify one more regular editor at the page, Snowded, who if I recall did not typically agree with the opinions of the other two. I simply though that the regular editors on the page, whatever their opinions, ought to be apprised of the issue. Mamalujo (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taking into account that their position on the discussion's subject is highly predictable, there were no need in non-neutral notifications: the quote provided by me tells nothing about neutrality of the messages posted to the users selected on the basis of their known opinions. Do not be hypocritical, you were campaigning. Of course, that is not a terrible violation, just acknowledge that you violated the rules and refrain from such steps in future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:CANVASS, when the audience is partisan as it is in this case, that is called "votestacking" (Igny (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Generally speaking I've observed that everyone has an opinion. If you don't agree with it, don't consider it "neutral" ("neutral" meaning not tipping the scales in either direction relative to your own opinion) that does not make that person partisan. As I said, a general observation. I've seen too much conflict over the past (nearly) year based on accusations of who sides with whom instead of simply dealing with the fundamental question of whether reputable sources have been selected and whether they have been represented fairly and accurately. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Peters, please, re-read the discussion on the article's talk page and after that tell me if you really believe that the issue is in my disagreement with someone's opinion, or in my or Igny's inability to work with sources? --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just making the general statement that everyone is partisan to their own view; contact among those opposing our views is looked upon as canvassing and vote stacking while contact among those who agree with us is collegial informing. The sooner we stick to sources and stop accusing each other of bad faith quoting WP:WHATEVER complete with wikilinks (even if we feel totally justified) the more time we'll spend on content. The corollary is: if someone's position is not borne out by reputable sources represented fairly and accurately, who cares how many people they contact? If an argument doesn't hold water, it doesn't hold water. Can't comment on the article or this case in particular. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 05:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly speaking, I fully and genuinely agree with all what you say about the importance of the reliable sources. And I am always suspicious about various attempts to count voices not to weight arguments during RfC's, AfD's etc. Unfortunately, that is exactly what closing administrators do, and, therefore, by attracting the attention of your supporters one can win debates even if no fresh arguments have been provided by the persons invited by him. That is the only reason for my objection against canvassing. By the way, have you noticed that I never invite the editors who share my views to work together on articles (I even not speak about invitations to join RfCs)? Moreover, I even disabled my e-mail contact in my account. That was a result of the lessons I drew from the EEML case. From your post I conclude that you also have drawn some important lessons from this case, and I am looking forward to collaborate with you when your topic ban will expire.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I regret that we have not worked together as collaboratively as I hoped given our mutual past experience despite not necessarily agreeing on our editorial or personal views of history. It seems (my perception) that every time a small step forward is taken, you take two steps back making needless disparaging remarks about the deficiencies in the virtue of editors who don't agree with you on your interpretation of sources or events. Personally, I believe you have picked up the tactics of some of the more confrontational editors you have worked with on content over the last year to the detriment of the quality of your work as well as the general collegiality you once maintained despite editorial disagreements. Please don't comment about articles sucking and editors' conduct needing to be examined by the WP community again, such comments are conflagrational, offensive and hurtful—and you know better. It's not enough to remain calm in an argument (per thanks other editors have given you), there is also the need to remain respectful. You and I can exchange comments that my or your viewpoint is personal and not supported by the sources we quote, that is expected in areas of contention. However, your comments escalating the conflict and disparaging editors and putting labels on viewpoints to marginalize them does not fall under the norms of constructive intellectual debate. Best, Pēters PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can use your help on the article, we have a peer review listing what should be done. I've ask everyone else that has cared to join the arguments. If we care enough for that then improving the article should be important too right?Tirronan (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to do my best, although during next week I hardly will be able to devote much time to that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I should mention this because of the issue I had a few weeks ago with my first response.

Maybe I shouldn't have been too strong just now, about the suspicion.

--Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Independently of your ethnicity, it is incorrect to equate a whole nation with animals. In addition, your national identity, your personal experience and the experience of your relatives is totally irrelevant. All WP edits are based on reliable sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I included this in the older reply that I last sent, and it was obscured by the more recent comment.

----

I'm not intending in anyway to say that support for Nazi or Communist propaganda is intentional or negligent. I have had Jewish friends unintentionally express Nazi sympathizer's views on Allied actions, and I didn't blame them for it.

--Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't meant as any kind of criticism or even a complaint, but just wanted to note that I changed my username for a reason and as such I want people to stop using my real life name. Actually I don't have a problem with you in particular using my first name, but I do have that problem with regard to some others, and since I've asked them not to do so, I want to be consistent here. Thanks in advance. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I didn't know what is your real name is, and that you don't want people to use your previous username. In future, I will address to you by your new name.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That quote was made by General Patton, and it was taken from Wikipedia. So you already have it here. Also, I will take your advice and I will not edit that article; it's not worth it when everything you do gets undone by deniers. I have plenty of other topics I can contribute to.

You can delete that last post from the talk page if you want. You seem very intent on changing my comments, yet you can't seem to delete them yourself. This is a wiki.

--Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid not only I can delete all racist crap from all WP namespace, but I must do that. However, I give you a chance to do that by yourself, because, if I'll delete that by myself I'll have to report you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, although the article about Patton does contain this quote, the quite is supplemented with the following commentary:

"Though many of his attitudes were common in his day, as with all of his opinions, he was often exceptionally blunt in his expression of them. He once wrote: " (The quote follows)

I believe, no comments are needed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. ) Russians are not a race.
2. ) I am Russian.

--Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. . Your user page is racist in the same sense as Nazism is considered as racism.
2. If you really are Russian you should be familiar with the Evgeny Shvarts' "The Dragon" [11]. If not, you should read it. Read in any event, because it is a very good play. You should also watch this film [12], made based on this play. I would say, the film is even better (which is rare). I am sure that after watching this film you will realise that your "WWII plan", which you presented on the your talk page, could be implemented only by the dictator more terrible than Hitler and Stalin taken together.

And, in addition, have you ever thought that the idea to kill many people, for the sake of the common good, (which you promote on your user page) was unintentionally borrowed by you from some well known historical person?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS. And, after reading "The Dragon" (which was written in 1942) try to realise that, had your plan been implemented, the author of this play would be dead and the play's text destroyed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only half Russian. I also should remind myself of the progress I am making to stop hating them, and stop self hating.

--Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will be going to other articles to edit more productively. Also, I will be editing the Russian-Holocaust article for Sturmkreig, and portraying the truth.

--Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although Wikipedia is a free encyclopaedia, there are some (few) things that the Wikipedians cannot do. My "censorship" is limited with only these things. Hope to interact with you again on the Rape... and other WP pages.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't have disrupted the site with angry content.

--Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your last post, and I continued the discussion here^{User talk:Anonymiss Madchen/Genocide Denial (Talk:Rape During the occupation of Germany)} because it was very long and I did not want to take up too much of the talk page; I also left a link there too for anyone else reading the page to contribute.

--Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you find my reply?

--Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was busy, sorry. You can find my reply on your talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, An arbitration application has been accepted by the arbitration committee concerning POV-bias at military history project] Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Military_history_POV-bias

There's also some interesting related talk at Reliable Sources Noticeboard: [[13]] Communicat (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just sending you a notification that we still need to come to a conclusion about the inclusion of Tito on the WWII template. I replied several days ago and no one else has added anything. If there is no reply within the next few days I will again remove Tito from the template. --PlasmaTwa2 18:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a part of a more general issue: what are the criteria for inclusion into the infobox. Let's discuss 3x3 as a general solution. I support it. Nick-D seems to support too.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the 3x3 solution and officially proposed it on the WWII talk page. Your input would be appreciated. --PlasmaTwa2 00:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your message.

User_talk:Anonymiss_Madchen/Genocide_Denial_(Talk:Rape_During_the_occupation_of_Germany)

--Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 06:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Communicat has a case before the ArbCom and, in discussion prior to the case being accepted by ArbCom, I mentioned that you had experienced negative interactions with Communicat. Let me start by naming others with whom Communicat has had similar negative interactions, as the Committee may wish to either involve them or review the interactions: Arnoutf, Parsecboy, Binksternet, Paul Siebert, Moxy, and White Shadows. Those interactions have not been universally negative, though mostly so.

This prompted Communicat to write the onus is on Habap to inform those editors that he has involved them, so that they may speak for themselves, if at all. at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II. In the arbitration case, Communicat alleges anti-Soviet bias by the members of the WikiProject Military History, specifically naming Edward321, Hohum, Nick-D, Georgewilliamherbert and me. If you would like to present evidence, you would do so on the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II/Evidence page. If you disagree with my characterization of your interactions as being "mostly negative", it would be appreciated if you would state that on the evidence page to clarify the matter.

I apologize for involving you in this process as I am sure you have more enjoyable things to do. --Habap (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought you would be interested. MikeNicho231 (talk) 11:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to work to change the way I've been expressing.

--anonymissmadchen ^Talk 21:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was wondering if you knew how far back the discussion was in relation to the WWII info box? I liked the one you posted (e.g. [14]) which was changed, I've been looking for the discussion for why it had changed, just EnigmaMcmxc idea was rather good and seemed more balanced (stopping arguments into how things should be ordered). --SuperDan89 (talk) 06:56, 05 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a short section on historical background in the article here that we discussed before[15]. I really think that without explaining the situation in WW2 Europe this article won't be neutral, and would give impression of something happening only in 1945. There is also a problem with some cherry picking of Neimark's claims[16]. Any comments welcomed.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 06:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing your conduct, It's become quite clear that you're obviously some sort of severely anti Semitic, closeted Russian Nazi supporter, or white supremacist. I will be willing to listen to every senior editor who offers advice or instructions, except for you. I will not be intimidated by tyranny, or bigots.

--Нэмка Алэкс/Nemka Alex^Talk 20:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not myself right now. I am sorry about the provocative edit descriptions, and edits without proper consideration. I am going to voluntarily leave for awhile, and I will return when I can discuss things.

--Нэмка Алэкс/Nemka Alex^Talk 03:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[17] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please forget about the last edits to that article. I've moved past the moment I was in.

--Нэмка Алэкс/Nemka Alex^Talk 16:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely can get a book written about the Russian-Holocaust.

--Нэмка Алэкс/Nemka Alex^Talk 01:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul, now that the arbitration case has concluded, I'm planning on spending less time on this article and may remove it from my watchlist. I've enjoyed working on it, and think very highly of your views and contributions (even though we sometimes disagree; I hope that my disagreements with you have been expressed in as civil terms and backed with as good references as your disagreements with me!). Please don't hesitate to drop me a note if there's anything you'd like me to look in on. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nick. I will continue to watchlist this article, and, since your opinion is very important for me, I definitely will draw your attention to all controversial cases.

Cheers, --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This probably is not intentional perpetuation¹, but there are several claims that the Poles were perpetrators of genocide against the Germans. In reality, the Poles were not perpetrators of violence against Germans, but rather victims of the Russians; this is something that Nazis do not want us know. Portraying the Poles as perpetrators of violence against Germans removes them as victims of the Russians and plays into the Nazi game of a Jewish conspiracy or something.

¹See, no name calling.

--Нэмка Алэкс/Nemka Alex^Talk 01:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There were no claims that "the Poles were perpetrators of genocide against the Germans". There was a claim that some Poles raped some German women. Generally speaking, rapes ≠ genocide.

Portraying the Poles as perpetrators of violence against Germans does not removes them as victims of neither Germans nor Russians; similarly, portraying the Russians as perpetrators of violence against Germans does not removes them as victims of the Germans. The sooner you re-consider your manicheanist vision of history, the better.--Paul Siebert (talk)

So there was not any genocide. Still, the claim is that the crimes by Poles were racially motivated. Maybe a few Poles did rape German women, but this is unlikely. It very clearly isn't mass rape, which is the title of the article. Having it in the article with the current title implies such, and plays into the game of the Nazis. Also, not being mass rape means that it isn't relevant to be in an article about mass rape. A few crimes aren't really relevant to history and should be left alone to prevent them from being exaggerated by Nazis.

As a German I don't think it's necessary to remember what ever few crimes were committed by Poles.

--Нэмка Алэкс/Nemka Alex^Talk 02:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The rapes may constitute genocide or may not. If mainstream RS state some mass rapes had a genocidal nature, such a claim can be added to the article, however, to the best of my knowledge, no mainstream reliable sources accuse the Soviets in perpetrating genocide of the Germans. Re Poles, please, read Naimark.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I replied here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany#Nationalistic1_Russian_Deniers

--Нэмка Алэкс/Nemka Alex^Talk 20:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Im "SirEpicBob" I Have A New Account "SirEpicRichard". Just A Notification. SirEpicRichard (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The POV discussion has been dormant for more than two weeks. I intend to remove the POV tag from the article in a day two days, as the discussion seems to have concluded. But, before doing so, I wanted to check in with you to be sure you didn't simply overlook C. J. Griffin's last post on the talk page. If you still dispute the neutrality of the article, a response here or on the article's talk page would be appreciated. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(relating to Red Army) ...the soldiers who bore the major brunt of the war...

This statement demonstrates unfamiliarity with the suffering of soldiers during WWII.

--Jüdischen Deutschen^Talk 02:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it demonstrates unfamiliarity with the air war over Germany.

--Jüdischen Deutschen^Talk 03:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot agree.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I left a reply to your message on the talk page, at the bottom.

--Jüdischen Deutschen^Talk 20:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lieber Paul Siebert, Vor längerer Zeit stellten Sie mir ein wichtiges Zitat von Stephan Horak zur Verfügung, welches ich mittlerweile sehr gut im Stresemann-Artikel einsetzen konnte. Nochmals verbindlichsten Dank dafür! Ich möchte mir erlauben, Sie auf Seltsames hinzuweisen, das mit dem Rauschning-Artikel geschehen ist. Nach längerem Ringen mit einigen Admins war es gelungen, einen einvernehmlichen Wortlaut des Capitels "Entdeutschnung .." zu finden, der die wesentlichen und wichtigen Informationen transportiert. Inzwischen ist zu meiner Überraschung das gesamte Capitel eliminiert worden, ja es sind sogar die Revisionen, die es aufgebaut hatten, blockiert worden, sodaß sie nicht mehr zu öffnen sind. Und dies alles ohne Discussion, ja sogar ohne Nennung desjenigen, der dies bewirkt hat. Lebte ich in China, so würde mich dies nicht wundern, aber hier .. Wenn Sie Zeit und Lust haben, schauen Sie doch mal rein. Ich bin da mit meinem Latein am Ende. Eine Antwort ist nicht erforderlich. Herzlichen Gruß: Jäger (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the article; its major problem is that it is poorly sourced. I am not sure that removal of the text you added was justified, although Rauschning's book is a primary source in the article about himself, so it should be used with great cautions. Unfortunately, I have no time now to analyse the issue in details, however, I'll try to return to that in close future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! I just restituted this section using a new primary source.Jäger (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And it has already been deleted by a certain marek, who claims the "dtv Altas zur Weltgeschichte" to be "unreliable stuff". Apparently Wikipedia has become a chinese enterprise!! Jäger (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I remind you that primary sources should be used with great caution. The probability that the content added by your will be removed is lower when you use secondary sources only. At least, you will be able to defend your edits. Re "chinese enterprise", if you decided to edit Wikipedia, be ready to defend your edits, because to make edit is just a first, and not the most difficult step.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, ok, well I've followed this - the main thing is that Rauschning wrote a book about the alleged mistreatment of German minority by Poles. He also wrote a book about his intimate relationship with Hitler. The second book has been widely debunked as his own fantasy. Hence, even if we allow for the use of primary sources, the fact that the guy had a tendency to make stuff up out of thin air means that at best we can present his work as just that - fantasy. What you are trying to do Jager is to present Rauschning's work as a reliable source and a basis for statements about what actually happened. But we can't do that. The best we can do is just mention that he wrote a book about some thing and give its title - and in fact, I kept that fact in the article. Just please stop trying to use Rauschning's work as some kind of factual basis for article content or subtly try to insinuate that it had any kind of value as a historical document. Volunteer Marek  02:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Alleged mistreatment of German minority by Poles" - And the agrarian reform act, which expropriated the german land-owners but not the polish: is it also alleged? Is the "dtv Altlas zur Weltgeschichte" a primary source and "unsourced stuff"? There is a famous word spoken by Pope St. Johannes Paul II. under the Brandenburg Gate: "Es gibt keine Freiheit ohne die Wahrheit!" (there is no liberty without the truth)Jäger (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you provided more concrete information (keywords, etc) about this land reform, I would try to look for the sources other than Rauschning. However, I cannot agree with VM that Rauschning is an unreliable source: I found several reviews on his books that do not question the validity of the facts and opinions presented by him:

1. H. F. P. Percival. Source: Journal of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Jul., 1930), p. 556 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the Royal Institute of International Affairs
2. Charles E. MerriamSource: The American Political Science Review, Vol. 41, No. 6 (Dec., 1947), pp. 1207-1208.
3. I. M. MasseySource: International Affairs Review Supplement, Vol. 19, No. 6/7 (Dec., 1941 - Mar., 1942),pp. 413-414

With regard to "widely debunked", the Theodor Schieder's book "Hermann Rauschnings "Gesprache mit Hitler" als Geschichtsquell" presents the analysis of Rauschning's writings which demonstrates that Rauschning's "Gesprache", despite some inaccuracies, may serve as a general summing up of Hitler's views in early 1930s. In other words, the book is more or less reliable, so there is no reason to reject other Rauschning's works.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found one more source that cites the Rauschning's "Gesprache" as a reliable source (Did Hitler Want a World Dominion? Author(s): Milan Hauner Source: Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Jan., 1978), pp. 15-32).--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You very much! The source for this land reform is not Rauschning, but the "dtv Atlas zur Weltgeschichte" Vol 2, page 155, Bielefeld 1977 (licenced edition of the Bertelsmann-Buch Club). This should be a secondary source.Jäger (talk) 00:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The exact wording is (vol.2 p. 155): "2. Agrarfrage. Die Agrarref. (28.12.1925) vernichtet vor allem den deutschen Großgrundbesitz, behandelt den poln. schonend. Die Agrarfrage bleibt ungelöst."Jäger (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this agrarian reform happened the way you claim then you should have no problem finding RELIABLE sources on the fact. As for Schieder, the guy himself isn't a reliable source (ex Nazi, intellectual architect of the final solution, etc.) And I cannot put it more explicitly than this [18]. The Jan 1978 source is at best outdate - also the issue is not whether he represented Hitler's views correctly but that he claimed to have had numerous conversations with Hitler (which he did not). The guy is no way reliable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is really interesting: The "dtv-Atlas zur Weltgeschichte" no reliable source: This book is in constant use on german highschools and universities since 1964. Generations of students have used it (see its article on german wikipedia). Let me quote something from the foreword: "Bei der Auswahl der Fakten haben wir uns nicht von einem bestimmten Geschichtsbild leiten lassen, sondern wollten versuchen, einen möglichst objektiven Überblick zu geben".Jäger (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is continued on the Hermann Rauschning-talk page.Jäger (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're on the opposite ends of a dispute, I want to make sure this does not attain any kind of personal character whatsoever. Frankly I'm amazed that we're "at odds" at all, as we seemed to have had a shared position in each encounter. :) I further want to make it clear that I consider you far more knowledgeable in WWII history, but this time I think you're not correct in supporting a removal of an actual WWII combatant from the WWII infobox. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am absolutely not amazed that we are "at odds", because independently thinking people cannot be always in accord. That is absolutely normal situation, and I by no means take it personally. I am also glad that you also see it as just as a temporary disagreement over one particular issue.

I cannot rule out the possibility that I will accept your point of view, however, you haven't addressed my arguments so far. In addition to ##1-5 from the talk page, try to think about the following: inclusion of Vichy lowers the threshold for inclusion, thereby opening the door for addition of such strange "belligerents" as Quisling Norway, etc. Try also think about my #5, because if we consider Vichy a belligerent, we must concede that it fought on its own side, i.e. against both the Allies and the Axis. Therefore, it should be either in both sides of the infobox simultaneously, or a separate section should be allocated for it. Both variants would be a nonsense.

Cheers,--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, I have gone one step further than you and reverted the template back to the version after my last edit, which was the last one before this debate about Vichy France started. This isn't meant to be an endorsement of Vichy France's inclusion on the template, but rather I believe we should have the template as it was originally when the discussion started as JJG's edits to remove Vichy France were not based upon consensus, and because we do not yet have consensus for either side I do not believe we should edit the section in question until we do. Regardless of Vichy France's status during WWII, it was on the template before this debate started and should only be removed upon reaching consensus here. Anything else could be considered edit warring and could lead to the template being locked until we figure this out. Personally, I believe we need to get MILHIST involved further to determine what we should do here, and we should have the template locked if Direktor or JJG attempt to change the template again without consensus. --PlasmaTwa2 19:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my response on the template talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was some unsourced speculation about some evil Stalinist double-crossing plan in Soviet–Japanese War (1945), most of it is now gone. The speculation reminds me of the claims of Stan Winer about British-American plans to double-cross the Soviet Union with Hiroshima and nukes.

Do you think there would be a case for an article on End of WW II conspiracy theories, provided we could find sources. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that someone already tried to add this text before, however, it had been removed soon. Regarding the conspiracy theories, I do not know if sufficient amount of reliable sources are available. And, frankly speaking, do we really need such an article?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[19] was a very poor choice. You reinserted content which has been tagged as CN since November 2010. The RAF were only called the "Baader Meinhoff Gang" by the press, there were no Successors to this group, plus the source calls them communist, not left wing. Also [^[1]] this source clearly states communist terrorism. Please be more careful in future with blind reverts. Tentontunic (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red Army Faction "Red Army Faction" "Left wing terrorism" -"communist terrorism" vs "Red Army Faction" "communist terrorism" -"Left wing terrorism": 201[20] to 2[21]. Among those sources let me quote, for instance William F. Shughart II ("An analytical history of terrorism, 1945–2000", Public Choice (2006) 128:7–39), who writes in the chapter 4 ("Left Wing Terrorism"):

"Organized by Andreas Baader and Ulrike Meinhof in the West Germany of the late 1960s, the Red Army Faction (RAF) – an “army” whose strength at most numbered perhaps three dozen (Laqueur, 1999, p. 27) – was the first of the left-wing terrorist groups to surface in the postwar era. "

Please be more careful in future with making premature statements.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look at what your source says, and read again what i wrote. The RAF were only called the "Baader Meinhoff Gang" by the press, there were no Successors to this group Your source proves my point. Again please be more careful with blind reverts. Tentontunic (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And now in your rush to edit war and restore uncited content you have removed two merger proposals, please restore them. Tentontunic (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in rush, it is simply easier for me to revert you right now than to restore the article when you will destroy it completely. I do not care how the press called RAF. The article is peer-reviewed journal I quoted describes RAF as a left-wing terrorist group, and stated that this group did have successors. More extended quote is provided below:

"Organized by Andreas Baader and Ulrike Meinhof in the West Germany of the late 1960s, the Red Army Faction (RAF) – an “army” whose strength at most numbered perhaps three dozen (Laqueur, 1999, p. 27) – was the first of the left-wing terrorist groups to surface in the postwar era. Also known as the Baader-Meinhof Group, the self-styled revolutionaries carried out a series of bank robberies, burned several department stores, and murdered a number of bankers, industrialists and judges, their most prominent victims being the Attorney General, Hans-Martin Schleyer, and Siegfried Buback, the head of the Berlin Supreme Court (ibid. p. 28; Rapoport, 2004, p. 57). The RAF’s first, and perhaps most notorious, actual terrorist act was to bomb the officers’ mess of the US Fifth Army Corps at Frankfurt, killing one person and injuring 13 others. That attack was later justified at the trial of one of the RAF’s leaders as befitting retribution for the mining of the North Vietnamese harbor at Haiphong by the US Air Force (Hoffman, 1998, p. 81). Terrorist groups with similar ideological motivations soon appeared in Italy, Belgium and France. The Italian Red Brigade (Brigate Rosse) was formed in 1970. It was much more active than the RAF, engaging in some 14,000 terrorist attacks in its first ten years of existence. Like the RAF, the Red Brigade mainly targeted prominent public officials, including judges and jurors, concentrating its attacks in Rome and in Italy’s industrial regions (Laqueur, 1999, pp. 28–29). Frequently applying non-lethal force – “kneecapping” was one of the group’s favored tactics – the Red Brigade nevertheless nearly succeeded in bringing Italy’s legal system to a standstill (ibid., p. 29)."

As you can see, I am quite able to support my claims with reliable sources. Please, keep that in mind in future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are only seeing that which you wish to see. Your extended quote does not mention successors, at all. The Baader-Meinhof gang were the RAF. I would ask you to read up on the literature, you obviously do not currently have a clue. Also, reverting in uncited content and removing suggested merger discussions is against policy, do not do so again. Tentontunic (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another explanation is that your point is not clear enough. Firstly, how do you interpret the words:

"Terrorist groups with similar ideological motivations soon appeared in Italy, Belgium and France. "

Secondly, what relation do your point about successors and the name (Baader-Meinhof gang) has to the article, and to your attempt to remove this text?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're now banned from Mass Killings under communist regimes. Just so you know.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know either.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know if I am banned, or you know that I am, but don't know why?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As a result of a DIGWUREN enforcement request at this.
  • You would need to be mentioned
    • here
    • here
    • or here to be banned from editing the interminably horrible MKuCR. However, every editor is on 1RR/week at MKuCR. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that because Paul has a block related to the article he falls within this wide net but who knows.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Volunteer Marek. I checked all three articles "sanctions" pages, but couldn't find Paul listed. Maybe his block was non-DIGWUREN/EEML/ARBRB related, like a simple 3RR violation? I think Paul ought to ask ARB for a clarification. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He violated the original 1RR restriction on the article, which was placed as an Arbcom enforcement discretionary sanction. It should have been reported to WP:AE, as TFD did recently in another 1RR violation by someone else, instead of AN3. Anyone blocked for violating this 1RR restriction would normally have been logged, as Igny was here --Martin (talk) 08:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Martintg; maybe you ought to get that clarified. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked for 1RR violation before this rule became a part of the policy. By that moment, 1RR was vaguely formulated (you can see the details of the discussion there[22]) and it was clarified as a result of the discussion initiated by me. In connection to that, I believe all users who were blocked for 1RR violation of the "Mass killings...." page before June 8, 2010 should be excluded from the list, because the admins are partially responsible for that (because of the vague formulation of the restriction).

--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, personally I think that all users who had never edited the article, or have not edited it for more than six months should be excluded from the article topic ban, but Sandstein doesn't seem to be listening.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martintg raised the process issue here that restricted editors cannot discuss your proposal. I suggest you move your proposal on the article talk page of MKuCR to Sandstein's talk page where a proposal is under discussion for process issues, allowing otherwise restricted editors to comment on it. Many thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may have some interest in the MKuCR related Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Fifelfoo Fifelfoo (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me. Unfortunately, by pointing my attention at this issue you deprived me of a possibility to interfere, because my voice will have a zero weight now (per WP:CANVASS). Fortunately, you are perfectly able to protect you by yourself by providing the diffs demonstrating that I and TFD repeatedly pointed Tentontunic's attention at the need to read the talk page archives to avoid repetitions of the same questions, which were asked and addressed before, and repeated ignoring of these requests by Tentontunic. In my opinion, it would be sufficient to demonstrate that this user simply exhausted your patience. In addition, WP:AGF is not a part of the policy, therefore, to observe it in all cases it is not mandatory.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed your attention to it because you had had similar issues with Tentontunic in the same thread, and as he hadn't notified other individuals he'd been behaving with in that way. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I personally see no problem in pointing my attention to this issue. However, some people can interpret that as canvassing. Please keep in mind that, as well as the fact that I am watchlisting the relevant pages, and, most likely, I will be aware of future incidents of that type.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except, to be quite honest, there won't be. To the extent which I can be bothered, I'll be importing my behaviour from Libertarianism towards editors who fail to observe policy. Note the policy on talk, ignore, move on. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Siebert,

Thank you for pointing out to me something I was not aware of. It is removed.

Cordialement,

--Frania W. (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, (is it Ok to call you paul?) I am currently working on a new section for the Communist terrorism article article, your input would be much appreciated regarding the cold war usage of the term, especially during the Regan era. Please look [23] here and let me know what you thin thus far. Thank you Tentontunic (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need a cite from a terrorism academic, or multiple cites from Malaya, Philippines and Vietnam historians regarding terrorism. As this is readily challengable (they were producing "revolutionary terror" ala France, not "terrorism" ala the FCOs). If someone's examined these as a stepping stone between revolutionary terror, and terrorist revolutionaries then it would be pretty vital to include that. Also, the section is misnamed, this is history: the telling of the past; not historiography: the telling of how historians tell the past. The writing is good. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fifelfoo, we I believe have gotten off on the wrong foot. Would you consider adding to the proposed section should you have the time? Out of curiosity, what would you call a section regarding the past exploits of terrorist groups? Tentontunic (talk) 00:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have gotten off on the wrong foot. Mass killings under Communist regimes does that to everybody I think. If you don't mind me doing so, I'll edit into your sandbox. I haven't read the terrorism literature at scholarly depth (unlike the literature of mass mortality, sigh). As far as I understand it there's a deep difference between "modern terrorism" and "revolutionary terror". I have read the history of Malay and Vietnamese revolutionaries' use of terror: it was revolutionary terror, not modern terrorism. For the past exploits of terrorist groups I'd use "History", or if there's another section on the history of the academic classification, I'd use "History of terrorist groups" for the groups, and "Theory" for discussing the history of the idea of terrorism. I know in some languages other than English, "Historiography" means was "History" means in English. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The groups were not named "Fighting Communist Organizations". That is a term used in the book Europe's red terrorists[24] and you found a source (Sandler) that also uses it. But Sandler normally refers to them as left-wing terrorists in common with most authors.[25] The article is written bass ackwards - a title has been chosen and we are now trying to figure out a topic for it. TFD (talk) 01:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I experienced that syndrome before? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tentontunic. It is quite ok to call me Paul, you can call me as you want to. With regard to the rest, as far as this is my talk page, let me explain you my point of view. I am trying to stick with this POV when I edit Communism related articles, so by reading the text below you will save my and your time in future.
I see several issues and omissions with the text proposed by you.

1. It is necessary to start with the explanation that the term "terrorism" is vague and controversial, and different scholars in different periods of time interpreted it differently. The most common meaning of this term is "individual terror", so the scholars who share this viewpoint trace the roots of terrorism down to zealots.
2. Then it is necessary to mention that some authors do not stick with this narrow definition, and they combine "terrorism" and "state terror" (and revolutionary terror) into the same category, so they consider a Reign of Terror as a progenitor of contemporary terrorism. Therefore, according to these writers, the term "Communist terrorism" is a subset of "Revolutionary terror". Therefore, the term "Communist terrorism" is sometimes used as a synonym of "Communist revolutionary (or state) terror".
3. In connection to that, it is necessary to point out in the article, that, although the word "Communism" is frequently associated with the word "terror", XIX century social-democrats, as well as their descendants, Communists, condemned individual, or group terror as senseless and harmful, because it contradicted to major Marxist doctrine. However, the idea that Communists may resort to terror to come to power had been put forward by the Nazi party in Germany, and had been successfully used as a pretext for seizing a power in this country. That is the second meaning of the term "Communist terrorism".
4. The WWII gave a start to a full scale anti-colonialist movements in most Western colonies. Some of them acted under Communist slogans. As a result, the activity of Communist partisans is sometimes described as "Communist terrorism" (the best example is Malaya). Therefore the term "Communist terrorism" is also used to describe some cases of guerilla warfare.
5. And, finally, during the post-war era small terrorist groups emerged throughout the world that used Communist phraseology as a justification of their terrorist acts. Although some writer describe this phenomenon as "Communist terrorism", others prefer to use the term "Left-wing terrorism", or "Euroterrorism", or characterise them as ordinary criminals. These authors do not see any appreciable connection between these groups and Communism, so it would be incorrect to present the usage of term "Communist terrorism" in this case as a mainstream POV.
   In other words, we have a strange situation when, from one hand, the term "Communist terrorism" is being widely used, but, from another hand, it is being applied to quite different, and sometimes rather poorly connected phenomenae. In some cases, it is sometimes being used in parallel with other terms, such as "Left-wing terrorism". In the latter case, the fact that different writers use different term to describe the same facts is not a reason for having separate articles describing essentially the same events.
   In summary, the "Communist terrorism" article cannot be written in such a way as if this term had a strict and well established meaning (the scheme you are trying to implement). By contrast, the article should be devoted to the explanation of what different sources mean under this term (with links to more specialised articles), and how this term was evolving during last centuries.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for your valuable contributions to historical articles. I was wondering, exactly which areas of history are you interested in? I could think of several history topic areas that could use your expertise and ability for thorough research and analysis. Nanobear (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WWII, Soviet history, Cold war and related topics.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, I notice that you haven't edited the sandbox version of the terminology section for MkuCr. Do you intend to do that, or are you waiting for a Mass killing article to be written first?

Speaking of which, what are your thoughts on the scope of a Mass killing article, specifically regarding the overlap with the Mass murder article? Presumably, writing a Mass killing article would also involve reducing the current scope of the Mass murder article.

It seems to me that the difference between the two is primarily one of scale and scope. Mass murder being between individuals and involving relatively small numbers of people (typically single or double digits) and mass killing being between groups however defined and involving relatively large numbers of people (1000 being the lowest RS quantitative definition I have found). I think the first section of the current Mass murder article, "Mass murder by a state" would thus more appropriately fall under "mass killing" than "mass murder". AmateurEditor (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I need additional time to think about all of that. If you don't mind, I'll return to this issue in about a week.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. AmateurEditor (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My preliminary thoughts on that account are as follows:

1. Of course, we can work on MC and MCuCR article independently, however, since the latter is supposed to be a subarticle of the former, it would be easier to write the MC article first. In addition, since MMuCR's karma is so badly damaged during preceding years I anticipate that even minor changes will face significant resistance, and neither I nor you can predict how much efforts will be needed to overcome it. Therefore, I would suggest to do what Toynbee called "withdrawal-and-return": after finishing the Mass killing article we can more easily resolve the MCuCR issue.
2. The difference between mass killing and mass murder is not in scale and scope. Firstly, the latter is a subset of the former. Secondly, the difference has been outlined by, e.g. Wheatcroft, who argued that MM is an indiscriminate destruction of people, and the Holocaust is the most pure example of mass murder: killing of people without even a visibility of legal procedure. By contrast, Stalin's mass executions at least had some traits of legal procedure. To demonstrate this thought, let's compare Baby Yar and Katyn massacres: whereas in Baby Yar the Nazi just took all Jews they were able to capture and killed all of them simply following a general order to kill all Jews, the decision about the Poles was made based on the analysis of their personal data, and it was made by top Soviet leadership personally, the rationale (a possibility that these concrete persons would start counterrevolutionary activity upon their release) looked not absolutely weird, and their perceived personal guilt was more or less clearly articulated. Therefore, according to Wheatcroft, whereas the Holocaust mass killings were mass murders, Soviet mass killings can be more adequately characterised as mass executions.
3. Going back to the MC article, I think we need to start with a general discussion of the terminology, because "genocide", (as well as others "-cides"), Valentino's "mass killing", etc., are absolutely relevant to it. Accordingly, this article can become a mother article for a bunch of WP articles, such as "The Holocaust", "Genocide", "Democide", "Mass murder", "MCuCR", etc. And it would be much more natural to have a detailed discussion of terminology there, not in specialised articles. For instance, Valentino did not propose "Communist mass killings" as a separate concept, he proposed a "mass killing" concept, and then applied it to the MKuCR (and others mass killings). Rummel did not proposed his "democide" as a word describing MCuCR, he just applied this term to these mass killings (and to other mass killings). Lemkin coined the term "genocide" specifically to characterise Nazi crimes in Europe, and only later tried to extend it to Communist mass killings. Therefore, all of that belongs to the MC article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you're too busy with other things right now to get into this, but (for when you have time) I have started to collect specific RS definitions for "mass killing" and "mass murder" here to clarify the differences between them. You may contribute others that you find. There is no rush. I do recognize that the terms are sometimes also used more loosely as synonyms, but such definitions will give us a more firm basis to differentiate them. AmateurEditor (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me. You are right, I have no possibility to concentrate on this work right now, however, I am ready for a preliminary discussion about that. For the beginning, can you please comment on my above thoughts? Do you agree with that, or, if not, then what are your counter-arguments?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. I have little confidence that consensus can be achieved for even small changes to the current article under the new sanctions, so unless specific disruptive editors are blocked or the sanctions are changed, neither of which I see happening any time soon, I think working on a Mass killing article is the best way forward. And since it is something I promised to do with you earlier, I feel obligated. I hope, however, that you don't really want a Mass killing article to be "finished" before working again on Mass killings under Communist regimes. I think a good start in terms of finding the boundaries of the topic and establishing enough for others to easily build from is enough. It is a bit morbid for my taste.
2. I am willing to concede the point here, but I want to see specific definitions from reliable sources. One thing I have noticed from my reading so far is that the terms "mass killing" and "mass murder" are sometimes used interchangeably and fairly loosely. When they are used in a strictly defined context, however, there appears to be a distinction between mass murder being essentially multiple homicide and mass killing being the much larger scale killing of groups by groups, whether those groups are ethnic, political, or simply perceived. I believe that another distinction is that mass murder also carries greater moral weight. Murder is universally acknowledged as a crime, whereas "killing" is less judgmental. This moral weight issue is directly related to some sources insisting on the term "genocide" even where an incident does not meet the specific criteria under the UN definition. I also think that the loose (that is, not specifically defined) use of the term mass murder by sources is really a reflection of the lack of a single consensus term for the large scale killing of noncombatants by a government or group. In that sense, "mass murder" and "mass killing" really are interchangeable. Your point about legal procedure, however thin, differentiating mass murder from mass killing implies a level of legal self-restraint that I don't think really existed in either of those examples, although if it is a point that a reliable source makes, who am I to reject it. It should be incorporated. My effort to list all the specifically spelled-out definitions for "mass murder" and "mass killing" that I can find is an attempt to survey what is out there within reasonable boundaries (far too many sources use the terms loosely), but I am sure there is much more to be included than those few examples listed already.
3. I agree the Mass killing article should be an overview article involving all the various terms for large-scale killing of noncombatants, not just the term "mass killing". However, I think we should be careful about sourcing this, which is why I want to clarify the difference between "mass killing" and "mass murder". As it is currently written, all of the sources cited for the mass murder article are referring to acts of legal homicide by individuals (except for Rummel, who defines mass murder so widely that it can involve the death of just a single individual by a government, although I would hope only as part of a wider phenomenon including the deaths of others spread out over time). AmateurEditor (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is this new article: Rape during the liberation of Poland. In the past you have shown much expertise on the related German events, and I think you may be interested in improving this article as well. It is not within my typical area of interest, so I've just expressed my concerns on the talk page and didn't alter the text. If you have time to review the article in more detail, that would be great. GreyHood ^Talk 17:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Besides Naimark, I found no non-Polish and non-Russian literature so far. I continue my search.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw these come up where I was working and I thought you might be interested. Hopefully it will put things in perspective after you read them.

Six years to a Tau world

United in Bor'kahl

Siege of Stahlberg

Stahlberg

Does this remind you of anything? How have you changed after reading this?

--Jüdischen Deutschen^Talk 12:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. However, I have no idea on how can this poorly written fiction with just slightly veiled allusions put things in adequate perspective. If you want real perspective, read a war time prose written by those who really fought during this war. However, frankly speaking, even those writers make factual mistakes.

Let me also point out that such "perspective" is more harmful than useful, because we must write sine ira et studio, trying to stick with reliable sources. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that Rotstein is justified in the actions that they commit against the Tau? Do you think that some random Tau needs to be remembered in some sort of "historical context," or do you think that would only justify the actions of the soldiers?

--Jüdischen Deutschen^Talk 14:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do think that the actions of Soviet soldiers were not just, moreover, it was a crime. However, let me ask you: do you believe the sufferings of German woman were greater than the preceding suffering of the Soviet solders and of their family members? Do you really think that the Soviet solders were more perpetrators than victims? Please, think twice before answering.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they were victims of massive gang rape, and suppression, and nothing can approach that level of suffering. Saying otherwise justifies rape. The whole "context" argument or whatever the deniers call it is nothing more than common victim blaming. The Russians would have to be more perpetrators than victims, because rape is not something that a normal functioning person can commit; only sociopaths commit rape. To claim that the Russians can be victims is like claiming that the SS were victims because they lived through a depression and they were desperate or something.

--Jüdischen Deutschen^Talk 04:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I cannot agree with that. Firstly, sufferings of German woman were nevertheless incomparable with those of Russian, Ukrainian, Belorussian, and, especially Jewish woman, who were the victims of rapes (in similar if not greater scale) plus oppressions plus systematic and prolonged deprivation of anything that normal person needs for life plus taking hostages with subsequent murder plus elementary killing without explanation and so on. To claim that nothing can approach the level of suffering of German woman is blatant blasphemy. With regard to "context", I would say that to present Soviet military, who suffered even more that the Soviet woman did, as a horde of sociopaths without any attempt to remember what was the ultimate reason of their behaviour is a typical blaming the victims. The attempt to equate Soviet military with SS bastards is something that is beyond my understanding. In summary, I have no interest in continuation of any discussion with you. Your attempts to introduce Nazi apologist bs into Wikipedia will be reverted by any means allowed by the WP policy. Your posts at my talk page (if you will decide to post anything in future) will be deleted without reading. That bs must be stopped.

Without respect--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Siebert: I have always appreciated your effort always to take a neutral point of view, "sine ira", and base your statements on fact. But in this case, I feel compelled to point out one thing. I agree with you that Wehrmacht and SS soldiers performed horrible crimes in the Soviet Union. But the culprits thereof were not the same people as underwent rape in Germany. One can explain (not justify) the Red Army soldiers' actions with what they had been through and their desire for revenge, but 1. Revenge in cold blood is not laudable; 2. "Revenge" on innocents even more so. I agree with you that the suffering of raped German women was certainly not greater than that of Soviet civilians at the hand of Wehrmacht personnel, but it was not insignificant. Pan Brerus (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By no means it was insignificant, and I never said that. However, we need to take into account several facts:

Firstly, as many authors argued, German women did contribute into Nazi war efforts, partially voluntarily, partially non-voluntarily, and most of them did benefit from German conquests. Therefore, it would be incorrect to say that they were totally innocent.

Secondly, we need to remember that overall brutality of the Red Army personnel, and the rapes in particular, were a collateral effect of the EF hostilities, and should be treated as such. Thus, we never speak about American strategic bombing of Germany, e.g. Bombing of Dresden in World War II out of context. Americans used bombers because that was the most suitable weapon available for them in that situation, and the destruction of civilian targets, as well as killings of civilians were the unavoidable collateral result of bombing. Similarly, the invasion of large land army composed of individuals whose country had been invaded, whose homes were destroyed by the enemy, whose relatives and friends were murdered, mauled, starved to death, enslaved or robbed, who had been witnesses of numerous atrocities of Germans in occupied territories, who were the subject of massive anti-German propaganda, that demanded that every German must be killed (which was quite a reasonable thesis, taking into account that during the first phases of the war the Germans were the invaders, so almost every German was an enemy who was to be killed by all available means) would inevitably lead to numerous atrocities, which were quite understandable.

To summarise, the Americans destroyed more German cities because they had more strategic bombers, the Soviets raped more German women because their army bore the major brunt of the land war, and because the Soviet military personnel was the witness (and the subject) of much greater German atrocities then any other Allied nation. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[26] [27] If you are going block shopping you really ought to have the decency to mention you are discussing me on another's talk page, your behavior is both cowardly and despicable. Tentontunic (talk) 12:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You just broke the 1r restriction on communist terrorism, please self revert. Tentontunic (talk) 22:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to remove the tag by yourself, because the RSN discussion has demonstrated that the source is reliable, so the tag is not justified. Otherwise, the tag will be removed tomorrow.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Paul. I notice that you're a regular contributor to WW2 articles. I'm very interesting in improving the project's scope on WW2-related articles. I was thinking about tackling the article on Appeasement and thinking of bringing it up to at least GA status. Would you be interested in helping, or could you perhaps recommend somebody who could? I've got a large stack of resources waiting to be used, and I'd really like to utilize them. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 14:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will gladly participate.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message Paul. I think the first thing to establish is what exactly we want the article titles to be. I personally feel that Appeasement is too broad a title. On the other hand, if we create a new article, say Appeasement 1937–39, then there will be hardly anything left of the current article, Appeasement. The other thing to bear in mind is whether to have the article just documenting British appeasement, or whether it should also include French appeasement, which was also pretty significant. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 15:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, since "Appeasement" generally refers to the policy of Chamberlain's cabinet towards Germany, the article should be more focused on that. However, since the UK and France were very close political and military allies (since pre-WWI times), they conducted essentially the same policy, so it would be correct to joint Anglo-French policy where Britain played a leading role. I need to read the article more carefully, but right now I see that the important thing that is missing there is the discussion of the British vision of her policy towards Germany: in 1920s-early 30s Britain had no well articulated policy towards Germany, and different political groups saw it quite differently.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you think that the article could stand as it is now? Yes, I agree with your point about about Anglo-French Policy and about the British vision of her policy towards Germany. Certainly there were very many varied opinions which in the end came together just before the outbreak of war. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 17:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am not ready to give an answer immediately, I think, since the clearest example of appeacement was the Chamberlain's policy, it would probably be natural to make a greater stress on that. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any further personal attacks on my person will result in a complaint being made. Do not call me a liar again. Tentontunic (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? I didn't call you a liar, I wrote that your statement was a deliberate lie. You may be an absolutely honest person, in your real life, however, what you post is an absolute and deliberate lie. It is not in my habits to use such words, however, my intellect is unable to give another characteristic to what you are doing. If I am wrong (which is quite possibly), please, explain, how your posts can be explained in a different way.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tentontunic should avoid accusing other editors of dishonesty as he did here. It is much better just to say that what another editor has written is wrong, rather than speculate on why it is wrong. If one believes that another editor is deliberately misstating facts, then it is best resolved through editor dispute resolution. TFD (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Do you never tire of being wrong? Were in that diff do I accuse Siebert of dishonesty? Honestly, do you never read what your pointing at? I have never in all my life met someone who just posts such random junk such as you do. Tentontunic (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your tone appears to fall below the level of decorum one would expect in order to maintain a collegial atmosphere. TFD (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then do not post something which is so obviously wrong again, as in, there is no accusations of dishonesty in the diff you provided. Next time you wish to throw mud in the hope it will stick try to at least use a diff which will support you. Now you may apologize for saying I had made an accusation of dishonesty when I had not, you may also take your own advice into consideration, your tone and actions also falls well below the levels required for a collaboration project. Tentontunic (talk) 07:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am disappointed that while we appear to have a truce of sorts, if that is a proper term for you ceasing to attack me over edits not yet even made, your antagonistic approach continues. Please disengage and reengage more constructively. I do not wish to renege on my statement of my personal position of not pursuing enforcement requests, informing you of my comment here (linked to diff of typo fix, section is otherwise as posted originally). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may be disappointed or not, however, the content has been removed without providing satisfactory explanations. If you want to know my opinion about this your step, just let me know, and I'll tell you what I think about you personally.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've already publicly denigrated my editorial viewpoint as POV pushing essentially originating on another planet and in no manner reflecting Earthly realities. Unless you have something positive to say I regret I'm really not that interested. You characterize me as being out to fill Wikipedia with POV-laden Communist bashing trash. As I only care about reputable sources fairly and accurately represented (and have, in fact, changed long-held opinions based on deeper research), I can only deduce by your offensive accusation that you've crossed the line over to the "expunge anything bad about Communism, Soviet legacy, et al. (or make everyone else to be out as bad or worse when unable to contradict historical facts) on Wikipedia" editorial POV. The first rule of propaganda is to vehemently accuse others of propaganda. Since we are discussing perceptions. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re "I only care about reputable sources fairly and accurately represented ". Well, since I also care "about reputable sources fairly and accurately represented", and, importantly, always provide them, our goals coincide. In connection to that, let me ask you the following: during more than one week you were a witness of persistent attempts of some user to revert the changes I made to fairly and accurately represent what reliable sources tell; why didn't you raised your voice against that?

Re my editorial POV. Do not deduce anything. If you have any questions about my editorial POV, just ask, and I'll explain it to you, openly and honestly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your problem was that you took three or four sources to create a narrative to suit your POV. And it was wrong. The fact you did not know of the Viet Minh and had to be informed of them is proof of this, the narrative you wrote was both factually incorrect and synth. As I have said on the article talk page, point out that which you feel is wrong, and then I can correct you. Tentontunic (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this is my problem. I take the best quality sources, as a rule, the peer-reviewed articles written by western scholars that discuss the issue in details (in that case the number of the sources I use does not matter, so your "you took three or four sources " does not work, as you have been explained on the RSN), and I am trying to transmit the main authors' idea. If I have no good quality sources on some subject, I simply do not edit. By contrast, you are cherry-picking the quote, frequently out of context, to support your POV. However, this approach is fruitless, because the scholarly community seems to be more left-oriented than some fraction of the Wikipedians.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your continuing personal attacks are duly noted, now I cherry pick sources and misrepresent them. You are trying to transmit your idea, by using excess sources to create a narative whic hwas flawed, why not admit you were wrong. Tentontunic (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is my talk page, and it was you who posted here your unsolicited comments on my editorial behaviour. You described my problems as you see them, and I in response did the same. In your recent post you also accused me in synthesis. I expect you either to support your accusation with real evidences (the quotes from the sources I use vs the text I add to Wikipedia) or to stop it. I do not expect you to apologise, because I do not believe you are able to do that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I were wrong I would freely admit it, you know you are wrong yet refuse to, this is quite telling. I need not quote a source in support of the facts, you did not know of the Viet Minh and also thought that the VC began terrorist operations in response to government brutality. So quite simply you were wrong, you dug out three sources to suit your narrative and strung them together. That was the synth, and it was factually wrong. Why not admit you know little of this? I also do not see the comments as unsolicited, there is no doubt at all you were referring to me when you wrote persistent attempts of some user to revert the changes I made to fairly and accurately represent what reliable sources tell (which you got wrong) as such given I was the subject of conversation I fail to see how my comments are "unsolicited" Tentontunic (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re "If I were wrong I would freely admit it" Examples? And, can it be understood as when you do not admit that you are wrong, then you are right?

Re "I need not quote a source in support of the facts, you did not know of the Viet Minh and also thought that the VC began terrorist operations in response to government brutality." Why did you decide that I didn't know about the Vietnamese national independence movement Viet Minh? This Communist led resistance movement fought against Japan during the WWII and then against French authorities. By no means they were terrorists. In 50s, after de facto division of Vietnam and the Sino-Soviet split they switched predominantly to a political struggle, and then, after Diem's repressions started, to the armed insurgence (as Vietcong). You may look how the article published in the journal of the Organization of American Historians describes these events:

"The Vietnamese struggle for independence began with the French colonization of Indochina in the late nineteenth century and gained steam with the rapid development of nationalist movements from the 1920s onward. This effort became a war in August 1945 when the Viet Minh overthrew French and Japanese occupation forces and declared independence. Vietnamese independence was only fully achieved, though, after another thirty years of fighting against the French (1946-1954) and then the Americans (1954-1973). The country was finally unified in 1975 when the northern army rolled into Saigon and toppled the southern regimeThe Vietnam War was, at its core, a civil war greatly exacerbated by foreign intervention. It was a struggle to determine the future of a post-colonial nation; a battle between several factions of Vietnamese nationalists over what type of governmental ideology would best bring about and serve a unified independent Vietnam. The most important of these factions were the Viet Minh (the Communist Party centered in the North), the National Liberation Front (southern allies of the Viet Minh}, and the Republic of Vietnam (the American-sponsored noncommunist government in the South)." (J Chapman. Teaching the Vietnam War from the Vietnamese Perspective - OAH Magazine of History, 2004 - maghis.oxfordjournals.org, p. 33-35)

Note, this article contains practical recommendations on how concretely American school students should be taught about Vietnam war, so it by definition cannot express minority or fringe views. According to the article, Viet cong and Viet Minh were political forces of the same nature an weight as the American-sponsored non-communist government of Vietnam. No mention of "terrorists". Instead, these events starting from 1920s till 1970s were described as struggle for independence. And who, in your opinion, should recognize his mistakes? Who gave you a right to present absolutely ridiculous POV as the mainstream one? And, did you try to stop and to think a little bit: why all what you are trying to write in this article comes in an crying contradiction with most main articles: Terrorism, Vietnam war, Malayan emergency, Left-wing terrorism, Definition of terrorism, etc? I don't think it can be a better opportunity to demonstrate that you are able to concede that you were not right than this case. Please, do that.
Re "Why not admit you know little of this?" IMO, you should do that.

Re " there is no doubt at all you were referring to me when you wrote persistent attempts of some user to revert the changes I made to fairly and accurately represent what reliable sources tell (which you got wrong)" If I was wrong, then why the properly sourced material added by me has been removed, and still is not in the article?
Finally, you know my opinion about the article and your editorial pattern. I suggest you to take into account all what I said and to modify the article accordingly. During next two weeks I'll try not to interfere into this process. Good luck.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS. As a demonstration of my good faith, one free advice. Although I am not a native English speaker (by contrast to you), and my colloquial English is rather poor, I am able to recognise good and bad writing style. Your style is rather poor. Try to avoid, e.g. "X has written that ... ", this is more appropriate for elementary school student's DBQ, not for Wikipedia. Try to read scholarly articles to develop better style.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More quotes from the same source:

"Scholars to this day continue to debate the nature of the relationship between the DRV and the NLF. which was founded in South Vietnam in December i960. Some Americans and anticommunist nationalists maintain that the NLF was organized by the Communist Party's Central Committee from the outset, while others claim that it originated in the South in response to Diem's despotic leadership and only sought DRV support to expedite the common goal of unifying Vietnam under a popular government."

In other words, the viewpoint that "the NLF was organized by the Communist Party's Central Committee from the outset" is an American and anti-communist POV, whereas other scholars attribute the start of armed struggle against the Diem's regime to the despotic nature of the latter.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For gods sake man, the VC had never disbanded, it does not matter how many sources you present which say they began operations only in response to Diem as they would be wrong. And please do not say I write like a child, the MOS says to write in a manner which all can understand, this is not scholarship you know, even the dunce`s need to be able to understand that which is written. And you actually think being insulting is a show of good faith? Wonderful. Tentontunic (talk) 08:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, as I expected, you failed to recognize you were not right when you wrote that I didn't know about Viet Minh. The fact that VM existed since 1940s, and that it was an internationally recognised national-liberation movement makes your claim that they were just "terrorists" laughable.

Secondly, if some source would be wrong, it doesn't mean that it is in actuality. We have the sources (and I can provide more) that describe Viet Minh as a political force of the same weight and level as the French administration, and which do not describe VM as terrorists. Something suggests that these sources are mainstream. Do you have something to argue on that account? To claim that my sources are wrong is your old trick, and it does not work, as RSN demonstrated. My sources are highly reliable and, as a rule mainstream. If you want, you may try to refute that, however I sustained my burden of evidence.

Thirdly, although WP should be understandable by everyone, it is not an encyclopaedia of kids (try to read this, or this), and it is not correct to write it in a style of "XXX for dummies".

Fourthly, by pointing at your writing style (on my talk page) I haven't insulted you, I just told truth. BTW, I was much more polite than you were on the article's talk page.

You are not able to realise that the only reason why you have not been sanctioned yet is that you are editing the articles that are in the sphere of interests of just few users, and the greater part of them shares you odd POV. Have you tried to push your odd views in more popular articles, the result would be quite different. I give you 2-3 weeks to think about that. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on this talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Siebert: I would suggest you stick to sources and stop commenting on editors' inappropriate POV and opining on "why" they have not been sanctioned as a form of veiled threat. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Peters. You should have noticed (and, if you haven't, then I am pointing your attention at that) that it is my talk page, and it was not I who started to post here the unsolicited comments on someone's editorial behaviour. Concretely, I didn't ask Tentontunic to explain me what problems does he see in my behaviour, but, as soon as he started to do that, it was natural to reply in the same vein. In conncetion to that, let me point out that my major point was that I always try to stick to what the most reliable sources tell, and, therefore, I simply do not understand your post. Moreover, since the opposite site persistently refuses to recognize the need to observe NPOV and V policies, and prevents me from doing that, I assume that you simply posted your message on the wrong talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS. As you probably noticed, the user we are talking about accused me in the lack of knowledge about Veit Minh. My response contained a detailed explanation, with sources of what is the commonly accepted viewpoint on that subject. Of course, it would be natural to expect apologies from this user (as normal politeness rules require), however, instead of that I got an absolutely unsubstantiated claim that the source "may be wrong" - and that's it! Do you find that is correct!? Please, avoid posting anything at my talk page in future, unless you give a direct and clear answer on this simple question. I waste my time trying to explain everything to you guys, and as a result you simply ignore my arguments (when you are unable to refute them), and come up with something absolutely new and irrelevant. I do not think I will tolerate that infinitely--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How incredibly wrong you continue to be, in the spurious ANI request you took against me as a part of your block shopping you quite clearly said you knew of no other terrorism from before the VC insurgency (which you believe was a response to Diem). I also did not say your source may be wrong, I stated quite categorically that it is wrong. Any source you may present which says VC (AKA VM) terrorism began as a response to the Diem regimes actions are WRONG. So yes, I said you have a lack of knowledge within this area, because you do. Any man who say "I know of no other terrorist actions before the VC" obviously has not got a clue. Either find sources which are correct or find them dismissed again as the junk they so obviously are. Again, any source which says the VC began operations as a response to the Diem regimes actions is WRONG. Tentontunic (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tentontunic's source, Lanning's Inside the VC and NVA says, "The final tactic used by the VC/NVA was terrorism" (p. 185).[28] Lanning dates the origins of the VC to 1961 and claims it was directed by the Vietnamese Communists and "was not a large group of citizens organized to counter the Diem government" (p. 233). So they were formed in order to oppose the Diem dictatorship - why else do you think they were formed? TFD (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? The source you just quoted says "was not a large group of citizens organized to counter the Diem government" how do you get "they were formed" from the "was not"? You guys really need to read up on the history of this conflict, After the french withdrawal the VM were meant to have disbanded given the geneva accords and Ho saying he would. They never did and continued operations. They were renamed VC in the early 60`s. Tentontunic (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You opened a new section on this source which I have now closed. [29] I had already opened a section on it, I moved your comment to there. Tentontunic (talk) 07:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong, but I think your recent removal of content breaks the 1r restriction on the article, can you please double check. You did one yesterday at 0300 [30] so doing this one [31] at 20.38 is not quite 24hrs? Should you not have to wait until 0300 today? Tentontunic (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1RR is not as formal thing as you interpret it: it does not imply one has a right to make one revert each 24 hours. Accordingly. I do not think 24 hr is a strict red line in a situation when there is no edit war. However, if you insist on strictly formal reading on this rule I can self-revert. You know my opinion on that, and my argulents, so if you will not address my criticism by 3:00, I'll revert this text again.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was not being strict, but some, or one user at least seems to be in the habit of bringing enforcement requests whenever one break this rule, thank you. Tentontunic (talk) 06:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean yourself?--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Tentontunic (talk) 12:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See here. TFD (talk) 12:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That post was with regard to the question posed above as to the relaxation of the 1RR rule. I think you are far more acquainted with making edit war accusations than I. Collect (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bulk of German forces were in the west during the invasion of France. (Hohum ^@) 18:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? According to Glantz, that was not the case (60% in the East by Jan 1, 1945). In addition, if you compare the total strengths of the German forces in Courland pocket, in East Prussia, in Hungary, and Czechoslovakia, Silesia and Pomerania, and near Berlin you will easily see by yourself that that was not the case. During the Vistula-Oder Offensive alone the number of German troops was equal to that in the Battle of the Bulge, and Hitler physically had no possibility to re-deploy anything significant from the West to the East after the Battle of the Bulge started, so these 500,000 troops had already been in the East by the moment the Battle of the Bulge started.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The German invasion of France. (Hohum ^@) 21:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the Battle of France? Of course, that is correct, however, the BoB article means something else, isn't it? From 22 June, 1941 till his death the Eastern front was a primary Hitler's concern, and the place were most Axis (not only German) troops were fighting.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was mainly referring to your edit comment ("always"); in the context of the article your edit itself was fine. (Hohum ^@) 23:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and you were absolutely right (as usually). My comment was not completely accurate and referred only to the period when the Eastern theatre of war existed in Europe. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We had a useful discussion at WP:ER, but it seems it died out just as we were about to reach a consensus on implementation. Please see my restart here, it would be a shame to let good ideas go to waste when we are so close to actually making something good out of all that talking. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In discussions elsewhere Paul Siebert has indicated limited Wiki presence over (at this point) the next week or so, do not be disappointed if you don't get an immediate response. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By accident, I was able to read this, and I fully support the Piotrus' proposal. BRW, it would be good if Peters expressed his opinion on this account.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...So we're getting Paul talking to Piotrus, aka Piotr Konieczny, and Peters... :-) A joke a day keeps the doctor away... Pan Brerus (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. The original Spinosa's thought was that Paul's idea of Peter tells us more about Paul than about Peter. However, I do not discuss Peter(s) here (just his proposal). That does not mean I didn't understand your joke. We all are too serious. Thanks.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you look at my proposal here: [32] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The flag hanging to me is just trivia, of which I am not concerned much. I am more concerned about deletion of simple facts that are easily attributed like number of soldiers and what units were engaged, based on nothing at all. A two or three lines describing in which areas Polish soldiers fought(which can be easily sourced) would be enough for me(nothing like the PL-Wiki section[33]. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul May be there is a better way. How about expanding the Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union making that article a summary article of the "Occupation and annexation of the Baltic States" daughter articles. (Igny (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I am not sure other users will agree with that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well one of their main arguments for placing the Nazi and Soviet occupations in the same article under that "unifying" title was that some scholars put them together when they built the case of the state continuity. Outside the context of state continuity or outside the context of WW2, it is purely synthesis and just used by certain editors here to draw the parallel between what happened in Baltic republics post WW2 with the Nazi occupation during WW2. I say we have much more ground to have a summary article on the Baltic states under Soviet rule, and it should be titled according to what is called everywhere, which is an annexation. (Igny (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Not my fault the USSR occupied the Baltics first, then Nazi Germany, then the USSR again. One right after the other. That would be the "logic." Best! PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are the rules on this page? Can stuff be added without discussion and "consensus"?Jacob Peters (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The rules are very unusual, and they are described on the top of the talk page. To avoid sanctions, I recommend you to address directly to the administrator (Sandstein) who imposed these restrictions. By doing that you (hopefully) will get the most correct information, and will demonstrate your good faith (which may be useful if someone will decide to report you, which is highly likely, taking into account the tensions around the Communism related topics).

Frankly speaking, I would not recommend you to start working on this article right now. Try to edit something more neutral for the beginning.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your first point, there isn't much I can do about that except settle the matter once and for all. Anyways, it's not that relevant to JP, who did far more than just use my old username.

Regarding your second point, it wasn't "two or more years ago" it was something like 10 months ago, and that's just what we know off for sure. And it was far far far more extensive and far far far worse than anything any off-Wiki coordinators did. It was a pattern of serious long term abuse, going on 4 years with not a single sign of regret or contrition. I've supported other people I've disagreed with (recently I supported an appeal by YMB29, [34]), but this here is a different situation in terms of behavior and the scale of disruption.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly speaking, I am not familiar with this story, so I have no opinion of that account. The only thing I know is that the user, who was banned indefinitely for about four years, asked to be unbanned and promised to cardinally change his behaviour. I am inclined to believe that promise was genuine, as well as other promises made by other users who violated policy in the past. At least, I believe in that until the evidence of the opposite have not been provided. Now, when this user can believe using his original username, the non-zero probability exists that he will be much more responsible. With regard to the usage of your old username by JP, he seems to make the same mistake I did: I also used your old name, because I knew you under this name and I initially hadn't realise that you did not want it to be mentioned any more.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea to write this article, but I realy need your help, 'cause English isn't my native language.

• The title of the article. How should it be written the best way?
• The content of article. I'm very familiar with two alternate views, but, of course, there are many of them.
  • WWII started in 23.10.1936 when USSR declared of its intervention to Spanish Civil War. According to Andrey Parshev, since the central conflict of WWII was the struggle between Communism and Fascism, then the first hostilities between two main representatives of these blocs should be considered as the start of WWII. According to Parshev, USSR fought with Fascist bloc for 9 years with 5-month break.
  • WWII started with an Anschluss.
  • WWII started with German invasion of Sudetenland immediately after Munich Agreement. I noticed it in Soviet mid-1950s books.
  • WWII started with the Japanese full-scale invasion of China in 7 July 1937.
  • And so on, I don't know them.
• I can bring the sources and describe "Spanish" and "Czechoslovakian" theory. Will you rewrite these sections with more rich language?

Thanks! --Sambian kitten (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you from? --Sambian kitten (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try to read the old discussion devoted to this issue first.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read it. And idea of this article came to me exactly after reading :) Idea is to create separate article and describe alternate views. Not for court or something, just for information. --Sambian kitten (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what a "sandbox" is? Thy to create a draft of such an article in your userspace. You are free to write whatever you want there, provided that it does not violate WP:NFC policy. After that, if would be easier for me to see your point and to assist you (if necessary). It is also necessary to make sure that no similar articles exist on the same subject, because content forking is prohibited in Wikipedia.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll try it on the next weekend. --Sambian kitten (talk) 05:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I may provide an observation, you must first show that there is literature devoted to describing the different views. For example, there should be articles with titles like "The debate over the starting date of WWII". Otherwise, the article could become a battleground between supporters of different starting dates. TFD (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@TFD: The idea is, just to describe all different views and their argumentation, not to decide which one is true. --Sambian kitten (talk) 03:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If no one has ever written an article on your proposed topic, then it would be considered original research. And you cannot just describe all the different views, because that would imply that they are all equally acceptable, which would violate WP:WEIGHT. You must provide make clear which date is most widely accepted and that should be sourced to a study that compares the different views. TFD (talk) 05:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. If there is some dispute in the literature, we can create such an article. However, we cannot combine sources to create a new topic that does not exist in literature. If I remember correct, Overy argued that the WWII started on Dec 7, 1941, because at that moment two local conflicts had been combined together to give a really world war. There is also a viewpoint that the WWII started in Asia in 1937, or even in 1930, however, I am not sure if it is a significant minority view.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One reason why I'm scrupulously seeking consensus is that it is the wikipedia way. The other is that most editors on the article know my feelings about the article's worth and use; I wish to make clear before editing that my change is purely and solely technical in nature. Thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 03:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing a right thing. I'll try to help you if my schedule will allow.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about all the unconstructive edits and the name calling. My general attitudes on the subject have changed a lot. I think it's important to note that no matter how many millions of women were raped, however many were innocent, many of them were Nazis, didn't care about what happened to the Jews, silence is consent, and in my personal opinion, I don't care too much about what happened to them. I've been called anti German, which is ridiculous beyond belief, and I'm at the point of assuming that only someone with a Nazi agenda could interpret my philosemitic or anti Nazi actions as anti German, yet I remember to assume good faith. Maybe the realization of how I would have been treated had I lived in eastern Germany caught up with me.

--Jüdischen Deutschen^Talk 22:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr Siebert. No, the title does not refer to the Soviet invasion that threatened Yugoslavia during the Tito-Stalin split in the late 1940s and early 1950s. I've actually copied down the title of an entire section of the Draža Mihailović article [35]. The section describes how in September 1944 the Soviet Red Army "invaded" Yugoslavia and "occupied" its nothern regions. The idea is, of course, gibberish of the most unbelievable order. Yugoslavia and the USSR were allies and the Red Army entered in accordance with an agreement with the Yugoslav government in order to assist the Yugoslav military in liberating Belgrade, and later left rather peacefully afterwards.

What I'm trying to do is convey the complete detachment from reality we can now see in some Balkans WWII articles, in particular that on Draža Mihailović, the leader of the Serbian WWII nationalist resistance, the Chetniks. You may wonder why such nonsense is not immediately removed? Well, various Balkans nationalist user accounts have succeeded in pushing their own fairy tale history version into Yugoslav WWII military history articles. Frankly, it is difficult for me to express how apalled I am that such completely imaginary history is presented on Wikipedia.

Provided you could spare the time, I'm hoping you might have a look at the article in question as a neutral user and a Wiki-expert on all things WWII. Such complete nonsense is imho a disgrace for the whole of Wikipedia's World War II articles. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that as a no, then.. :P --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, not "no". Please, take it as I simply have no time to respond in details. Unfortunately, I have had no opportunity to read the article carefully, however, after a brief look the first thing that caught my eye was a terrible English, which reminds me Master Yoda's speech. Maybe, the poor wording is a result of poor writing abilities of the users working on this article and of their poor education? In addition, afaik, "invasion" is more neutral term in English than in Slav languages, and both the prospective Western invasion and the Soviet invasion have been described using the same terminology. In any event, I cannot simply join a discussion with the claim "Support X", because that may result in your accusation in canvassing. I need to look for good sources about this person, and that requires some time.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, of course, I would not have it otherwise, I'd assumed you've simply refused. Well anyway, while a "Soviet invasion" might be the term to use for the Soiet entry into Poland, for example, this time we are talking about 1) Soviet troops entering Yugoslavia after formal permission is granted by the Yugoslav authorities, 2) conducting operations almost exclusively restricted to the liberation of the capital city (which is near the border), 3) all operation were conducted jointly and in agreement with the Yugoslav army, 4) the Red Army left Yugoslavia shortly after rendering said assistance, and without any kind of major pillaging and rape. The radical right in Serbia, however, chooses to label these events the "Soviet invasion of Yugoslavia" (without any support in reputable scholarly publications, of course), and this sort of Tolkien history is being pushed and defended on Wikipedia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am also somewhat uncomfortable to read this. However, we must agree that, since we both are not native English speakers, that may be a result of our own perception. The article about D-Day has a title Invasion of Normandy, and that title also does not imply that the Allies enslaved France, and that they did not liberate it. Similar to the Yugoslavian case, Anglo-American troops acted jointly with Free French, and all needed formal permissions have been granted for their actions. I agree that the article need in a lot of work, however, this title is not the most serious problem.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article's been thoroughly butchered in recent weeks, I'm merely posting this as an example. Where "Invasion of Yugoslavia" differs from "Invasion of Normandy" is in the implication that Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union were at war, whereas Yugoslavia was (at that time, and headed by Tito) probably the only real ally the Soviets had in Eastern Europe, that is to say - completely the opposite. The more accurate analogy imho would be referring to the Allied landings as the "British invasion of France" or "American invasion of France", indeed "invasion of Yugoslavia" makes even less sense since, as far as the Axis was concerned, Yugoslavia did not even exist. This is besides the point, of course, the main issue is that NO reputable sources refer to the Soviet assistance in the liberation of Belgrade as the "Soviet Invasion of Yugoslavia". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany

--Anonymiss Madchen 03:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you will see your flawed thinking, and realize that rape is never the victim's fault. Any feelings of the rapist, whether they are a feeling of entitlement, sexual frustration, childhood "trauma," or anger are never excuses and do not change what has been done and should never be considered as minimizing the severity of the crime.

• Stop Rape
• Men Can Stop Rape
• Rape is Never Justified
• Students Active for Ending Rape
• Feminism

I will be praying for you.

--Anonymiss Madchen 02:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ww2censor (talk) 04:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, in your statement here, you use my real name. While I am obviously not anonymous, I prefer not see my real name used in this context (in reminds me of the hate page that still exists on a certain website, with real names, photos, addresses and such). Could you be so kind as to reword it, by either removing my name or the "ex-EEML member" phrase? Please note that in some corners of this project, the "EEML" is a pretty pejorative term. PS. I appreciate your constructive attitude as seen in that general statement. It is always nice to see that some people can move on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. I didn't know that you username had any relation to your real name. In addition, let me point your attention at the fact that, although I am trying to carefully avoid any association between the EEML case and any concrete names, I thought the ArbitrationRequestsAmendment page was quite appropriate (and the only appropriate) place to discuss that, because for the users who read this page it is a secret de Polichinelle. In addition, I believed it was important to emphasize the fact that some members of this list have a genuine desire to prevent similar incidents in future (and you have to agree that the policy change you and I advocate would make the existence of EEML senseless, and, accordingly, the sanctions against their members unneeded), and thereby to emphasize your good faith. However, if you feel uncomfortable reading my post (which is, frankly speaking, an absolute surprise for me), feel free to change it, or to propose a concrete change, and I'll change my post accordingly.

Sincerely,

--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you could simply change the use of my signiature to User:Piotrus, or some variant of the coded username, that would be best. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Paul. I thought it might be of interest to you since the case reminds that of the Battle of Borodino. There are two conflicting points of view on the outcome of Brusilov Offensive and the numbers of losses from each side. I've attemted to explain the reasons behind the problem at Talk:Brusilov Offensive, but so far the other editors of the article haven't paid attention to it. Perhaps you could help sort the problem out, you seem to have great experience in such matters. GreyHood ^Talk 20:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is ridiculous. I'll look at it, although I need some time to find needed sources.

For instance, the source mentioned in the article (John Schindler. Steamrollered in Galicia: The Austro-Hungarian Army and the Brusilov Offensive, 1916War in History 2003 10 (1) 27–59) says:

"Russia’s summer 1916 Galician operation, the noted Brusilov offensive, was one of the most successful efforts of the First World War, resulting in the near-destruction of the Austro-Hungarian Army in the east. However, the causes of Russian success, and particularly of Habsburg defeat, have been little studied and less understood; in particular, ethnic-based disloyalty has always been the explanation for Austro-Hungarian setbacks in mid-1916. However, this article closely examines poor Habsburg battleŽ eld performance, and concludes that serious tactical shortcomings and inadequate leadership, rather than the vexing nationalities’ question, were the true causes of Austro-Hungarian defeat at the hands of Alexei Brusilov’s offensive."

--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Stalin-Hitler.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has come up again. You may want to comment as to the matter. See here: Talk:Battle of Berlin. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you had any advice as to what might be the best way to invite more neutral users to the discussion over there? In any case I could use your support in getting the attention of WikiProject MilHist participants. I cannot express how invaluable such involvement would be towards achieving consensus on what has been, without any real justification, probably the longest-lasting single military history debate on Wikipedia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just as I said here, I am very much willing to discuss and work on compromise solutions (and that is what I did in this article), but as soon as another side starts blindly reverting my edits, as you just did [36], I am going to edit something else. You may call it BRD or whatever, but we both know what it is. So, I am leaving this article to you, unless you self-revert. Best wishes, Biophys (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is BRD, and I see no reason why you feel offended. I disagree with you, I found your arguments and sources unsatisfactory, and I have already explained why. I am ready to re-consider my opinion if better arguments/sources will be presented.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD is an essay, not a policy. You may also read Wikipedia:BRD misuse. If you wish to show a spirit of cooperation, do not talk about cooperation. Please make compromise edits (as I did [37]), rather than blindly reverting a series of my edits.Biophys (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think your edit is compromise? In addition, we are here not to do favour to each other, but to present what reliable source say, and these sources should be reflected according to their weight. If you believe the section is biased, prove that. I am ready to accept your concrete arguments. The reference to Margolin, who seems to be virtually unknown in scientific community, and whose book is hardly a scholarly research, is not an argument.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation should really occur on the talk page. However, I would advise Biophys to follow policy and guidelines in writing articles. We are supposed to use the best available sources and write in a neutral point of view, not use unreliable sources and provide our own interpretations. Bear in mind that having countless articles of this nature will not have any impact on the opinions of readers, except to see Wikipedia as a poor source of information. Eventually these issues will go to noticeboards and waste the time of editors who could be working on improving articles rather than preventing the development of bad ones. TFD (talk) 03:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul. Margolin is "virtually unknown in scientific community" (meaning you?), and therefore his book published in two countries does not qualify as RS? But you also reject a famous research/nonfiction book by a famous Nobel Prize winner [38]. Then how on the Earth can we agree if your personal opinions contradict WP:RS and WP:NPOV policies, and you just revert me on spot? Well, guys, I have had a "nice" round of editing after coming back from my topic ban already, but prefer to do something more important. Best wishes, Biophys (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Solzhenitsyn was awarded a nobel prize in literature "for the ethical force with which he has pursued the indispensable traditions of Russian literature". That does not make him an expert for the article any more than Obama's receipt of a Nobel prize turns him into an oracle. TFD (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. If you obtained a Nobel prize in literature, that give no additional weight to your opinion in other areas, e.g, chemistry, astronomy, medicine, or history. In addition, the fact that someone got a Nobel prize in past does not automatically mean that his works are not obsolete now.

Re Margolin. I meant not myself; look at this, and explain me, please, is a single book of the non-professional historian, whose works have not been mentioned in English literature, sufficient for rewriting the whole section in the manner you did. You presented the views of this author as mainstream, and added that some authors disagree with that. In actuality, what we need to do is exactly opposite: to explain that, although there were no death camps in Stalin's USSR, some authors describe GULAG as the extermination-through-labour camps, and provide a reference to Margolin, Solzhenitsyn, and other ex-GULAG prisoners.

In summary, if you are ready to defend your viewpoint, please, do that (by providing strong arguments and good sources). If not - leave. Moans and complains will not work here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, A request for clarification has been filed with Arbcom relative to a case in which you participated or might be affected by. Communikat (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[39] That would be more than population of the whole Berlin I believe. Didn't spot that one. Unfortunately Wiki out of my experience is often filled with such falsifications. As open outlet to anyone it is an attractive platform for many fringe groups who otherwise can't get their propaganda presented in mainstream sources.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was a direct falsification. The source clearly said about 100,000, and that number was obtained based on the abortion data from one hospital, so even this number is hardly reliable. The procedure (which was based on several dubious assumptions) has been described on the talk page, and now it is in archives. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to know this: commons:Commons:RIA Novosti. If you read Russian, than you may be interested in this too: wmru:«РИА Новости» на свой день рождения сделали подарок «Википедии». They have uploaded quite a number of cool WWII-era images already, see commons:Category:Images from RIA Novosti. I can see some iconic photos there... They are going to upload up to 800 images, so more pictures are to follow. GreyHood ^Talk 00:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thank you very much!--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I've just noticed this line: "It's possible to make a request for a photo from the archive on the wmru:Проект:Архивы/Visualrian." Might be useful. Someone even requested the picture of the flag over Reichstag already, though not Khaldei's one. GreyHood ^Talk 00:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't understand that. Do you mean that we can make a request to release some concrete photos in PD under CC? --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think so. We may request to release some concrete photo under CC license from the RIAN archive. For example, the images from 1940s are here. Worth trying to choose some, then add the links to them to the second column in wmru:Проект:Архивы/Visualrian (there is a section devoted to the great Patriotic War), and add the name of the article (or articles) which you want to illustrate to the first column. GreyHood ^Talk 14:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added three photos for the beginning. Does it mean that I can expect that they will appear in Commons soon?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so. Here and in various media articles it is written, that up to the end of 2011 they'll upload up to 800 "historical" (историческая тематика) images on Commons. Likely they will do it in large blocks, periodically. I'm not sure, but from the talk page of the project it seems that RIAN wants to make new releases of images on some historical dates, in order to make press releases about new image releases on these dates. Since 22 June has passed already (the date of the first release), I believe that the next major WWII-related dates are 70th anniversaries of the start of the Siege of Leningrad and the Battle of Moscow. Also, people on that talk page write that since there will be more than 800 requests (there are more than 600 already), they will have to sort them so that to receive the most important and valuable images. I hope that WWII images will get high priority. GreyHood ^Talk 18:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An additional set of WWII photographs was uploaded in October: commons:Commons:RIA Novosti/Battle for Moscow. It looks like RIA Novosti might continue uploading new sets of images on anniversaries of major WWII battles, so in 3.5 years they might reach Berlin ). They've also uploaded some other sets related to the Soviet Union. Here are all RIAN images, WWII, Battle of Moscow, Komsomol-related stuff, Nuclear industry, 1980 Summer Olympics. GreyHood ^Talk 13:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thank you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've reported your repeated genocide denial and attempts to misconstrue those who don't agree with you as racist.

--Anonymiss Madchen 03:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm questioning whether I should have done this. Is there any way that I can request that action not be taken if I decide to "forgive" you?

--Anonymiss Madchen 04:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew my complaint.

--Anonymiss Madchen 05:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the discussion on Talk:Rape during the occupation of Germany because I feel it may have been inappropriate.

You can find it here:

User talk:Anonymiss Madchen/Mentioning that Nazi women got what they deserved (Talk:Rape during the occupation of Germany)

--Anonymiss Madchen 05:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about being a jerk. It was completely unacceptable for me to act stupid and everything else irrational that I did.

--Anonymiss Madchen 06:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the discussion on Rapes in Germany Biophys deleted a key part of the quote where sources actually connected these rapes with later events, this allowed him to make the claim that the quote has no sources making such connections. I pointed this out here[40]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[41]. Please note that this particular removal of perfectly sourced and relevant text was completely undiscussed. Could you self-revert, please? Are you going to follow and revert me everywhere [42], together with Nanobear [43]? Thanks, Biophys (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, see the article's talk page. All needed explanations (with sources) have been provided there. Regarding your "Are you going to follow and revert me everywhere?", please, be advised that I started to work on this article earlier that you did.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, I thank you for assuming my action as in good faith. However, you not only removed the SU as a cobelligerent but also the note I put on its belated role as an "Allied" power, note that was 100% consistent with consensus in the talk pages. If France needs a note, so much more the SU demand, begs for one. I assume you removed that in the spur of the moment, as just a global revert. Please do something about this! a globel revert is not enough. it is not historically accurate to have the SU appear as a WW2 belligerent only after 1941, without even a note on where its actions, loyalties and interests were before that time. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaplos (talk • contribs) 22:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, see the template talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was told before I came here that you were a highly fanatical genocide denier. It won't stand; I will rever every single one of your racist and horrific genocide denial edits.

Genocide Denial Watch (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some indirect evidences indicate that you and Sasha Krieger are either the same person, or you act in concert. Please familiarise yourself with WP:SOCK and made due conclusions, otherwise you will have serious problems.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you just copy that message, in other words, spam my talk page? So suddenly when multiple people disagree with you, they automatically merge into one person? Add to that, disagree with the idea that children deserve to be raped.

Face it, your days of advocating for pedophiles are over. You sent your e-thugs (as named by Alex) after Alex and she decided to get a few friends of her own.

Oh, and I was also warned about you. You and your internet trolls were the reason we were brought it.

Sascha Kreiger (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for openly telling that. I responded on your talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well no crap we're the same person because this is Sascha Kreiger. Also, I think it's pretty obvious why I would act in concert with Alex and any other people she decided to bring in. She brought us in because you were running a historical revisionist flame war along with your group of e-thugs, and making it impossible for factual and historical edits to the article. I find it very strange that you would bring up sock puppetry when you already know why we're editing the same article.

Sascha Kreiger (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Alex had it planned from the beginning to form some sort of group page on a user space page to make it clear that we were working in a group. Possibly having some sort of template on all of our user pages may be a good idea, as I am a wiki sysop for other websites, and I try to do things to minimize the look of conspiracy or sock puppetry. I will remind everyone to keep as much communication as possible on this site, to prevent appearance of sock puppetry or conspiracy. Also, just because you say you don't communicate with other users who come to your defense, highly conveniently, as I have been told, as there are many other ways to communicate off of this website; I keep this in mind when dealing with other users and policy on the websites I administrate.

I think it's important to add that I don't agree with a lot of what Alex says, and that I'm not here to be a robot for her cause. I may consider myself independent from her group for this reason.

Sascha Kreiger (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is good, Sasha. However, you still need to familiarise yourself with our policy, because your edits and your behaviour violates it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so dedicated to exonerating the Russians of horrific war crimes which they committed, and perpetuating anti German propaganda?

--Anonymiss Madchen 17:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to self-revert? You have 6 hours after your next edit.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To make your life easier, I reverted your edit by myself. Do not repeat this mistake in future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Paul. I’ve created the article “Viktor Zemskov” that you can improve. I suppose we need this article. Psychiatrick (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An apple pie? Thanks, I love it. Regarding Zemskov, I recommend you to keep in mind that, whereas the figures produced by him seems reliable, and they are used by many scholars, some of his conclusions have been contested by others.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Figures presented by Viktor Zemskov seem reliable to me too, and disputes about his conclusions can be described in the article “Viktor Zemskov.” Psychiatrick (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is kind of funny things from the area of your editorial interest. This photo draw my attention when it was added to the Soviet Union article. It claims to depict "the corpses of starved peasants" in Kharkiv, however the postures suggest that at least one of those peasants is alive. I've checked the source of this photo and it does say that The provenance of these 'famine' photos is neither claimed nor implied and are shown for comparative academic research purposes. The other article on the same site, called The 'Thomas Walker' Conspiracy (Or the Fraudulent Famine Photo Affair) says all those photos were successfully exposed to be a fraud as long ago as 1935. The 'Thomas Walker' is a false identity of Robert Green who never actually was in Ukraine as far as I understand. So this is one more example of Holodomor hoax photos.

Yet this one and some other 'Thomas Walker' photos are on Commons and used on multiple Wikipedias. I'll remove the photo from the USSR article, but some action must be taken regarding this photo and other Walker photos and their cross-wiki usage. What could you suggest? GreyHood ^Talk 12:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, seems those photos are from a different set by a different author and I should have read the sources more carefully. However the question remains whether the photos with a characteristic like The provenance of these 'famine' photos is neither claimed nor implied and are shown for comparative academic research purposes might be used without reservations to illustrate the related articles? GreyHood ^Talk 13:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you could comment on martin's interpretation of German text at Talk:Far left.[44] TFD (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not accuse others of edit warring in edit summaries a you did here [45] when you yourself are on three reverts. You ought respect WP:BRD and not leave the false impression to any passing admin that you were not edit warring yourself. The Last Angry Man (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear TLAM, the edit war is defined as follows: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion.". On the article's talk page I presented my arguments against the edit you made (here), however, you ignored this argument and reverted again [46] without any attempt to address my concern on the talk page. Taking into account that you already made the same reverts in the near past, that editorial pattern is a typical example of an edit war. In future, try to avoid that. Let me also point out that I never do a revert without addressing a reasonable concern expressed by my opponents in edit summaries or on the talk pages.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR you are now on four reverts [47] I strongly urge you to self revert, Also I have made use of the talk page, please do not infer that I have not. The Last Angry Man (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you do use the talk page, however, you make you revert ignoring the arguments presented on the talk page in a direct responce to your own request.

As regards to my fourth change, I believe you yourself see that it has been made to remove a self-contradiction in the article's lede. I can temp[orarily self-revert if you insist, however, that your request shakes my belief in your good faith.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[48] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^Talk 17:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^Talk 18:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

Is the Mälksoo you mentioned on Occupation of the Baltic states this person? [49] And if so do you respect their opinion? The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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[50]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@ 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 [51], 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)[reply]

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

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

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))[reply]

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 Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

User_talk:EdJohnston#User:Paul_Siebert_at_Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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 Wikipedia, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: (1) Wikipedia written for lay people based on questionable quality sources that amplify common stereotypes, or (2) Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[52], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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,^[2] anticipated that clause to apply unneeded limitations to their right to suppress internal disturbances.^[3] 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."^{[4][nb 1]} 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.^[5] Genocide is a popular term for mass political killing, which is studied academically as democide and politicide.^[6]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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,^[7] anticipated that clause to apply unneeded limitations to their right to suppress internal disturbances." ^[8] 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."^{[4][nb 2]}" 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.^[5]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.^[6]" 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.^[9] 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.^[10] 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:^[11]

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.^[12]
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^[13] 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.^[11]
Nevertheless, many authors use the term "genocide" as metaphors for various forms of lethal and non-lethal violence,^[14] including the violence under Communist regimes.^[15] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

As you can see, I am also not very active in Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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

References

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

I created some basic start, and would welcome any contribution. [53] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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:

Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^Talk 18:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Wikipedia, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^Talk 19:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Since despite our views often being different, I find your attitude very reasonable, could you perhaps see my enquiry here[54]. Your opinion would be welcomed. Best regards. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^Talk 01:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I would like to pick the brain of more experienced users about the ongoing exchange between [User:Grandmaster] and a couple of administrators. Grandmaster suggests to restrict access to some and potentially to all articles in Armenia-Azerbaijan by excluding new users [55]. You can reply on my home page if you wish. Dehr (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Paul Siebert. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, 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 DR goes to Wikimania! 11:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia, 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Paul, over here [56] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

...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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

• 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)[reply]

(in case you missed [57])

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [58], 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)[reply]

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

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)) [59]), I did not find evidence to justify an SPI request at this point. My very best wishes (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[10]

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.[5]

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.[11]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

hello! there is a ongoing discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)[reply]

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 ^connect 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)[reply]

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?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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. Wikipedia 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)[reply]

That reminds me a prisoners dilemma: if everyone will accept this your advice, Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia will not be a collection of good quality and neutral content, and 2. when only aggressive users will remain in Wikipedia, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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" [60]. 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; [61][62] the fear of the spread of communism; fear of a socialist United States of Europe; [63] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [64] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You are the subject of complaints filed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents [65] by Paavo273 (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)[reply] 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)[reply] 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)[reply] 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)[reply] As you can see, it's a long process, when dealing with SPAs. GoodDay (talk) 03:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] 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)[reply] 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)[reply] 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)[reply] 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)[reply] 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)[reply] 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)[reply] 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)[reply] 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)[reply] 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)[reply] 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. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 13:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] 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. [66] . The user My very best wishes is tag-teaming with them. 75.51.174.240 (talk) 02:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] 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)[reply] 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)[reply] Hi What happened to you? Did you leave Wiki? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply] Just to let you know -- Missing Wikipedians You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply] Belligerents order in World War 2 There is a discussion about belligerents order for WWII in the talk page [67] 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)[reply] 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.[better source needed=May 2015] 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply] 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply] 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)[reply] Welcome Back! You've been missed. AmateurEditor (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] -) Paul Siebert (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] 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)[reply] Thank you, Nick. Paul Siebert (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] 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)[reply] 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)[reply] 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)[reply] 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)[reply] 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)[reply] 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)[reply] 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)[reply] PS I never played alt history games, but I was thinking about history a lot. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] 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)[reply] 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)[reply] 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)[reply] 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)[reply] 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)[reply] 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)[reply] 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)[reply] 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)[reply] 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)[reply] What perhaps baffled and worried me most when I read it, however, was that even the Pope was at one time wishing Herr H. "godspeed" when the latter embarked on his killing spree in the East. So you can perhaps imagine how prevalent the idea was. --Prüm (talk) 04:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] Talk page edits Paul, please avoid edits like this one. You may not have actually refactored my comment, but where I was replying to Collect and My very best wishes, it now looks like I began a section. Even if this isn't a breach of the letter of WP:REFACTOR, it is a breech of the spirit, and it isn't conducive to further discussion. If you want to reply to what I said in a separate section, just open the section yourself and quote me, please (or anybody else). Of all the issues you may get hauled off to ANI about, this is the silliest, and isn't worth the trouble. Vanamonde (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] Sorry, it was not my intent. The problem was that conversation was totally irrelevant to demography, so I decided to separate the thread. Pardon me. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] No worries, but I suggest you self-revert, and if you wish to reply in a separate section use the quotation template and/or diffs to link to what you're replying to; it will avoid unnecessary ill-feeling. Vanamonde (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] I think it would be better to make a proper explanations (as I've already done on the talk page), because it is not completely clear what exactly you are talking about. If you isagree with what I've done, please, let me know, or change it as you want.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] I just would like to notice that revert by Collect was exactly on the subject of "demographic effects of mass killings", as the title of the section tells. My very best wishes (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] No. The number of killed and demographic consequences are two different things.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] Look, even if Collect misunderstood the section title, that's his problem; and you shouldn't be changing the section title in any case. Since this is getting to be a sticking point, and is also a small but important issue of etiquette, I have simply removed the section title and the comment you inserted there. If you wish to retrieve that comment, please do so from the history and insert it without the section title where you want it. Vanamonde (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] Again, if you feel uncomfortable with what I've done, please, do whatever you want. However, one of two discussions will die as a result, because the section is discussing who separate questions now.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] BTW, I didn't change a section title, I just split the section I created, to separate one thread from another. That is what we do regularly, and noone finds that offensive. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] I'm afraid you're missing the point a bit, Paul. A new section title is fine, so long as you place it after the current discussion or just before one of your own comments. Placing it where you did interrupted the thread of the previous conversation. Vanamonde (talk) 03:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] Vanamonde, in my opinion, I placed the title exactly in the place where the discussion jumped from one subject to another. Actually, you comment was not about the subject of the thread (demographic consequences). We were not discussing Collect's reverts in this section. I would say, your comment was more relevant to the section "Recent deletions of reliably sourced materials and systemic bias" where the user whose changes were reverted by Collect asked the same question. I didn't check history, maybe, he created this thread after you made your first comment, but if that was the case, then, as I expected, this user simply haven't noticed your comment, and started another thread on the same subject. That wouldn't happen if the title created by me was preserved. Another reason for this incident was that there was some edit conflict, so the page was a mess during several minutes. Frankly, I am not sure we need to devote so much attention to this subject. I did that (maybe, it was not the best idea), you decided it was incorrect, fixed it - and I see absolutely no problem with that. We have much more interesting things to discuss :-)--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] WP: NPA Reply to this [68], [69]. I did not violate any policy. Period. Please stop making personal accusations on article talk pages. My very best wishes (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] I am glad you read and understood that I warned you about a violation of the neutrality policy you committed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] I am sorry, but you continue doing the same here, and [70]. You should never make personal accusations like that on article talk pages, and especially when you are mistaken. That was simply a link to incorrect subsection of a wikipage. I corrected it [71] and provided a correct title for the book chapter. If the link tells "Introduction", it must be actually linked to "Introduction". This is all I did.My very best wishes (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] These were comments on your edits, that has nothing to do with you personally. If per WP:DUCK they look like POV pushing, it would be incorrect to say otherwise. However, if you disagree, you may ask some uninvolved admin to interfere. It would be interesting to see the result. Regarding your second point, I already answered it on the talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] I am sorry, but in combination with this and this, and taking into account that all these your claims were groundless, I consider such your comments clearly problematic. My very best wishes (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] What exactly you disagree with? That your post was not supported by reliable sources? It wasn't. That it drew a discussion in a wrong direction? Sure it did. With regard to the rest, just refresh your memory on what does disruptive editing means. I prefer to warn users about their inappropriate contributions instead reporting them to ANI. Regarding the second diff, I apologise. I was not aware of changes that happened in DC policy, and I didn't know that you legitimately put this notice to prepare a ground for future sanctions against me. Taking into account your deep involvement in a EEML case (although at a different nickname), I am sure you know my edit history, and I have no doubt you knew that I am perfectly aware of the situation about EEML and ARBEE in general, so I didn't think the the real goal of this tag was just to inform me. By the way, if a user puts such a tag on someone's talk page, does it mean they themselves is deemed duly informed about DS? I probably should ask some admin about that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] If you ask an admin, please also ask him or her what they think about the diffs (your comments on article talk page and on my talk page) above. And remember: that should be an uninvolved admin (actually, all of them are except only one). Please also ask an admin if I was right here. My very best wishes (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] I'll ask them a wery simple question: if someone posted this template on my page, are them themselves considered duly warned about DS? And my question is directly connected to the fact that you behave as if you are unaware of DS. I hope I have a full right to comment on you on my page in a thread created by you vithout my invitation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] You do not need an admin to post a DS notice on my talk page. You can do it yourself. That's OK. My very best wishes (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] Yes, you are right. I learned about that later. Since you were formally right, I formally apologized. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] Regarding ihis, I sincerely admire you. You appeared to remember old conversations much better than I do. To you keep an archive of all my posts? If that is the case, that is great. Unfortunately, this old conversation has nothing to do with new discussion: most users are new users, your old friends from EEML seem to stay away from it. Although a possibility cannot be ruled out that some of them may magically join a discussion without any invitation. Miracles happen.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] So you need wait until the end of these new discussions you started, right? Now, looking at the old RSNB conversation, you can see that only one of my alleged wiki-friends made a short comment there, and I did not ask him about it. And remember that is was not a vote. So, I do not think that bringing back this very old EEML story is helpful. Bringing back old grudges and making personal comments is bad. For example, I am not trying to explain admins where your username came from. My very best wishes (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] It would be good if you were right, and I will never need to bring this history back. Anyway, the arguments I am bringing now are new (or almost new), I am discussing them with new users, and the question we are discussing is somewhat different. I am not sure I am interested to continue this conversation for a sake of conversation. Try to propose fresh and sourced arguments that proof Courtois's figures were not considered unreliable, intentionally inflated and pushing some provocative idea. In other words, try to prove the reviews provided by me were misinterpreted or they were unreliable. Otherwise, I'll remove this text from the lead, and its restoration may inflict sanctions per DS.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] And what would be a reason for any sanctions? Right now there is no consensus anywhere that the numbers, which where in the page for years, should be removed. Make an RfC about this if you wish. If the RfC will be decided and officially closed in the favor of your proposal, no one including me will object. My very best wishes (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] Tendentious editing and refusal to get a point. In addition, I demonstrated that the some text violates our content policy, and you insist it does not, although my statement is supported by reliable sources, whereas your statement is just with speculations (very illogical). You are supporting a violation of the policy, which is hardly tolerable in an article that is under DS. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] I you really believe it, why do not your report this on an appropriate administrative noticeboard, instead on firing completely unsubstantiated accusations on article talk page? My very best wishes (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] "I am too old for that shit". By the way, noone can guarantee that this idea will not come to somebody else.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] I doubt that the person you are talking about will do it. P.S. I also do not remember at all our old conversations, but simply did a search on RSNB to check if the source has been previously discussed. My very best wishes (talk) 02:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] I don't mean anybody concretely.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] MKUCR I sympathise with efforts to bring balance to that page, but please stop opening section after section while previous discussions are ongoing, and please stop insisting that any changes need to wait on consensus on fundamental questions. By doing so, you are actively making your own objective more difficult, and making it more likely that the current version gets set in stone. I've worked on politically fraught articles for five years now, and I know how things roll. I'm not interested in lengthy discussion here; this is just food for thought. Vanamonde (talk) 03:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] Good point, sometimes my posts are too wordy. Will try to minimize them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] Two reverts in under 24 hours Please note that you have made two clear reverts in under 24 hours on MKUCR. Collect (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]