Talk:Criticism of communist party rule/Archive 3

Starting fresh
Okay, that was a lengthy dispute and a five-day list of proposed changes. I've archived it now, see above. Frankly I must say I don't know enough about this topic to have an opinion on whether the changes are appropriate. Also, the diff between the currently protected version and the last is far from helpful. Let's see if we can reach a compromise on this.

Might I suggest the following. Let's start with three points, 1.Environment, 2.Technology, and 3.Science. Whichever of you that doesn't agree with the current version should write a short paragraph in the sections below describing what should be changed, and add a few arguments. The other party should add a few counterarguments. Please don't go any further than that for the first couple of days. Oh yes, and both parties please sources.

Then, we request community input. Third opinion, basically. That's what article RFCs are for. Do you think that's workable? Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 00:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The editors involved in this page have thoroughly discussed all of these points over and over again. There's really no reason to ask them to rehash all of them and play them out once again, at least other than to torture them. It makes much more sense instead to wait for the arbitration ruling. 172 | Talk 00:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I think there are several ownership problems here, not just one. I'd ask all participants involved to take a step back and ask themselves: how do my actions help to produce an encyclopedia? --Tony Sidaway Talk 21:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * There's an arbcom case about this article? Ouch, that's what I get from being too absent these days. My idea was that if they represented their points in a comprehensible manner (as opposed to the a lenghty and confusing discussion I saw earlier) then other people may be able to understand the dispute and help out. Very well, I'll leave it be for now. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 00:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The case is Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine. Perhaps this page should be reverted back to show the contents of the now archived talk, as evidence so that everyone is on the same page with regard to the staus of this article. Thanks for your reply and your intentions. 172 | Talk 00:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, the links to individual diffs from the Arb pages still appear to work. Presumably the links (and I believe there are some) to sections here do not. Can the archive be merged back until the Arbitration is complete? (This is why I have not archived this talk page, btw.) Septentrionalis 06:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll go ahead and merge the sections. To anyone, if I make a mistake in doing so, just revert me. 172 | Talk 07:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh Christ. It's impossible to move Talk:Criticisms of communism/Archive, the page with the full page history]] back to where it was (Talk:Criticisms of communism) before Radiant's move without first deleting the new Talk:Criticisms of communism created by Radiant's move. My attempt to undo Radiant's move then messed things up even more. Sorry. We'll need Radiant's help to get all the pages moved back to where the belong. 172 | Talk 07:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I moved things back to where I think Radiant had them. Talk through with him what you think should be done instead. --Tony Sidaway Talk  19:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This is still problematic, as it leaves the prior page history of the talk page at Talk:Criticisms of communism/Archive. The pages should be moved back to where they were before Radiant's moves, though they were quite well intentioned and laudable. 172 | Talk 19:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Your point? No one was asking you for your opinion on who has ownership issues here. I criticized you for not consulting Ryan. I am no longer an involved in this dispute and will no longer edit this article; so you and Ryan are the ones who can discuss just how you are going to handle Ultramarine. 172 | Talk 04:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Incorrect 172, and try to be more civil. I filed an incident report regarding Delaney's original violation of policy by reverting before his protection, that was a request for not just opinion but corrective action. Delaney's abuse and ownship issues continue, and you are still here, I guess accusing Sidaway of not showing proper deference to another admin.--Silverback 16:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Unprotecting
Looking at the history it seems mainly to have been some kind of edit war between two parties. This isn't a good reason to stop everybody editing an article, so after over a week I'm unprotecting. If I see a repetition of the disruptive ping-pong style edit warring, I'll deal with it by blocking the disruptive editors. Please feel free to edit boldly in the search for consensus. --Tony Sidaway Talk
 * I announced that I would no longer be editing this article, as there is no chance of reasoning with Ultramarine when he asserts his ownership over an article. So perhaps my input no longer matters here. At any rate, I suggest that you hold off and consult with Ryan Delaney, the administrator who has been following this page and who imposed the protection, before acting unilaterally here. 172 | Talk 20:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

BTW, does anyone want to place bets as to when we see that the "correct and referenced version" is restored? My bet is quite soon. 172 | Talk 20:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't appreciate Tony unprotecting articles I have protected without consulting me, for the second time. As User:172 pointed out, I've been following this dispute and I protected the article for a reason. --causa sui talk 21:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * As admitted by himself, Ryan Delaney has willfully broken the protection policy because he dislikes me as a person. At the same time he made a personal attack: "To this, I plead guilty as charged; I did willfully ignore that part of the blocking policy, and I ignored it because I felt the situation called for me to do so. Rather than revert while protecting, I could have waited for someone else to revert, and then protect the article, and in so doing avoid all appearance of impropriety: but I feel that would not have been necessary. Ultramarine is one of the most stubborn, persistent, and arrogant Wikipedia editors I have encountered."


 * He has also entered evidence in the RfA which involves this article. He should obviously not protect this page. Ultramarine 21:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Economic Development/Comparison between countries
I'm not sure if this has already been discussed before, so I'll just raise the issue: currently, the only comparisons mentioned are those between East and West Germany and between Cuba and Jamaica/Cuba and Caribbean. I agree that the second comparison is not really meaningful, given the embargo of Cuba, but also given that Jamaica is hardly a model capitalist economy. Actually I was wondering why there was no mention of North and South Korea: after all, South Korea was traditionally the poorer, agricultural part of Korea, while the North was the industrial heart of the country. Yet once South Korea started to adopt capitalist economics, its economy developped very fast (actually faster than even Japan). In the meantime, North Korea descended into mismanagement and famine. Another example could be China: once China adopted pro-capitalist reforms (i.e. after Mao) the economy started to bloom and now is one of the economic motors of the world. Again, another comparison could also be made with Taiwan, which after all was a neglected and not very industrial island before the Kuomintang sought refuge there and became one of the Asian tiger nations (even though almost no country actually recognises it!). Luis rib 20:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You can find these comparisons in the correct and referenced version. As it is usually immediately blankly reverted, I suggest that you look in the edit history in order to find it. Ultramarine 20:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * What about this consideration. By far most countries in the world are capitalist and most of those are poor and very few have escaped that poverty. So that makes for a very bad case for capitalism, but I wouldn't abolish it for that reason. And the reason for that is that there are almost no alternatives. The only one is 'communism' (well, state socialism, really), but every country that has adopted that did so through a revolution. And revolutions are pretty disruptive. The only example of non-revolutionary communism I can think of (and this is more like true communism) are the kibutzim in Israel. I expect that if you'd classify countries by the stability of their political development you'd see that that is the determining factor in stead of the economic model in use (there must be such studies - anyone?). Ultimately, there are waaaaaay too few examples to statistically make a case for anything at all. And ceterus is most definitely not paribus here. So the only thing you can say is that you can't say anything. People understandably don't like such conclusions, but let's keep things scientific. DirkvdM 21:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

List of proposed changes III
(Moved this list here from the most recent achieve). The correct and referenced version has over 70 verifiable and reliable references for its statements. In contrast, the other version violates Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view. It contains deliberate and verifiable factual errors, numerous dubious original research statements, and systematic deletions of views with verifiable and reliable sources. Here are some of the more important differences. Ultramarine 12:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * We have already been over this twice already, and it proved impossible to reach an agreement with you. I have not responded to your points earlier because I have come to the conclusion that trying to reason with you is futile; I assume the other editors feel the same way. But I will attempt to discuss with you once more. I will also restore the previous Talk page which contains important evidence of our past arguments. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 15:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The section "Relevance of the Communist states for Marxist theory"
Deletion of every one of the many argument in this section that the Communist states were related to Marxist theory. This is the single most important difference between our versions. Ultramarine 12:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * There are no such arguments in your article. There are only arguments that Communist states deviated from Stalinist practices and were very different from each other. But non-Stalinist does not equal Marxist. And Marx did not give any clear directions for the organization of a workers' state, believing that advanced planning of a future society constituted the fallacy of "utopian socialism". -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 15:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Simply false, see the correct and referenced version which has numerous well-referenced arguments in this section that have been deleted without explanation, including Lenin quoting Marx and Engels. Ultramarine 18:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Precisely due to the vague nature of Marx' recommendations, it is possible to construct a wide variety of political and economic systems that fit in with what he said in selected quotes. In addition, not only is the link between Marx and Lenin disputed, but so is the link between Lenin and the subsequent Communist states. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, claims without sources. I have given extensive sources, give yours, otherwise it is original research. Ultramarine 19:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The section "Human rights"
This section completely deleted, related to above Ultramarine 12:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Marx could not have rejected human rights, since the concept did not exist in his time. He specifically did not reject freedom, but claimed he wanted to augument it. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, claims without sources. I have given extensive sources that support my statements, give yours, otherwise it is original research. Ultramarine 19:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Marx's claims that he wanted to augument freedom are given by your sources, Ultramarine. Specifically, the excerpt that Brian Caplan quotes. As for human rights, I would like to remind you that the concept of universal human rights was first established after World War II. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Rights are mentioned both the US and French constitutions long before WWII. I have given a source and Caplan lists where he has taken his quotes. You have given no sources, thus your claims are original research. Ultramarine 22:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The section "Tabula Rasa"
This section completely deleted, related to above Ultramarine 12:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * There are no actual Marxist sources claiming that human nature is a tabula rasa; at the very least, there is no consensus among Marxists on the subject. You cite a secondary source making claims about the views of Marxists. This is unacceptable. Let the Marxists speak for themselves. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, claims without sources. I have given a source by respected historian. And he has numerous Marxist sources, for example Trotsky as noted in the article. Ultramarine 19:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, if he has actual Marxist sources, and you are in possesion of his book, then you can easily cite those Marxist sources, correct? Please do so. Cite the primary sources used by your respected historians, because even respected historians can have unfounded opinions. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I do not have the book at the moment since I lent it at library months ago. There is no requirement in any Wikipedia policy that I must list the references used by other researchers. I have given a source written by an respected historian, you have given no, and as such your claims are original research. Ultramarine 22:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Then I challenge your source as unreliable until I have evidence that the views you cited were based on primary material as opposed to personal opinion and speculation. I will search for other sources giving counter-claims, but, in any case, it is not up to me to prove innocence; it is up to you to prove guilt. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please, do not invent your own Wikipedia policy. An academic book by respected historian is a reliable source. You can check his references yourself, there is no requirement that I should list them. If you want to criticize the book, you should do so with sources, your own opinion is original research. Ultramarine 22:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don't doubt your sources as much as I doubt your honesty in reporting what they say. You have given me every reason to believe you are editing in bad faith. You have given a number of very unusual and incomplete accounts of your sources' findings before, on the questions of life expectancy and pollution if I recall correctly. I am doing research at the moment, and, when I cite sources, I will do my best to provide you with exact quotes or at least page numbers. Your claim that Trotsky believed communism would physically alter human beings is extraordinary, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If I made an equally extraordinary claim - for example, citing Robert Conquest as saying that Stalin had a secret love affair with Hitler - then I should be held to the same standards. I have seen editors invent references before. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 04:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please, I asked that you should avoid smear tactics and ad hominem. I have given extensive, verifiable, and reliable source for the statements. Contrast this to the unverifiable original research in your version. It is good that you are now doing research. Please return when completed and if you have some statements backed by reliable and verifiable sources. Remember, we are writing a reliable and verifiable encyclopedia. Ultramarine 14:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The section "Historical analysis"
This section completed excluded. Ultramarine 12:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This falls under criticisms of historical materialism. Your version of the article has many sections that are no more than a paragraph long. The collaborative version is more compact, with less headings. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * False, your article has no mention of this referenced criticism of Marx's theory of classes and historical development.Ultramarine 19:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Pseudoscience
Excludes Popper's argument against central planning. Ultramarine 12:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It is only a sentence long and it will be added to the collaborative version. One question I have, however, is whether Popper argued against ideologies that claim to have any knowledge of the future, or merely against those that claim to have exact knowledge of the future. Some Marxists fall into the latter category, but most fall under the former, since they only claim to have a rough idea of what the future will be like. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Nationwide central planning obviously requires a rather good ability to predict the future. Ultramarine 22:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Marx's predictions
Refusal to give a verifiable source for the very controversial statement that David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill would have agreed with most of Marx's predictions. Ultramarine 13:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * See iron law of wages. I'm not sure about John Stuart Mill, but David Ricardo certainly agreed that workers' wages would naturally drift to the subsistence level. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 15:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That does certainly not mean that these two would have agreed with most of Marx predictions, such as a proletarian revolution or the development of monopolies or the development of two homogeneous classes or that all skilled workers would be replaced by machines. Ultramarine 18:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it would be more accurate to say that Marx agreed with some of their predictions (since they preceded him), and made a few more of his own. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Historical materialism
No mention of Max Stirner's argument against the philosophy of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Ultramarine 12:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems to be rather tangential to the issue. Marx was by no means a strict Hegelian (he rejected idealism in favor of materialism, for one thing), and drawing a straight line from Hegel to 20th century Communism is, frankly, absurd. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Marx certainly used many of Hegel's concepts, thus this is a relevant criticism. And this criticism is not in the section about the Communist states. Ultramarine 19:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Could we get a reference for the Stirner position? I have never heard of Stirner arguing such a thing. --12/24/25
 * Stirner is known as a nihilist for a reason. He showed that Hegelian critical methods led all the way to nihilism just as cartesian criticism did.  If you read his work, you will see he basically does a reductio ad absurdem of the dialectic, since the choice of anti-thesis is completely subjective.  If you find his works difficult because of their poetic and literary elements, I suggest reading some of the dissertations covering his work.   Marx reacted strongly against his work, but changed his own views in response to it.  It is an open question whether Marx's materialism is really any less "religious" or faith based that Hegel's idealism was. Marx certainly hasn't made any arguments against nihilism that have gained respect in the philosophical mainstream.--Silverback 09:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Labor theory of value
No mention of the criticism against Marx's statement that only labor can cause an increase in value. Ultramarine 12:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Environment
False statement that many of the ecological problems continued unabated after the fall of the Soviet Union. The environmental situation has improved in every studied former Communist state. Ultramarine 12:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "Many" does not equal "all". There are certainly many ecological problems that continue unabated after the fall of the Soviet Union. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 15:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You have given no sources for your claims. Again, the environmental situation has improved. Ultramarine 18:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Life expectancy
Excludes mentioning that life expectancy started to increase immediately after the fall of Communism in many Eastern European states. Ultramarine 12:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Review your sources. From what I recall, they showed that life expectancy underwent a sharp decline after the fall of Communism, then started to recover around the mid 1990s and eventually reached and surpassed its 1989 levels in some of the former Communist countries. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 15:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have examined my sources, the improvements started immediately in several of the Eastern European states. Ultramarine 18:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Living standards
Exclusion of the very poor living standards and health care in the Soviet Union. Ultramarine 12:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Very poor compared to what? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 15:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * See the referenced statements in the article. Ultramarine 18:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Economic growth under Stalin
No mention of the fabricated figures from the Stalin era, instead stating "dramatic advances, including rapid development of heavy industry during the 1930s in the Soviet Union". Ultramarine 12:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you deny that there was rapid development of heavy industry during the 1930s in the Soviet Union? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 15:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There were certainly some development, but as noted with source much of this was simply imaginary figures. Ultramarine 18:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Cuba
States that Cuba is a comparatively successful communist state. No mention of the arguments against this. Ultramarine 12:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Your version always ends any discussion with an anti-communist counter-counter-...-argument. I try to refrain from making paragraphs excessively long by introducing too many counter and counter-counter arguments, but I will do so if you leave me no choice. I would prefer, however, to end with a balanced look at both sides. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Do not delete well-referenced information. If you have something more, add it with references.Ultramarine 20:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

East Germany
No mention of the continued decline in productivity under Communist rule. Ultramarine 12:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I will check your sources and their precise claims. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Good. Until you do and have referenced arguments, do not remove referenced information. Ultramarine 22:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Korea and China
No mention of the famines in North Korea and China as compared to the situation in South Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. Ultramarine 12:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This may be included in a larger section on comparison controversies. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Good. Until you do, do not remove referenced facts. Ultramarine 22:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism
No mention of Communist support of terrorist groups. Ultramarine 12:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * We have been over this. Criticisms of communism must remain specific to things that are unique to communism or at least more prevalent in communist societies than in others. Many governments have sponsored terrorism; and in any case, "terrorism" is a POV term. Their supporters call them freedom fighters. A neutral way to refer to them would be paramilitary organizations. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The text already states "claimed" terrorist organisations. And there is no such requirement that you demand, communists are quick to criticize claimed state terrorism by capitalist states, so obviously similarly Communist states can also be criticized. No double standard. Ultramarine 19:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I was not aware that wikipedia was run by communists who insist on writing about presumed terrorism by capitalist states as an established fact. You are trying to excuse your POV by saying that your opponents also have a POV. Well, of course they do, but their POV is not endorsed by wikipedia. Neither should yours be. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * See for example State terrorism.Ultramarine 22:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Science
False statement that pure science and military technology saw remarkable progress. At best, they were occasionally advanced. Ultramarine 12:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. Pure science and military technology did see remarkable progress in the Soviet Union, and there is ample evidence for this. I will go look for specific examples. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Good. Until you do, your claims are original research and not allowed by wikipedia policy. Ultramarine 22:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Numbers killed
No mention of the numbers given by the Black Book of Communism, by Yakovlev, or the estimated total of about one hundred million dead reached in several different overviews. Ultramarine 12:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus among historians as to the exact numbers; the margin of error is immense. As such, "tens of millions" is the most accurate statement that can be made. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 15:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, one can be extremely accurate in citing exactly what sources estimate. We aren't here to do original research.--Silverback 17:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Certainly. I would welcome a paragraph that discussed various estimates without showing preference to any of them. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 17:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Why have you then deleted such information and a table with references that mention such estimates. Again, give sources for your claims. Ultramarine 18:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Because the table gives more weight to the numbers in the Black Book as opposed to any others. We must either have a table including numbers from all sources or no table at all. I'd go for the latter option. As for my claims, I am merely claiming that there are quite a few widely different estimates for the number of deaths in Communist states. This is evidently true from your own sources. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, claims without sources. I have given extensive sources, give yours, otherwise it is original research. My sources give a total of about one hundred million deaths by several different researchers. Ultramarine 20:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The Sources in the Black Book are someone conservative. I've seen other estimations which put the SOviet Union at 35 million and China at 80 Million. When calculating human death toll as a result of wars begun by communist regimes the death toll rises even further. And when following Hayeks thesis that communists are merely totalitarians like facsists (that is a severe lack of economic freedom) you will see the overall death toll rise to staggeringly gross heights. It is a fact that will soon be proven, but communism and facsism will always lead to human rights violations and war. Always. (Gibby 17:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC))


 * Other sources give as little as 3.5 million for Stalin and 24 million for Mao . And by the way, 24,000 people die of hunger every day in capitalist countries. You do the math. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 01:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.... (Gibby 15:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC))
 * I moved the copied and pasted text uploaded by Gibby above to its own page Talk:Criticism of communist party rule/Gibby because it extended the margins of the talk page, making it so that the text here cannot fit into most broswer screens.


 * Yes, as I explained, the page lists all the different estimates of death tolls, including the ones you cited above but also including many others. In the article, we should either provide a fair selection of estimates or none at all. Since you rejected the latter option, I'll get to work on the former. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 23:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Stalin take a look again, he says Stalin's regime was responsible for 20 million deaths that is about 17 million more than you said when you sent me this link. (Gibby 06:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC))


 * Yes, Mr. White does, but one of his sources - namely Ponton, G. (The Soviet Era, 1994) - gives 3.5 as his estimate. Others give less, but those estimates are not made for all of Stalin's victims. And the median of lower-end estimates is 8.5 million. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 02:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Czarist Russia
No mention that the human rights violations were less severe during that era compared to the Soviet Union.
 * Compared to the Soviet Union before 1956, that is. Your article gives the impression that Stalin-scale violations were carried out by all Soviet leaders, which is false. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 15:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Even after 1956, Soviets prohibiting emmigration even to the extent of shooting or imprisoning people trying to escape, in continued to suppress and censor the press, required papers and permissions to travel even within the country and supported other murderous regimes, including China and N. Vietnam. The Sovient Union itself remained a gulag of exploited captive labor, forced to work at wage levels set by the state, and not allowed to seek their market value elsewhere. --Silverback 17:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Restrictions on emigration are the least of the human rights violations that the Soviet Union has been accused of, and in any case both Czarist Russia and present day capitalist states hold strong barriers against the flow of people to or from the country (or both). "Murderous regimes" is POV. "Exploited captive labor" and the idea that market wages are better than state wages are also extremely POV. This article shall not become a libertarian rant like so many others on wikipedia. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 17:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, I was writing on the "Talk:" page. Your dismissal of restrictions on emigration is just as POV. Emigration is the most basic right, and should have been important to the communists too, if they were at all ethical.  If they had allowed emmigration, they could have claimed that the oppressed workers had consented to their rules by staying, i.e., they were voluntary members of the society.  By not being a voluntary society, they make it clear they are an oppressive one.--Silverback 18:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Your argument is no excuse for deleting all the referenced information. Numerous violations certainly continued after Stalin, including executions and incarceration of political opponents, although on a much smaller scale. However, I will clarify the smaller scale. Ultramarine 18:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That was my point: That Stalin, not the Soviet Union in general, was much worse than the Czars. Thank you for acknowledging it. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have not acknowledged something like that. Lenin do not compare favorably with his direct executions of hundred of thousands of political opponents and I will add statistics for the post-Stalin perioed that is not flattering. Ultramarine 20:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

WWII
No mention of the hope for another great war, the direct support for German rearmament, and prohibition of cooperation against Hitler when he took power. Ultramarine 12:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The Western powers also hoped for a war between Germany and the USSR. Stalin prohibited cooperation against Hitler without expecting this to lead to Hitler's rise to power, and Communists fought an ideological, political and occasionally military struggle against fascism throughout the 1930s. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, claims without sources. I have given extensive sources, give yours, otherwise it is original research. Ultramarine 20:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Imperialism
Excludes mentioning many cases of imperialism by Communist states, most importantly those by Lenin's regime. Ultramarine 12:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "Imperialism" is POV. Anti-communists called it imperialism, but communists called it liberation. Same perspectives as with the American invasion of Iraq. If we mention the incidents, both POVs must be given. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Again, no double standard. Communists criticize capitalist states for imperialism, thus similar actions by Communist states can also be criticized. Ultramarine 20:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I was not aware that wikipedia was run by communists who insist on criticizing capitalist states for imperialism. Again, you are trying to excuse your POV by saying that your opponents also have a POV. Well, of course they do, but their POV is not endorsed by wikipedia. Neither should yours be. In other words: Wikipedia does not give the US invasion of Iraq as an example of imperialism. It says that the issue is controversial, with some claiming it as an example of imperialism and others saying it was liberation. Likewise, similar military actions by communist states should be noted as controversial, with some claiming them as examples of imperialism and others saying they were examples of liberation. No double standard. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It is certainly a double standard that Lenin should be allowed to criticize capitalist states for imperialism and then not allow criticism of him when he does the same thing.Ultramarine 22:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Imperialism was defined by Lenin, and so if anything fits into its definition it imperialism. That doesnt mean it cant by defined in other ways as well. Else you have to define the communist states, as not being imperialist states, like this example: To define the Soviet Union as being with out a leading class when taking control of other contries, which is absurd as every source tells different!--Fjulle 16:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Critics of communism
No mention of the many historians, economists, and philosophers who have criticized communism. Ultramarine 12:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't we have a list of anti-communists somewhere? If yes, we should link to it. If not, we might consider creating one. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Obviously this article should mention the prominent researchers and critics, as the correct and referenced version does. You have given no explanation for your deletion of those mentioned. Ultramarine 20:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The deleted well-referenced facts and arguments
There has been no objections to the "List of proposed changes III" above and now more than two weeks have passed since it was written. Therefore, I will shortly restore the currently deleted well-referenced facts unless there is referenced arguments against this. Please follow Verifiability, No original research, and NPOV. I again invite factual discussions regarding the content, please avoid smear tactics and ad hominem. Ultramarine 02:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I shall put forward my arguments shortly. Please do not ignore the ongoing RfAr. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 06:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine, the superior version is not automatically the one with the largest number of footnotes. In this case the version that you were working on in your sandbox would be a good research paper, but would not work as an encyclopedic entry. "Criticisms of communism" are supposed to be the subject of the article, not necessarily the source for the article. The article is supposed to describe and summarize these criticisms in a fair and neutral manner, as opposed to turning the article itself into something that falls under the category of these criticisms. 172 07:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No examples, no references, no attempt to respond to the "List of proposed changes". I will shortly restored the deleted well-referenced facts unless factual, referenced explanations for the deletions of well-referenced facts are given. Ultramarine 08:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
As alluded to on Content forking, "Criticism of X" titles are inherently non-neutral, because they present the debate one-sidedly and imply that the only discussion of a subject is negative. See Talk:Criticism of Christianity for the many examples of where "Criticism of X" articles have become perennial and unresolvable neutrality disputes, and a discussion of how to address this. Uncle G 03:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm by no-means on the same side of the fence politically as Ultramarine, but I agree that if you have a "Criticism of X" article, then, the POV argument goes out the window. I wouldn't expect to see pro-capitalist arguments on the Anti-capitalism page. [[Image:Flag of Ireland.svg|20px]] Camillus [[Image:Flag of Scotland.svg|20px]] talk | contribs 09:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There are no arguments at all on that page... And it is certainly against wiki policy to have an article with one-sided POV. Any "criticisms of X" article should focus on the arguments against X, of course, but it should present both the supporters' and opponents' views on those arguments. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that there are many "criticisms" articles, especially for political ideologies: Category:Criticisms. The other side have previously expressed that the size of the article makes it impossible to incorporate in the communism article. Initially it was 172 who created this article and moved the original content here. However, if someone has a better solution, please state it so we can discuss it. Ultramarine 13:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Not all of the articles, or even most of the articles, in that category are "Criticism of X" articles, so that point is largely irrelevant. As for the better solution, it is the one discussed at Talk:Criticism of Christianity:  Take everything out of this article and place it in neutral-scope articles, use summary style to connect the neutral-scope articles to Communism or to Communist state as their parent articles, and then redirect this article to Communism.  For examples: Place the discussion of Marxist theory that is here in the neutral-scope Marxist theory article.  Create neutral-scope Economic and social development of Communist states, Human rights in Communist states, Censorship in Communist states, and similar articles as breakout articles of Communist state, and address the whole discussion, not just the side with the criticisms, in each. Uncle G 03:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Something like that seems like a good idea. A short summary should be in the communism article. What is the opinion of the other side, it was they who wanted all the criticisms to be in this article? Ultramarine 14:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It does indeed seem like a good idea. However, we should not rush into it. The content dispute in this article needs to be resolved before we can move any content to other articles - otherwise we'll just end up with a bunch of new, separate disputes. I suggest we use this article as a temporary workspace, and, once consensus has been achieved, break it up into the smaller neutral-scope articles discussed above. For one thing, all we have here at the moment are criticisms of economic and social development, human rights, and censorship in communist states. If we are to write neutral-scope articles, we would need a somewhat equal number of statements of support for the practices of communist states. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 23:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The whole point is that the dispute is unresolvable, by the very one-sided nature of the article. I suggest that you take a tack different from waiting for the impossible to happen, and reduce the problem in stages.  Start with the easiest:  Work on moving the Marxist theory content from here to Marxist theory.  It will give you experience in what you need to do to expand the coverage to include all sides of the debate. Uncle G 05:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You miss the point entirely, this article is a solution to the problem of a clique controlling the communism article which did not allow the critical information in there. You "solution" just goes back to the original problem, which is articles controlled by cliques hostile to criticism.--Silverback 08:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that the primary problem is the unexplained and massive deletions of well-referenced material. A move will by itself not change this. As long as the other side refuse to do research and instead just blankly deletes well-referenced information, the conflict will probably continue regardless of in which article the material is. There is also a problem with moving only Marxist theory since one the most important questions is the implications of the real world results of the Communist states for Marxist theory. Should this section remain or be moved? These are two problems that probably should be resolved before a move.


 * I have never objected to more supporting statements of the kind Mihnea Tudoreanu argues for in this article. Of course, they should have reliable and verifiable sources. Note also that NPOV is not an equal space policy as Mihnea Tudoreanu seems to think, if there are no substantial verifiable arguments for a position, then none should be added. If the other side starts doing often tedious research and cite sources, as I have done, instead of just doing easy and quick unexplained deletions, then hopefully this conflict can be resolved. Ultramarine 06:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * NPOV does require the more-or-less equal discussion of facts from both sides. See WP:NPOV: "If only the favorable (or the unfavorable) facts of a point of view are shown in an article, the article will still be non-neutral." But, in any case, I have always appreciated your zeal and the effort you put into your research, one-sided though it may be. I have collected a number of sources on human rights and economic development in communist states, and I am currently in the process of going through them. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * "Facts" are not POV, if one side has a lot more facts, those should not be trimmed down to match the paltry number of facts on the other side. It is fine to let the contrary side of an argument have it say, but there is no need to replicate in this article, defenses or apologias already present in the communism article. After all the communism article did not allow the critical information in there.--Silverback 08:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I have not made a secret of my assumption that Ultramarine is editing in bad faith. I am more than willing to put that behind me and make ammends if Ultramarine turns out to be willing to give equal weight in the article to assertions made by pro-communist sources. In my experience, he has had a bad habit of framing every pro-communist statement within a "Communists say X, BUT..." format. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 23:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Finally, I believe we should enlist the help of native Russian speakers, because the majority of pro-Soviet works have quite naturally been published in the Soviet Union. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 23:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Please, I have asked that you should avoid smear tactics and ad hominem. I have given extensive, verifiable, and reliable source for the statements. Contrast this to the unverifiable original research in your version. If you have some statements backed by reliable and verifiable sources they should of course be added. Remember, we are writing a reliable and verifiable encyclopedia. Ultramarine 06:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Please, Ultramarine, it is quite evident that your research was focused almost exclusively on anti-communist sources. Of course, this practice is not against any wiki policy, but let me put it this way: If you arrived upon an article entitled "criticisms of communism" and found that it consisted entirely of (well-referenced) pro-communist arguments against various criticisms, what would be your opinion of the author? I daresay you would suspect him/her of editing in bad faith to support a communist agenda. Now turn that example around and draw your own conclusions about my views regarding your editing pattern. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Mihnea --> Why dont you collect your facts and discuss them once that is done, instead of continuing without proof. Otherwise the charge that you go ad hominem against Ultramarine seems to be correct.--Fjulle 16:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Location of the recent discussion
I believe it would be much more visible at Talk:Criticism of communist party rule/new discussion than here (at the bottom of an already excessively long page), and keeping it updated in both places would be unnecessarily difficult. I would see it as a sign of good faith if you agreed to continue our discussion there. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Obviously the recent discussions about this article should be on this page and not hidden somewhere else. The standard procedure is to archive the oldest parts, not removing the newest. Ultramarine 18:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Very well, we will continue our discussion here. I know better than to attempt to enter another argument with you. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course the recent discussion should be here, however, have these moves been done correctly, I believe there is a proper way to do this so that history is preserved in order to comply with some kind of licensing arrangement. Perhaps we need an admin to review this, or are you sure it is correctly done?--Silverback 19:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it is correctly done. I put up a notice calling for admin help a long time ago, but no one replied. It seems this article is a pariah of the wiki and no one wants to touch it (just look at how the RfAr has stagnated). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu

Introduction and note on communist states
I raise the following objections to Ultramarine's most recent edits:

-- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) The fact that the phrase "communist state" is an oxymoron/paradox according to Marxist theory must not be removed from the introduction to the criticisms of communist states. Neither must the definition of a "communist state" (a single-party state where the ruling party officially proclaimed its adherence to Marxism-Leninism). Before we present any criticisms, we must briefly explain what the object of those criticisms is.
 * 2) The sentence "If they did follow Marxist theory, then the theory failed to work in the real world" is POV, because the idea that the communist states were failures is POV.
 * Perhaps it could be noted that the states have so far, "failed" to fade way, or whatever it is that the dictatorship of the proletariat is supposed to do.--Silverback 00:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If you failed to do something, that implies that you tried. The Communist states never got around to trying to fade away. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 02:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The purges were an attempt to fade away, by eliminating people that were perceived as problematic, as was the intense propaganda in the schools. These were attempts to change human nature through "education" and pruning.--Silverback 12:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of any communist describing either the purges or the education system as attempts to make the state or anything else "fade away". And the majority of communists don't believe in the existence of "human nature", so they do not think there is anything to change. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Not believing in human nature is the very reason they consider it changable in re-education camps for example, although when persons are particularly intransigent, they are purged or imprisoned. The communists may not speak in terms of making the state fade away in justifying the purges, but they do point to problematic people and movements as justifying the various state apparati used to control the population, as if it is the victims that are responsible for the state.--Silverback 12:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) A less important point: The note on "Communism" vs "communism" should go in a separate paragraph of the intro rather than in the italicized header. It makes the header too long and unaesthetic.

1. Your are arguing that the Communist argument should be presented without the counter-argument regarding the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is POV.
 * It's not an argument, it's a definition. The term "communist state" was never used by the communists themselves. You seem to believe that any mention of the paradoxical nature of this term automatically implies an argument that the communist states went contrary to communist theory. That is not the case. A supporter of the "communist states" would argue that the term is an oxymoron, but the states themselves did indeed follow communist theory by representing the socialist stage of society. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 02:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

2. Will tweak that.
 * Thank you. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 02:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

3. As agreed not an important point. I feel that beginning the article with this paragraph feels awkward, the intro should be a brief summary. Maybee the header could be split into two paragraphs? Ultramarine 22:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I suppose that would work. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 02:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Mihnea Tudoreanu, why have you completely deleted the paragraph regarding the dictatorship of the proletariat? This is a gross npov violation that will be restored unless there is an explanation. Also, why should Trotsky's follower be mentioned specifically in the intro, there are many other communist groups who have criticzed the Communist states? Third, the explanation of capitalisation must be first in the article since capitalisation is important also in the intro. Ultramarine 23:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that the dictatorship of the proletariat was discussed elsewhere. But I will agree with including it in the general description of communist states. Trotsky should be mentioned because he was the first; at the very least, the intro must not give the impression that communist criticism of communist states is a recent development. Finally, as a personal request, please stop referring to everything as "a gross npov violation". I have a theory that if we try to be more friendly we might actually end up getting more work done. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 02:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine, why did you revert all my changes to the first paragraph of the intro? Most of them were tweaks for style and flow; the only significant content change that I see is replacing Marxism with Marxism-Leninism, which is an important point. The Communist states did not merely claim to be following Marxism; they claimed to be following Marxism-Leninism. As a general request, please do not revert edits that merely rephrase something rather than actually altering content. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 02:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

In addition, I would ask you not to integrate any of the information from the intro into the main body of the article, because I will do a thorough revision of the body of the article by the end of this week. Arguing over changes to it in its current form is therefore a moot point. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 02:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

There are some problems with MH's current text.
 * 1. "When written as a common noun, with a lowercase "c", they refer to an economic system characterized by collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members; or to the position that such a system is possible and desirable." This seems to be a description of socialism, but communism is generally associated specifically with Marxism.
 * True, my description was too vague. I kept yours, with a couple of tweaks. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2. Why should Trotsky's followers be mentioned in the general intro? There were other communist critics before him. This seems to be advocacy for one particular branch.
 * The first communist critic of communist states should be mentioned. If it is not Trotsky, please say who it is. The intro must not give the impression that communist criticism of communist states is a recent development. At the very least we must give a date if not a name, for the first criticism. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Mensheviks were critical before Trotsky. See the section, "Socialist criticisms of the Communist states". I see no reason the Trotsky should be the only mentioned critic in the general intro, especially as he himself has been accused of large scale human rights violations. Ultramarine 20:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * We can certainly briefly mention in the intro the early communist criticisms of the Communist states, but as noted that existed before Trotsky and even before Lenin had taken power. Ultramarine 20:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3. Much of the criticism is against all Marxism, not just Marxism-Leninism, as currently stated.
 * But communist states claimed to follow Marxism-Leninism, not just Marxism. This should be mentioned. I will edit the intro to explain that we are giving criticisms of Marxism in general, which apply to the particular version of Marxism that the communist states claimed to follow. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4. Duplication of arguments, the same thing is stated in two different places in the body. Ultramarine 21:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The definition of communism as a stateless system is accepted by all communists, both advocates and opponents of communist states. As such, it cannot be an argument for the view that the communist states did not follow Marxism. I would suggest you edit the body of the text accordingly. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please read the whole text. All the information that you placed at the beginning of "Criticisms of 20th century Communist states" are already stated in a better context in "Relevance of the Communist states for Marxist theory". As such, it is duplication that should be removed. Ultramarine 20:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of consensus version
172, you have without explanation decided to delete much well-referenced material from the article. You have also without giving explanation deleted the consensus that have been painstakingly reached on this subject. Please give sourced explanations for your actions, otherwise I will restore the consensus version. Ultramarine 05:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Restoring the non-advocacy version
Ultramarine has been arguing that it is self-evident that his version of the article, which he is now taken to calling the "consensus version," is the superior one because it happens to contain a relatively large number of footnotes. While his version may be able to serve as a passable research paper, it is not encyclopedic in its content and tone. "Criticisms of communism" are supposed to be the subject of the article, not necessarily the essence of the article. The article is supposed to describe and summarize these criticisms in a fair and neutral manner. Instead, Ultramarine's article starts becoming its own subject, becoming itself a criticism of communism, with the narration generally speaking from the point of view of favorable reviews of works that Ultramarine regards highly, such as the Black Book of Communism and works by RJ Rummel.

I expect Ultramarine, as he did last time, to reply with something along the lines of ''No examples, no references, no attempt to respond to the "List of proposed changes". I will shortly restored the deleted well-referenced facts unless factual, referenced explanations for the deletions of well-referenced facts are given.'' I think reasonable users, however, can understand the easily edited problems with this approach to editing articles on Wikipedia. A long, systematically biased article must be critique from a broad level, not on the point-by-point basis suggested by Ultramarine; otherwise, no one will have time to follow the discussion, much less participate in it. 172 05:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, your are right. I will respond with No examples, no references. Unless you give sourced examples I will restore the painstakingly reached consensus and restore the now deleted well-sourced information. Ultramarine 05:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Unless you change your versiopn of the article so that it follows the NPOV policy I will restore the neutral version. Because of the NPOV policy the insertion of many footnotes is not a licence to make an article systematically biased. 172 05:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I do invite you to participate in building a well-referenced encyclopedia. As such, follow the usual Wikipedia policies and present arguments supported by sources for why the consensus and well-refernced article should be changed. As for now, you make unverifiable claims without sources and examples. Ultramarine 06:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * We don't need to make verifiable claims with dicussions and examples on the talk page. Do you dispute my claim that criticisms of communism should be the subject of the article, not the essence of the article? If this is a point of dispute between the two of us, then I will direct you to pages on Wikipedia content policies. 172 06:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 172, please follow Wikipedia policy and present verifiable arguments. Do not delete well-referenced information and ignore the painstakingly reached consensus. Again, I do invite you to participate in building a well-referenced encyclopedia. Ultramarine 06:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, do not argue with unverifiable claims. Give exaxmples and use sources as support. Ultramarine 06:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You know very well that your version is not a "painstakingly reached consensus." What happened was that you were more persistent that all the other editors, who one-by-one gave up reverting your personal version and even participating in the article. And of course my argument is not "verifiable." Talk page discussions do not necessarily involve "verifiable" arguments. There is no published expert peer-review discussion somehow "testing" the neutrality of your version of the article. So Wikipedia editors are just going to have to discuss the neutrality of your version of the article themselves on the talk page here. 172 06:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 172, please read about Verifiability and No original research. You are making claims that the article is somehow incorrect. But since you have presented no sources, this is your own original research. This is not allowed. Again, I do invite you to participate in building a verfiable encyclopedia, but please do not make unverfiable original research claims. As you have presented no support for that the article is in any way incorrect except your own opinion, I will shortly restore the well-sourced and consensus version. Ultramarine 06:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I have not been making claims "that the article is somehow incorrect." I have not gotten to the matter of factual accuracy yet. What I have been mentioning concerns neutrality, particularly Neutral point of view. Verifiability, which you keep citing, does not necessarily relate to a dispute of an article's neutrality on a talk page. Again, there are not published peer-edited scientific 'tests' of the neutrality of particular versions of Wikipedia articles. There is no way of disputing the neutrality of an article based on the assessment of a verfiable source. Perhaps you understand that; and perhaps that's why you keep repeating your claims, as they can be used as grounds for anyone making any article as systematically biased as he or she wishes, so long as he or she can cherry-pick a sufficient number of passages in books for footnotes. 172 06:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you do not seem to undertand NPOV: "The policy of having a neutral point of view is not to hide different points of view, but to show the diversity of viewpoints." NPOV gives you no excuse for deleting well-referenced information. You claim that there are other views and arguments that should also be mentioned. Fine, then do mention them with sources. Do not delete well-referenced information which is not allowed. Ultramarine 06:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If someone started a criticisms of capitalism article in his personal user sub-page, and created an written from a point of view of Marxist publications like New Left Review, Journal of World-Systems Research, Monthly Review, Review of Radical Political Economics, containing hundreds of footnotes from such sources and next-to-none from other sources in order to advance his POV; I'm sure that you agree that the text should be reverted because of the problem of systematic bias. Your version of "criticisms of communism" is systematically biased in the same way as my hypothetical example of the Marxist "criticisms of capitalism" article. Your article has a lot of footnotes, I'll grant you that. But it belongs in a sandbox in a user subpage until it is no longer systematically biased. 172 06:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, it is your own unverifiable original research that the article is biased and incorrect, this is not allowed. Contrary to what you seem to think, I would be very happy if someone started to criticze capitalism using sources. Then we can start to discuss the reliablity of the sources. However, to simply delete well-refernced material is not allowed. Again, NPOV gives you no excuse for this. Again, add sourced material if this is missing in order to achieve NPOV, do no delete well-sourced material which is not allowed. Ultramarine 06:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, it is your own unverifiable original research that the article is biased and incorrect which is not allowed. What utter nonsense. By your reasoning, there could never be a dispute about neutrality on Wikipedia article talk pages. Sorry, but if someone writes a systematically biased article, he or she can and should expect to get called out on it. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a propaganda machine. 172 06:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, it is your unsourced opinion that the article is systematicallyb biased. Again, NPOV gives you no excuse for deleting well-sourced information. Again, add sourced material if this is missing in order to achieve NPOV, do no delete well-sourced material which is not allowed. Ultramarine 06:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, it is your unsourced opinion that the article is systematically biased. Nonsense, because there could never be a sourced opinion that an article is systematically biased; so, it is utterly unreasonable to ask for one. Your stange interpretation of WP:V does not give you a licence to disregard the policy of "neutral point of view," Wikipedia's most fundamental guiding principle. 172 06:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 172, you seems to argue that anything can be deleted from an Wikipedia article simply because someone thinks that it violates NPOV, regardless of how well-sourced it is and without giving any supporting sources or indeed anything except a personal opinion? One of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia is Verifiablity. Without this Wikipedia is nothing, just a battleground for opinions regardless of accuracy. I ask that you participate in building a verifiable encyclopedia. Please, if the article violates NPOV as you say, then add those arguments with sources so that NPOV can be achieved, do not delete simply based on you own opinion. Ultramarine 07:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I am arguing that in certain situations material should be removed from a Wikipedia article because of the possibility that it is a systematic violation of NPOV. However, I do not agree that such action should be taken on a whim "without giving any supporting sources or indeed anything except a personal opinion." And you know that I am not restoring the alternative version of the article on a whim. I am doing so in the context of many unresolved disputes concerning the neutrality of your sandbox version of the article. Those discussions ended when other users concluded that you would not be likely to compromise. What I am doing now is bringing those issues back on the table. 172 07:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Using your arguments regarding NPOV, I could argue that anything in the Lenin article and indeed the article itself should be removed. I could give unsourced hints that the existence of Lenin or major parts of his life is disputed by some unspecified sources and argue that the article is thus systematically biased. Then I would argue that some or all of the article should be removed based on this. I would also refuse to give any sources and refuse to add arguments to the text, instead just insist that the text should be deleted. If you are arguing that Wikipedia policy should be changed to this, then propose this elsewhere. If there are any other issues, regarding for example factual accuracy, please state them. I would be more than willling to discuss them. Ultramarine 07:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * In certain situations material should be removed from a Wikipedia article because of the possibility that it is a systematic violation of NPOV. Whether or not this is the right course of action has to be evaluated on a case-by-cased basis by reasonable editors. I don't know about the Lenin example, but a good example of another situation where restoring one version of an article in favor of another is my hypothetical example of how a Marxist could use your arguments here as a license to POV the criticisms of capitalism article. 172 07:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You are proposing a new Wikipedia policy. Please do that using the appropirate channels, not in this article. Again, contrary to what you think, I would be happy if someone started to criticze capitalism using sources. Ultramarine 07:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I am talking about NPOV, which happens to be the oldest Wikipedia policy. And don't try to pretend that we all don't know about or remember the many challenges to the neutrality of your article that have plagued this page since September. 172 07:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you do not seem to undertand NPOV: "The policy of having a neutral point of view is not to hide different points of view, but to show the diversity of viewpoints." NPOV gives you no excuse for deleting well-referenced information. You claim that there are other views and arguments that should also be mentioned. Fine, then do mention them with sources. Do not delete well-referenced information which is not allowed. Would you support me if I started to delete varous parts of the articles about Marx and Marxism, claiming violation of NPOV and like you refusing to cite sources? Ultramarine 07:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Your version of the article does not show the "diversity of viewpoints", Ultramarine. It shows the anti-communist viewpoint. Your argument is that you are under no obligation to show any other viewpoint if you do not feel like it and that it is up to other users to add to the article. This may be the case according to the letter of the law, but it does of course violate the spirit of the law as well as showing that you edit in bad faith. In any case, your version is (a) not consensus, and (b) certainly not NPOV. At best, this article may be regarded as under construction and in need of attention, since half of the required diversity of viewpoints - specifically, the not virulently anti-communist half - is missing. I have never given up my plan to do a comprehensive revision of the article; I have, however, been delayed by various other activities. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 08:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Would you support me if I started to delete varous parts of the articles about Marx and Marxism, claiming violation of NPOV and like you refusing to cite sources? I certainly can imagine a situation in which I would support you in removing various parts of an article about Marx or Marxism; assuming that it would be possible to restore a more neutral, collaborative previous version of the article, and assuming that it were so systematically biased that the content generally only represented the POV of publications such as Monthly Review, Journal of World-System Research, Review of Radical Political Economics, Socialist Register, New Left Review, and the like. An article on neo-Marxian discourses on Marx's original works should, of course, discuss research along the lines of stuff published in journals like New Left Review; but if someone uploads content in a Wikipedia article written from such a point of view, it is dubious and should be removed. (By the way, just so that the two of us are on the same page, if you are assuming that I am generally working from a Marxian point of view, you are mistaken. Generally speaking, I'm much more of a Weberian than a Marxist.) You write, You claim that there are other views and arguments that should also be mentioned. Yes, but on an even broader level, your version is biased on an even more profound level. "Criticisms of communism" is the subject of the encyclopedia article, given the article title. Yet in your version the article is a critique of communism from the point of view of the authors of the Black Book, Rummel, et al, and thus happens to become in-and-of-itself what should be subject of the article. In other words, the problem is not merely the usage of certain sources and the lack of other sources, but the basic matters of narrative voice and structure. 172 08:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Suppose I am now arguing that many details regarding Marx's life is in fact false. I state that this is supported by many good sources. As such, all the contents regarding Marx's life should be removed as biased. Using your position, there is no need to cite these sources. Do you support me? If not, explain why when you make a similar case here. Ultramarine 10:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's kind of hard for me to follow your hypothetical example since the contention usually surrounds Marx's original works as opposed to his life. But following your example, yes, I would support you if (say) someone came in citing a lot of research from sources published in New Left Review and rewrote the Marxism article around the thesis that Das Kapital was the greatest work on economics ever written and it explains everything that we ought to know about even today's econony. As for citing sources, the rule does not apply to talk page discussions. 172 21:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Moving
Since some your arguments seem to be against the title, I will shortly be moving the contents to articles with better names. I suggest moving the appropriate content to Communist states, and the rest to Marxism. Thoughts? Ultramarine 08:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please do not. I strongly oppose such a move at the present time, and I do not believe 172 was suggesting one. You will be creating a multitude of disputes where there was only one before. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 08:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * As you have previously stated numerous times, you are critical becaused of the title and related content. As such, I see no explanation for not moving the content to better named articles. Ultramarine 08:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ultramarine, my arguments are certainly not against the title. "Criticisms of communism," the subject being the discourse in which your authors are essential figure, is an extremely important encyclopedic entry. The problem is that your version of the article is written as if it were a critique of communism. An encyclopedic entry on the subject of the discourse(s) of crticisms of communism is not necessarily itself a critique of communism, though it should summarize those arguments from a neutral point of view, as the Pmanderson, Robert A, and Mihnea Tudoreanu version does. 172 08:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have some experience with moving/splitting disputed articles, and I can tell you that it always makes things much, much worse. It's much better to have all our controversial content centralized in one place, at least until the controversy is resolved. Also, I have no issue whatsoever with the title; in fact I endorse it, as there are many articles called "Criticisms of X". -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 08:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well said, Mihnea. 172 08:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd also like to explain the reason why I have not participated in this discussion for over a week: It is absolutely clear that no agreement can ever be reached on either of the two versions we have now. Therefore, a new version must be written, which has to be both NPOV (like the collaborative version) and well-sourced (like Ultramarine's version). Until such time as a rewrite is made, any further conversation here is, I feel, sterile. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 09:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I suggest starting a new article following the structure and narrative voice of the collaborative version while salvaging as much of material in Ultramarine's version as possible on a page like Criticisms of communism/editors' sandbox. 172 09:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom decision
In accordance with Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine, I will be blocking for disruption any users who engage in stale reverting between two different versions. You are directed to collaborate on a single version. This will be your only warning. --causa sui talk 07:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The decision is only binding on Ultramarine, Pmanderson, and Robert A. Since I support your efforts, I will now pledge to follow the "one-revert rule" on this page. Indeed, I ask you that you help me make my plege binding by my choice; please block me if I somehow slip-up and violate the "one-revert rule" here. 172 08:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Moving the contents
Some users have previously argued that article is inherently POV because of the title. Uncle Ed and Fred Bauder of the arbitration commitee are some users who have expressed concern regarding the title. 172 seems to both support and and not support this. As such I propose moving the contents. Please state clearly here what the objections to this are. Ultramarine 09:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Where would you move the contents? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 09:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

1. One is that this would create more conflicts. I disagree, the conflicts regarding the title vs. content will be removed. Ultramarine 09:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There are no such conflicts at the present time. All conflicts are concerned exclusively with the content. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 09:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

2. Another is that all criticisms should be in one place. This would seem to a violation of NPOV itself, obviously relevant content should be in relevant articles. Ultramarine 09:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I regard the article as under construction and clearly not NPOV yet. And this is the relevant article. As I pointed out before, many other "Criticisms of X" exist. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 09:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I already responded to this proposal under the last discussion thread. There is no need to start a new discussion. Please see my comments above. I intend for this to be my last post under this heading. 172 09:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

3. If the current article is taken as an excuse for not having opposite POVs in other communism articles, as 172 and MH seems to argue, this is serious violation of NPOV in this articles. Moving the content will be the appropriate solution. Ultramarine 09:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No such argument was made by myself or 172. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 09:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You have here stated that all criticisms should be in this article. On the talk page of Communist states, you have argued for removing criticisms by refering to this article. Ultramarine 09:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have argued for summarizing them in order to avoid duplication. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 09:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

4. It would fragment information that most readers want to find in one place. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 09:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strange, Uncle Ed has argued that is should be moved so that all information should be available to readers. It is fairly easy to split the article into two parts without much fragmentation. Ultramarine 09:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Most readers would still want to find the information in one place, and given the inevitable crossovers between the two parts (discussions of the relationship between Marxism and Communist states), a lot of material would have to be duplicated. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 09:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Most readers would probably also want more information about for example the Communist states. I see no need for duplication, the contents are already separated into two well-definied sections. Ultramarine 09:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

5. Most of the content here pertains to Communist states. The only logical place for it to be moved is over at Communist state. But there is so much content here that the "criticisms" section would be as big as the entire rest of the article. In such cases it is clearly advisable to split off the large section (in our case criticisms) into a separate article. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 09:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * False, half the article is about Marxism. Ultramarine 09:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * How is that relevant to my argument about size? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 09:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If size is a question, then different subarticles can be created. For example, an subarticle called "Marx's view on human rights" can be created, which do not have what some think is a POV title. Ultramarine 09:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, that article would have an anachronistic title, seeing how the modern conception of human rights was not yet fully formed in Marx's time. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 09:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

6. It is impolite and disruptive to break up an article against the wishes of all your fellow editors who are active there. Some kind of consensus or at least majority decision is necessary first. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 09:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Uncled Ed and probably Fred Bauder support moving the contents. Ultramarine 09:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * They are not active editors. The ArbCom has already delivered its decision, and it did not include moving the article. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 09:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Nor are you or 172 mentioned in the decision. Uncle Ed and Fred Bauder carry no less weight than you. Ultramarine 09:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * How do you know they still hold their old opinions, or even care about this article at all? They are not here now. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 09:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

As such, I will shortly be following the suggestion of Uncle Ed and moving the well-refernced contents from this article. Ultramarine 09:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That would not be helpful. See my posts explaining the importance of an entry on the subject of discourse concerning criticisms of communism. Also, see the previous posts by Mihnea: Please do not. I strongly oppose such a move at the present time, and I do not believe 172 was suggesting one. You will be creating a multitude of disputes where there was only one before. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 08:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC) I have some experience with moving/splitting disputed articles, and I can tell you that it always makes things much, much worse. It's much better to have all our controversial content centralized in one place, at least until the controversy is resolved. Also, I have no issue whatsoever with the title; in fact I endorse it, as there are many articles called "Criticisms of X". -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 08:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 172 09:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ultramarine, please note that making such an important decision on your own without so much as consulting your fellow editors would be taken as a sign of extreme malicious intent. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 09:29, 27 December 2005

(UTC)


 * I am consulting you. Again, other users have previously supported this. Ultramarine 09:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yet that was a long time ago, and all those users were observers, not active editors. I might consider supporting their recommendation if there was no dispute, but, seeing how there is one, my experience tells me that a move would be a horrible idea. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 09:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You are proposing a radical change in the way things are done on Wikipedia. I suggest taking Category:Criticisms, which includes a long list of similar articles, to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion and making your case, if you are interested in setting a precedent effecting such a change. 172 09:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I am suggesting removing a problem mentioned for example be member of the arbitration commitee. If this is POV-fork, which some seems to think, then the content should be moved. Ultramarine 09:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Changing the name of a POV-fork while leaving the content intact is supposed to solve what, exactly? The name of this article is perfectly NPOV. It is the content that needs to be edited. Of course, you could change the name to fit the content, but that would mean moving the article to An essay in favor of anti-communism -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 09:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * FYI Fred Bauder recuded on the case. He aways, if not almost always, recuses on communism-related disputes because of his strong POV on the subject. Fred Bauder's status as an arbitrator has nothing to do with anything here. 172 09:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * He has as much right as any other editor to express an opinion regarding this article. Ultramarine 09:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ummmm, except that he never edited this article, and all you have to go on is an opinion expressed long ago. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 09:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

New article
Following Mihnea's suggestion in his 09:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC) post, it is clear that with the Arbcom decision, the only solution in order is creating a new article following the neutral structure and narrative voice of the collaborative version while salvaging as much of material in Ultramarine's version. I suggest working on one under in the namespace Criticisms of communism/editors' sandbox. 172 09:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If you are now arguing that the contents should be in this article, obviously discussions should be in this article and not hidden in another. You have given no explanation for deleting well-refernced material. Please give sources and explanations as all Wikipedia editors are expected. Ultramarine 09:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I am saying that your "well-refernced material" is the subject of the article, as the subject of this article is the discourse. Your version, as has been explained to you from months, is systematically biased because it is not describing those discourses from a neutral point of view but rather from the point of view of the various subjects of this article. 172 09:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, you claim bias but without giving sources. As such it is original research of little value. If you are arguing that the contents and the title do not match then the contents should be moved. Ultramarine 09:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You're repeating yourself. We just had that discussion. Can we at least wrap up the discussion under the heading "restoring the non-advocacy version" so that we do not have to rehash the very same conversation? 172 09:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You are refusing to answer. Again, give source as everybody is expected. If you have none, your claims of bias is uninteresting. You have never given an explanation for deletion of well-sourced material. Ultramarine 09:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I answered above, many times. See my posts under the heading "restoring the non-advocacy version." 172 09:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You are refusing to answer. Please state why well-refernced information should be removed. Ultramarine 09:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I am refusing to repeat myself. We had this conversation under the heading "restoring the non-advocacy version." At this stage the conversation ended when you didn't come up with a counter-argument to my 08:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC) post. 172 09:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please briefly state why well-referenced material should be removed from an wikipedia article. Ultramarine 09:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ultramarine, please see my posts earlier. That'll be much easier for the both of us. 172 09:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please again state all your arguments here for clarity.Ultramarine 10:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No need. My replies would be the same. We're not given extra points for filibustering. We can pick up where we left off following my 08:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC) post. 172 10:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Straw poll: "There is nothing POV about the title of this article"
Please state agree or disagree.


 * 1) Agree. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 09:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Of course. A poll isn't really necessary because it is self-evident that it is quite important to have an encyclopedic entry under this title. See similar articles on discouses concerning criticisms of other subjects in Category:Criticisms. IMO this straw-poll should be blanked since the answer is obvious. 172 10:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletions of well-sourced information
172 and MH have argued that well-sourced information should be deleted from this article, without giving any sources of their own. The previous discussions have become convoluted. I therefore ask that they here briefly state their arguments so that a consensus can be reached. Ultramarine 10:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * By convoluted do you mean that you didn't have counter-arguments, so you're just going to repeat the same mantra over again? 172 10:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please briefly state all your arguments here so that we can discuss and reach a consensus. Ultramarine 10:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You said Please again state all your arguments here for clarity. on 10:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC) My reply is the same now as it was then. Let's pick up where we left off in the conversation under the heading "restoring the non-advocacy version." I have no desire to repeat myself, which is a waste of time and bores people. 172 10:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Your refusal to briefly state your position, so that others can understand it without having to read pages of the above and convoluted discussion, is noted. Ultramarine 10:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I will summarize my position as briefly as possible: Ultramarine's article, although well sourced, suffers from two crippling drawbacks: (1) All the sources are either anti-communist or used to support anti-communist arguments; (2) The discourse - that is, the narrative of the article - is slanted and biased. I have collected a number of neutral and pro-communist sources and I intend to use them to overhaul the article as soon as time permits. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 10:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I applaud you for making research and look forward to discussing these sources when presented. However, until you do, do not delete well-referenced contents. Your arguments could be used in any Wikipedia article for removing any content, and stating that sources will presented sometimes in the future. Ultramarine 10:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Rest assured that I will oppose you removing any sourced information just as much as you oppose me removing any sourced information. If I will temporarely delete any of your content in the mean time (which, as of right now, I do not plan to do), it will be solely due to your biased writing. I take issue with that perhaps more than I take issue with your one-sided inclusion of anti-communist content. By the way, I am curious: If you wish to build a well-referenced and neutral encyclopedia, as you claim, how come you have not done any research on pro-communist sources? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 10:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Contrary to what you think, I have in fact read pro-communist material. I have also included the pro-communist arguments I have encountered, such that Marx only supported direct democracy and would have implicitly condemned the Communist states. Or the economic depression after the fall of Communism. As can be seen in the footnotes, some of the references are from the Encyclopedia of Marxism, which presents such arguments. Ultramarine 11:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It is not just a matter of reading 'pro-Communist material,' which I assume means stuff like the original works of Marx and Lenin. There is also a great deal of nonpartisan academic literature on the subject of the rise and rule of single-party states transcending partisan debates, with an agenda more research-driven than ideologically driven. Barrington Moore, Jr. and Theda Skocpol are two particularly important examples writing from the perspective of comparative historical sociology. Further, much of Ultramarine's material is disproportionately weighted with anticommunist authors writing from a libertarian perspective, even though important criticisms of communism have been articulated from across the political spectrum. 172 21:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Mihnea Tudoreanu...Considering most academics were appoligists for communist regimes for the longest time, almost all sources for abuses of communism and human rights violations will be or appear to be anti communist. The vast majority have sound research and should not be treated lightly. Furthermore, this being a page on criticsms of communism it wouldnt do alot of good to research pro communist material would it?(Gibby 06:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC))

New Year goal
Let's commit ourselves to a goal for the New Year. Let's start work on a new article in a sandbox in the talk namespace here adopting the structure of the Pmanderson, and Robert A., and Mihnea Tudoreanu version of the article while adopting as much of the content of the Ultramarine version of the article as possible. I'll be the first to sign up for this goal. Because I'm often short of time I'll cut back my contributions to other articles significantly for the next week or two. 172 21:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I will also sign up for this goal. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Problems with current version
See "List of proposed changes III" above. Please respond to these objections to the current version.Ultramarine 11:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The current version will not stay like this for long; thus, your objections will soon be obsolete. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I find it most hilarious that you have put POV and Original Research tags on this page but have done nothing of the sort to the far far far far far far far worse page on Communism. Is that a statement in and of itself?

Remove them (Gibby 17:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC))

Criticisms of communism
(Moved from Requests_for_arbitration No clear resolution was reached)

I posted some of my concerns about what I am worried is narrow and inflexible wording used in the Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine decision on the talk page there, but I got no answer unfortunately. Now it seems that User:Ultramarine and User:172 are starting the revert war back up again. This is problematic since the decision does not list 172 as a user who may be blocked for reverting. I'm warning the users not to engage in sterile revert warring but I think some clarification or revision of that decision is badly needed. --causa sui talk 08:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I think that the decision has solved little. Some of the involved editors seem to have left Wikipedia. However, other who edited constructively as long as the arbitration case was open have now again started to blankly delete well-referenced material. They have now deleted many extremely well-referenced statements and whole sections of the prior article. I try to discuss the differences but they refuse to give sources for their statements and claims which makes reaching any consensus difficult. I would greatly appreciate if Wikipedia policies such as Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view would be uphold. I see no way out of the current controversy until the arbitration committee makes this clear also for this maybe very politicaly sensitive article. Unfortunately, the other side seems to respect Wikipedia policy only when there is an ongoing case.


 * I would also request that Ryan Delaney should be prohibited from applying any remedies, since he and I have longstanding issues regarding other articles and he unfortunately seems to be stalking me. Ultramarine 10:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I have also suggested moving the contents to other articles that maybe have better and less POV names, as this may resolve some issues, but they insist that all the criticisms of communism should be in this article, which they now claim ownership of and as noted refuse to engage in factual discussions and refuse to give sources for claims. Ultramarine 10:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I support Ryan's efforts. The dispute indeed is quite sterile and it is time to just write a new article. I posted a note on the talk page stating a pledge to follow the "one-revert rule on the page" and asking Ryan to enforce my pledge as a mutual agreement between the two of us. On that note, IMO the Arbcom decision could have been far more helpful. I think a much more sweeping decsion would have been order, such as a ban on editing that editor binding on just anyone who has ever edited it, including myself. 172 10:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course, Ryan Delaney selectively decided to not block 172 when he reverted the article from the earlier stable version. However, Ryan Delaney has now stated on the discussion page that he will without warning block any editor that attempts to change 172's version, regardless if they were mentioned in the arbcom case or not. He and 172 has now effectively locked the article into their preferred version indefinitely. So its is not surprising that 172 supports "Ryan's efforts" regarding selective blocking and thus sees no need to engage in any meaningful discussions on the talk pages or such things as source citations in order to reach a consensus.Ultramarine 12:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Uh, if 172 reverts, I'm blocking him too, since he basically gave me permission to do so. However, this Arbcom decision dosen't really give me the authority to do that, which is the problem I am trying to address here. --causa sui talk 17:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

While I am recused from this matter I suggest that Ultramarine and others adopt the framework of 172's version and then negotiate how much detail, as opposed to links to specific articles, ought to be included from the other version which I find quite crowded with excessively detailed, sometimes controversial information. I too am disappointed with the ArbCom decision. After I recused because 172 was involved, they went ahead and crafted a solution which did not include 172. Fred Bauder 15:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * What you describe as excessively detailed is an artifact of requiring sources. Rather than just criticising well sourced detail, you should see if you can construct an encyclopedic summary to Communisms abuses and crimes that will not be considered in violation of NOR. By providing the detail, the well referenced version allows readers to reach their own conclusions.--Silverback 07:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I was concerned (through November 2005) 172's involvement with this article consisted of
 * a few reverts in support of Mihnea against Ultramarine's solitary insistence om his POV.
 * Advising Mihnea on the initial RfC and phrasing it.
 * The conspiracy Ultramarine suggested to ArbCom is a figment of his imagination, and I will present my comments to that effect to anyone who cares to see them. Septentrionalis 06:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest that Ultramarine and others adopt the framework of 172's version and then negotiate how much detail, as opposed to links to specific articles, ought to be included from the other version... This is a good proposal. Criticisms of communism is one of the most important subjects on discourse in 20th century world history found in any encyclopedia. An excellent final product will have the structure of the 'Pmanderson, and Robert A., and Mihnea Tudoreanu version' and much of the content of the Ultramarine version.' Just a minor correction... There is no '172 version' of the article. The version that I restored was the work mostly of Pmanderson, and Robert A., and Mihnea Tudoreanu. My involvement in the article was very minimal between around September, except for the first few days following the creation of the article, and yesterday. 172 21:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I would be glad to discuss any changes, hopefully you could include some views since you are recused. However, I do not see how the current stalemate can be broken as long as there is blank denial of such basic concepts such as Verifiablity. Please see this section which is the most recent attempt to factually discuss 172's version (Note that this is weeks before the current attempts to simply blankly revert) .Ultramarine 16:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I just don't have time. The arbitration committee has the usual backlog and even cases out of the backlog could still use work. I would not strongly insist on verifiability for all elements of the article. Sometimes insights regarding the structure of an article are not easily verified such as treatment of the controversy on the left regarding appropriate treatment of the shortcomings of Communist practices. However, it is not impossible. For example, see page xiv in the Author's Notes of The Rosenberg File, ISBN 0030490367 Fred Bauder 16:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can agree that verifiability can and should not always be included, for example for obvious logical arguments. However, I think you have previously supported such issues as including the more prominent critics of communism. As noted, they only name left-wing critics of communism and they refuse to name or include the views of other critics. Another example, they refuse to mention any arguments that the Communist states were related to Marxist ideology and only mentions arguments against this. Unfortunately, I do not see how consensus can be achieved as long they blankly refuse to include such basic issues. Ultramarine 17:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they should give some too. Khruschev honestly believed he was building communism following the principles of Lenin and Marx, as did Breshnev. God knows what Stalin believed, but probably he felt himself to be a practical man with common sense. So it is rather obvious that Marxism is intimately related to Communist practice. How, is the question. Fred Bauder 17:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see some of this go to the talk page of Criticisms of communism. In the mean time, I need to stress that suggestions -- like the one that you well-meaningly posted above, or that Arbcom posted in their ruling -- are not going to resolve this dispute, as is evident by the revert war having started again, and my being unable to really do anything about it. --causa sui talk 17:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Life expectancy
''Since a market economy was introduced, a sharp decline in life expectancy was noted in the countries of the former Soviet Union. This decline has accelerated in Russia and Ukraine; in the Baltic republics life expectancy may have started to increase. In Eastern Europe, after 1990, the decline continued most notably in Romania,[...]''

This give the impression that market economy was introduced in Romania in 1990,which isn't true. Stefan Udrea 18:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, true, it was introduced in 1991, and the decline became particularly sharp in the mid-1990s... -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 22:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite
I still intent to follow the goal stated under the heading "New Year goal." I am sorry for the hold up. I look forward to incorporating much of Ultramarine's text shortly. 172 18:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been working on that on my own, offline. I should in fact be finished with my rewrite by tomorrow or the day after. So as to avoid creating parallel versions again, might I ask you to hold off any major edits until you see my rewrite? -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 15:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Wide page
Can anyone fix the wide page bug here? It's hard to read the discussion here. Thanks in advance. 172 18:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Suspected Original Research: "for Marx, labor produces value; but ..."
The current text reads:


 * for Marx, labor produces value; but according to Rand, first comes the desireability of an object, which gives it it's value, and the value of the object justifies expending labor to produce it.

The implication of the text is that for Marx, objects could have "value" without being desirable. This is suspect as original research. The question at issue is who made the inferrence regarding Marx's position? Ayn Rand? Marx? or the editor. Proper verifiable sources are requested. If, within 48 hours, verifiable sources are not provided, or a request made for additional time to obtain such verifiable sources, I will edit this phrase. Unless superior wording is offered, I will edit the phrase to read:


 * for Marx, a commodity can have exchange value only if it has use-value. Marx held that exchange value was determined by the socially necessary labor needed to produce the commodity.

--BostonMA


 * No, that is not original research. The labor theory of value is an old theory that is currently discredited. --causa sui talk 22:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Whether or not the labor theory of value is discredited does not bear upon whether the phrase contains original research. The phrasing in question implies that for Marx, objects could have "value" without being desirable.  If you feel that this is not original research, and you want the text to remain, then please provide a source for such a statement.  --BostonMA 22:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't edit this article for content. My point is that the assertion that the labor theory of value is unpopular among economists is not original research because it's not the author's own pet theory. You might be misunderstanding what original research is. I agree that it should have a citation though. --causa sui talk 14:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I apologize if I have been unsufficiently clear. I am not suggesting that the assertion that "the labor theory of value is unpopular among economists" is original research.  The issue that I am raising is as follows.
 * The clear intention of the text is to draw a contrast between the views of Marx and those of Ayn Rand.
 * The contrast clearly implied by the text is that Ayn Rand held the view that objects must be desirable in order to have value, and by implication of the contrast, that Marx held that objects could have value without being desirable.
 * I believe the previous item involves original research, and would like documentation for it.
 * The question is one of original research, and not of fact. If Ayn Rand asserts that Marx held such a position, I have no problem with the inclusion of the text provided it is attributed to Ayn Rand.
 * However, as a matter of fact, I believe that Marx did not hold the position which the text apparently attributes to him. Yes, he adhered to the labor theory of value, but that means that the "quantity" of value associated with a commodity depends upon the "quantity" of socially necessary labor required for its production.  But the text in question raises an entirely different point, i.e. whether an commodity can have value if it is not also "desired".  Marx's Capital is quite clear that use-value, which may or may not be equated with "utility" or "desirability" is a pre-requisite for an object to have a "value" (i.e. an exchange-value, the quantity of which depends upon the amount of socially necessary labor required for its production).  Although I think the text is factually incorrect, I am willing to let it stand provided it is properlly attributed. --BostonMA 15:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

THis sounds like original research to me, but my bigger complaint is what does this have to do with the section Labor THeory of Value as a criticism of communism...seems more like an attempt to plug gift economies and take a stab and price systems.

Other non-Marxist schools of communism before or contemporary to Marx, such as that of Peter Kropotkin do not necessarily support the Marxist labor theory of value, but find fault and injustice with the capitalist system of prices that in their view perpetuate strife and the cycle of poverty. Justifications for this defense often cite the same reasons, that many prices are maintained where they are when the seller has enough capita, and argue that this can become a form of extortion with no benefit to society. However, some of the differences include alternative solutions than what the labor theory of value proposes, or a system of value such as a gift economy in which producers seek to benefit the community directly, rather than using price as a proxy.

(Gibby 02:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC))


 * Well the article seemed to be proposing that a criticism of a Marxian theory was a criticism of commmunism per se, ie. it affected all of communism. I put that in for measure; this probably needs some slight reformation to make room for the fact this isn't necessarily a criticism of communism as a whole. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 02:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Making change per discussion. --BostonMA 23:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC) I guess not. It's already gone. --BostonMA 23:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)