Talk:Memorial (society)

Why foreign sponsors removed?
Why on Earth list of foreign governments sponsoring Memorial was removed? This is information from Memorial itself, from their official site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.165.173.131 (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Here, pasted from RU wiki:

Источники финансирования указаны на сайте организации в разделе «Наши партнёры и доноры»:

Глобальный фонд предотвращения конфликтов (посольство Великобритании) Европейская комиссия Европейский центр защиты прав человека Норвежский Хельсинкский комитет Управление Верховного комиссара ООН по делам беженцев (УВКБ ООН) Французское посольство Civil Rights Defenders (Стокгольм) Международная амнистия People in Need Посольство Южной Кореи Движение «Гражданское достоинство» Институт проблем гражданского общества Front Line Defenders Zezen (talk) 05:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Zezen has been banned from editing English Wikipedia since Dec. 1, 2021. – Sca (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Why is there no sub-section on this page regarding sources of funding. It is obvious to a casual observer that geo-political rivals with prosperous economies would be very tempted to fund something like this. Yet, no mention of funding, and vigorous praises all over the page ("tendentious"). I have no part in this, and this page looks a lot like it is not fair coverage of the real topic. 76.218.102.161 (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments
Memorial was founded in the late 1980s during glasnost. Perestroika was the economic and bureaucratic restructuring which occurred under Gorbachev, while Glasnost allowed freer discussion concerning social and political problems. In addition, how could Memorial have been founded under "either" perestroika or glasnost as the Soviet Union had already ceased to exist in 1992 and both policies has in turn ceased to exist. As one can see in the section below the introductory one, they were already in existence in 1990.
 * thanks. Fixed. Mikkalai 20:20, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Chechnya
The lead says the group "also monitors human rights in post-Soviet states at the present time, for example in Chechnya." But according to the article Post-Soviet state, that term means an independent state that (1) split off from the USSR in 1991 and (2) were not part of the Russian SFSR. Do they monitor human rights in Russia or is this a political statement suggesting that Chechnya should be independent of Russia? Balipratipada (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Memorial (society). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929083632/http://www.rightlivelihood.org/memorial_faq.html to http://www.rightlivelihood.org/memorial_faq.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140801213543/http://www.rightlivelihood.org/memorial.htm to http://www.rightlivelihood.org/memorial.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140715010214/http://www.gfbv.de/pressemit.php?id=2083&PHPSESSID=25a310a9ab503fc65104633626cb1ad5 to http://www.gfbv.de/pressemit.php?id=2083&PHPSESSID=25a310a9ab503fc65104633626cb1ad5

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - very useful work. John Crowfoot (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Incomplete, dated and sometimes tendentious
Memorial has certainly earned its place today at the heart of Russian civil society. A new generation has come forward over the past five years, moreover, to renew and expand its efforts and innovative contributions to the education of society about the past and the present.

At the same time, it is wrong to attribute everything positive that has happened since 1988 to the activities of Memorial: in particular, the fundamental 1990 law on those "repressed" by the Soviet regime (a total of 12 million people in all) and the erection of the Solovki Stone next to KGB headquarters, were the work of other hands as well.

The article needs revision, expansion and proper documentation if it is to fairly represent the Memorial Society today, and give a convincing account of how it gained its present reputation.

John Crowfoot (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Memorial (society). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120165312/http://www.16beavergroup.org/monday/archives/002222.php to http://www.16beavergroup.org/monday/archives/002222.php
 * Added tag to http://www.forextv.com/Forex/News/ShowStory.jsp?seq=1101965&category=&displaycategory=Political
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120401132605/http://www.novayagazeta.spb.ru/2009/32/6 to http://www.novayagazeta.spb.ru/2009/32/6

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Information removed without justification; some distortion of movement's goals
Several changes have been introduced that revert the text and, more importantly, understanding of the subject matter to a now out-dated viewpoint.

[1] It is retrograde, for instance, to refer to events in the late 1930s as the "Great Purge". Memorial has demonstrated that the unprecedented blood-letting between August 1937 and November 1938 was not a purge of any kind, and certainly not restricted to the Communist Party or VKP (b). It is more accurate to refer to that experience and major subject of Memorial's research as the Great Terror.

[2] Although the goals of Memorial under Sakharov's brief chairmanship were limited, as per the decisions of the 19th Party Conference, to the Cult of Personality (i.e. Stalin) and this was why Solzhenitsyn refused to accept Membership Card No 1, the organisation later expanded its coverage to include the crimes against humanity committed by the Soviet regime before and after Stalin.

[3] The famous exchange between Gorbachev and Yelena Bonner has been cut. There is a perfectly good reference for this event in the recording made by Arseny Roginsky. Why remove something which undoubtedly happened and of which everyone has heard?

Unless I receive prompt, well-argumented and authoritative explanations for these three changes, I shall revert the text to its earlier and IMHO more accurate form.

SincerelyRustat99 (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC) aka John Crowfoot
 * Vandalism - go ahead and restore the missing information/references. 50.111.6.149 (talk) 05:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * IP, please assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors. Jr8825  •  Talk  10:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I changed "Great Terror" to the "Great Purge" to bring it in line with our article title on the topic, but if you believe there's a good reason it should be the other way round I don't strongly object. I was under the impression that the "Great Purge" is the more widely used name, but I may well be incorrect on this. The Bonner/Gorbachev exchange was cut in this diff as it was unsourced. (The editor who removed it said it was not mentioned in the Russian-language source provided; I can't read Russian, although I did machine translate the source to check the editor's claim, and it does seem as though it isn't mentioned.) Feel free to restore it with a reliable source using an inline citation, as it's been challenged. Unfortunately, "undoubtedly happened" and "everyone has heard" don't cut it, per WP:V. I don't have any particular comment regarding the coverage of Sakharov's chairmanship, I wasn't aware this information was lost and I'm not sure what the rationale for its removal was, perhaps it was cut by accident? Again, please restore it, ensuring there's a reliable source supporting it. Jr8825  •  Talk  10:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your words of explanation Jr8825. Let's take three examples from the text as it presently stands. [1] In the Soviet and Russian setting the unions mentioned here (film-makers etc) are not labor unions, in name or in action. In Russian they are consistently referred to as creative unions ("творческие союзы"). The addition of the adjective "labor" is misleading because they do not take part in negotiations with employers on behalf of their members.

[2] Reverting to use of The Great Purge raises more serious issues. This is a thoroughly outdated, loaded and discredited euphemism. These days researchers and well-informed readers, in the West or in Russia, instead use the phrase "Great Terror" to describe the mass murder of up to one million mostly ordinary men and women over a period of 16 months. Before the Nazi Final Solution of the war years (another discredited euphemism, btw) this was the most horrifying and sustained atrocity in history (see Timothy Snyder's Bloodlands: Europe between Hitler and Stalin, 2010 Timothy D. Snyder).

It was not a "purge" or restricted to the Communist Party, as was previously believed; it was a traumatic assault on society with far-reaching consequences. The basic article on Wikipedia about these events is fundamentally flawed because it relies on out of date and superseded 20th-century sources (e.g. Robert Conquest's classic 1968 book Robert Conquest). It is long overdue for a thorough overhaul. That, frankly, is a task for another day. At present it is far more important to maintain the accuracy of the Memorial entry because the society has done so much to establish through documentation and archival research the truth of that history.

[3] And while we're here why has the entire section concerning the important memorial on Lubyanka Square next to FSB headquarters been removed? I'm referring (a) to the Solovki Stone passage, see Solovetsky Stone, and (b) to references to the "Restoring the Names" ceremony attended by thousands in late October each year.

The memorial and the ceremony intensely annoy the FSB and they would like both to vanish -- as they have done, mysteriously, since I last edited this article. I will assume good faith, of course, on the part of the volunteer who was responsible for its excision: at the same time I'd like to hear a justification for such an egregious and unwarranted act of "editorial vandalism". "Do no harm", runs the Hippocratic Oath: Wikipedia editors would do well to bear those wise words in mind.

(In my December 2017 comment above, incidentally, "Incomplete, dated and sometimes tendentious" I referred specifically to the Solovetsky Stone and its importance.)

Sincerely Rustat99 (talk) 00:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC) aka John Crowfoot


 * responding to your points in order: 1) I see you've already made this change (labor → creative), is there a remaining issue? 2) I explained above why I changed it to "Great Purge" (consistency with our article's title), but also that I don't have expertise on this matter, so I don't mind being reverted. Consistency isn't a necessity or policy, so you're welcome to change it back if you believe "The Great Terror" is the more scholarly/accurate term. You may want to start a discussion at Talk:Great Purge to engage with editors more familiar with the topic if you think that article's title should change. 3) I removed the content on the Solovetsky Stone, as it was off-topic and outside the scope of this article (which is about Memorial the organisation, not about remembrance/oppression in Russia as a whole, or what annoys the FSB). You're welcome to check the version of the article prior to the removal and cross-check it with the article on the Solovetsky Stone to ensure no sourced content has been lost, and move it to that article if it has. If there are sources describing how Memorial played a specific/direct role in the Solovetsky Stone's history, you're also welcome to add that to this article. It's important that articles are kept to a specific scope; this is part of ensuring Wikipedia's content remains encyclopedic, rather than becoming a space for personal essays on a given topic. I have no ulterior motive here, this cleanup was necessary to bring the article in line with Wikipedia policies so it could be displayed on the mainpage's "In The News" section, which I nominated it for (if you check the Wikipedia mainpage you will currently see the news story about Memorial listed on the top right; this helps bring attention to Memorial's plight and has driven up page views more than any individual changes to the page are likely to). You can review the discussion about the changes necessary for its listing here.
 * Regarding your concerns generally, I invite you to simply implement your suggestions as you've been doing. No single editor should be gatekeeping the article, so please be bold with your changes and make the difference you want to see – that worst that'll happen is that something will be undone, and you can start a discussion about it here. P.S. I merged your comment into the previous thread, as you appeared to be mostly responding to my reply. Jr8825  •  Talk  17:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that timely response! Pressure of time and, as we all know, further imminent developments lead me to simply revert to where the article was before. As concerns the ceremonies associated with the Solovki Stone these are integral to the activities and profile of Memorial as an organisation and under no circumstances should they have been removed. FYI -- I revised the entry on the Solovetsky Stone in Moscow, which is unsatisfactory and incomplete, and the much better entry for the similar stone in St Petersburg -- Solovetsky Stone (Saint Petersburg).

Thank you also for your contribution to two subsequent discussions. Very helpful -- we should all be learning from one another (I shall turn 70 later this year) and an effective exchange on the Talk page is a good way to do that!

Sincerely Rustat99 (talk) 06:18, 1 January 2022 (UTC) aka John Crowfoot


 * I appreciate your words, but while it's good to be bold, blanket reverting all of the changes that have been made of the last few days by multiple editors is unconstructive and unconducive to collaborative editing. Another editor has restored the latest version prior to your reversion. We're all volunteers here, everyone's time is equally precious! You might find it helpful to skim over this guidance on the norms of reverting on Wikipedia. Reverting because you think the article is an overall worse state than before, but you don't personally have time to separate the good changes from the bad changes, is considered a bad reason to revert. It's best to make individual changes and fixes, or manually revert specific parts you think are wrong.
 * With the Solovki Stone content specifically, I explained above that the section as it was written was off-topic, so please don't restore that content. The most relevant policies are WP:NOTESSAY/WP:5P1 (Wikipedia is an encyclopedia), but there's also a more succinct essay summing up topic scope you might like to read. If you disagree with me, you're welcome to seek other editors' opinions by starting a new talk page thread on the Solovki Stone, or by seeking a third opinion. However, I'm doubtful other editors will come to a different conclusion. I hope this helps, Jr8825  •  Talk  12:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear JR, I have been to arbitration once before on Wikipedia and talked to senior editors. If necessary, I can do so again. Let's just use a little common sense. If you and your fellow volunterrs do not know Russian, have no experience of the things described in this article and have not even done any background reading (e.g. Purge vs Terror, Bloodlands by Timothy D. Snyder) what am I to think of you and your efforts?

I have worked with other editors on Wikipedia without problem, mainly because even according to the specific rules of this wonderful encyclopedia (which you know inside out) it's self-evident that a participant must have some knowledge of the subject they tackle and respect others who do. That has been my experience, when co-editing other entries on Wikipedia (Anna Politkovskaya) and creating several myself, e.g. Valentina Cherevatenko, Yury A. Dmitriev. Until now, that is.

This is beginning to get on my nerves and I am ready and prepared to take the issue to Jimmy Wales himself if need be.

The collective behaviour of you and your fellow anonymous volunteers is a terrible waste of my time (I run several websites on related issues and resent such repeated and ignorant interference). In 2017, as I noted, the entry on Memorial was uneven, incomplete and in parts tendentious. I then spent more than one week working on this entry -- far longer in total than you and any of the "multiple" volunteers who have been active here during the past week (I'm curious, why the sudden interest?) I worked in publishing for 30 years and was an editor and translator by profession, so rewriting clumsily expressed English and creating paragraphs and sub-sections is second nature to me, whether in a book or on a website. One result of my labours is that when Memorial drew up a petition on Change.org (it has since attracted 139,000 signatures from around the world) they recommended that people read the Memorial entry on the Anglophone Wikipedia because they knew and trusted its contents.

How any members of Memorial, or any Russians, would respond if I said that someone had decided on shaky grounds that the Solovki Stone was "off-subject" I shudder to think. My conclusion is that barricaded behind your pseudonym and "the rules" you are rather over-confident and not very well-informed; theirs would be that you are guilty, for whatever reason, of vandalism (as someone else commented above).

Be warned: I shall continue to revert and correct as often as the accuracy and good writing of this text require! I have devoted far more time to this entry than you or any of the other volunteers and, on this we can agree, consider that my time is indeed as valuable as yours.

John Crowfoot (b. 1952) Rustat99 (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Verb tenses
I'm somewhat uncomfortable with the blanket use of present-tense verbs in the lead. I realize that other Memorial organizations still exist outside Russia, but since the main site in Russia has been outlawed, it's in effect no longer in existence. I realize it's a complicated situation, but it seems to me more nuanced verb usage in a somewhat more complex lead would be more appropriate and informative. – Sca (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

FYI -- the court ruling, as in the West, has not yet come into force. Another 4-6 weeks will pass before it does so. Therefore, the organisation, its building, its 50 plus branches and affiliates across the country and the various websites it runs are all very much still in existence. Be patient! Rustat99 (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rustat99/John, the current situation is unclear and I think it's better to wait a little bit until we have more sources indicating Memorial in Russia has been fully disbanded. Particularly as it's unclear whether or not the Russian authorities will respect the ECHR's injunction. Jr8825  •  Talk  17:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I've carefully checked the verbal tenses in the opening paragraph and changed them from past imperfect to present tense.

[1] As a literate citizen of any Western country should know, legal rulings do not come immediately into effect. Time is allowed for an appeal against the ruling once the defence have the written text of the ruling before their eyes; [2] the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, contrary to its usual slow reactions, has swiftly issued an injunction challenging the closure of Memorial under Rule 39.

Whatever Russia and its present leaders may think or say in public about the Court the country remain a signatory to the European Convention (it joined in 1998) and is thereby subject to the Court's rulings like all other signatories in Europe, East and West, and in the Caucasus. (Note, the Court came into existence in the late 1940s and thereby predates the European Union; it also embraces a much wider membership than the EU, which stretches -- thanks to Russia's adhesion over the past 23 years -- from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and from the Arctic Circle to Central Asia.)

Sincerely Rustat99 (talk) 06:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC) aka John Crowfoot

suggestion to create a separate page about recent events
Due to the notability of recent events and what could be considered a important event on the topic of human rights in russia and internationally i would like to pre-emptively suggest that the section labeled "Intimidation and order to close, 2021" be turned into its own article if it gets large enough in volume to warrant its own article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephwhyman041104 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

That would considerably weaken this article. From the very first, Memorial has faced hostility from the KGB and conservatives in Soviet, later Russian, society. You would be gutting the story if you hived off that inseparable dimension of its existence over the past 30 years (IMHO).

Sincerely Rustat99 (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC) aka John Crowfoot
 * I don't think it's necessary and I don't see how the WP:SPINOFF criteria would fit here: the article is neither overly long, nor a summary-style overview of a broad topic. Jr8825  •  Talk  17:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, can't see any purpose in that. Keep everything in one article. 50.111.6.149 (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Not happy about reversion of last section
From the way things are going, e.g. the very unusual Joint Statement issued yesterday, there will have to be another section after the one I created and named "Unfinished Business". The reversion removes useful information about the State of Play in late December when courts ordered the abolition or, rather, liquidation of both International Memorial and Memorial HRC.

I shall now add a further section "The International Response" and at the next opportunity revert the changes to the present, renamed last section "Future Aims" (a strange title meaning ...?) which, whatever the intention of the editor, amounts to vandalism. Perhaps the editor responsible can respond here to explain why she/he acted in this way -- I can see no such explanation elsewhere on this page!

Yours faithfully Rustat99 (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC) John Crowfoot

Status of Kommunarka and other burial sites
It is wrong to assume that people were shot and buried at every major site linked to the Great Terror. Until there is documentary confirmation it is wiser not to assume this. An example from a couple of years later: Polish POWs were shot at NKVD headquarters in Tver and their bodies then driven out of the city and buried at the Mednoe complex.

The late Arseny Roginsky, an expert on the subject, warned that the widespread use of the euphemism "firing range" is misleading. When suitable areas outside population centres were set aside in 1937 for mass burial locals referred to these fenced-off and carefully guarded areas as "firing ranges": that does not mean the victims of the Great Terror were necessarily shot as well as buried there.

I have altered the link in the "See Also" section accordingly.

John Crowfoot aka Rustat99 (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Logo of International Memorial.svg

NOT just about Stalin
Someone with the best of intentions (doubtless) keeps altering the opening description of Memorial's profile as a society engaged in historical research.

Initially, in the late 1980s, Memorial did formally describe its mission as dealing with the Stalin era. Subsequently, as is demonstrated by the over 3 million entries in the "List of Victims of Political Repression in the USSR", that scope was widened to include the entire Soviet period, stretching from 1917 to 1991. Rustat99 (talk) 04:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)