Talk:Prague Declaration/Archive 1

old talk
Very sorry if this is the wrong place to put this response. I can agree with most of what you say, but I feel a Criticism section lends necessary credibility to the whole page. Correct me if I am wrong on that. I'm not trying to vandalise the page and I'm not acting on behalf of any organisation. Other similar political pages have Criticism sections e.g. here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Conservatives_and_Reformists#Criticism I tried to follow that model and would maybe rewrite like this: ==Criticism== The Prague Declaration has been opposed by political commentators and politicians, who see the Holocaust as a unique event which should not be equated with other tragedies. Appreciation in advance for any advice. Spitfire3000 (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

A criticism section in itself is certainly unproblematic, provided the criticism deals directly with the declaration of course, and provided that it is proportioned relative to its importance. Your new proposal is certainly a lot better. Freedland's article, does however not mention the Prague Declaration directly; the key point of the Prague Declaration is the need to educate about communist crimes, what Freedland discusses is somewhat peripheral in relation to the declaration, as the question of whether Nazi crimes were "unique" is a huge discussion that predates the Prague Declaration (and is probably addressed in other articles). Tataral (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I've only briefly looked at the article by Leonidas Donskis, but it seems to me that it discusses the "Lithuania for Lithuanians" slogan and issues that are relevant to Lithuanian politics, but not really to the article on the Prague Declaration. Tataral (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The Declaration deals directly with the issue of equating the treatment of all these tragedies. That is what the Declaration is for. It is predicated on the notion that Westerners don't know about Stalin's crimes and need more "balanced" education, as you say, to equal things out. (that argument is also linked on the Declaration page). Therefore a criticism section would, as far as I can see, be nonsense without some articles about the issue of whether or not biasing education towards "equal" treatment (as opposed to prioritisation of Holocaust education) was actually justifiable. There is more information about the ambassadors here, mentioning the declaration, what source would I need to find other than this blog?: http://holocaustinthebaltics.com/ambassadors-protest-antisemitism-in-lithuania/6362 And here http://holocaustinthebaltics.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/2010Nov26PolishAmbassadorSpeaksOut.pdf Here is an Early Day Motion apparently raised in parliament, mentioning the Prague Declaration in all but name. http://www.edms.org.uk/2010-11/1229.htm Spitfire3000 (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

If you can provide a notable source (such as a Guardian article, but letters to the editor don't count) that mentions the Prague Declaration directly in relation to the discussion over "uniqueness", that would be fine. The ambassadors complained about Lithuanian anti-semitism, not the Prague declaration which is supported by almost the entire of Europe judging by voting in the European Parliament. Tataral (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Understood. Will find better sources. Opinion articles in major newspapers (i.e. not letters to the editor) are OK? Obviously not ideal, but anyway, I don't understand your mentioning "letters to the editor". The criticism is by definition an "opinion" and it's carried in the mainstream press. But they are not just complaining about "antisemitism"... that's just what Katz calls it on his blog, but they are actually speaking specifically against the "equality" movement. I need to find a good source for the original text. And as for the "majority" approving the Declaration, there seems to be plenty here I will have to sort through http://holocaustinthebaltics.com/prague-declaration/opposition What about the jpegs of letters written by organisations which directly mention opposition to the Prague Declaratio? How to cite them? Spitfire3000 (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Both letters to the editor and op-eds are generally considered weak or insufficent sources, as they don't demonstrate the notability of the position in question. If, say, Russian authorities criticized the Prague Declaration, it would generate mainstream news coverage, and automatically warrant inclusion in the article. An opinion piece in combination with third party coverage would be better than just an opinion piece.

The comparison of Soviet and Nazi crimes, including the uniqueness vs equivalence discussion, is a topic worthy of its own article. There has been much discussion concerning this issue, for example following the publication of the Black Book of Communism but dating back much longer (for instance The Origins of Totalitarianism), and there are different views. It's not an idea or discussion that was introduced by the Prague Declaration; the declaration is based on the equivalence position when it comes to totalitarian regimes of course, but its key point is the communist crimes and the need to raise awareness about them. Tataral (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Letters shouldn't be cited directly (as primary sources). If the letter in itself is notable enough, it will have received mainstream news coverage, and in that case, one should cite the news coverage. But as far as I'm aware, it's mostly a handful of people who are campaigning against the resolution. I'm not aware of any government or official authority (not even the Israeli) having criticized the declaration, I can't find any mention of Russia having criticized it either. Tataral (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

A similar issue is raised here.. would this be a suitable level or source to cite, were it relevant? http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/03/row-over-tory-europe-allies Agree that the criticism should be sound, or shouldn't be on wikipedia. But even a small number of critics would warrant a criticism section for completeness if they were being taken seriously in the press, is that what you are saying?Spitfire3000 (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the Guardian article would be an adequate source for the article on the UK Conservative Party.

When it comes to the Prague Declaration, I think a short section (given that debate/criticism has been limited, at least in mainstream sources) on "reception" or "criticism" would be appropriate, that could mention the uniqueness vs equivalence debate, and possibly also criticism from communist groups if found. Tataral (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I added a short reception section. I'm still looking for more sources from both sides of the debate. Tataral (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll wait for you to finish editing. The Barry Rubin opinion piece you added was of the same quality as that you deleted yesterday, which confuses me, and quoting two communist parties prominently seems to me to be disproportional to their importance. It does not need much explanation why a communist party would oppose a declaration increasing the status of communist crimes, and I don't see how their statements are more useful, mainstream or authoritative here than the things you are deleting.Spitfire3000 (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The Prague Declaration is primarily a declaration on communism, so the response of communist parties is what I primarily would consider relevant, whether the response is surprising or not. Both parties are well-established and notable entities. The clear majority of the section deals with the Jewish response anyway.

You are right in principle about the Rubin piece. I looked into it a little more and found it to be less problematic as long the authors were notable themselves and the opinion pieces appeared in notable sources, and as long as the section was balanced. The Rubin article has been cited by Zuroff in several other articles, and as both Rubin and Zuroff are notable persons, I think it's less problematic to quote these articles. I was still looking for more sources to add to the section. The Economist source was a good addition. The main problem with the original version was one-sidedness and that much of the material had little to do with the Prague Declaration. Tataral (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain why the same justification doesn't work for Katz? And I think that the equivalency and antisemitism debate which has attracted the attention of ambassadors and members of parliament in many countries should be discussed above the press releases of two very tiny communist parties. I am not sure why you think the communists should come first.Spitfire3000 (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason to cite Katz in addition to Zuroff when they have the same opinion. Zuroff is a much better known person and represents a large organisation. This is just a matter of keeping the section at a proportionate level. This criticism is coming from a "tiny number of people" (I've seen 4 or 5), and should not be given undue weight in the article. It's appropriate to mention the point concerning equivalence with a few sentences, and using Zuroff as a prominent example of that position. I think it's more logical for the communist response to come first because this is a declaration about communism first and foremost, the Jewish debate is a much more specific issue. Tataral (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The broader equivalency and antisemitism debate could be relevant in a different article, but I've not seen any evidence nor think it's likely that the ambassadors were referring to the Prague Declaration or EU policy that is supported by almost the entire EU. This seems more like a local Lithuanian issue. Tataral (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I know the Ambassadors were referring to the Prague Declaration among many other things, but that doesn't mean a secondary resource reports it as such, although solid opinion pieces might. I will investigate. I think it is illogical to talk about prominence and proportionality and then put communist parties at the top. At the moment the section is looking dangerously like "all jews are communists". The Prague Declaration is a part of the equivalency debate which is referenced by many far more important people than the communist party of britain (for example the MPs, antisemitism committe, ambassadors) and omitting any reference to this leaves the section unbalanced, giving the critics less credibility than they deserve, giving them less even than the communist party of britain.Spitfire3000 (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The response from the communist parties, to a declaration condemning communism, currently comprises 25% of the section. There are Wikipedia articles in 20 languages about the Communist Party of Greece. They have even organized a conference critical of the Prague Declaration. The difference between the communist parties and the parliamentarian or ambassadors in Lithuania, is that the latter ones have not mentioned the Prague Declaration. Tataral (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a huge amount in this article about the Prague Process, containing a lot of material that doesn't mention the Prague Declaration. If all these subsequent "related" developments warrant inclusion on this page, then I think there is room for a wider Criticism section including the context of that criticism. Equivalency is referred to throughout the entire page, unquestioned, in accouts of several events that are mentioned without any evidence that they are linked to the Prague declaration any more than the Ambassadors' criticism is. If the subsequent events really are linked to the Prague declaration, and the prague declaration is an important declaration, I find it strange that the Prague Declaration website seems dead and incomplete and the articles referenced don't all mention the Prague declaration.

Or perhaps the Prague Process Page should be a separate page, and the Prague Declaration Criticism section should then be confined to specific mentions of the Prague Declaration as you propose.Spitfire3000 (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be some dead citations. having a closer look at the main body of the article.Spitfire3000 (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The material on the Prague Process is based directly on the declaration, frequently word for word. The material on Mann couldn't possibly have anything to do with the declaration because it predated the declaration. I see no reason to compare this material to the letter from those ambassadors either.

A separate article on "condemnation of totalitarianism in the European Union" or something along those lines could be a possibility, but I don't think there is an urgent need to move the material. Tataral (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the website webcitation.org that is used to prevent link rot is (ironically) dead at the moment, but I hope it will be back soon (this has happened before, once). The citations also include the original links, so it's not a huge problem. Tataral (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Mann was commenting on a precursor to the Prague Declaration. I need to find a citation for that to see how connected they are. If you are saying that close association to the declaration is sufficient for inclusion in the prague process section, then I think the criticism section needs similar treatment, to balance the prague process section. The ambassadors were protesting equivalence. This is clearly relevant to the Prague Process section. The recent protest by the UK antisemitism committee MPs to the Lithuanian embassy is a result of the Prague Process. Here is a recent speech to parliament on the equivalence campaign, given by the former Minister of State for Europe, which could offer some balance to the impression that only the jews and the communist party of britain are interested in opposing the prague process, see p 3 onwards http://holocaustinthebaltics.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/2011Jan20DenisMacShaneSpeech.pdf and see the process criticised here http://www.antisemitism.org.uk/never-again

While I agree that there is plenty of information for a separate page on the equivalence controversy, I think if we leave the Prague Process on the Declaration page then it needs criticism of the Prague Process in the Criticism section.Spitfire3000 (talk) 00:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The only references I can find to The Prague Process online are wikipedia, Dovid Katz, the communist party of Britain, and this http://www.didier-bertin.org/ Spitfire3000 (talk) 00:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Prague Declaration website news page, seemingly published by one Czech senator, does not mention many of the things mentioned in the wikipedia section on the Prague Process, does not mention the Prague Process, and mentions nothing since the passing of the Resolution on European Conscience and Totalitarianism.Spitfire3000 (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Possibly because it is a website on the declaration itself, not on its aftermath. Tataral (talk) 03:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * this doesn't answer my point about the lack of evidence that the "Prague Process" exists anywhere outside wikipedia.Spitfire3000 (talk) 03:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * noted your change from "Prague Process" to "Impact and Aftermath" however there does seem to be a disproportionate amount of stuff there, it's almost a comprehensive list of anyone who has said anything about "totalitarian regimes" in support of Prague (indirectly) since 2008. It makes me think the criticism section is not dealing with all the criticisms raised by the Aftermath section.Spitfire3000 (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's more of a section listing the most important official resolutions, political developments and statements from elected top officials, that relate to the Prague Declaration. The difference between this section and the criticism section is that the criticism section is not based on the official position of any political authority, but mostly on the invividual opinions of a limited number of people, and of a few NGOs. Had the Israeli government or parliament, or leading Israeli politicians, taken part in the discussion, it would be different. But they have not. There is a difference between a parliament adopting a resolution, or the EU presidency proposing something, and some private individual expressing an opinion. The section is longer because it deals with mostly official developments and which are the mainstream position. Tataral (talk) 03:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case, where would you suggest I add the british parliamentarians (see immediately below this line)Spitfire3000 (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks like it would belong in the criticism section. Tataral (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

John Mann mentioning the Declaration - "A sinister document" - in an opinion piece in the mainstream media: http://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/21392/europe-must-focus-baltic-hate Spitfire3000 (talk) 01:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

A petition to the Lithuanian embassy signed by, among others, Denis MacShane MP and Lord Greville Janner, mentioning the Prague Declaration by name. http://holocaustinthebaltics.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Letter-to-Lithuanian-ambassador-presented-7-Feb-2011-a.pdf mentioned here http://www.thejc.com/news/world-news/44965/lithuania-attacked-over-holocaust Spitfire3000 (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Removed the communist party of britain, they seem to be far less relevant and authoritative than other sources you have dismissed, the reference was to their own website, and the communist criticism is better represented by the Greek party who have some seats in parliament. Spitfire3000 (talk) 01:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's true that the communist party of britain has no impact on european politics, no seats, but the same is true about Zuroff & co. Tataral (talk) 02:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Zuroff & co" are very relevant to the Jewish side of the debate and do not need seats in parliament to justify that position. The communist party of britain is not very relevant to the communist side, especially as this is a European Parliament debate and they are not even close to influencing it and have not been reported as involved with this debate, and anyway their opinion duplicates the opinion of the far more relevant greek party.Spitfire3000 (talk)

The Prague Declaration "website", which is where the text of the declaration comes from, is very unconvincing, dead, and doesn't seem to be backed by anything except a link to the senator's office website and a broken link to his personal site. Is there a better source for the text of the declaration? I can't find one. I expect there must be something more convincing somewhere.Spitfire3000 (talk) 02:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not the "Prague Declaration's website", but rather a website on the Prague Declaration, owned by the Institute for Information on the Crimes of Communism. The text can found on the website of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. Tataral (talk) 02:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for the link, but I didn't say it was the "Prague Declaration's website". The text you link to is on another NGO's website. I also found the Swedish site but I can't find the text there. Is this important declaration (which the declaration wikipedia page seems to imply is very official at high levels) really only recorded on a couple of NGO's websites and nowhere more official? Related issue: You previously rejected the World Jewish Congress http://www.worldjewishcongress.org as a source, they back the Israel Council on Foreign Relations which supplied a journal article you objected to as you didn't think the ICFR was a good enough source.Spitfire3000 (talk) 03:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You are in error. The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation is an educational organization established by the United States Congress with George W. Bush as its honorary Chairman. I have no recollection of having "rejected" the WJC. Is the Israel Council on Foreign Relations part of the WJC? Tataral (talk) 03:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The ICFR "functions under the auspices of the World Jewish Congress Research Institute" http://israelcfr.com/about-icfr.php?inp=1 and I still find it remarkable that there are so few copies of the declaration, from oblique sources. I am not doubting its existence, I just find it strange that its text is so little referenced. Spitfire3000 (talk) 03:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

about 1481, i don't know if "not passed" is the correct nomenclature, but according to wikipedia, the necessary 2/3 majority was not reached http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe_resolution_1481 Spitfire3000 (talk) 03:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * As the article clearly states, and as you can see on the website of the Council of Europe, the resolution was adopted. It was the original draft that did not pass. An amended version was adopted. Tataral (talk) 03:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also see http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1065110.html Tataral (talk) 03:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * am i missing something, and/or does the wikipedia 1481 article need updating for clarity? what was the amendment?
 * The article could need expansion/improvement. Tataral (talk) 03:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Impact and Aftermath: "The Prague Declaration initiated a number of other declarations..." To what extent can it be shown that the Prague Declaration initiated all the happenings in the aftermath section? The principles and aims of the Prague Declaration (using the same or similar words) were talked about long before the Prague Declaration, so I would see the Prague Declaration as one part of an ongoing story, rather than the initiation of all these subsequent events? Spitfire3000 (talk) 03:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

On a general note, much of the broader criticism is really criticism of the totalitarianism theory and advocacy of the uniqueness theory that appeared in 1967 and that has become less common since the 1994 Rwandan genocide. The Prague Declaration did not introduce the totalitarianism theory, nor the definition of genocide that today covers, inter alia, the Armenian Genocide, the Rwandan Genocide, the Holodomor, and other Soviet crimes. What Greville Janner seems to oppose is the totalitarianism theory and the definition of genocide that is common today. The Prague Declaration is just a very small part of this. There are other articles that could address this issue, such as the articles on totalitarianism, genocide, or the section on "uniqueness of the Holocaust", which could even be a separate article and cover the entire discussion on this issue. The particular debate on comparing Soviet and Nazi crimes was renewed years before the Prague Declaration, notably with the publication of The_Black_Book_of_Communism. Tataral (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There is work underway for an "equivalence" page of some sort to cover these broader issues. However, for example, the MacShane/Janner protest is directly related to the Prague Declaration, and in response to the Prague Process. Their activity is more related than you seem to realise. The Prague Declaration is a pivotal part of the ongoing reassessment of the definition of genocide and the EU laws to cope with history since expansion into eastern europe, as evidenced by the extensive Aftermath section. I broadly agree with your edits, and moving the lower-level protests to the criticism section... but the opposition i am citing is as relevant to the PD as anything else in the aftermath section, and the EU justice spokesman Matthew Newman has distinguished the Holocaust from other european totalitarian crimes Spitfire3000 (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

If they were really opposing the policy that is supported by close to the entire European Parliament, the EU presidency, the European Commission, and even the United States government which has recognized Soviet crimes such as the Holodomor as genocide, why are they delivering all their letters to the Lithuanian embassy? This article is not about Lithuanian politics and has little to do with Lithuania. Tataral (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Lithuania is a leading actor of the Prague Process and has been accused by the letter writers of manipulating the debate to gain support for the process. That is why the Lithuanian embassy was chosen, and why the information is important to balance this article. There are several other dubious Lithuanian issues on this which you rightly deleted from this page and will be included elsewhere. You characterise the Prague Declaration as universally accepted, based on the vote in the EP, but obviously it is the brainchild of eastern europe and the most vocal supporters and relevant issues lie in eastern europe, Lithuania taking a lead over (for example) Estonia, and Lithuania is very active in promoting the PD to the West. That is what the PD is about, east educating west. Concerns in the press about the motivations behind the declaration are focussed primarily on Latvia and Lithuania, as far as i can see. Lithuania comes up time and time again and is prominent in the Aftermath activities cited on the page. It is only natural that opposition would be focussed on a country like Lithuania rather than, for example, Spain. Spitfire3000 (talk) 14:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC) I would add that Lithuania's status as the country which experienced the greatest percentage loss of Jewish life in the Holocaust, as well as suffering under Stalin, would also make the PD particularly relevant to Lithuania. Spitfire3000 (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It may be true that they have supported the declaration strongly, but most of the signatories are not Lithuanian, and most current EU level initiatives are initiatives of the European People's Party, the Greens and the Liberals in the European Parliament. If one opposed what they are doing, it would be natural to protest directly to them, not to some obscure eastern European country. Tataral (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * of course most of the signatories are not lithuanian, it's a multinational proposal, so i don't accept your logic there. the "number of signatories from a certain country" is not a great statistic to use if you were planning to oppose the declaration effectively. That said, the founding signatories from the EP are overwhelmingly Czech and eastern european, with disproportionately many Lithuanians. One of the most prominent signatories is Landsbergis. Lithuania is a strong supporter, her tactics are controversial as documented in the press, and therefore she warrants special attention. I can see why a focussed attack on Lithuania would be an appropriate strategy for them to pursue given the extremity of the Lithuanian activity and support of the PD. The fact that you and others are unaware of this objection, raised even in national parliament by prominent politicians involved in this issue, would seem to be an argument in favour of pointing it out in the criticism section, for balance and accuracy. Although small, the opposition to the PD is far from non-existent, and the actual active support for the PD is weak and concentrated in one area of the EU, as evidenced by the low number of states who have actually implemented its proposals wholeheartedly, and the rejection of a new EU-wide law by the commission due to inconsistencies of legal frameworks across europe. These frameworks "might" be harmonised but I don't think at this stage we can give too much weight to he probability that it "will" be harmonised, let alone implemented to the extent proposed by supporters of the PD.  Spitfire3000 (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Supplemenatal: in discussion of the Holocaust and Stalin's crimes, Lithuania is far from obscure. As the recognised centre of european jewry for hundreds of years until the holocaust, she is central to this debate and understandably disproportionately vocal compared to her population size. I expect that these reasons are factors that explain why opposition emanates principally from Lithuania and is directed at Lithuania. She is one of the few countries to outlaw communist symbols. There are many many reasons why Lithuania is not obscure to those familiar with this debate. Spitfire3000 (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

there are many Czech founding signatories, but only two Lithuanian, one Christian and one Jewish (Vytautas Landsbergis and Emanuelis Zingeris), "all with impeccable democratic credentials and known as people fair and friendly toward the Jewish people" as Barry Rubin notes in the Jerusalem Post. Tataral (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Two lithuanians is more than there should be, proportionally, if they are to be considered "obscure" to this debate. There are no British, and many other "unobscure" countries are not represented among the initial signatories. that's all i am saying, lithuania is particularly prominent in this issue, landsbergis is monumental in the discussion of new europe and stalin's crimes, lithuania is the scene of the most extensive holocaust, lithuania deserves attention here, from us and from Janner et al, lithuania is not obscure.
 * You cite one representative of an NGO(?), writing an opinion piece, in response to a real news article. in your quotation, Rubin is talking about Landsbergis only, and by your own standards this is a weak source, hardly relevant. Rubin is only included on the page for sake of balance of the criticism section. I don't see how this is evidence that Lithuania is an obscure country not worthy of targeting in the opposition to the PD. I don't think Barry Rubin is really relevant or strong, but I agree we should leave him in to balance out the criticism section, as you suggested.
 * The original article was (as i have shown and we have agreed) in need of POV changes and we are getting there together. I think our differing personal opinions and different areas of knowledge are combining to make a fairer wikipedia article which could receive less criticisms of bias and contains a more complete picture of the context of the Prague Declaration, without getting too broad. The fact that you started this process surprised that any opposition existed apart from "one man's letters to the editor" shows that wikipedia has been improved by our collaboration. I hope it will continue in that vein and I have enjoyed working with you so far.Spitfire3000 (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Correction: Rubin refers to more than Landsbergis, sorry. But the Rubin source is such a weak source I still don't see how it is relevant to this argument. I have many other similar low-level sources alledging that Zingeris is a paid stooge who has abandoned his community. I don't propose using them. In fact, the "bickering" about who represents the Jewish community was carried in a real news article and features people more prominent in this debate than Barry Rubin, who seems to be the classic example of what you call "one man writing letters to the editor" Spitfire3000 (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Economist article states that the declaration "has infuriated some, if not all, Jewish activists". The Rubin article is an example of that position, and is sufficient to be be used in this way, if not the strongest source in itself (as far as notability is concerned, the Economist article demonstrates that both are notable positions in the Jewish community). I also included a similar piece by Zuroff, and the article includes a similar one by Mann. Christopher Beazley, UK MEP for the Conservative Party, is a founding signatory of the declaration. Rubin was not being used as "evidence that Lithuania is an obscure country", merely to point out that those Lithuanians who signed the declaration are not vile anti-semites. Tataral (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not contesting Rubin's inclusion, I am just agreeing it is one of the weakest sources in the page and needs special justification to be included. I might also use that justification in order to include other sources. You said it is OK to use opinion articles if they are prominent publications, prominent people, referenced elsewhere etc. Rubin i can only find once, Katz and Zuroff are widely reported. Anyway, what I am contesting is your point that lithuania was too insignificant to be the focus of a serious protest about the PD (MacShane/Janner). If there is only one UK MEP signatory and there are 2 Lithuanians including a founder of the state then i think inter alia this shows lithuania is not obscure. This added to my other explanations should justify the inclusion of a protest to the Lithuanian embassy. Going by your reasoning here I might also consider other articles about antisemitism which do not directly mention the PD, but give important context. However I agree we should keep the focus of the page tight. I think one or two of the Aftermath issues are uninteresting and given too much weight, for example. The extensive reiteration of the principles and aims of the PD in quotations from many other people repeating each other is unnecessary clutter and does not add to the page, however quotations explaining the opposition and context of that opposition definitely add to the page. This is a wikipedia page, not an advert for the declaration, it is a relatively minor issue and it does not need bolstering with extensive related material, however it does need careful criticism, which is what we are doing. Spitfire3000 (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * While there seems to be some criticism that should be mentioned, the criticism is restricted to a limited number of groups and persons focusing on just one aspect of the declaration, that is not specific for this declaration either (the theory that the Soviet Union or others did not commit genocides has never gained universal recognition, on the contrary, the opposite appears to be the most accepted theory in the western world). There is a limit to how long/detailed it is reasonable to make a criticism section, provided there is no "high level" or widespread criticism, only criticism from a small number of persons/NGOs over one aspect. If we should start with the "context" of the opposition, we would have to start with the introduction of the uniqueness theory in 1967, and the criticism of it that has been increasing since the 1994 Rwandan genocide, the debate on the definition of genocide, and the debate on the Nazi-Soviet comparisons, for example following the publication of the Black Book of Communism but also much earlier, official recognitions by many countries such as the US of Soviet (and other) crimes as genocides, and so on (Norman Finkelstein has also written that the uniqueness theory does not really figure in Holocaust scholarship). This would all be very interesting and should definitely be covered at length somewhere (some articles at least partially address these topics), just not in this article. But I would be very happy to include a link to such an article to provide background information for the discussion in this article. Tataral (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The page looks much tidier, this is good. I think you are slightly misunderstanding their arguments relating to the Prague declaration, and you are bit distracted by the "uniqueness" and "genocide/notgenocide" arguments, and you keep mentioning the "outdated" theory. I think maybe you are not fully acquainted with the nuances of their argument. I considered removing the link you added to the "uniqueness" page because I don't think it represents their views, or the main thrust of their campaign, particularly against the PD. In relation to the Prague Declaration I think their main point is that education would be more effective if the differences between the horrors were taught as differences, rather than jumbled into a big pot of "all the horrible evil leaders were horrible and all horror is the same". Focusing on the "comparability" of the crimes seems to risk muddying the waters between them, lowering the level of education and memory, diminishing the level of guilt of the guilty. That is what they are saying about the PD. (they also allege the PD is a sinister government plan to allow the glorification of war criminals, but that is a separate issue). The Holocaust was unique in that nobody has ever done that before or since. It's unique, no doubt. I can see similarities between Holodomor and the Irish Potato Famine, but I can't see so many similarities between Holodomor and the Holocaust. The "definition of genocide" debate is a separate issue to that of uniqueness or comparability or equivalence. The Holocaust was a "unique event", Stalin did NOT do the same thing as Hitler, that is unquestionable, Stalin did not write Mein Kampf. But that doesn't mean Zuroff should necessarily be linked to the "unique genocide" page you link to. "unique event" does not mean "unique genocide in world history" and does not mean "most horrific event in history". Katz talks of the uniqueness of the Holocaust as "the only genocide in Lithuania" rather than "the only genocide in world history". That page you link to is pretty sparse anyway, I am not sure how much credibility I give it at the moment, or if it is useful for readers to be linked there. I hope I have understood you correctly and this discussion is useful. I expect some of these points will end up elsewhere on wikipedia, not on the PD page. But I am still uncomfortable about linking Zuroff to the "uniqueness of the holocaust" page which i feel is misleading and could be seen as an attempt to diminish his argument rather than to fairly represent it. I will see what other sources I can find to confirm or deny my gut feeling here. Spitfire3000 (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

If you feel the section on the uniqueness does not reflect his views or add to the article, feel free to remove it. Tataral (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Understood. I will read more and decide what would be most appropriate. I read more about Finkelstein, I am not sure if he is such a rock solid connection to make on the PD page and I don't really relate your previous comments to Zuroff's position on the PD. I don't think the context of this debate starts from a 1967 theory about the Holocaust, and I don't follow your argument. I do agree that the Criticism section should be proportional and be properly referenced. Spitfire3000 (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Good work adding the full declaration. Should we move the above discussion to the discussion page of the PD page? Spitfire3000 (talk) 08:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you raise no objection i will do this because subsequent editors should see our reasoning, i think our reasoning is good and useful. Your strictness on the referencing rules is a good example to set.Spitfire3000 (talk) 22:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes feel free to do this. Tataral (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Further to my undo: The Czech had "his" proposal denied by the commission, and they explained why, to a reputable news outlet in an official manner. I don't think the fact that a foreign minister "outranks" a civil servant means that we have to delete spokesmens' comments to journalists about the decision, and EU Justice (whether via spokesman or not) "outranks" a foreign minister. Giving their rationale is very important, especially seeing as we gave Swarzenberg's argument in favour of comparability, it begs an answer. The answer according to the spokesman is "we can't harmonise, we leave it to each country to decide, and what we are most concerned about is cases where ethnic minorities were targeted, which they were not in the case of communist crimes". The Prague declaration may have been voted for by a majority in the EP but as far as i can some of the aims do not enjoy widespread wholehearted support (e.g. the commemoration of the stalinism/nazism day). The PD is a non-binding declaration that some eastern european countries and sweden are supporting, and others are just voting for but not implementing much. The Czech foreign minister does not speak for EU Justice, the spokesman does. If the EU Justice spokesman says targeting of ethnic minorities is "the bottom line" then I find it very hard to justify deleting that. I don't really accept your reason that it was some kind of a "casual comment" because the wording "bottom line" is very strong. If you found a source discrediting the spokesman ( e.g. a higher rank retracting the comments and firing the spokesman) then I would agree to deletion. Otherwise I am respectfully unconvinced by your reasoning so far on this point. Spitfire3000 (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The rationale is already cited in the article with two quotes from the spokesman; there is no consensus on it and the conditions have not been met. The other comment specifically refers to the rules targeting racism and xenophobia in the EU, pointing out that these rules are not applicable to the proposal in question. This is indeed rather obvious. The quote is thus redundant. In his formal statement, the spokesman also said the the commission takes the issue "very seriously" and that they "will continue to keep this matter under review."

This is not a matter of "discrediting the spokesman", just by not quoting excessively from additional and less formal statements to journalists by a person who is himself rather unimportant, when we have already quoted the substantial arguments ("the conditions to make a legislative proposal have not been met"). And if we do quote the "horrendous" comment, we should also mention that it refers to the rules targeting racism and xenophobia. Tataral (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the explanation about "racism and xenophobia" is a very appropriate addition to put the whole thing in context, rather than deleting "the bottom line" of the rationale. All looks pretty good now, I will keep an eye out for developments in the press and add anything substantially new I find.Spitfire3000 (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Is anything actually happening with the Prague Declaration? This wikipedia page has more information than the official site, which is totally out of date, and I can't find it mentioned in the press recently anywhere. http://www.praguedeclaration.org/news this page doesn't seem to be the kind of official information i would expect for a declaration as important and widely influential as this wikipedia article implies.Spitfire3000 (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The Prague Declaration is a 2008 declaration (my emphasis). Nothing further is happening with a 2008 declaration, but a lot is happening relating to the issues raised by the declaration (aka the Prague Process as the process is referred to in the European Parliament). Most recently (i.e. today) the adoption of the Warsaw Declaration by European officials

Also, the Prague Declaration does not have an "official site". The website praguedeclaration.org is owned by the Sweden-based Institute for Information on the Crimes of Communism. Tataral (talk) 21:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Uniqueness of the holocaust
The relevant resolution of the Vilnius Declaration is very carefully worded, beginning with affirmation of the uniqueness of the holocaust, to avoid the misinterpretation that Stalin's and Hitler's crimes were equal. Removing this preceeding article and only quoting the subsequent articles gives a distorted impression of the resolution. If you are to use the Vilnius Declaration to support the Prague Declaration, it should also be noted where the Vilnius Declaration disagrees with the signatories of the Prague Declaration. Quoting articles out of context with the excuse that "the context already has it's own (unlinked) page" seems to me to be cherrypicking for political purposes.Spitfire3000 (talk) 11:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The "Acknowledging the uniqueness of the Holocaust..." article is a separate article specifically on anti-semitism in contemporary Europe, whereas the other material is from articles on memory politics pertaining to totalitarian ideologies. The Prague Declaration contains nothing on the status of the Holocaust, except for a call for victims of stalinism to also enjoy "justice, sympathy, understanding and recognition for their sufferings." The Prague Declaration is concerned with communism, and other issues addressed by other declarations (i.e. the Vilnius Declaration's article on anti-semitism in contemporary Europe) is hardly relevant for this article. Quoting material irrelevant to this article is indeed cherrypicking for political purposes. The condemnation of stalinism, which is at the core of the issues raised by the Prague Declaration, and the support for the remembrance day proposed by the Prague Declaration, was widely reported on by the media and thus notable. Has the article you want to include been reported on by any reliable secondary sources, and have they demonstrated its relevance to the call for condemnation of communism/stalinism which is what this article is concerned with? Tataral (talk) 11:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Vladimir Tismăneanu
In an edit summary, Vladimir Tismăneanu is described as "east-european", as if "east-european" was something inferior (to superior western Europeans I suppose?). As it happens, Tismăneanu is American (he is also Jewish and the son of communist parents btw.). He is also an internationally recognized expert on post-communist studies, and political systems and comparative politics (i.e. the field central to this article), a Professor at the University of Maryland, College Park, involved in a variety of liberal organisations, and his publication appeared in the Journal of Democracy, one of the most influential (western) journals within political science and the broader field of democracy issues. The scholarly assessment from one of the world's leading experts in the field appears highly relevant to the article. Tataral (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Prague Declaration webpage is abandoned
The Prague Declaration webpage referenced here is no longer available, it shows a automatically generated page which has nothing to do with the prague declaration in question. Spitfire3000 (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, it appears that something has happened to the website on the Prague Declaration owned by the Institute for Information on the Crimes of Communism. I'll replace it with a different reference. Tataral (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes i know that there is no official prague declaration page. Spitfire3000 (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Grajauskas
It appears to me that you are quoting quite selectively from Grajauskas, for example you cite Grajauskas writing that Shimon Samuels accused Vaclav Havel of having "anti-Semitic, racist and Holocaust distortionist motives" (my personal opinion is that Samuels merely discredits himself with such extreme accusations against a greatly respected person like Havel, so this says nothing about Havel and quite a lot about Samuels). But Grajauskas then continues that "these are exaggerated accounts, and they misrepresent the true motives of the post-Communist politicians and historians. Their efforts are not aimed at obfuscating Holocaust but rather at fully reviving the memory of Stalin’s crimes. Essentially, all of them recognize the uniqueness of Holocaust. But in their view, such recognition should not preclude the condemnation of crimes committed by Stalinist USSR that resulted in millions of deaths." This quote appears much more on topic in relation to this article than the material on whether eastern European countries prosecute Nazis today (70 years after the fact, so the only ones that could be prosecuted today would have been children at the time). Indeed, it appears that Grajauskas is not really one-sidedly (if at all) "criticizing" the Prague Declaration, and appears doubtful if he should be quoted under "criticism" (in a way that gives the impression that he a "critic" of the declaration along with Samuels and the others) at all.
 * "At the end of the day the division of Europe and Stalin’s crimes have to be seen by common European publics as tragic pages in European history, comparable to those of WWII itself, or the Nazi occupations of Western European countries during WWII. Ultimately, this common culture of remembrance has to manifest itself in documents, statements, books and other public documents of each and every EU member state. Most importantly, it has to become an integral part of history classes taught at Western European schools. Only when German school- children are taught about Nazi atrocities alongside the Stalinist ones as parts of a common European experience, will we be able to say that a common culture of remembrance has taken root in the EU. "

Tataral (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the quote on prosecution: For example, male life expectancy in Lithuania is 67.5 years. People who were born in 1944 (end of German occupation, start of second Soviet occupation) are on average already dead. Those who live 10 years past life expectancy were 9 years in 1944. Those who live 20 years past life expectancy were legally children until 1943. Those who live more than 20 years past life expectancy were still very young in the period from 1941 to 1944. So this is basically a very irrelevant point (especially in an article on condemnation of communism which has little to do with the issue), you cannot compare prosecution of people for something that happened 70 years ago with something that only ended around 20 years ago. In relation to communist crimes against humanity for which some of its citizens have been wanted by European countries (such as Poland), Israel has argued that there is a statute of limitations applying to events from that era (even when the charge is genocide). Tataral (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Two good points here. I second that. R e o + 18:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * In Lithuania the prosecutor found time to harass holocaust survivors and implicate them in treason while the press pronounced them guilty without any charges being brought. There were very few holocaust survivors in Lithuania and many collaborators. I am not sure how you can make these apologies for such a terrible conviction rate, it's a long time since 1991 and they didn't catch anybody, and why would they want to anyway? The holocaust perpetrators were also inconveniently "heroes of the struggle for independence." There's your answer.Spitfire3000 (talk) 06:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Op-ed
An op-ed by Ben Moshe, in which he promotes a declaration he himself authored, is not a reliable source for anything else than his own opinions, not for the opinions of others (such as who signed his declaration). What I find particularly interesting, though, is his claim in his op-ed that "the Nazi Holocaust was the only genocide in 20th-century Europe". He is thereby denying the Holodomor, recognized as a genocide (and as a crime against humanity) by the civilized world including the United States and his own country, Australia). He is also denying the Srebrenica genocide, determined to be a genocide by the UN's International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. He is denying the genocidal character of the Katyn massacre, recognized as a genocide by various bodies and countries, and a wide array of genocides in 20th century Europe. Obviously, denying the Srebrenica genocide and the Holodomor is clearly considered an extremist (and fringe) position in contemporary Europe and the civilized world. The individuals responsible for this declaration also gave an interview to a newspaper considered to be extremist by German authorities and formerly affiliated with the East German communist regime ("Junge Welt", so far the only third party news coverage available), clearly indicating the political orientation of this initative. Ben Moshe himself highlights in his op-ed the support from a member of the former East German communist party—why would it be that the only vice president of the Bundestag signing his declaration would be the one from the former East German communist party and none from the other parties? Tataral (talk) 23:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I have explained many times why it is hard to find information in english in the western press on this issue - because it's a very east-europe thing which nobody really cares about amongst the western paperbuying public, except for a few "left wing politicians and communists" as you call them. The wikipedia rules do not ban use of primary sources or personal blogs or opinion pieces. They are to be used with discretion. In certain circumstances they are acceptable and have been used widely in wikipedia when justifiable. Dovid Katz, being a world-reknowned expert on Jewish history in the area, and a leader of the opposition to the Prague declaration, is eminently quotable, if you accept Liekis. I don't understand why in your opinion "Junge Welt" is both fringe AND quotable in Wikipedia, but i am happy to leave it there because yes, the views of communists are very relevant to this page. Strictly speaking, foreign language sources are not suitable for the english language wikipedia. So do you want to be strict? Then I suggest deleting Azubalis moustache rant and the german communist paper. I can't find anything in the sources that suggests the entire oposition is motivated by communists, communism, soviets or "putinists", so wikipedia should not be making efforts to paint that picture.Spitfire3000 (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Op-eds can be used as sources for a person's own opinions, but not for factual information regarding others. Junge Welt is to my knowledge the only third party coverage of this event available. Personal blogs (i.e. a blog owned a private individual) is normally to be avoided as a source per the various policies on sources and external links. Tataral (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I have looked into this declaration, and almost all of the alleged signatories are left wing or far left. It's also a fact that the initiators voluntarily gave an interview to the newspaper Junge Welt, and that the only third party coverage appears in a publication with a reputation like that. Several of the signatories (notably those from the former East German communist party) represent parties which hold views on history in line with traditional Soviet propaganda and negationism. In promoting their declaration, the initiators have issued a statement where they deny that the Holodomor, the Srebrenica genocide and other events recognized as genocides by the ICTY, the US and the western world in general were indeed genocides, a position also held by those supporting a traditional Soviet view on history. If this initiative appears to have a clear communist leaning (or to be advancing the Russian position) when one looks at the signatories, the positions advanced and those who report on it, it's solely the fault of its initiators and not somebody else. Quite frankly, their statement denying the Holodomor and Srebrenica would be considered outrageous by most people. The Lithuanian Foreign Minister has also said that the declaration echoed "the Kremlin's ideologues," whereas mainstream media have ignored the initative (except for reporting the Foreign Minister's comment). Tataral (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The fact that both Katz and the left wing are involved in the same document does not make Katz a communist. The fact that some of the signatories are communists does not make the others communists. I presume you find a legitimate place in a democracy for left-wing views which are not communist, because you certainly accommodate right-wing views which echo those of the extreme right of Lithuania, which is very extreme. You support many of the views of Lithuanian neonazis, but that doesn't make you a Lithuanian neonazi.
 * I have looked into the Prague Declaration, and most of the instigators are right wing and eastern european, and real support for the Prague Process is limited to that camp, a fact which you have consistently resisted including in wikipedia.
 * It seems only natural that leftwingers would oppose such an initiative, as it is being abused by the rightwingers who wrote it. The EP probably passed it willingly because in many ways it has honourable aims and it is carefully worded. The problem is that the rightwing eastern-european instigators use it as a crutch for obscuring their own peoples' involvement in the Holocaust (clearly against the "equalising" intention of the Declaration which the EP approved).
 * About the "blog" and "opinion piece" on the Seventy Years Declaration - the Foreign Minister of Lithuania directly and immediately responded to it in a Lithuanian newspaper that isn't Communist. You used it as a source. It contains quotations against the PD from many people who are not Katz and not communist. So I don't know how you now insist that Junge Welt is the only third party source you can find discussing the Seventy Years Declaration. [edit]i see you modified your comment - well now even if it is in the mainstream media i can't use it because it's not "enough"?] I understand if you want to protect wikipedia from fringe nonsense, but I can't agree with deliberately inflating the impact of the PD (EU-wide legislation on denying soviet crimes was rejected outright, not voted for with a huge majority) while calling its opposition "communist". And the Economist, while agreeing in spirit, seems to think the Vilnius Declaration is ineffective and unimportant, the product of a "talking shop"... but you deleted that fact too. I am all for rules and the banishment of fringe nonsense, but your edits consistently lead the reader towards right wing POV, while repeatedly dismissing criticism as "communist". I am sure you are aware that trying to associate jews with communism is also considered outrageous by most people, as are many of the statements made by signatories to the Prague Declaration, including Landsbergis' recent reference to "gypsies" at a European Parliament meeting, or his glorification of the LAF, or the EU Ambassador to Afghanistan's recent comments that the Nazi occupation and genocide was "respite" from the Soviets.Spitfire3000 (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Azubalis also insinuated that changes in citizenship laws in Lithuania were being pushed by "Jews" with the aim of facilitating property restitution. This was followed by antisemitic newspaper articles in mainstream national papers, a sadly common occurrence. So I would be careful about reading too much into Azubalis when he talks about "Kremlin ideologues". You are in danger of using one fringe to fight the other. Being foreign minister in Lithuania does not mean your views are mainstream in the EU.Spitfire3000 (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have never been to Lithuania, I don't understand Lithuanian, and I hold liberal political views. I never said the initiator of this declaration "was a communist", but you complained about the initiative looking "communist leaning" because Junge Welt was cited as a source. If it appears "communist leaning", it's because they invited several traditional pro-Soviet communists (who would obviously agree with such a position) to sign it, themselves highlighted these signatories, were interviewed by Junge Welt, and even made the very controversial statement that there were no other genocides in Europe (i.e. not Srebrenica, not the Holodomor), and the only public comment so far described it as echoing the Kremlin, i.e. shared this perception. It wouldn't be possible to describe this initative as an initative with broad support from across the political spectrum, for example.


 * Regarding the Prague Declaration: Most of the signatories are from countries which experienced Soviet occupation, i.e. they are personally affected by the issue raised by the declaration. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Václav Havel was a supporter of the Green Party, and Joachim Gauck was nominated as the SPD/Green presidential candidate after he signed the declaration. Many of the signatories of this declaration are historians or former political prisoners and not "right-wing politicians". Granted, the rest of the politicians who signed it represented their countries' conservative parties mostly aligned with the EPP. But this article also makes the strong support from the EPP perfectly clear, it doesn't attempt to hide that fact at all. It was the EPP who originally proposed (in the EP) adopting the remembrance day, as the article points out, and their think tank was a co-organizer of the conference, as the article also makes clear. I have not inflated its impact, it has had a significant impact for a declaration like this by having the EU adopting a remembrance day and establishing a foundation amonst other things. If it had little impact, our friend in Vilnius wouldn't spend so much time opposing it and making a counter-declaration after four years, would he? The six foreign ministers who sent the letter didn't expect the EU to agree with this proposal right now and they were aware of the limits of the current legal framework, Azubalis said in an interview that they sent the letter to make a point ("alarm bell"). Banning political views is much more controversial and difficult to agree on than condemning crimes, obviously, and some countries have a strong tradition of not banning any views on principle. Tataral (talk) 02:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Dovid opposes the Prague Declaration on principle and will not rest until the Prague Process is dead in the water. That is clear from what he says and does. The PD's relative impact on the world stage does not matter to him - I expect ANY ultranationalist tool is too much to bear, however ineffective, on principle. The Jewish community seem to agree with him, although the Lithuanian mainstream press only quote "the jews" in ridicule or as part of outright antisemitic slurs. Your logic fails. I would say the opposite - the fact that few people are angry about the PD is because few people have heard of it because it's not very influential. The "alarm bell" was called an alarm bell because it was not mainstream, it was seeking to draw attention to a fringe view (albeit a large fringe). That's what "alarm bell" means. It means "Look over here! You're ignoring us!". It was rejected by the EU, who politely offered to "keep thinking about it". Another example - the idea of rewriting europe's textbooks is pure fantasy and will never happen, mainly due to the idea being spookily orwellian and strangely... Stalinist. It seems that the main "success" of the PD since adoption is that the OSCE "supported" it in their "talking shop" which was held in a right-wing east european country, and a few countries changed the name of black ribbon day. They're mostly east european. And right wing.
 * Without straying too much into "personal views of editors" I am glad to hear that you are liberal-leaning, as am I. I am sure you also accept that not everything a communist leans towards is attributable to a love of stalin, and leftwing or even extreme left wing communists are free to oppose things on grounds other than "defence of the Soviets". There are also many holocaust survivors who are far from communist and definitely disgusted by the darker sides of the Prague Process. I fully accept the unfortunate fact that communists agree with me here. I totally don't accept that this makes opposition to the Prague Declaration "communist" in nature. I am also sure you accept the fact that any Lithuanian ultranationalist reading your edits would be very pleased with your work. This doesn't make you an ultranationalist. I am trying very hard to remain within the wikipedia rules and use my personal experience and knowledge of lithuanian politics and media and language to improve many articles, as I am sure you have noticed. I appreciate your vigour and enjoy the process. However, the aim here is to make a good encyclopedia page about a difficult, controversial and ongoing topic, and many times I find your application of the rules leads to a distorted result. And you are quite happy to break the rule about not including long quotations that add nothing to the article and merely embellish a POV.
 * I am glad you have accepted many of my edits and the pages are improving all the time due to our efforts. I accept that the mainstream press take little interest, leaving only the fact that the EP voted for the PD with a large majority. However, purely stating the size of the EP majority is far from telling the whole story of the PD and ongoing Prague Process. As much as I can, within the rules and with your assistance, I am trying to rebalance articles that I feel are being coming across as brochures for the views of rightwingers who honour holocaust perpetrators.
 * As for Arendt, i read here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Arendt "Arendt's first major book was The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951), which traced the roots of Stalinist Communism and Nazism in both anti-Semitism and imperialism. The book was controversial because it suggested, arguably, that an essential identity existed between the two phenomena. She further contends that Jewry was not the operative factor in the Holocaust, but merely a convenient proxy. Totalitarianism in Germany, in the end, was about megalomania and consistency, not eradicating Jews." - a theory which i find outrageous. I am sure if you visited Lithuania and picked up a newspaper with "JEWS DON'T SEE THE NEED TO PAY SOCIAL SECURITY" on the front page, or witnessed a neonazi march for which members of parliament applied for permits, or met the neonazi who worked for the government sponsored "Genocide Research Center", or saw the "Genocide Victims Museum" which is many floors about Siberia and Holodomor and only one tiny recently-opened Holocaust room, or watched a european basketball championship game where the black players are heckled for being "not european" and the israelis are called "The Jews" by commentators - as a liberal i guess you could get outraged pretty quickly.Spitfire3000 (talk) 03:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that a headline like "JEWS DON'T SEE THE NEED TO PAY SOCIAL SECURITY" is utterly absurd, but I don't think it is related to the Prague Declaration, which is supported by a number of Jewish voices too and which was written in the Czech Republic and not in Lithuania (by Jana Hybášková among others).
 * Shall we remove the photograph of Landsbergis then? Seeing as you consider him "not related"? The declaration was maybe "written in the czech republic" but I am going to bet 10000000 euros that emails were exchanged between Czech, Lithuania and many other states, all equally keen and important.
 * I don't know what "jewish voices" your are talking about but the only one I know is Zingeris, who is apparently despised by the jewish community in lithuania as a sellout.
 * The headline was antisemitic and probably illegal in most countries, maybe even illegal in Lithuania, but all the jews are dead so they tend not to sue newspapers. The connection with the PD is simple - The lithuanians allow antisemitism to go unpunished and furthermore have refused permits to anti-fascist demonstrations while allowing neonazis to march down the main street in the capital city on independence day. This, along with many many other issues, including the "genocide" museum, gives the lithuanians a credibility problem on issues related to the holocaust, don't you think?

When it comes to the textbook project, Poland and Germany had such a project in the 1990s (to harmonize historical narratives in history textbooks), and I don't consider this idea as completely unrealistic. There are many possible outcomes of such an idea, but I consider a partial success for this project more likely than the possibility of the EU as a whole changing their schoolbooks significantly, which I consider very unlikely. The general idea could also be to increase awareness of the underrepresentation of communist crimes in school curricula. This issue has been discussed, independently of the Prague Declaration, in western European countries too in the last ten years or so.
 * The issue has been discussed? Sure, but nothing is happening, because it's absurd to say that the EU is going to force rewriting of history textbooks in all member states. Can you even imagine the UK turning up to that debate? Many things "have been discussed" but you're just being hopelessly optimistic now and nothing in the sources suggests there will be any progress, in fact, the EU smacked Azubalis down when he asked for a new Denial law, didn't they. I think the EU right now have other more important issues than counting the relative sizes of paragraphs in history text books. By the way, I have heard that Lithuanian books are a bit sparse on Holocaust information, and I have seen a party of school children in the "genocide" museum being led straight past the "holocaust room" without comment, whereas the level of detail given about soviet horrors included telling them that prisoners would drown each other in buckets of excrement. but I doubt the PD supporters care about that imbalance going on in the school system.

I think Barry Rubin explained in various articles quite well why few people are angry about the declaration, particularly in an Israeli context: Firstly because few people outside Eastern Europe feel very strongly about these matters in the first place (which includes Israel), secondly because the signatories and supporters of this process, both individuals and states, are known as Israel's best friends in Europe, thirdly because defending "the Soviet position" is something Israeli politicians are not interested in. I'm quite sure the declaration is known in Israeli political and government circles, but still there is no word of protest coming from Israel. Tataral (talk) 04:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Lithuania's vote on Palestine should give you a clue here. Lithuania and Israel are apparently working together on other "more important" things and Israel doesn't actually care if the lithuanians are antisemitic, so long as they pretend to love jews and vote the right way in the UN. Also, the declaration calls for "equal" treatment of nazi and communist crimes - which kinda seems ok at first glance, especially if you don't notice that actually countries like Lithuania treat the crimes as far from equal. They actually glorify the perpetrators of Nazi crimes and harass holocaust survivors for being "traitors" because they tried to kill the killers. The reason you hear so little about it is probably because you don't understand lithuanian, and they send out different messages in english for foreign audiences, compared to the messages they send at home and allow their media to say unchallenged. They actually write different things on the english and lithuanian versions of government webpages, edited for "foreign consumption".
 * Denying Stalin's "genocide" in lithuania is illegal, and the press and population are way-above-average antisemitic, so there's not much support for Katz et al at home. And to uninformed foreigners like yourself, Katz probaly looks like a crazy commie so there's little coverage abroad. Katz doesnt have a huge budget to spend on propaganda "conferences" like the Czech or Lithuanian governments do. So yes, I agree most of his stuff is hard to include in Wikipedia, but perhaps the background information will help to shape your opinion of this debate, so that you can keep that information in mind while you edit. And in case you are wondering, i'm neither jewish nor east european nor communist nor politically affiliated.Spitfire3000 (talk) 06:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

"Double genocide"
The opponents make references to something they call "double genocide". By this, they apparently mean the recognition of any other genocides than Nazi ones as genocides. This is not a term used by this declaration nor a concept introduced by this declaration. The Holodomor was recognized as a Soviet genocide by much of the western world including the United States long before the Prague Declaration. The Srebrenica genocide was determined to be a genocide by the ICTY several years earlier. Scholars (R.J. Rummel and others) have discussed Soviet genocides for decades, and the "equivalency debate" was revived in the 1990s with the publication of The Black Book of Communism. It's not something invented by the Baltic countries or the Prague Declaration, or some recent idea, but rather a well established position that has gained increasing momentum and official recognition for the last twenty years. As the Holocaust article points out: "Adam Jones, professor at the University of British Columbia Okanagan, believes that claims of uniqueness for the Holocaust have become less common since the 1994 Rwandan genocide." There is certainly a well documented trend since the early 1990s of recognizing other genocides as such, including Soviet ones, but also other genocides such as the Armenian Genocide which has been increasingly recognized as such in recent years (for example, last year, Israel "moved closer to officially recognizing the genocide." Those who claim there was only one genocide find themselves in the minority and increasingly so. The recognition of Soviet crimes as genocides is most vehemently opposed by Putin's Russia (which recently was categorized as an authoritarian country in the Democracy Index), and the recognition of the Armenian Genocide is opposed by Turkey of course. Tataral (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * no, as far as i can tell, they are referring to the characterisation of all stalin's crimes in eastern europe as a "second genocide" - the Holocaust being the first. This is not supported by anyone at any official level except right-wing national level in eastern europe. It has been described eloquently as "genocide envy". The opponents to the PD have repeatedly stated that they abhor Stalin's crimes and in no way seek to diminish them. Holodomor is tricky because it is not universally accepted as genocide or as "in europe", and anyway the supporters of the Prague Process do not think Holodomor was the only Stalinist genocide in Eastern Europe. They include a lot more, suggesting a very wide interpretation of genocide that would probably include Dresden and Hiroshima. Meanwhile, the opponents of the Prague Process do not spend time denying Holodomor, in fact they say they find it abhorent. It is the Prague Process people that wish to inflate (for example) the deportations from Lithuania to Siberia to the status of "genocide". This is very clear from the sources, even from Landsbergis himself. Srebrenica is also problematic, and Armenia, but that doesn't make what Stalin did in (for example) Lithuania "genocide". Rwanda is also undoubtedly genocide but nothing like the Holocaust. Yes, the totalitarian equivilentists were around long before the fall of the Berlin Wall, and their theories have found new passionate devotees among some rather nasty ultranationalists who see the chance to drown out talk of Holocaust collaborators with constant attacks on Russia for being "just as bad as hitler". I hope that clears it up for you.Spitfire3000 (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Holodomor is not recognised as genocide by the European Parliament. So I don't think that denying it was "genocide" is a fringe view - it's the official position of the European Parliament.
 * Also Serbia was cleared of genocide, so although genocide took place in Serbia, you can't equate Serbia with Nazi Germany.Spitfire3000 (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the EP has said the Holodomor was not a genocide. The fact that they have not explicitly passed a resolution on the Holodomor being a genocide doesn't necessarily mean that the EP holds the opposite position. The EP recognized it as a crime against humanity in 2008. Moreover, the point was that the idea that the Soviet Union was responsible for the crime of genocide is not something only coming from the Baltic countries, which the opponents of the Prague declaration seem to claim, but something recognized by the United States and other western countries. Tataral (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think the EP has said Holodomor WAS genocide either, and they've certainly had plenty of opportunity if indeed there is a huge consensus. The classification "crime against humanity" is clearly a way of avoiding the word "genocide" and there doesn't seem to be a huge majority in the EP clamouring for recognition of Holodomor genocide.
 * Furthermore, it's not surprising that the USA and "other western countries" have taken the opportunity to attack russia on this. There was the Cold War which I think provides an explanation.
 * My point is- there is not consensus on Holodomor like there is on the Holocaust.
 * Your point is getting confused by the fact you seem unaware that what Lithuania is actually trying to do (and has been trying to do for a long time) is get the official EU classification "genocide" for Stalin's treatment of Lithuania (not only holodomor). They have done this unilaterally by creating a state museum of "genocide victims" which until recently contained nothing about the Holocaust and everything about Siberia and Holodomor. Now they put a "Holocaust Room" in there which is about 5 square metres - it's literally one of the old prison cells, it's that small. The "genocide" museum is on three large floors and the Holocaust room is singular and tiny. Is that not outrageous? If that museum was a wikipedia article - you'd rewrite it.
 * So i repeat - supporters of the PD are actively engaged in diminishing the frequency of mentioning the Holocaust (especially local collaboration which was so instrumental) and attempting to upgrade the status of the Soviet occupation of Lithuania to that of genocide. It is their stated reasoning that "nobody" knows about Stalin's crimes in the west, so therefore they should talk about Stalin MORE than Hitler (not equally). You touched on this with your use of Pottering's "thanks" to the Baltic states for "opening eyes". But the "genocide" museum is proof that they also want to close eyes to the holocaust. They even celebrate the thugs who rounded up the Jews and shot them for Hitler as "heroes" of the fight for independence. And they don't even consider the victims to be Lithuanian, regardless of citizenship or 600 years of peaceful coexistence and integration.Spitfire3000 (talk) 05:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The conditions in the Baltic countries may not be ideal today, but these states were occupied for half a century and for decades it was not even possible to mention Stalin's crimes against them in these countries. People who are themselves the victims of oppression may be less willing to recognize the suffering of others, and this doesn't only apply to people from the Baltics. Eventually, as time passes, people adopt a more balanced view and may be able to recognize the suffering of others to a greater extent. There can be no doubt that Soviet crimes are generally underrepresented in western Europe. The Prague Declaration addresses this problem. It gets maybe 1 % of the attention or less, in terms of museums, school curricula, films etc. Tataral (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see the suppression of information about Stalin's crimes in Lithuania as an excuse for the modern republic to effectively reverse the situation and suppress information about lithuanian collaboration in the holocaust. It's understandable, but inexcusable. As for education in the west, I was taught about Stalin's crimes, my history teacher called him a "bastard", i studied the cold war and Gulag is in the english dictionary. Sure, films about Katyn are not as popular as Schindler's List but I think that probably says more about the relative purchasing power of the american/jewish moviegoing audience than it says about the attitude of schools, and any emphasis on hitler is also understandable seeing as the west fought and defeated hitler and the holocaust was uniquely disgusting. The situation is bad in lithuania today, and people like Landsbergis are not advocating equal treatment of history, they are pushing for a reversal of emphasis, as "compensation" for the years of "silence" under stalin. I don't see how that is going to improve things in future, and i don't know where you got your 1% figure from.
 * I only heard about Pol Pot once in school but that's probably because Cambodia is even more distant from London than moscow is. I don't hear the Prague Process demanding that eastern europeans learn more about Rwanda.Spitfire3000 (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Azubalis quote
I don't have a problem with inluding the moustache quote by Azubalis, but only as long as the other part is also retained. You seemed to agree earlier that this was the most relevant part of the quote. The "it is not possible to find differences between Hitler and Stalin except in their moustaches" quote was probably intended as a humourous comment underlining his view, and is similar to many other quotes in this regard. For example, Stéphane Courtois makes such an argument on page 9 in the English edition of The Black Book of Communism. Former EU Commissioner Sandra Kalniete said the exact same thing in 2004 and 2006 ("behind the Iron Curtain the Soviet regime continued to commit genocide against the peoples of Eastern Europe and, indeed, against its own people [...] the two totalitarian regimes—Nazism and Communism—were equally criminal"). The European Democrat Students adopted as its position: "communism as a totalitarian regime [...] can only distinct itself from Fascism and Nazism by a more recent expiry date and the consequent damage over time it was able to cause." Hans-Gert Pöttering said in 2009: "both totalitarian systems (Stalinism and Nazism) are comparable and terrible." Numerous other such statements exist. Azubalis said nothing that was new when he compared the regimes. Tataral (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * When azubalis' letter was rejected, the spokesman for Reding said the "bottom line" was that stalin didn't kill on ethnic grounds, i.e. not the same as hitler. Those kinds of views have also been around a long time too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spitfire3000 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)