Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Ultramarine

Criticisms of communism
No one doubts that Ultramarine invests a great deal of time and effort into finding and adding arguments that support his POV. The problems are that (1) he attempts to present them as established fact, and (2) he invests an equal amount of time and effort into misrepresenting and removing arguments for the other side. Consider the Criticisms of communism article, for example: The greatest differences between my version and Ultramarine's do not lie in the anti-communist arguments - which are almost identical in both our versions - but in the pro-communist arguments, which I attempt to present fairly and he attempts to misrepresent and dismiss out of hand. My version is meant to be a NPOV compromise that is satisfactory to all parties involved. Accusations that I have "made every attempt to stop him from criticising communism" are completely unfounded - see the "Anti-communist critique of Communist states" section in my version, for example, which thoroughly criticizes communism. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 10:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

-

This is simply false. Here are some of the things deleted by 172 when he reverted to your version.

[[Image:Victim of Lenin's Famine.jpg|thumb|330px|left| During [[Russian Civil War]], Lenin started "requisitioning" supplies from the peasantry for little or nothing in exchange. This led peasants to drastically reduce their crop production. In retaliation,  Lenin ordered the seizure of the food peasants had grown for their own subsistence and their seed grain. The Cheka and the army  began by shooting hostages, and ended by waging a second full-scale civil war against the peasantry.

Official Soviet reports admitted that fully 30 million Soviet citizens were in danger of death by starvation. The White forces shared little of the blame and actually had a food surplus. The Civil War was essentially over by the beginning of 1920, but Lenin continued his harsh exploitation of the peasantry for yet another year. The famine of 1921 was thus much less severe in 1920, because after the reconquest of the White territories, the Reds seized the Whites' grain reserves, although they primarily sent them to cities with less hunger but more political clout. Some relief organizations suspended help when it was revealed that the Soviet Union preferred to sell food abroad in order to get hard currency rather than feed its starving people. Estimates on the deaths from this famine are 3-10 million. Lenin was also responsible for starting the slave labor camp system and for 100000-500000 summary executions of "class enemies" Sources and estimates of the number killed:  ]]

Cuba is often cited as a successful example of by communists. However, Cuba was one of most developed nations in Latin America before Castro. Other Latin American nations have seen greater increases in literacy than Cuba. Calories per person has declined in Cuba while it has increased in most other Latin American nations. Cubans eat less cereals and meat than before Castro.

After 1965, life expectancy began to decline in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe while it continued to increase in Western Europe. This decline accelerated after the change to market economy in the states of the former Soviet Union but has now started to increase in the Baltic states. In Eastern Europe, life expectancy has increased significantly after the fall of Communism. The continued poor situation in Russia and Ukraine has been strongly linked to alcoholism. 

(On that social sciences are not falsifiable.) One response is that many social sciences like psychology, economics, and political science are increasingly being tested, for example by statistical methods.

Lenin did state the following:
 * "The so-called cultural element of Western Europe and America are incapable of comprehending the present state of affairs and the actual balance of forces; these elements must be regarded as deaf-mutes and treated accordingly....


 * "A revolution never develops along a direct line, by continuous expansion, but from a chain of outbursts and withdrawals, attacks and lulls, during which the revolutionary forces gain strength in preparation for their final victory....


 * "We must:


 * "(a) In order to placate the deaf-mutes, proclaim the fictional separation of our government ... from the Comintern, declaring this agency to be an independent political group. The deaf- mutes will believe it.


 * "(b) Express a desire for the immediate resumption of diplomatic relations with capitalist countries on the basis of complete non-interference in their internal affairs. Again, the deaf- mutes will believe it. They will even be delighted and fling wide-open  their doors through which the emissaries of the Comintern and Party Intelligence agencies will quickly infiltrate into these  countries disguised as our diplomatic, cultural, and trade representatives.


 * "Capitalists the world over and their governments will, in their desire to win Soviet market, shut their eyes to the above- mentioned activities and thus be turned into blind deaf-mutes. They will furnish credits, which will serve as a means of supporting  the Communist parties in their countries, and, by supplying us, will rebuild our war industry, which is essential for our future  attacks on our suppliers. In other words, they will be laboring to prepare their own suicide."(Stalin : The First In-depth  Biography Based on Explosive New Documents from Russia's Secret Archives, 1997, Edvard Radzinsky)(The Lufkin News, King Featurers  Syndicate, Inc., 31 July 1962, p. 4, as quoted by the Freeman Report, 30 Sept. 1973, p. 8).  . Ultramarine 16:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

-

Yes, I encourage everyone to read Ultramarine's version carefully, particularly the paragraphs under the "Victim of Lenin's Famine" picture, in order to get a sense of the depth of his POV-pushing. Notice also that the extensive Lenin quote which he accuses me of removing does not appear in any of Lenin's works. Ultramarine cites a book by Edvard Radzinsky in which that quote allegedly appears, but has refused to give any further details surrounding it - such as the name of the secret document in which the quote is supposed to appear, the date of its publication, the subject of the secret document, or the method by which Edvard Radzinsky claims to have obtained it. And, for that matter, his entire section on "useful idiots" is dedicated to citing Western authors who say that communists are idiots. This does not belong in criticisms of communism, but in an article on pejorative political terms. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, please view the on-going debate (although it looks more like a monologue) at Talk:Criticisms of communism. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Outside view and Ultramarine's response
From my vantagepoint, Ultramarine's response is instructive. His announced ethic of relying on peer-reviewed studies is commendable, although of much less value than he seems to think. But note that he presumes that any criticism of the studies he cites comes from those who dislike the conclusions -- this is a breach of decorum, a misunderstanding of academics and appears to jaundice his view of those contrary views he has read.

I have observed at least four unfortunate consequences of this.


 * 1) Because Ultramarine is adamant about supporting the view with which he agrees, his fellow-editors are almost forced to become advocates for the opposite POV.
 * 2) Because Ultramarine insists, somewhat illogically, that only a peer-reviewed article can be used to critique a peer-reviewed article, he shoves aside valid criticisms of his pet theory.
 * 3) Because Ultramarine insists that every criticism be responded to in detail, the articles tend towards logorrhea, which injures Wikipedia.
 * 4) When another editor comes up with an obvious (but unsourced or poorly-sourced) criticism of his pet theory, a careful editor would help hunt down a better source, simply because it makes a better article.  Instead, Ultramarine exacerbates disagreement by accusing his fellow-editors of ignorance, or laziness.

This is truly regrettable, because a more collegial Ultramarine who sought actively to promote NPOV would (crystal ball warning: will?) be, I believe, a true asset to Wikipedia, and actually do a better job of presenting those opinions with which he agrees.

Robert A West 18:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You make many claims without sources. As noted, I haved added many opposing views to Capitalism, although I support it. The same can be said for other articles. If this goes to arbitration, I will add them in more detail. (I am uncertain at the moment if I want arbitration, but that may be necessary in order to stop the deperate deletions on Criticisms of communism) Ultramarine 18:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Your demand that comments on the talk page be sourced is actually a good example of your non-collegial conduct. The use of talk as a way to raise issues where one does not have the source to hand is very common, and strikes me as useful.  I hoped to get you to see that there are numerous problems and issues with DPT research, which would help you write a better article.  Robert A West 21:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Just to comment, you could add this posting to the space below his response; fewer people will see your comments on the talk page. 172 | Talk 18:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

"Science"
Politically charged DOS reports, the Index of Economic Freedom, and Rummel are not scientific sources.

Economics is infinitely more subjective than physics or mathematics, and work in that field can not be definitively asserted as factual because there are other factors (i.e. political motives) that color the "research". The Heritage Foundation, a private institution, can rank countries lower in the list (than a so-called "objective" analysis would show) for the sole purpose of compelling them to further deregulate their economies. These are issues that are potentially up for debate. In contrast, the fact that the Earth is round is not negotiable, and anyone, even those outside a private think tank, can determine this.

My point is, economics is not physics. In physics (hard science), there are universal laws. In economics (political science), there are competing theories (any of which could be valid or successful, largely depending on global political and social structures and divisions) and hidden motives. Using the word "science" and citing a controversial think tank as if it possessed truth, as if capitalist economic functions are as non-negotiable as the laws of nature, is misleading and therefore not suitable for Wikipedia.

This is simply something to think about. I'm not accusing anyone. I'm not calling names. I'm not saying capitalism is bad. I'm not going to endorse any side in this dispute, and will not involve myself in the discussion regarding "criticisms of socialism/communism". I just don't have time to familiarize myself with the context of all disputes involving this user's conduct. — Sesel wa  21:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above summary, and think that this goes far to explain how Ultramarine's style manages to irritate even those who 90% agree with him. Robert A West 16:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I would add that reading Peer review, especially the first four paragraphs of (this text, confirms that peer review often warrants no more than freedom from obvious stupidity and blunder, even in the hard sciences. Septentrionalis 19:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)