User talk:Paul Siebert/Archive 3

Paul, what do you think of my second proposal for wording introducing the terms? (I will only be able to post in the evenings each workday). AmateurEditor (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempt to address my criticism. It still has problems, however. Thus, Mann and probably Semelin clearly write that most mass mortality events under Communists were not intentional. Can we use these two authors in the section that starts with "Scholars use a variety of different terms to describe the intentional killing of large numbers of noncombatants"?

In addition, I realised that detailed analysis of each paragraph of this section will reveal serious POV or/and OR issues. Maybe, we should (together) go through each of them first? I propose to use my talk page. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. It's a good idea to use your talk page. The article talk page is very tumultuous at the moment.

Regarding intentionality, isn't the placement of that clarification better for the lead than the "Terminology" section? (The current lead does mention it obliquely, but I think this point could and should be made more clearly there.) After all, the only events that should be included in the article to begin with are those where at least some reliable sources attribute deadly intent by the regimes for the deaths. That there is disagreement among sources on the intentionality of some events doesn't really relate to the terms, does it? That's more for the "Controversies" sections.

I agree that the wording for each term will also have to be changed and I am committed to doing that with you here, but I do not want to move our discussion yet again without having agreed upon anything. Let's start small and agree on the introduction to the terms. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's start with the first sentence. However, we have to keep in mind that after finishing with other parts we will probably need to return to this sentence again. As I already explained, your last proposal is a big progress, however, I see some problems here. The article (currently) deals with up to 100 million "mass killings", most of which were just population losses (including ca 30 million infants that had not been born due to Great Leap famine). Only very few authors (Valentino, Rummel, Rosefielde, and Goldhagen, who just repeats Rummel's data and is not considered as a serious author by peers) believe all those population losses were mass killings. Other authors simply do not speak in those terms, preferring to focus on some local examples. How can we make clear that other authors simply do not consider overwhelming majority of those mass mortality events, and that they did not plan to embrace all of them with the terms they used?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Do you mean the first sentence of the Terminology section? Because I don't see the value in starting with the first sentence of the lead if we are going to change most of the body of the article. The lead, after all, is supposed to reflect the article, not the other way around. So we would definitely have to rewrite it at the end.

2. I have not come across the "30 million infants that had not been born due to Great Leap famine" point in any of my reading. Valentino cites the upper bound estimate at 110 million, with 70 million as the upper bound for the big three, and I am fairly sure that he does not include precluded births in his analysis. Are you sure about that point? I would definitely want to double check it.

3. I don't understand what the issue is with using both broad-scope authors and narrow-scope authors as sources for the terminology section. Are you saying that only those terms which have been applied to all Communist killings can be listed? Because I do not agree with that. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

4. I will assume that I misunderstood you. Please alter the below text with strike-throughts and bolded additions as you feel is necessary. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

"Scholars use a variety of different terms to describe the intentional killing of large numbers of noncombatants because the study of genocide is a relatively new and unsettled field. There is also no consensus term for the killings under Communist regimes specifically. Therefore, the following terms are not specific to the events under Communist regimes except where otherwise indicated.

(I believe you don't mind me to number the paragraphs in your post for convenience).
Re 1. Yes, you are right.
Re 2. See, for example, Shujie Yao. A Note on the Causal Factors of China's Famine in 1959–1961. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 107, No. 6 (December 1999), pp. 1365-1369: "In total, there were 18.48 million extra deaths and 30.79 million lost births in 1959–61." Carl Riskin (China Economic Review, Volume 9, Number 2, 1998, pages 111-124) provides good analysis of sources and gives an example of typical misinterpretation of above figures: Washington Post of July 17, 1994 reported that "National Defense University professor Cong Jin estimated that 40 million died between 1959 and 1961," although, in fact, was a number reflected both increased mortality and reduced fertility. I recommend to read Riskin if you have an access to it. Obviously, decrease of fertility has absolutely nothing in common with mass killing, independently on how loosely this term is defined. However, even that is not a full truth. As Cormac Ó Grada noted "births in 1962 exceeded those in any year since 1951, and in the following three years the birth rate also exceeded that in any other year in the 1950s and 1960s. Indeed, the surplus over trend in 1962–5—insofar as any pattern can be detected from these data—far exceeded the deficit in 1960–1. Therefore, the ‘lost’ births seem to have been ‘postponed’ births to a considerable extent."(Economic History Review, 61, S1 (2008), pp. 5–37) Moreover, the same author explains that famines were not unusual events in pre 1960s China, and the famine under Communists was not something outstanding (although it was greatest in absolute figures). All of that is being totally ignored by "genocide scholars" (Rummel & Co), who prefer to speak about "decamegamurders". Interestingly, the "genocide scholars, in turn, are being ignored by the authors like Ó Grada, Yao, Riskin, and others.
Re 3. The issue is as follows.

1. The article starts with "Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century with an estimated death toll numbering between 85 and 100 million." That implies that consensus exists among scholars that mass killings (i) occurred under Communist regimes, (ii) their scale was not smaller than 85 millions and not greater than 110 millions, (iii) they were a separate phenomenon (which implies a common cause);
2. The "Terminology" section, by virtue of its title implies that the authors listed in this section do not question the basic idea (see #1), and the source of disagreement is in terminology only.
3. However, we list Mann, who argued that most deaths under Communists were not intentional murders (p. 319). That means that he applies the terms "politicide, fratricide, and classicide" to just a minor part of those alleged 85-110 killings, and, as we see from his chapter, he does not consider major part of "MKuCR" as killings at all (see, for example, his discussion of Great Leap famine and Irish famine).
   We list Wheatcroft, whose major point was that "Stalin ... can be charged with causing the purposive death of something in the order of a million people.", and "only when we get into the broader categories of causing death by criminal neglect and ruthlessness that Stalin probably exceeds Hitler," however, he doesn't characterise those deaths as mass killings.
   In other words, if an author A applied "classicide" to describe, for example, Cambodian genocide, and an author B used "repressions" to describe Great Purge, it is incorrect to write (in the "Terminology" section):

"Scholars use a variety of different terms to describe the intentional killing of large numbers of noncombatants...

....

• Repressions According to B, this term can be applied to describe some mass killings...
• Classicide According to A, classicide is applicable to

That is synthesis. Those terms were not proposed to describe MKuCR. If you want to include them, the section must be re-organised: it is necessary to explain what each concrete term means, why it has been proposed, to what type of killings it had initially been applied, and to what concrete cases (discussed in this article) they have been applied.

Thus, if you want "genocide" to be included, the "genocide" paragraph should start with the explanation that that term had been proposed by Lemkin specifically to describe Nazi policy towards Jews. Then it is necessary to explain that Lemkin persuaded the USSR and most other states to sign a convention (and removed the clause about political persecutions for that), and then was unsuccessfully trying to persuade the US to sign it. However, refusal of the US to sign the convention forced Lemkin to extend the meaning of this term to demonstrate that the US may use it as a tool against the USSR. As a result, many mass death under Communists fit the loose definition of genocide, however, genocide defined in such a way becomes something too trivial, and can be applied to many cases of mass mortality under democratic regimes (Source: Weiss-Wendt, Anton (December 2005). "Hostage of Politics Raphael Lemkin on "Soviet Genocide"". Journal of Genocide Research (7(4)): 551–559)

That would be correct and neutral description, however, that require us to fully modify the structure of this section. Do you agree to start this job?

Re 4. I think, we can use your wording as a first iteration. Let's work with the section's body, and after that we will see what concrete modifications of the first sentence are needed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC

2. I read Yao and part of Ó Gráda (I did not find an accessible version of Riskin). I agree that births which did not occur due to pregnancies not occurring do not apply to our topic. Miscarriages would. These sources do not seems to distinguish the two types of "lost births", which makes sense for scholars focused on the demographic effects of a famine. However, if the high-end range number used in our article incorporates the first type of "lost births" (which is very possible), it would be a clear mistake on the part of those sources and this must be explained in the article. The article should have a section devoted to explaining the range of death toll totals given and breaking them down into their constituent parts anyway. I think that section would be the appropriate place for explaining this issue.

3. Only those terms used to label "intentional killing" should be included in the list to begin with. If the term covers intentional killing as well as other things, then this must be explained in the section. I do understand also that the issue of intent is disputed in some cases. But I do not think that we must go into such extreme detail as you suggest with "genocide" when we can simply explain the nature of the issue and provide a link to another article where the history of the term can be read. There are many options, such as Genocide, Genocide definitions, and Genocides in history. I think we can come to an agreement on wording that does not take up too much space. Synthesis can be avoided with the proper descriptions.

4. Ok. I think we should work on one term at a time, in the order that they are currently listed, then go back to see what other changes we should make to the entire section based upon what we did. I want to use the expanded versions from my sub-page here as the base text to alter in the hope that some of it will be acceptable. Please change it with strike-throughs and bolded additions as you see fit. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Genocide:

Under the Genocide Convention, the crime of genocide does not apply to the mass killing of political and social groups. Protection of political groups was eliminated from the UN resolution after a second vote, because many states, including Stalin's USSR,^[1] anticipated that clause to apply unneeded limitations to their right to suppress internal disturbances.^[2] However, as genocide studies developed and it became more apparent that political groups were being targeted, this restriction has been re-evaluated. Mass killing by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia has been labeled genocide or auto-genocide and, although it remains controversial, the deaths under Leninism and Stalinism in the USSR and Maoism in China have been investigated as possible cases. In particular, the famines in the USSR in the 1930s and during the Great Leap Forward in China have been increasingly "depicted as mass killing underpinned by genocidal intent."^{[3][nb 1]} According to Alexandra Laignel-Lavastine, "historians and philosophers close to politically liberal groups" in Europe, especially in Romania, have made the term Communist Genocide part of today's vocabulary.^[4] Genocide is a popular term for mass political killing, which is studied academically as democide and politicide.^[5]

Re 2. Miscarriages are not considered as killing even according to penal codes of most countries, how can we speak about "mass killings" in this case? In addition, that is not the only problem: you forgot about the Ó Gráda's thesis about "postponed births". In addition, even when we speak about mortality, it is necessary to remember that the excess mortality was obtained by subtracting "normal mortality" from total mortality. However, the latter was enormous in those times' China (life expectancy was ca 40 years), so even small errors in estimates lead to huge uncertainty. Another problem is that the timeframes of the famine were not strictly defined, so some authors include even 1958 deaths. That is another source of mistakes. And, finally, we again totally forget that China was a country where huge famines were normal events, so to speak about "40-60 million mass killings by Communists" in a situation when ca 80% of those "victims" were just population losses as a result of GLF famine is ridiculous, taking into account that pre-Communist era famines killed more (in relative numbers), and are NOT considered as "nationalist mass killings". And, importantly, all authors who do careful analysis of sources and discuss this famine in details do not speak about "Communist mass killings". Only some "Genocide scholars", for example, Valentino, who did no his own studies of famines, speak about "tens of millions mass killings". I think, the works of serious single society scholars has greater weight than superficial interpretations of the authors who are not specialists in Chinese history (and in famines). One way or the another, this part of discussion has no direct relation to the "Terminology" section, so I suggest to postpone it.

Re 3. If we include only "intentional killings", the lede should be purged from "tens of millions victims". That is a requirement of our neutrality policy, and that is not negotiable. The only ways to mention "100 millions" in the lede would be to say (in the very end) that "The main cause of excess mortality in early USSR and China were famines, camp and deportation deaths. Some authors (an exhaustive list should be provided in a footnote, if we exclude those who just repeat the words of others, such a list will not be long) believe that such mass mortality events were parts of Communist program of mass killings and conclude that the total scale of mass killings amounted to 100 million (without lower bound)." If you agree on that (I mean if you agree to help me to achieve this result, we can move further).

Re 4. I think, each term should be described according to some uniform scheme: (i) brief history of the term, (ii) name of the author who tried to apply this term to MKuCR, and an explanation of (iii) to which concrete case this term has been applied, and, finally, (iv) problems with the usage of this term in a context of MKuCR. In addition, I have some concern about formatting: the section formatted in such a way creates a (false) impression that MKuCR (as whole) have been described as "genocide", "politicide", etc, so MKuCR as whole are ("genocide", "politicide", etc, according to those authors). In actuality, the section is devoted to both applicability, and non-applicability of the discussed terms (thus, majority of the authors disagree that MKuCR can be considered as genocide (with few obvious exceptions). If we agree about that, I can try to prepare my version (using your text as a base).--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

2. I agree that we should postpone this issue.

3. I believe "intended" killing also includes conscious decisions by leadership not to take basic available steps to alleviate the famines and thus prevent the resulting deaths, so I am unsure exactly how that should be dealt with at the moment. I definitely agree that the 100+ million figure must be in the context of why those sources include famine deaths and why they include the particular estimates that they use for those famine deaths. It is possible that some estimates have used poor judgement in choosing their estimates. I think the future section on the different estimated numbers should include the details, but I don't see any problem with separating the low and high estimates in the lead and explaining the differences there.

4. I agree that we should be as specific as possible in relating the terms to their use in the context of the topic, whether a term is used generally or specifically to one part, and I do not have a problem with including some brief history as well as disputes regarding the applicability of the terms. I would add that we should cite everything we write because what we agree to will likely be criticized (fairly and unfairly) when we present it to the rest of the interested editors on the article talk page. I also think we should try to be as concise as possible. I look forward to seeing your version. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Re 3. Let's be consistent. (i) British administration consciously refused to take basic available steps to alleviate the famines in Ireland and India. How frequently is it being accused in "mass killings" of Irish or Bengal population? Similar examples can be provided for the policy of Belgian administration in Africa, etc. Yes, some (few) authors try to accuse them in mass killings/genocide, however, that is hardly a commonly accepted point of view. (ii) If we (quite substantiatedly) claim that the famine deaths were a direct consequences of the policy of Communist authorities, we need to analyse all aspects of this policy. If we look at the century long trend of population's life expectancy and welfare in the USSR, we will see that mortality was steadily decreasing under Communist rule, and the magnitude of this decrease was unprecedented by world standards (comparable only with that in Japan). If Soviet authorities should be blamed for blatant mistakes that lead to famine (and population losses), should they also be credited for long term effects of their policy, which lead to remarkable decrease of mortality? I think, yes, and that is a dramatic difference between the, e.g., Soviet and Nazi policy towards European population: I cannot imagine (even hypothetically) that Jewish or Slav population could have any benefits from German regime (even it remote future). regarding Chinese famine, it is necessary to remember that it was a last famine in Chinese history: although major famines were frequent in pre-Communist China (in 1930s, in 1940s), there were no famines after GLF famine. Therefore, if we agree that famines were not intentionally designed, but were a result of mistakes (that authorities appear to be unable and/or were unwilling to fix timely), by focusing just on mistakes we create a totally biased picture ("desperately inefficient Communist regimes that starve their own population to death").

Re 4. I encountered several problems with writing the genocide paragraph. The major ones are as follows. Firstly, the opinion spectrum is dramatically wide: from Fein who claims that Communist regimes are 4.5 times more prone to genocide than other non-democratic stated to Harf who lists just few Communism related mass mortality events in her comprehensive list of genocides. Moreover, Eric D. Weitz argues that the term "genocide" is prone to inflation that serves political purposes but obfuscates far more than it explains. Interestingly, he concludes that regimes can be divided onto genocidal and those that commit genocide. He groups Khmer Rouge and Nazi into the first group, and the USSR, along with many other (not only Communist) regimes, to another. This article (Eric D. Weitz. Racial Politics without the Concept of Race: Reevaluating Soviet Ethnic and National Purges. Slavic Review, Vol. 61, No. 1 (Spring, 2002), pp. 1-29) is one from many examples when the authors apply the term "genocide" not to MKuCR as whole, but to few selected cases, by contrast to many others. In that situation, it would be totally incorrect to write, e.g.

"According to Eric D. Weitz, the term "genocide" can be applied to Communist mass killings"

because in actuality the author (i) writes that this term is applicable to one case and is not applicable to majority of others, and, importantly, (ii) he simply does not consider those mass killings in a context of Communism, preferring to analyse them separate from each other. Another problem is that many authors see not much parallelism between the KR and other Communist regimes. Thus, Ben Kiernan in his comprehensive "The Pol Pot regime: race, power, and genocide in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, 1975-79" argued that Pol Pot's regime was a "unique amalgam of communism and racism" (p. x). Helen Fein (Revolutionary and Antirevolutionary Genocides: A Comparison of State Murders in Democratic Kampuchea, 1975 to 1979, and in Indonesia, 1965 to 1966 Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 35, No. 4 (Oct., 1993), pp. 796-823) concludes that "upon closer examination, the xenophobic ideology of the KR regime resembles more an almost forgotten phenomenon of national socialism, which Becker (1986) calls fascism. Such regimes themselves evoke the threats that demand purges, promoting paranoid myths of persecution or anticipated persecution as a means of inciting solidarity." Therefore, many serious writers point at uniqueness of this case, and at dramatic difference between Kampuchean ultra-agrarian regime and, e.g., urbanistic Soviet Union. Taking into account that KR mass killing is the only event that is being described as genocide by almost all authors, can we make any generalisations? I am not sure. I would like to discuss that with you before starting to write anything.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

3. I hope you don't mind, but I would like to postpone this issue as well because it is not strictly related to the Terminology section. It will come up again when we get to the individual country sections and/or the Controversies section.

4. I suspect that "genocide" will be the most difficult term, so it is good that we are starting with it. I would like the Terminology section to focus on the broad strokes of what the individual terms mean (or their range of meanings) and how the individual terms are used (and/or disparaged) in relation to either Communist regimes as a group or individually, and not to get into the weeds of the particular details of a particular academic's work (such as the Fein research about Communist regimes being 4.5 times... etc., which is more appropriate to a more detail-oriented section). The most valuable sources for this, then, are those which characterize the use of the term by the field as a whole. I understand those may be rare. Failing that, I think the best we can do is to try to convey the wide range of opinion about the term by either citing sources which discuss that range (the preferred solution) or by citing both opposites (that is, at least one source which says it is appropriate, and at least one which says it is not). As part of the latter approach, Weitz' saying that the term "Ukrainian genocide" and "Red Holocaust" are "hyperbolic and politicized" and "class genocide" is a "travesty" would help. I think it is important to avoid tangents and bloat, especially with such an amorphous and loaded term as "genocide", where each source might use it's own definition or have it's own unique opinion about the applicability.

I agree with you that your example sentence for Weitz is incorrect to the source. The base text I offered above already says that KR killing specifically is described as genocide but that the term is controversial when applied to events in the USSR and China. It also attributes the popularization of the term "Communist genocide" to "historians and philosophers close to politically liberal groups". I suppose it would be helpful to have a sentence following this which conveys the objections to it by others.

With the weekend here, I have more time for this and I hope we can make more progress. If you tell me what you think of the base text for "genocide", including 1) what you think is OK, 2) what you think needs to go and why, and 3) what specific points you are looking to add or to find sources for, then I can help us find such sources and we might be able to move on to the next term before Monday. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Re 3. Unfortunately, it has a direct relation to the terminology section, because the introduction clearly says about intentional killings, thereby setting the section's scope. However, by replacement of those words with less controversial "excess deaths", "excess mortality", or "excess premature deaths" this issue could be resolved.

Re 4. The term "genocide" is hardly amorphous. In actuality, the authors who use this term are divided onto two camps: first camp prefer to stick to the initial definition, mostly because "if everything is genocide, nothing is genocide". This type authors consider only those events where (i) the intent of perpetrators to eliminate some group is obvious, and (ii) the target is some national, ethnic, religious or similar group. Other authors use the term "genocide" liberally, as a synonym for killing/death of large number of people, and they prefer to ignore the fact that that makes genocide a quite common event. It is the second meaning of this term that is amorphous, ambiguous, hyperbolic and politicized, and we need to explain that. If Soviet famine was genocide, then, according to the same standards, Irish of Bengal famines were genocides too. However, if they were not genocide then only few events associated with Communist rule can be considered as genocide, and KR genocide was the most notable and uncontroversial. In connection to that, I suggest you to read this article Michael Ellman. Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932-33 Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 59, No. 4 (Jun., 2007), pp. 663-693). The author provides good analysis of the genocide issue in a context of Great Soviet Famine only (last section), however, many his conclusions are more general, and can be used for the section we are discussing. Try to read it by tomorrow, and then we will continue.

I also suggest to start this work with creation of the list sources that cover all general aspects of genocide, especially, in a context of MKuCR. Below, I started this list (I'll add more sources later), supplementing it with brief explanation of why each particular source is relevant. Feel free to continue. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you please explain what your strategy is here? I had assumed that it would work as follows: I propose text; you criticize it and propose specific changes; we alternate doing this until we reach a consensus for a term, then we repeat this process with the next term. You seem to be taking a very different approach. Many of the sources I read months ago. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Your assumption was correct. However, I just wanted to collect all sources that we see as relevant together.

With regard to criticism, here it is:

Genocide:

• "Under the Genocide Convention, the crime of genocide does not apply to the mass killing of political and social groups." As I already explained, few words should be added to explain the history of this term, and why concretely the initial focus was made on persecution of ethnic groups.
• "Protection of political groups was eliminated from the UN resolution after a second vote, because many states, including Stalin's USSR,^[6] anticipated that clause to apply unneeded limitations to their right to suppress internal disturbances." ^[7] I think, the explanation should be provided why political groups had been excluded. The second ref (Schaack) explains that the main argument (Polish) was that genocide is directed against the group of people who had certain stable and characteristic features in common, and "political group" does not meet this criterion. The source tells about the position of Latino-American states, and totally ignores Soviet position, therefore I don't see a need to mention the USSR explicitly. However, if we decide to do that, it would be necessary to mention another aspect of this story: a persistent refusal of the US to ratify the Convention, which urged Lemkin to overemphasize the anti-Soviet nature of the Convention (and to modify the term to make it more anti-Soviet).
• "However, as genocide studies developed and it became more apparent that political groups were being targeted, this restriction has been re-evaluated." That is simply incorrect. I would say, some authors attempted to re-evaluate this definition, so it became a kind of umbrella term for mass killings. However, as the sources provided by me demonstrate, many modern authors criticise these attempts.
• "Mass killing by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia has been labeled genocide or auto-genocide and, although it remains controversial, the deaths under Leninism and Stalinism in the USSR and Maoism in China have been investigated as possible cases." Need to be split onto two separate sentences. First sentence should be devoted to Kampuchea only; it must explain that, according to many authors (Kiernan, Weitz) the KR regime was an unique amalgam of communism and ultranationalism, or even fascism (Fein), and this case fits a definition of genocide, although other authors prefer to speak about politicide. Regarding the second part, firstly, "Leninism" is not used to describe the period from the October revolution to the beginning of the Stalin's dictatorship. Secondly, I am not sure what concrete cases in pre-Stalin's USSR had been described as genocide. And, finally, we need to list concrete cases, because otherwise we create an impression that this term refers to the Stalin's rule as whole (by analogy with the KR regime), which is not the case. I suggest to mention Lemkin's view of Stalin's deportations as genocide, and supplement it with the Weitz's criticism.
• "In particular, the famines in the USSR in the 1930s and during the Great Leap Forward in China have been increasingly "depicted as mass killing underpinned by genocidal intent."^{[3][nb 2]}" I suggest to use the sources that analyses the issue in details (Ellman, Wheatcroft), not those who just mention the issue tangentially. In addition, "have been increasingly" is non-neutral editorialising, because I do not see that the opinia spectrum is shifting towards "genocidal" viewpoint. Thus, the most recent Ellman's article rejects the idea of genocide of Urkainians, Russians or Kazakhs, although he speaks about possible genocide of Kuban cossacks. However, the scale of this genocide (ca 150,000) does not allow us to do any generalisations.
• " According to Alexandra Laignel-Lavastine, "historians and philosophers close to politically liberal groups" in Europe, especially in Romania, have made the term Communist Genocide part of today's vocabulary.^[4]Are Romanian writers talking about their own country or they speak globally? Is their opinion notable enough? In addition, by labeling the proponents of the "Communist genocide" term implies that such authors as Weitz are not liberals. Is it correct, in your opinion?
• ""'Genocide" is a popular term for mass political killing, which is studied academically as democide and politicide.^[5]" That "genocide", in addition to his strict legal definition, is an umbrella term for most mass killings, and is being used as such in popular literature is correct. However, the wording is not optimal. "Democide" is a Rummel's term that is not being used widely (just compare with "politicide"). I would suggest that the last sentence should explain the limitations of the term "genocide", which is the reason for development of other terms.

If you find my arguments reasonable, I'll propose my modification of your version.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding earlier today. I was busier than I anticipated (and it is after midnight now). Please, propose your version. I only ask that the sentences be sourced (I meant to go and double-check the accuracy of the current citations to the current wording before responding, but didn't get to it). AmateurEditor (talk) 05:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I also appeared to be busier than I expected. I've already started to work with my version yesterday, but I am not sure if I'll be able to finish it today. But I'll try to do my best.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Something like this;

The term Genocide had been initially coined by Raphael Lemkin to describe Nazi policy in occupied Europe, and The Holocaust in particular.^[8] This term had been formalized by the UN Genocide Convention, which defined it as an act committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, etnical, racial or religious group; genocide defined in such a way is a crime punishable according to international laws, thus applying limitations on the sovereignty of governments that destroy their own peoples.^[9] The legal definition of genocide has several limitations that made it inapplicable to many mass killing and mass mortality events in XX century. These limitations are as follows:^[10]

1. Protection of political groups was eliminated from the UN resolution, because many Eastern Bloc, Latin American, and some other governments anticipated that clause to apply unneeded limitations to their right to suppress internal rebellions.^[11]
2. The highest level of specific intent needs to be established for conviction of genocide.
3. The intent to destroy some group in part may fit the genocide definition only if the perpetrators view the part of the group they wish to destroy as a distinct entity which must be eliminated as such.

As a result, most mass killing and mass mortality cases in Communist led countries do not fit the legal definition of genocide as the acts against political groups (Great Purge, Cultural Revolution), or the cases with not established intentionality, or as the acts affecting just small part of some group (Soviet Famine of 1932-33, Great Leap Forward famine).
Some modern scholars proposed that the term "genocide" should be defined more widely^[12] that would allow expansion of protection of Genocide Convention on political groups, inclusion of both specific and constructive intent (i.e., the cases when perpetrator should realise that his behaviour makes the harm likely), and bringing the term "in part" in accordance with lay people's understanding. If this definition will be commonly accepted, it can be applied to most cases of violence in Communist led countries. However, such an approach has been accepted with skepticism by other scholars, who argued that loose definition would make genocide not a uniquely horrible and rare event, and large number of cases, starting from colonization of America and ending with the economic sanctions against Iraq would fit such a definition.^[10]
Nevertheless, many authors use the term "genocide" as metaphors for various forms of lethal and non-lethal violence,^[13] including the violence under Communist regimes.^[14] Limitations of the term "genocide" prompted scholars to propose alternative terms describing lethal forms of mass violence, which are being discussed below.

Paul, can we please continue this discussion after January 8th? I simply don't have the free time this time of year, which is why I have not been commenting much at all on the MkuCr talk page. I promise that I will pick this up again after the holiday season, but work is simply too busy for me right now to give this discussion the in-depth attention it deserves. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I am also busy, so it would be great if we postponed the discussion to Jan 8. Happy New Year.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Paul, I am going to need at least another month and maybe two. I am currently working 11 hours per day, six days per week and I have at least a full month's backlog to get through. I am sorry that I am not available for this right now. If you are willing to wait, that's fine, but if you would rather make progress by continuing this with another editor, I understand. If the latter, I would suggest trying to get article talk page approval for this one term change before spending time working on the others to test the waters there. If you would rather wait, you should know that some of the reasons I have not simply agreed to your proposed wording as is are as follows: I have not checked all the references for myself yet; I believe the UN definition is not the only legal definition for the term genocide because certain states have their own legal definitions which differ from that of the UN, although I do not remember where I read this; I take issue with your objections to the sentence about "historians and philosophers close to politically liberal groups" popularizing the term in this context; I would add some mention of the term being preferred by some because of its moral weight, rather than any strict legal applicability. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

As you can see, I am also not very active in Wikipedia now for the same reason: I am also busy in my real life. Take your time, and let me know when your schedule will become less tough. Good luck.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Weiss-Wendt, Anton (December 2005). "Hostage of Politics Raphael Lemkin on "Soviet Genocide"". Journal of Genocide Research (7(4)): 551–559. Describes evolution of the Lemkin's concept of genocide in a context of the USSR. Analyses strengths and weaknesses of the idea to expand the scope of this term beyond the UN definition.
2. Michael Ellman. Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932-33 Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 59, No. 4 (Jun., 2007), pp. 663-693. Discusses applicability of the UN definition of genocide to man-made famine in the USSR. Analyses the recent judicial interpretations of "in part" term.
3. Eric D. Weitz. Racial Politics without the Concept of Race: Reevaluating Soviet Ethnic and National Purges. Slavic Review, Vol. 61, No. 1 (Spring, 2002), pp. 1-29. Points at the difference between truly "genocidal" regimes and the regimes that commit genocide (the latter category includes both the USSR and many western countries starting from XV century). Additional arguments in favour of the UN definition of genocide.
4. Midlarsky, Manus. The killing trap: genocide in the twentieth century. Armenian Research Center collection. Cambridge University Press, 2005, ISBN 0521815452, 9780521815451, p. 309-325. Contains a comparative analysis of what is believed to be a genocide in Cambodia with such commonly recognised genocide cases as Rwandian genocide.
5. Helen Fein. Genocide. A sociologocal perspective. in Genocide: an anthropological reader, Volume 3 of Blackwell readers in anthropology. Blackwell Anthologies in Social and Cultural Sociology. Alexander Laban Hinton, ed. Wiley-Blackwell, (2002) ISBN 063122355X, 9780631223559. Provides an alternative definition of genocide.

Footnotes

References

Hello Paul! Nice to see you back from vacation! (I was already starting to worry, a pity I couldn't send you a mail).

Are you good at French? What would you say about this source: Mortalité et causes de décès en Ukraine au XXe siècle? This looks like a demographic study, page 16 mentions Conquest and seems to dismiss his estimates, while pp. 16-30 discuss various factors in population loss in Ukraine,and p. 30 gives a summary table. GreyHood ^Talk 18:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

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

An English work written by the same author on the same subject is available:

Jacques Vallin, France Meslé, Serguei Adamets, Serhii Pyrozhkov. A New Estimate of Ukrainian Population Losses during the Crises of the 1930s and 1940s. Population Studies, Vol. 56, No. 3 (Nov., 2002), pp. 249-264. Published by: Population Investigation Committee. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3092980

Since it is English Wikipedia, I suggest to rely on this source for the Vallin's opinion. He says:

"In total, in the absence of crisis, the 1939 population would have been 35.5 million inhabitants instead of the 30.9 million observed at the 1939 Census. In other words, some 4.6 million people were missing. This gap gives a rough estimate of the net effects of exceptionally lower fertility and higher mortality during the crisis, but also of migration. This result is very consistent with the figure of 4.5 million found earlier by Serguei Maksudov (1989)."

In other words, the number of ca 4 millions includes excess deaths, and decline of fertility, and migration. Vallin estimates that "the mortality effect of the crisis seems to account for 2.6 million of the total losses over the period 1927-38." By the way, Maksudov also seems to be very reliable source, taking into account his profound mathematical education, deep familiarity with the subject and high motivation (he is a professional mathematician, a descendant of a Soviet party functionary, who was executed in 1930s for raising his voice against the party's policy towards peasantry; Maksudov himself was a former dissident who emigrated from the USSR and started to do his own demographical studies in the US).--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Re the second source, it seems to be a primary source, so I am not sure if it would be correct to use it in our discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, I've changed my addition to sources dump taking your comments into account. As for the archival evidence collection, yes, this is mostly a compilation of primary sources. We could not make it the base of our approach to discussion, especially the discussion of the numbers (the numbers in fact are not discussed there) but still we could use it to establish some simple facts, such as that documents exist that the food relief was provided (and so that such secondary sources which do not take it into account or deny it are not entirely reliable). Also, since that collection of evidence is nicely compilated and has a good layout, we could add it to External links or Further reading section or so. GreyHood ^Talk 19:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

apparently a fail as per talk, do you have a different policy you can cite, if not, would you consider a self-revert? Darkstar1st (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey there Paul Siebert, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User talk:Paul Siebert.

• See a log of files removed today here.
• Shut off the bot here.
• Report errors here.
• If you have any questions, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You have shown great interest in this photo as to the "Battle of Berlin" article; in both the past and recent times. As you may know, the iconic raising of that flag photo has its own article. There is suggestion to rename it on the talk page of the article. Perhaps you would like to comment on the matter. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mr Siebert, be informed that User:Imperator Sascha is nobody else than the user who operated the accounts "Anonymiss Madchen", "Sascha Kreiger", "Genocide Denial Watch" etc. Best regards and take care. --JohnCrehan (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Would you have time to look at this? Burchett talk It is rather self-explanatory. It started out when Burchett was accused of "being a paid KGB agent" based on a scanned document from KGB archives. I reverted, it was modified but still using the primary document. Jayjg protected it for three days, but Karlkuzmich insists on using the primary document. His suggestion of a verification tag doesn't change that. I have searched all over the place for secondary sources and have found nothing which surprises me since Burchett was a controversial character to say the least. Still if the statement is allowed to remain, it will pop up on all Google searches for Burchett and KGB. Can you help, or point me to somebody who understands historical research and can help me. If nobody else edits it, I will revert again and I don't really have the time or inclination for an edit war. Joel Mc (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Paul. There is an interesting discussion at Talk:Lavrentiy_Beria#Content_deleted_again. Among other things we discuss Edvard Radzinsky and the question whether Gulag was "slave labor camps". Those two questions are minor in comparison to the main issues discussed there, but since you have some expertise on Gulag & Radzinsky, and since Gulag & Radzinsky should be treated consistently accross different articles, it would be nice if you throw in your opinion. GreyHood ^Talk 01:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed responce. I was busy in my real life. Although I totally support your view of Rarzinsky, Faria cites him as a source, so in this case his mention is justified. Regarding Gulag as "slave labor camps", I didn't follow the discussion, however, such a description is partially correct. I'll try to read the talk more carefully in close future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg has responded to my call for help, but admits that he know nothing about the subject. I contacted you because of your experience working with primary documents. Karl Kuzmich doesn't seem to understand what a reliable secondary source is. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the primary document is only in Russian which has been "translated" by another editor.Burchett talk--Joel Mc (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Paul, thanks for the work you put in on this. I do think that it is an important issue in general, and had been in touch with a couple of Australian academics which reinforced by feeling that we were on the right track in this specific case.--Joel Mc (talk) 11:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Paul, you seem to know a lot of WWII. There's dispute at Western betrayal over the article name. Discussions are found at Title POV concerns, RFC on article focus and title and Rename? Perhaps you could take a look and help us out? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It is an interesting take to view the UK-SU-French talks as start of international security system, but considering that regionally vital countries weren't invited(or in some cases their independence would be abolished), this is rather doubtful that it would be one, rather than classical triumvirate of global powers, don't you think? I have seen such argument before, but if it only concerned three major powers, while ignoring the rest of Europe... --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The UK-SU-French talks were not a start of the international security system, just an unsuccessful attempt of revival of this idea. This idea had been proposed earlier by Maxim Litvinov, and one of the major consequinces of the Western betrayal of Czechoslovakia were discrediting of this idea and dismissal of Litvinov as its major advocate. It was quite possible that had Litvinov not been dismissed, the triple negotiations would be successful.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, they would be succesfull between UK, France and SU. This would be not a international security system, but rather a standard alliance between major global powers(excluding others). And IIRC this would also mean ending of sovereignity of Finland and Baltic countries. As said I have seen this been argued as international security system, but since most European countries were excluded and others would be violated as result, this seems to me a bit too exaggerated.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course, it would be an international system of European security, and it would prevent the WWII: without the war, Hitler's regime would not last long.

Re the Baltic states and Finland, we can just speculate. Although I have no unambiguous answer, I personally think that, for instance, in the Finnish case small territorial concessions (+ friendship with the latter) was the only thing the USSR needed from Finland. It is quite understandable that, having started the Winter war, Stalin could not limit himself with just small territorial acquisitions: in addition to those territories, he got a hostile Finland, which simply had to be subdued and absorbed. However, again, it is quite possible that by ceding small territory near Leningrad and by leasing Hanko Finland would avoid the war, because, probably, Stalin didn't need anything else there. Of course, I do not pretend to tell ultimate truth, my point is that this scenario was quite plausible.

The problem is that we judge about the events retrospectively, however, the real intentions of the Soviet leadership were absolutely unclear: it is quite possible that their major concern was security, not expansionism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your notion about "regionally vital countries" (I guess you mean primarily Poland), you are not completely right. As I already explained elsewhere, Poland herself refused to be associated with a four-power guarantee involving the USSR. This proposal was made by Britain (not the USSR) in late 1938 (or early 1939), and Polish categorical refusal may serve as an explanation of why Poland was not invited to participate in the tripartite negotiations. --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Your input on the Western Betrayal talk page is balanced and much needed. Please don't forget about it! A group of Polish editors, all of whom were disiplined in the Eastern European Email List episode (banned from Wikipedia or in he case of Piotr had their admin status revoked) are, as usual,gang editing and attempting to keep this article exclusively pro-Polish and anti-American/anti-British. Of course the Polish apologists can have their views aired when it's supported in academic publications etc..., but likewise the opposing view (which is that Poland is actually responsible for its own history and problems) likewise belongs in the article. The article as it is now is little more than a hyper-Polish fantasy of how they desperately hope the world will view Poland, it is an essay, an appeal, an advertisement for a POV. Note how the same editors appear and simply wear down anyone who edits, also be sure to look up editor name changes and other histories, sometimes available more easily with a google search. ... Do wiki a favor and keep pushing the direction you are on and don't give up in the face of those trying to use Wiki to hide, obscure and tilt history. 98.92.207.190 (talk) 04:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Please take another look at the talk page for the article Western Betrayal; the article's owner happily deletes talk page entries with which s/he disagrees; this same editor goes so far As to delete comments on admin personal talk pages complaining of his/her behaviour. This article is in a hostage situation and other editors are terrorised if they attempt to edit or redress errors. 03:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.36.234.102 (talk)

Since I agreed to make a 24 hr break, I will take no steps during that period. Meanwhile, I strongly recommend you to do the following:

1. To follow MyMoloboaccount's advise and to take a break.
2. During this break, to create your own account. That will give you many advantages and will not create any problems for you.
3. After 24 hr period, to start polite discussion. Discussion of someone's behaviour on the article's talk page is not what we need. If you believe some users violate WP policy, the most appropriate place is WP:ANI, not article's talk pages, which are intended for the discussion of the article's content.

According to my personal experience, the user with whom you have a conflict is quite capable to accept correctly formulated arguments, especially when they are supported with good quality sources. Probably, your problem with that user can be resolved, at least partially, by improving the quality of your own arguments and by using better sources.

Happy editing. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

hello again, thanks for your thoughtful response. I have to strongly disagree with you about the owner of the Westen Betrayal article: he has spent his entire time here circumventing both the spirit and specific guidelines of this encyclopedia. In his previous username, which is publicly available, he was proven to have a deliberate agenda of modifying wiki articles and calling in collaborative editors/admins to eliminate contrary editors. In his new guise he likes to quote wiki law and policy to intimidate the merely mildly interested editors who show up on an article - as his agenda of POV pushing remains. What you are suggesting is fine, I guess, but really you are just saying that the only ones who can edit Wilipedia are those with the excessive time on their hands to become a wiki lawyer and sponsor their edits to the extent of those who are old cynical pros at tihis game. In any event, best wishes, thanks for your time, please keep the devotion to Npov as much as you can and watch the Western Betrayal article if ou can.184.36.234.102 (talk) 06:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

You have made some useful comments in Western betrayal, but it was in threads that were not helping advance the development of the article hence my reason for capping them. So if you want to make the points again then please do so. But do not remove my collapse boxes -- If you want them removed them ask as ANI to do so.
One of the problems with parts of your comments is that you are explaining US/UK actions (which are the standard explanations given in English language histories), but that just inflates the talk page comments on alleged betrayals when what is needed is details on the what are currently rather vague comments. So we need the editors who are saying that there are allegation to provide sources that make the betrayal statements with quotes in English on the talk pages if needed.
We also need to keep the conversation focused on the current text and go through the article section by section and if needed paragraph by paragraph asking for sources and how that information in that section/paragraph relates directly to the alleged betrayals. Using WP:PROVIT and WP:SYN to remove irrelevant information. (PS I have not forgotten about the occupation article and a Google search on "Spanish Civil War" "Military Occupation" returns several sources that show examples). -- PBS (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure ANI is needed to remove collapse boxes: addition of such boxes without a user's consent can be done only by uninvolved admins/users, I guess, and you are by no means uninvolved. However, I'll not remove collapse boxes in this concrete case, because, upon meditation, I came to a conclusion that the posts you collapsed were more distracting than helpful.

Regarding the occupation article, I think the problem is that some authors use the word "occupation" inaccurately. I found similar problem with the term "genocide", when some authors use the term in its strict legal sense (an apply it to a narrow set of events), whereas others use it allegorically (and apply it to whatever they want). Although the second type sources are quite abundant, they cannot be used as a sources for legal definition of genocide. We need a source that specifically deal with the legal aspects of occupation during civil wars, and I am not aware of such type sources. I do not insist I am right and you are wrong, so if you provide the source discussing occupation during civil wars (in general), that would resolve this controversy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

PS. I noticed you took some administrative actions on the WP talk page. I fully support the actions per se, however, as far as I understand, such actions were supposed to be made by uninvolved admins. In my opinion, you should have to ask other admins to do that for you, otherwise some users may complain for fully formal reasons.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC) (Sorry, I haven't noticed your remark about an uninvolved admin. By doing that you recognised your involvement, so everything should be ok.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC))

PPS. I looked through this list, and I failed to find any source where "military occupation" and "Spanish civil war" have been contextually linked. One of the sources from this list (Applicability of the Geneva Conventions to the Global War on Terrorism, The D Jinks - Va. J. Int'l L., 2005 - HeinOnline) explains that Geneva convention is applicable to civil wars (which were regulated by domestic laws in past), although it tells nothing about occupation in this case. We need more concrete sources to resolve this issue. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

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

I was thinking more along the lines of a book search :-) eg (from the first 10 returned):

• Hew Strachan; Sibylle Scheipers (2011). "Definitions". The Changing Character of War. Oxford University Press. pp. 203-ff]. ISBN 0199596735.

--PBS (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting reading, however, it tells nothing about occupation. Yes, we know is that Geneva convention does regulate civil wars, however, I never saw the term "military occupation" applied to the control of the state's own territory by one of the rival party.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

See here (pages 21,22) "Military Government and Martial Law" I am not sure of the date but it is post the Hague conventions that are mentioned elsewhere in the book. -- PBS (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

That is a good source that explains everything. However, the source provided by you does not change the general concept, it just specifies that the rebel forces are seen as foreign for the purpose of the military occupation law. Therefore, we do not need to change anything, we just need to add this explanation to the already existing text.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Your work on the Western Betrayal article is good and long overdue. IMHO the article is nothing but a pure slander piece against the WW2 allies. May I also add that everyone trying to actually argue for their national interpretation should be ignored or quickly quited by admin action. Everyone suffered in the war, but some are still arguing their suffering was greater and that those who ostensibly suffered less were therefore betrayers. THe only fair way forward is to either present all the various POVs in the article wih equal space, or, as you are trying to do, sort out a more neutral approach that we might ascribe to a hypothetical 21st century observer with no national baggAge or axe to grind. Your chosen approach is harder but your approach is admirable! MarshallGeorgyZhukov (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Hi, thanks for welcoming me. I took some time to add a very well sourced edit to the Western Betrayal article that was immediately deleted, can you take a look and offer an opinion? MarshallGeorgyZhukov (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I am trying to go through the Western Betrayal article to add sources. While working on that today I discovers an entire large section was plagiarised verbatim from another document on the web, itself unsourced and of questionable liability. The original document that was plagiarised is here,

http://www.minelinks.com/war/bad_harzburg_doc5.html

and you can see where I removed it on the article history page, and I also mentioned it on the talk page. I mention this too you because this article is so contentious and in case you have other suggestions about how to deal with plagiarism. ThanksPultusk (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I looked through the wep page provided by you. Are you sure it is plagiarism? As the disclaimer at the bottom says, the text is not copyrighted. The most probably, the text was taken from Wikipedia, and, if that is the case, we cannot speak about any plagiarism here. However, by writing that, I do not imply that I see no problem with this text: it seems to me it has serious OR problems, so its removal was probably justified.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

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

You misunderstood me. Obviously, this good faith user made his comments out of frustration, because it is really hard to deal with you. The major reason of this my advise (not warning) was to protect him from you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

How are you going, Paul Siebert? What's going on in your life, and which topics are you the most interested in right now? Btw, what do you think of this? Nanobear (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Currently, I am somewhat busy. With regard to the topics, I need to finish with one chapter in the Nazism article, as I promised (although I have a hope that that may be done without my participation; I monitor what is being done, and currently they are moving in correct direction). We still have to continue improvement of the WWII article. I also hope to start working on the European theatre of WWII article (which is in usatisfactory shape). GULAG needs in some (probably minor) modification. Soviet offensive plan controversy requires serious re-write: upon meditation, I realised that major part of Suvorov related content should be moved back to the article about this author, because Suvorov was not an originator of Soviet offensive plan theory. Soviet occupation may need in serious modification, although it depends on whether Vecrumba will come out with any reliable source (as he announced) to support the major article's claim, or not. And, last but not least, we need to do something with the Mass killings under Communist regimes article, which is terribly POV.

With regard to your question regarding Latvia, that is just a part of the long lasting POV problem. What concrete subject do you want me to comment?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Paul, over here you made an edit with the summary "Replaced old Ellman's article with newer one, removed repetitions. The general idea was preserved, and the figures not changed". However, the source used still seems to be Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 54, No. 7. Did you mean another article? Because the convenience link should be put back if you meant to refer to the same one. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 08:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You are right, the source is the same. I thought the reference was to some earlier Ellamn's article, however, upon re-reading I realised both new and old versions cite the same 2002 article. I re-added a convenience link as you proposed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

In case you hadn't seen it, I responded at Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes. I suspect you may not like my reply, but I also imagine you're accustomed to disappointment on that page (seriously, I admire the tenacity of any editor working on a page with a 1RR and a requirement of consensus. How is that possible)? Again, if you think that I have missed something important, please say so. I know the feeling of filing thoughtful RfCs, only to have random interlocutors come by and give perfunctory replies without having read or considered the material in question. I hope I haven't done that here. Homunculus (duihua) 15:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I might disagree with you, but I have no reason for not liking your reply. --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Paul, I'm doing my best to assume good faith here about your total revert of my copy editing on Communist terrorism. Could you explain why you felt the need to do that? I'm assuming you didn't like some change of content I made, as there were pretty clearly some issues of grammar, punctuation, usage, etc. to be fixed. I mean, if you just disagreed with a few things, I could understand that, but you said "by no means" were my edits copy editing. I'm just puzzled. --BDD (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the CT article needs in serious modification and extensive copy editing. However, the changes made by you seem to be more serious than just copy editing (although I agree with some of them). If you are still interested in this work (and I hope you are), let's to it together step by step in June (I am somewhat busy right now). That work may be difficult because conflicting views of CT exists: some authors (and users) see it as a synonym of Left-wing terrorism, others tend to combine LWT and Red terror into the single concept of CT, some users believe that "Communist terrorism" (a concept) is merely the terrorism committed by Communists, other users think to claim that would be original research or non-neutral statement. In any event, whereas the CT article is in my to-do-list, I cannot start this work alone, but I'll gladly participate in this work if you still want to do that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I think I see where you're coming from. I agree that my edits included changes besides pure copy editing, but that was the main thrust; like many GOCE members, I try to generally improve articles in addition to fine-tuning issues like grammar. If you think I made any individual changes that violate WP:NPOV or some such policy, please feel free to address or modify some of those. I hope you'll agree I did a lot of worthwhile cleanup that need not be thrown out with that bathwater.

I did pick up on some of those problems during editing. I think there's a bit WP:UNDUE coverage of Lenin, and when you get to the examples from around the world, it really begins to read more as a list of terrorist acts committed by communist groups. To some extent, that contradicts the article's lede, which seems to posit "communist terrorism" as a specific type of terrorism. I think the main challenge is going to be distinguishing "terrorism carried out in the advancement of, or by groups who adhere to, Communism," as I summarized it. I think there's a pretty clear distinction between acts specifically advancing communist goals and actions like the Vietcong atrocities mentioned in the article; I think a lot of the latter have much more to do with the fact that the VC was at war then that fact that it was a communist group. Anyway, much still to do. Let's do some work in June. --BDD (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I see our visions of this issue are pretty close. One more point: there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism, and the consensus exists that such a definition is not possible to propose even theoretically. Therefore, the word "terrorism" is more a label than a term (you may find the references to all needed sources in the talk page archive). Therefore, the article should not be about any specific concept, but about examples of usage of the term "Communist terrorism" to describe the events each of which, such as Red terror, Left-wing terrorism, Malayan emergency already have their own articles.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Could I ask you to please clarify exactly what is being proposed on the talkpage? There certainly were communist atrocities in the aftermath of WWII in Yugoslavia, and they should be covered, but the issue of whether Tito (and the section is entitled "Tito") is directly responsible is very controversial indeed. He certainly shares some indirect responsibility, being commander-in-chief, but that's all I could find in sources. In fact, I found a sources attesting to a telegram by Tito explicitly forbidding any killings. -- Director (talk) 09:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Judging by your post on the MKuCR talk page, you understand the situation quite correctly, so my explanations are not needed. Thank you for your help.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I just found a few more sources for Spanish involvement in the Eastern Front. I'd be grateful if you and your friends could pay attention to this. Vulturedroid (talk) 09:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Spanish Blue Division was involved in the Eastern front hostilities is indisputable. However, this division was a Wehrmacht 250th Infantry Division composed of Spanish volunteers. Therefore, this division was not Spanish, and the Spaniards could not be considered as separate belligerents.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Then, how do you explain the fact that, German High Command, the dominating Axis command on the Eastern Front, listed the Spanish division as ally? How do you view that the Croatia unit on the Eastern Front was also given a German formation title, while Croatia is still listed a belligerent in the info box? Vulturedroid (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

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

The explanations may be different. For example, they wanted to create an impression of wide support of the Nazism by as many nations and states as possible. That does not change the fact that Spain did not declare a war on the USSR, remained a neutral country during whole WWII, and had no control over her volunteers fighting in the East. In addition, the opinion of German High Command is a primary source, which is insufficient for this purpose.

Regarding the talk page discussion, I suggest you to read the archives first, because you brought no fresh arguments so far. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

First, I still suggest we go to the relative talk page. You forget one thing, neither you nor your friend effectively countered my point in the past, I gave up only after seeing how your friend came to your aid repeating the same things that have been proven wrong.

Then, your alternative explaination is not feasible, because:

1st,It was the German High Command's calculation for planned summer offensive, not the ministry of propoganda's poster campaign. 2nd,Had the Germans wanted to demonstrate a "wide" support, why would not they prolong the list even further? There were Croatian, Belgian, French, Norwegian, Danish, Russian, Ukrainian volunteer units fighting there, the list could've been much longer should the Germans wanted so. 3rd,The Spanish government maintained final control over the division, as they withdrew the division back to Spain in the end of 1943. Had it been merely a volunteer unit of Germany, how can a foreign government withdraw a German unit from battlefront? 4th, How is the German High Command's insufficient? Vulturedroid (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The Spanish government maintained no control. To withdraw the division, they started negotiations with Hitler, and when this common (German-Spanish) decision had been made, the order to withdraw was made by German command. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

It was no surprise that the German and Spanish governments held talks before mutual agreement to withdraw. The Blue Division was on a battlefront, you can't simply withdraw a unit without consulting with your ally, without making plans of how and when, what troops would come to replace it, and what route and transport would be utilised for withdrawing. The Germans by the end of 1943 were increasingly facing pressure from Red Army, every man power was valuable to them, by this time the Germans would have no motivation to reduce a whole well-equipped division, so the Spanish government had the final say.

And, the decision was made by "German" command, and the very same German Command said Spanish division "allied".Vulturedroid (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Soviet memorandum on Spain presented on the Potsdam conference said:

"In view of the fact: 1. That the regime of Franco originated not as a result of the development of the internal forces in Spain but as a result of the intervention by the principal Axis countries: Hitler's Germany and Fascist Italy, which imposed upon the Spanish people the fascist regime of Franco; 2. That the regime of Franco constitutes a grave danger to the freedom-loving nations in Europe and South America; 3. That in the face of brutal terror instituted by Franco, the Spanish people have repeatedly expressed themselves against the regime of Franco and in favour of the restoration of democratic government in Spain, The Conference deems it necessary to recommend to the United Nations: 1. To break off all relations with the Government of Franco; 2. To render support to the democratic forces in Spain and to enable the Spanish people to establish such a regime as will respond to their will."

Had Spain been considered as a co-belligerent by any Ally, this argument would be immediately used by the Soviet side. However, even the Soviet delegation didn't resort to the argument about Spain co-belligerence. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The declaration had implied Spain's co-bellgerent bahavior by saying Franco Regime constitues a grave threat to the freedom-loving NATIONS of Europe, not just Spain. It did not elaborate because it was a general public declaration, supposed to be short and summarizing, not court files aiming to clarify all details. Neither did the declaration elaborate on any other Spanish agression/assistance to Nazi, like signing anti-comintern pact, Spanish invasion of Tangier, supply of key raw materials, diplomatic and intelligence support etc. Instead, all these were merely summarized as Spanish danger to European nations. Vulturedroid (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Vulturedroid, you've provided a single source (The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich) which doesn't say what you claim it does. It only refers in passing to a 'Spanish' division, and doesn't actually say that Spain was a combatant, or that the German high command regarded Spain as a participant in the war. Shier actually describes the Germans' frustration with Franco's decision to stay out of the war earlier in the book, and (correctly) never states that he changed his mind. As Paul notes above, and I noted on the talk page, the 'Spanish' division was actually a German Army unit made up of volunteers from Spain, and was not under the command of the Spanish government. Paul any myself have provided multiple sources which explicitly state that Spain wasn't formally part of the war. Nick-D (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Nick D. Stop targetting an editor, as per your own interpretation of "targetting". This is really not helpful. You can not even tell the difference between "allied" and "volunteer". You used a book to prove William Sherir's book not reliable, but the author of the same book replied my inquiry by saying the book is reliable. You have a tendency to label anything going against your point as not reliable, while you make one mistake after another. I wonder how it feels to be disagreed by the author of the very source you used as proof? Vulturedroid (talk) 00:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Going back to the discussion during the Potsdam Conference, the positions of the leaders were as follows:

"Again it was Churchill who replied to Stalin, reiterating that he was not prepared to resort to drastic measures 'unless he were very sure of the favourable result' and that there was no danger of damaging 'very important trade relations' between Spain and Britain. He expressed his understanding of the Soviet hostility towards the Spanish regime given the activities of the Blue Division, but recalled that Franco had not entered the war nor had he hindered the Allies' landing in North Africa. Stalin replied immediately that Great Britain 'had also suffered at the hands of Franco Spain, since bases had been provided for German submarines' and that 'all the Powers had suffered in this or other ways'. However, in another calculated conciliatory gesture, he stressed that he did not wish to deal with the subject 'from this angle' (collaboration with the Axis), but rather from the point of view of the 'grave danger' that Francoism represented to Europe. For that reason he reiterated the need 'to say that we were not in sympathy with the Franco regime and that the aspirations of the Spanish people towards democracy were just'. Consequently, he proposed that the Council of Foreign Ministers attempt to find 'a milder and more flexible method than that suggested in the Soviet Delegation paper to make this clear'." (Enrique Moradiellos. The Potsdam Conference and the Spanish Problem. Contemporary European History, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Mar., 2001), pp. 73-90)

As you can see, whereas Churchill conceded that the Soviet hostility towards Spanish leadership is understandable, neither Churchill nor Stalin considered Spain a German co-belligerent. Stalin's remark about a danger of Francoist regime referred to some future events, not to the WWII.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes and thanks, let's go back to the true topic. Churchill admitted in his words that Spanish regime was directly connected to the Blue Division, and he understood the Soviets were hostile towards Spain because of this division. Had the blue division been merely a volunteer unit of Nazi Germany, the Spanish regime would not have been held responsible for it(a foreign unit in that case), just as Sweden and Switzerland governments were not held responsible for the true volunteers acting on individual wills to join German military. And Stalin merely avoided the topic on the Blue Division, without elaborating how he perceived the unit, without elaborating on whether it was co-belligerenting with Nazi or not. I can't find the word "co-belligerent" in the given words of Stalin.

Besides, the German High Command was still the supreme commanding organization over German army. If it did not recognize the Blue Division as a German unit, and mentioned it as "allied" in their own calculation for military operation, then we should repsect it.Vulturedroid (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

These are just your speculations. In Potsdam, Spain was not considered as Axis co-belligerent by the Allies: Churchill pointed Stalin's attention at the fact that Franco had not entered the war, and Stalin did not question this statement. They discusses Spanish collaboration, but not co-belligerence. There was no bellum between Spain and any Allied power, there were no alliances signed between Spain and any Axis power, so Spain was neither Axis co-belligerent nor ally, although Franco did collaborate with Hitler during the first half of WWII. I believe there is no need to return to this issue any more, unless you come out with some authoritative source that explicitly says otherwise.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not a place for playing tricks-of-words, we are not compilling a dictionary or discussing every word's meaning. Just be simple, do not keeping avoiding the topic, how can people say the Blue Division was a German unit when the German High Command said it was not??? Is anyone here holding more authority over German military than the Germans themselves???Vulturedroid (talk) 02:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

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

"By the end of July, the 18,000 Spaniards had arrived at the German Army training center at Grafenwohr, where they were created into the 250th Infantry Division of the Wehrmacht.(...) Following their absorption into the Wehrmacht, the volunteers were required to take the standard personal oath to Hitler, under whose authority they were to be fighting." (Spanish Volunteers against Bolshevism: The Blue Division Author(s): Arnold Krammer. Source: Russian Review, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Oct., 1973), pp. 388-402)

In other words, they were not a Spanish units, but Spanish citizens serving in German Army. Yes, Franco allowed then to do so, he was sending reinforcements, but the decision to withdraw the Blue Division was made by Germans after long negotiations with Spain. I do not see any value in continuation of this discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the continuation will be meanless if you keep avoiding to explain how you can counter the German High Command's opinion. The German title/oath issue had been raised and countered many times before, just look at Croatian Legion, I am fed up about countering the same set of points so many times. Vulturedroid (talk) 03:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The single phrase you quote has also been raised and countered many times. The German High Command opinion was simple: so called "Allied" Blue Division was 250th Infantry division of Wehrmacht and was directly subordinated to German Army Group North. I am not aware of any Croatian legions, I know about Croatian regiment, and I don't understand what concretely do you mean. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It was never effectively countered. Nick-D used a book to prove Sherir's book unreliable, yet the book author said the book was reliable, completely opposing Nick-D's misinterpretation, then he began repeating other old statements and avoided this topic.

The very article on 369th Croatian regiment said it was commonly called Croatian Legion, how can you do not know? The Croatian regiment was given a German title as a Wehrmacht regiment, wore German uniforms and swore oath to Hitler, the same as the case of Blue Division.Vulturedroid (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

...then it should not be considered as a separate belligerent. If you have a reference to the source that confirms that fact (and can share with me), I'll modify all Croatian legion related articles accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Six years to a Tau world

United in Bor'kahl

Siege of Stahlberg

Stahlberg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Considering Vecrumba's recent contributions have been involving a dispute with us, I am pretty sure that this was a gross personal attack aiming at us. While I understand that our dispute got hot at times due to a flood of personal attacks by our opponents, they usually stayed borderline civil. Calling any of us "racist" was well over the line. (Igny (talk) 00:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC))

In actuality, that was a good advice. Although I am usually quite tolerant to what Vecrubma says, in that particular case I was almost prepared to report him, because he almost openly blamed me in supporting of the Nazi racial theory. In that situation, Sander's friendly advice was quite appropriate. With regard to the concrete wording, I do not care. What is more important is the result. It is not my intention to become a frequenter of the AE page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

• Hi, I read your comments on the above page, Paul, and I agree that it's worrying how ex-EEML members changed their names yet still are acting in ways that are reminiscent of their EEML activities. Most recently, Biophys/Nodja Nasreddin/My Very Best Wishes came to my talk page, under his most recent name, to warn me in a 'friendly' way (it was friendly, but it seemed as if he was a new editor that I wasn't aware of, and therefore utterly unbiased) to be careful in interacting with Radeksz/Volunteer Marek. Later comments by MVBW became less neutral, suggesting that I'd get myself banned for trying to tackle what I perceive to be VM's disruptive behaviour over the last year or so. Furthermore, last year when I clashed with VM, I had know idea for quite a while that he was Radeksz - who'd voted in an AFD debate to delete a page I created (the page was later reinstated due to 6 members of the EEML popping up and voting for deletion). Lastly, Piotrek - also from the EEML - frequently pops up on my talk page to warn me that I've been, e.g., rude to VM.
• Hence, to some up, I agree that ex-EEML members seem to have too close a relationship nowadays - and their change of name - to disassociate themselves from their past activities - works only in their favour, because it stops other editors from realising who they are and that they may not be neutral. I wasn't sure if it was appropriate to add these thoughts to the Arb page, but I just wanted to let you know I share your point of view regarding this issue :) Regards, Malick78 (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

With regard to this your statement. First of all, I am fully responsible for the current version of my statement , with the paragraph about you removed. I removed it because it was indeed irrelevant to the subject of AE request. For the same reason I am not going to look for any diffs about your previous statements. This is simply not related to AE discussion (it was about Igny). Secondly, I feel that it would be inappropriate for me to retire after this your statement until the matter would be resolved, so I must undo my notices. Regards, My very best wishes (talk) 03:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

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

So, I hope this issue has been resolved? BTW, I saw your discussion about UUNC and quickly checked if he could be an alternative account. Although there are other people who share similar POV and edit on Russian and English wikipedias (e.g. Fuseau (talk · contribs)) ), I did not find evidence to justify an SPI request at this point. My very best wishes (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The issue has not been resolved. You made a false comment about me on the AE page, and you didn't apologize. Since the page has already been closed, you lost your chance to apologize publicly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear this. No, I did not make any false comments in my statement. But whatever, everyone is entitled to his opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you still maintain that your previous statement about "desire of Paul to bring the "EEML" argument in every dispute" was not false? You retracted it as irrelevant, but you refused to acknowledge it was false. If you insist you made no false statement that is simply a personal attack.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

(in case you missed )

Paul, I sincerely apologize for any anguish I might have caused to you. I would never call you a racist troll. We have our differences of opinion, but I've never doubted your editorial integrity.

--Sander Säde 16:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, your mistake is quite understandable, taking into account the length and complexity of our debates with Peters. In actuality, your advise was quite useful, because (I believe, as a result of that) my dialogue with Peters has become mush less hostile.

Cheers, --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I would second the improvement of our dialog, for which I've extended my thanks.

I do have to mention I'm concerned by your (my perception) pursuit of collective guilt, off-wiki collaboration unless proven otherwise, and self-imposed topic bans as a "sign of good faith" regarding a number of editors who would generally compose part (not all) of your editorial opposition. While you have not stated it as bluntly as I have, I hope you appreciate that this is the only conclusion anyone on the (my perception, again, myself) receiving end of your proposals could draw.

When we agree to leave EEML in the past, that means more than not invoking it by name, it means leaving everything associated with it in the past. We cannot institutionalize conditional good faith targeting any identifiable community of editors.

Let's not get into a conversation over this, simply mull over what I've said. I'm only raising the red flag that your current good-faithed attempt to de-escalate cannot succeed as it has as its basis--and I expect as the proposer you likely do not realize this--an implicit assumption of continuing guilt which runs contrary to all things Wikipedian. If you can't trust me, that is your problem, not my problem. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not concerned much about this piece of wiki ancient history, it doesn't surface much nowadays, and when it does, to little effect. I would still support your EW proposal, but I don't know how can we get it more heard than last time. If you'd like me to comment on it or potentially endorse it anywhere, do let me know and I'll take a look. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I always prefer to reply on your page, and have your replies on mine. Btw, I see your proposal as something benefiting the entire project, with little particular relevance to the EEML case.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok. If you don't mind, I'll reply here, because otherwise it is hard to follow the course of the discussion.

With regard to EEML, let me explain something before we will move further. I fully understand your desire to be disassociated from this story and I promise that it will be the last time when I mention the EEML in our dialogues with you. The relevance to the EEML case seems to be quite obvious. When the users had been previously caught and sanctioned for off-wiki coordination, it is extremely hard to prove that no coordinated editing take place. The steps that may convince us in the good faith of such users may be (i) abandonment of the area of contention, or (ii) full and unequivocal abandonment of the partisan behaviour, or (iii) some extraordinary step that dispels any doubts in the user's good faith. For me, your support of my EW proposal is a rock solid evidence that dispelled any remaining doubts if your good faith. In connection to that, my yesterday's proposal was an attempt to provide some EEML members, who are still demonstrating partisan behaviour, with an opportunity to step up and propose: "Guys, we fully realise how harmful off-wiki coordination and tag teaming can be for Wikipedia, and we propose some changes to our policy that will make edit warring much more difficult". In my opinion, such a step would allow those users to fully clean their good names, and that would be much more efficiently than name changes. However, all of that is up to them. I made this proposal, they are free to accept it. If you are not willing to try to persuade them to accept it, I fully understand that. Forget about that.

However, revenons a nos moutons. Upon reading Nug/Martin's post on your talk page, I got a following idea. What if we initially propose this modification not for the EW policy as whole, but only for the areas covered by discretionary sanctions? For example, we can specify that any user has a right to warn a user who joined a chain of reverts about a violation of the "collective 3RR". Upon obtaining this warning, a user must self-revert. If he does not self-revert, or if he is not reverted by other members of his team, a whole team can be reported for collective violation of 3RR. What do you think about that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd advise against collective guilt. Editors should not be punished for what others did. Only the editors who continue to revert should be punished; the editor who in good faith might have reverted first or second should not be faulted for actions of others. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. The problem is, however, that the sanctions cannot automatically affect a user who made his revert and who was not aware of the edit war. What do you think about that:

1. If the fourth revert is made by some participant of the talk page discussion, who, by virtue of his participation, could not be unaware of the ongoing edit war, he may be reported and blocked.
2. If the fourth revert is made by some new user, or by a user who have been involved neither in the work on this article nor in the talk page discussion during last year nor (and, therefore, we have a reason to expect that he is simply unaware of ongoing edit war), such a user may be warned by anyone (probably, by placing some special template on his talk page), and, if he does not self-revert, he can be reported.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Warnings should come from uninvolved third parties. Combatants warning each other winds up being little more than baiting. Involved parties cannot act as self-appointed policemen of their own conflicts. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Why? Had the criterion proposed by me been subjective, it would be possible to speak about baiting. However, since the revert count is an objective criterion, I don't see why involved parties should not be allowed to issue such a warning. Indeed, you must agree that ANI report of 3RR violation can be made by anyone, including the involved users, and noone can speak about any baiting.

Again, you have to concede that, had such a rule been in force during the EELM activity, the off-wiki communication between their members would be much less fruitful, and, probably, they would prefer to abstain from their activity. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw your comment about what is evil about DSBs. If you are interested, please see my sandbox. There is a draft there for DNA damage, with references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nenpog (talk • contribs) 17:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw your second comment. I didn't mean to hijack the discussion there to my particular problem, or to forumshop, so I preferred not to comment in there about my particular problem. But since you have become familiar with it, thanks to Guy Macon chasing me around, I understand that there isn't a problem with weight, and maybe there is a problem with synth. I just want to show you the source for that part (though I have newer possibly better version in the sandbox), I want to verify/understand better where is the synth or how to avoid it: The ionizing radiation in the form of x-rays used in CT scans are energetic enough to directly or indirectly damage DNA.

Source5: Ionizing radiation, such as x-rays, is uniquely energetic enough to overcome the binding energy of the electrons orbiting atoms and molecules; thus, these radiations can knock electrons out of their orbits, thereby creating ions. In biologic material exposed to x-rays, the most common scenario is the creation of hydroxyl radicals from x-ray interactions with water molecules; these radicals in turn interact with nearby DNA to cause strand breaks or base damage. X-rays can also ionize DNA directly.

Source11: Energy from ionizing radiation can break chemical bonds in DNA and proteins, either directly or by releasing gene-damaging free radicals and ions.

In each cell tens of single strand breaks, and about one double strand break are induced for each 20 mGy of absorbed ionizing radiation.[10]

Source10: Radiation induces thousands of single strand breaks per Gray, but only about 50 double strand breaks.

This and other types of DNA damage are occasionally not corrected properly by cellular repair mechanisms.[5]

Source5: Most radiation-induced damage is rapidly repaired by various systems within the cell, but DNA double-strand breaks are less easily repaired, and occasional misrepair can lead to induction of point mutations, chromosomal translocations, and gene fusions, all of which are linked to the induction of cancer.23

Such damage to the genes that control cell division (mitosis) or programmed cell death (apoptosis), occasionally lead to cancer.[11]

Source5: Most radiation-induced damage is rapidly repaired by various systems within the cell, but DNA double-strand breaks are less easily repaired, and occasional misrepair can lead to induction of point mutations, chromosomal translocations, and gene fusions, all of which are linked to the induction of cancer.23

Source11:Carcinogenesis (cancer induction) is another long-term effect that follows damage to the genes that control cell division (mitosis) or programmed cell death (apoptosis).

source11:Genetic damage and carcinogenesis are stochastic outcomes of ionizing radiation. In other words, a given exposure may or may not damage genes in a manner that eventually induces cancer.25,26 Because DNA repair mechanisms exist, it does not necessarily follow that radiation damage to genes will induce carcinogenesis. However, because of radiation’s stochastic effects on cancer risk, we assume that no threshold dose exists below which radiation exposures are completely safe.25 This linear/no threshold model of radiation risk predicts that as the cumulative exposure to radiation increases, so does the probability of carcinogenesis.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nenpog (talk • contribs) 21:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the sources are correct, however, your attempts to add this material to the CT article are not. I've made some independent literature search and I found that DNA damages per se do not automatically lead to cancer, so the source is needed that explicitly connect X-ray irradiation (at the intensity similar to that during CT) with the increase of the onset of cancer. By adding a source X that says that CT causes DSBs, and the source Y saying that DSBs cause cancer you imply a conclusion that CT causes cancer (at least, I am sure, a reader without special knowledge will come to that conclusion), which, as far as I know, is currently a subject of debates, and is not an established fact. I would say, everything can cause cancer, the question is in the relative efficiency of this process. For example, what is a relative carciogeneicity of sun irradiation and CT?

In summary, I don't think you are right in this case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that damage to the DNA does not automatically cause cancer but (I will bold above and add a source11 quote above at the end) the sources, and my text didn't assert automatic causation of cancer. The sources and my text do state that DNA damage occasionally cause cancer. Ionizing radiation can cause DNA damage, occasionally the caused DNA damage is not repaired, occasionally from all the parts of the DNA the part of the DNA that cause cancer is damaged and not repaired. There is also the paragraph you quoted from source11 furlow: "a CT scan of the heart can cause 1 case of cancer in every 270 women aged 40 ", which say that CT cause cancer.

"By adding a source X that says that CT causes DSBs, and the source Y saying that DSBs cause cancer you imply a conclusion that CT causes cancer". But I didn't add two sources X, Y in that way. Source5 (NeJM) include all of CTs, dna damage, DSBs, and cancer, and source11 (furlow) include CT, dna damage, and cancer. Maybe because I quoted small bits it appear that way. Here are quotes of whole parts: --Nenpog (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Source5:Biologic Effects of Low Doses of Ionizing Radiation-Mechanism of Biologic Damage -Ionizing radiation, such as x-rays, is uniquely energetic enough to overcome the binding energy of the electrons orbiting atoms and molecules; thus, these radiations can knock electrons out of their orbits, thereby creating ions. In biologic material exposed to x-rays, the most common scenario is the creation of hydroxyl radicals from x-ray interactions with water molecules; these radicals in turn interact with nearby DNA to cause strand breaks or base damage. X-rays can also ionize DNA directly. Most radiation-induced damage is rapidly repaired by various systems within the cell, but DNA double-strand breaks are less easily repaired, and occasional misrepair can lead to induction of point mutations, chromosomal translocations, and gene fusions, all of which are linked to the induction of cancer. Risks Associated with Low Doses of Radiation- Depending on the machine settings, the organ being studied typically receives a radiation dose in the range of 15 millisieverts (mSv) (in an adult) to 30 mSv (in a neonate) for a single CT scan, with an average of two to three CT scans per study. At these doses, as reviewed elsewhere,24 the most likely (though small) risk is for radiation-induced carcinogenesis.

source11: Energy from ionizing radiation can break chemical bonds in DNA and proteins, either directly or by releasing gene-damaging free radicals and ions. The resulting short-term tissue damage can include skin burns and hair loss, with cataract formation as a form of long-term damage. Carcinogenesis (cancer induction) is another long-term effect that follows damage to the genes that control cell division (mitosis) or programmed cell death (apoptosis). Genetic damage and carcinogenesis are stochastic outcomes of ionizing radiation. In other words, a given exposure may or may not damage genes in a manner that eventually induces cancer.25,26 Because DNA repair mechanisms exist, it does not necessarily follow that radiation damage to genes will induce carcinogenesis. However, because of radiation’s stochastic effects on cancer risk, we assume that no threshold dose exists below which radiation exposures are completely safe.25 This linear/no threshold model of radiation risk predicts that as the cumulative exposure to radiation increases, so does the probability of carcinogenesis. The model assumes that physiological DNA and cellular repair mechanisms do not substantially influence the linear dose/risk relationship.

source11 at an other location:For example, a CT scan of the heart can cause 1 case of cancer in every 270 women aged 40 years and 1 per 600 men aged 40 years. In contrast, head scans represent a lower risk of 1 cancer in 8100 women scanned and 1 in 11 000 men scanned. These risks are twice as high for individuals aged 20 years as for those aged 40 years. --Nenpog (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

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

hello! there is a ongoing discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swedes about as to describe the swedish people as germanic or not, i invite you to join the discussion due to your good knowledge about the subject and i will support you there if i must 95.199.210.15 (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-office ^connect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

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

Since discussion this matter on the move request section of the talk page in question is detrimental to the whole process i decide to post my comments regarding your posting here. Fact still is that you resorted to twisting what other editors had stated, namely what Lothar had stated. Besides your definition and statements regarding Nug and Peter already border on questionable claims. On top of that you admit yourself of being willing to make bad faith edits. None of that is beneficial in any way to the discussion at hand. So i only ask you to either remain polite or then say nothing - as per non-official suggestions on WP:ABF. Offering underhanded statements which could be understood as insults benefits no one. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for moving this part of the discussion here.

Secondly, please, re-read Lothar's post. It starts with the words "Support move back to former title of Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union (1940). The current title is a result of a strange unilateral move by User:Nug earlier this month...", and this is his major point. Of course, he made some reservations later, however, I don't think by citing his major point I twisted anything. Please, do not twist my words in future.

Thirdly, you should have noticed that my post was a response on Nug's accusation in bad faith, so it would be quite correct from my side to respond in the same vein (especially, taking into account that I do have what to say).

Fourthly, going back to "twisting what other users say", could you please quote my post where I "admited of being willing to make bad faith edits". I do not remember when and where did I make such a post, and you should either provide necessary evidences or apologize (taking into account that you yourself initiated the discussion about "twisting what other users say", I insist on apologies).

Fifthly, please, explain which my statement was not polite. Yes, I lost any illusions about good faith of these two users several years ago, and I do have some serious reasons for that. I initially assumed their good faith (the examples can be provided upon request), however, I don't have to assume good faith infinitely. Yes, I do not assume their good faith any more, however, I do not see anything impolite in my posts. You should either provide the examples, or apologize.

In any event, thank you for posting here.

Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Lets see then

(ii) Lothar explicitly stated that he was amenable to the removing 'annexation' from the topic if there was support or 'general desire' for it, and by the time you made the post there was plenty of support for it. Hence your statement on Lothar's part could be understood as a fallacy.

(iii) That is still no excuse to continue the discussion on article talk page - nor was that the point of RM. You can agree to disagree but so far it has not helped achieving consensus on the issue at hand. Also since you do represent the (nearly) sole voice of opposition it is not really that unexpected to see such comments. After all you did first google scholar search, which was refuted, then moved to emailing Mälksoo and so on - while i don't agree with the sentiment i do understand it.

(iv) Paul Siebert: "I reserve a right to join and abandon the pro forma discussion at any convenient moment." - this right after you have made it obvious in the post that you used pro forma discussion as a reference to 'bad faith' editing. In other words stating that fellow editors are making bad faith edits and then immediately after stating that you are willing to do so as well when and where ever you see fit.

(v) Inserting insults, or even statements which can be understood as insults such as accusing opposing editors (again, see WP:ABF), is hardly polite manner of discussing the matter and certainly not fitting even for a article talk page. - Wanderer602 (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Re ii, see Lothar's explanations of the talk page. Who twists whose words?

Re iii, this is a long dispute, and sometimes one or another party appears to be represented just by one user. However, that situation can change quickly. And, as you can see, I am not a sole person opposing to the move.

Re iv. I wrote that Nug and Peters conduct this discussion just pro forma. By writing that, I meant that the purpose of this discussion is just to create a visibility of the efforts to achieve consensus: their position never changes, and they return to the same arguments when new audience is not aware of the fact that those arguments have been properly addressed in the past. In that situation, I maintain the discussion just pro forma, awaiting for new good faith users (Lothar, Jaan, you, of someone else) to join it. Since the discussion with Nug is conducted just pro forma, I see no reason to address every his comment. Of course, all of that has no relation to my discussions with majority of other users. Is it clear now?

Re v. I see no insults here. The two users accused me of filibustering, disruptive editing, they did that several times, and I believe some degree of sarcasm in my post was an absolutely adequate reaction on that. In any event, you should either provide examples of alleged insults, or apologize.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Using something which took place after the matter was discussed as a proof that of the discussed issue when the matter was being discussed is rather bad argument (post ex facto). That you see no insults and that there are no perceived insults are two very different things. Accusing other editors without proof and be construed as being an insult in itself. For that matter sarcasm does not translate over text very well something most editors are well aware of. You did insert underhanded comments into your post, whether it was due to sarcasm or not it can be understood as an insult your intent notwithstanding. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand you. Lothar's last post demonstrates that I didn't twist his major idea. Last comments on the talk page just demonstrate that the situation when I act alone is temporary (I didn't act alone in past, and I my expectation that I'll not be the sole person objecting to the rename appeared to be correct). Therefore, you point is invalid.

"Perceived insult" - what does it mean? If someone believes he is insulted, he is free to express his concern. However, in this particular case I simply acted per WP:DUCK: some behaviour is disruptive and should be I characterised accordingly. Of course, had I used this sarcasm to characterize good faith user, it would be an insult. However, in this particular case it is simply truth. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Thanks for the perfect description and word choice. Acrimony describes it perfectly. I, along with many other editors, have suffered for years with the disingenuous "Cheers". The palpable disdain for any contrary thought, and the obvious forethought in the misuse of the what should be a friendly "Cheers' speak volumes...much more than his didactic diatribes. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

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

I see you have a pot of Civilty soup on the back burner. I wonder if I might add the following:

Writers of Encyclopedias have always corresponded...always been collaborators. The “back and forth” between editors/encyclopedists/collaborators MUST be congenial. For generations, writers of all kinds have corresponded and worked out their differences without conflict. In order to maintain a working relationship they rarely, if ever, attacked each other. We do not create articles or edit them in isolation. By that I mean we are not constrained within, and limited to, our own race or religion or ethnic background. Collaborators are challenged to see the bigger picture, to stretch their minds from the teachings of adolescent control and open themselves to new possibilities. Many times, editors are not satisfied with the results of consensus. They start to build a hornets nest of resentment. When you stumble upon a hornets nest, you don't hit it. You back up...for your own well-being. I have learned not to get stung. Wikipedia editing should be enjoyable, not aggravating. Arguing is stressful, aggravating and, most importaly, polarizing. Collaborating is goal oriented, unifying and stimulating. ```Buster Seven Talk. Before I read your reply I should point out ...this was meant more for your page stalkers than for you. :~) ```Buster Seven Talk 22:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

That reminds me a prisoners dilemma: if everyone will accept this your advice, Wikipedia will become a very comfortable place ... for aggressive editors and POV-pushers. Indeed, you will enjoy editing until the first arrival of some aggressive POV pusher on the page you are working on. Then you move to another place, then to the next one... until every page will become dominated by aggressive editors, who will easily realise that for thier viewpoint to prevail they simply have to be aggressive enough. I see two problems with that: 1. Wikipedia will not be a collection of good quality and neutral content, and 2. when only aggressive users will remain in Wikipedia, how will they collaborate with each other?

I would say, your advice is quite valuable ... when you are dealing with civil users. Meanwhile, I've just realised I developed a formula, which is a paraphrase of one famous aphorism:

"God, give me ability to friendly collaborate with a user who is willing to collaborate,

Courage to resist to a civil POV-pusher, and

the Wisdom to distinguish the former from the latter."

With respect, --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Respect, in return. See User:Buster7/Incivility for some of my gatherings on the subject. Since my focus has become new users, my conversation with them is along the lines of staying out of the bramble bushes of working with aggressive and abusive editors. I in no way mean to imply that WE sacrifice the Encyclopedia to the "grenades" as I refer to them. But we both know that it takes a concerted effort not to go toe to toe with them. And new fragile users don't stand a chance. They need the fertilizer of success to strengthen themselves for the inevitable conflicts of WP editing. ```Buster Seven Talk 02:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Somewhere, recently, I read a comment about how editors using archaic words are actually showing disrespect for their fellow editors. Was that comment yours and if so where? Or maybe you remember seeing it? Thanks, ```Buster Seven Talk 14:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Totally disagreed. The problem is that many native English speakers simply do not know their own language, and find this situation normal. My own experience with bilingual high school students demonstrates that situation is quite paradoxical. You know that many English words came from Greek, Latin, French etc, so in many "archaic" English words have their twins (with the same root) in other European languages. I was shocked to learn that, whereas the bilingual students know and actively use majority of such words from their another language, they have to study in school English twins, because their native English speaking classmates simply do not know and never use those words. In other words, despite the fact that English is extremely rich language, native English speakers know just a small part of it.

Therefore, in my opinion, not only the usage of "archaic" words does not show disrespect, it encourages fellow editors to learn their own language.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm wavering back and forth...and for different reasons in each direction. It's not that I agree about the disrespect factor, its just that my poor memory only remembers that "hook". I read it somewhere about the time we started to discuss this and that. I just thought the comment might be yours. One of the Sunday News shows had a segment about high-tech companies and their inability to fill jobs. The CEO of one company stressed how amazed he was that most College grads could not write a simple grammatically correct sentence and many of their resumes used HS level English. I don't mind having to look up the definition for an old word. I'm just not inclined to use them. ```Buster Seven Talk 17:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure I made that comment.

Regarding "old" words, a significant part of students seem to believe that English words they don't know are "old", and that is partially true: if the next generation will stop to use them, they will become obsolete.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Is quite likely to be viewed by others as contrary to collegiality, collaborative editing, and to truth. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

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