Talk:Gulag/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Zemskov's data again

I propose to everyone who questions validity of Soviet GULAG statistics re-read this talk page. The recent edit[1] testifies about the editor's unfamiliarity with works of leading Western scholars (e.g. Wheathcroft and Conquest) who confirmed that the numbers (although not necessarily the conclusions) obtained by Zemskov based on archival research are quite reliable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

According to Conquest, between 1939 and 1953, there was, in the work camps, a 10% death rate per year, rising to 20% in 1938. Robert Conquest in Victims of Stalinism: A Comment. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 49, No. 7 (Nov., 1997), pp. 1317-1319 states:"We are all inclined to accept the Zemskov totals (even if not as complete) with their 14 million intake to Gulag 'camps' alone, to which must be added 4-5 million going to Gulag 'colonies', to say nothing of the 3.5 million already in, or sent to, 'labour settlements'. However taken, these are surely 'high' figures. I would not say that it is a confirmation, 'inclined to accept' rather a statement that Zemskov's data could be used but with caution.And if you would analyze data about German POWs in USSR you will agree.Nobody calls Zemskov a liyer or so, just he thinks the statistic is ariphmetics but it is 'the branch of applied mathematics that uses probability theory'. You should not forget that denying of a genocide is a criminal offence in some countries, so there are some ways to protect this article from your willful deleting.Celasson (talk) 18:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You missed the fact that Conquest was a proponent of the most conservative (i.e. high) estimations of GULAG inmate's number. Other scholars (e.g. Wheathcroft) give much lower numbers. Conquest himself re-considered his earlier estimations, partially based on Zemskov's works. BTW, many political journalists or scholars derive their astronomic numbers of Soviet victims from earlier Conquest's studies.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Re "denial of genocide". You are wrong for two reasons. Firstly, "genocide" in general is a judical term, and therefore, denial of it in general is hardly possible. Secondly, with regards to the "Red Genocide", it is just an allegory, because the actions of Soviet authorities do not fit the genocide as defined by UN convention (see Ellman's works). If you define genocide more loosely, you can speak about Soviet genocide, however, such a loosely defined genocide becomes too common to speak about it seriously: for instance, many US actions also fit this loose definition (Ellman).--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Paul Siebert That is correct genocide is Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group. Since the victims of GULAG in large were people of a big number of nationalities, ethnic origins and religions there is even not one but a number of genocides.But I hope you will stop your unlawful actions before you will explain that all to a judge.Celasson (talk) 07:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Which my action is unlawful? And, before attempting to sue me you should try to read some history article where scholars analysed the issue and found that the term "genocide" cannot be applied, by and large, to Stalin's repressions? I strongly recommend you to start with that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

PS A small advice. Your recent post is a clear and unequivocal legal threat. That is a good reason for your block. However, since I do not like to play in such games, and because you behave as a newcomer unfamiliar with WP policy, I just recommend you to abstain from such posts to avoid future problems. Some other editors have a habit not to forgive their opponents' blunders.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

A legal threat it would be if I was going sue you. But I have a suspicion that you delete paragraphs in the WiKi article to commit a wrongdoing. Who denies a genocide is able to it again.

If you really want to write an article you should let other people have own opinion and not destroy work of others just because you do not like it. Celasson (talk) 17:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

All unsupported questionable material can and should be removed from Wikipedia. Try to re-read policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

But the thing is that you should discuss it. You definitely not a big specialist in this subject. You do not understand essential terms such as internee, genocide and etc. You need ask people.Celasson (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• I think there is one point we can all agree about. There are no reliable data on statistics of prisoners in Gulag. This is recognized by all scholars, including Applebaum. The Zemskov's data are just as good or bad as data described in the book by Antonov-Ovseenko. Yes, his book is a reliable secondary source per WP:RS, just as book by Applebaum or a book (if any) by Zemskov.Biophys (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

There are no reliable data on statistics of prisoners in Gulag- I agree. This phrase should be present in the article.Celasson (talk) 01:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe you have a reliable source that states that (and, in addition, a source that unequivocally proves that Conquest, Wheatcroft, Ellman et al are wrong)...--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

PS. Appelbaum is not a scholar but a political journalist. What other scholars do you mean?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Of corse I will give you the name of reliable source , just after you give me the source that confirms Zemskov&Co data as 100 5 reliable. Stop vandalizing!Celasson (talk) 02:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

For the love of God, learn how to properly use the colon when editing Wikipedia! BlueRobe (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I already did that. "We are all inclined to accept the Zemskov totals" (Robert Conquest. Victims of Stalinism: A Comment. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 49, No. 7 (Nov., 1997), pp. 1317-1319). I believe such a statement of the old Cold War era anti-Communist speaks for itself. I'll try to provide the source that confirms that Zemskov&Co data are 100 5 reliable, however, I'll do that only after you will provide a 100% reliable source that confirms that the Appelbaum's or Solzhenitsyn's data are 100% reliable.
And, finally, two advises. Firstly, don't lose patience (at least don't show that to your opponent), because it demonstrates that you exhausted your arguments. Secondly, try to avoid personal attacks, because it makes your own position in future dispute weaker.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

NO you did not!Because it does not seems like anybody can do it. Because there neither any reliable data source nor some assumption that in GULAG anybody did accurate head counting.And all what we can do - some estimations It does not seem that you really understand.Did you ever heard any story from an eye witness?There is lot of mess in Russia always and everywhere. Maybe Conquest does not know that, he has been married just to one russian schizophrenic, could not have a full pictureCelasson (talk) 07:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If you believe some source is unreliable, feel free to post to WP:RSN. If your opinion is supported there, go ahead. If not, try to abstain from fringe theorisation on WP pages.
Anyway, if you want to question this Robert Conquest's conclusion (and the overall validity of his writings), feel free to do that. However, if "there is lot of mess in Russia always and everywhere", can we even theoretically trust any estimations that rest on so shaky and unreliable ground? May be, the better way is just to claim that everything what scholars write on GULAG and repressions is a complete bullshit?--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

may be, the better way is just to claim that everything what scholars write on GULAG and repressions is a complete bullshit? No it is not and nobody says it. The soviet statistics generally are not so reliable, and GULAG statistics is not an exemption.Celasson (talk) 05:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

http://www1.ku-eichstaett.de/ZIMOS/Netzwerk/Dateien/ChavkinKriegsgefangene.pdf Boris Chavkin (Russian Academy of Sciences, same as Zemskov) states that according official soviet statistic 356.678 German POWs died ( Center for storage of historic documents,f. 1/p. op. 30 e, d. 1), the document his not fake. But in lot of sources the numbers are different: there were about 3 mln German POWs and about 1 mln from them died. If you have some explanations we can leave Zemskov's data, other way here should be stated that the figures are not exact estimations.Celasson (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

A couple of changes

I made a few changes in introduction to better reflect the following. 1. Importance of the book by Solzenitsyn (that was in intro any way). 2. Solzenitsyn and many others like Shalamov, emphasized the camps as a system of systematic extermination ("istrebitel'no-trudovye lagerja" per Solzenytsyn). 3. That was only one of several forced labor systems in the Soviet Union.Biophys (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Neither Solzhenitsyn nor Shalamov were scholars. Shalamov was a brilliant writer who described primarily his own GULAG experience. Solzhenitsyn did not have sufficient access to official documents and archives. The role of these two writers in drawing public attention to GULAG was enormous, however, their writings and conclusion can hardly be regarded as reliable secondary sources. Other sources (e.g. Wheathcroft) state the directly opposite.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

First , I can not understand why you are so obsessed with Wheatcroft, I have no idea who he is. If you want scholars- there thousand people in US who made their PhD in this field, we can not pull them all. You need to understand that the GULAG system what we trying to describe is a crime, a crime against humanity and war crime. And in this case Solzhenitsyn and Shalamov are eye witnesses and their accounts are very important. And I think you understand that but trying to gaming the system. And how I already explained, in some countries denying of a genocide is a criminal offence and so for me what you are doing not just a breach of Wiki rules but a probable crime.Celasson (talk) 02:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Wheathcroft is one of the most reputable western scholars writing about GULAG, so the fact that you have no idea who he is means that you are not informed enough to edit this article.
With regards to your "And in this case Solzhenitsyn and Shalamov are eye witnesses and their accounts are very important", let me point out that "eye witnesses" are primary sources, so, according to WP:PSTS should be used with great cautions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Which Wheathcroft are you talking about? We do not even have an article about him. As about, Solzenitsyn, he is Nobel Prize winner and the man who indeed brought the worldwide attention to this subject. Yes, he widely used expression "extermination by labor" in his books.Biophys (talk) 04:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It is Stephen G. Wheatcroft; not a Solzhenitsyn, but still a decent researcher. I don't know about Celasson, but Biophys, you surely must remember the Russian joke "chukcha not reader, chukcha writer" and try to read a bit before writing. While everybody is obsessed with Conquest and Solshenitsyn, people tend to forget that time moves on, and new researchers and new data emerged in the last 20 years (20??? Yes! And you are still holding Solzhenitsyn like kind of Aristotle who gave all final answers to everything.) Yes, some people point at some Wheatsoft's mistakes, but this is normal research. - Altenmann >t 09:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

He wrote only one book [2] (two others are editorials), and this book was not about Gulag. Why he is relevant at all? Sure, I made decent reading on this subject including books by Solzhenitsyn, Shalamov, Ginzburg, Margolin, Applebaum, Antonov-Ovseenko and others. Conquest and Figes wrote a lot about repressions in general, but not that much about Gulag. And remember that Gulag Archipelago by Solzenitsyn is non-fiction.Biophys (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

1. The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings, 1930-45 Stephen Wheatcroft Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 48, No. 8 (Dec., 1996), pp. 1319-1353
2. Towards a Thorough Analysis of Soviet Forced Labour Statistics S. G. Wheatcroft Soviet Studies, Vol. 35, No. 2 (Apr., 1983), pp. 223-237
3. A Note on Steven Rosefielde's Calculations of Excess Mortality in the USSR, 1929-1949 S. G. Wheatcroft Soviet Studies, Vol. 36, No. 2 (Apr., 1984), pp. 277-281
4. On Assessing the Size of Forced Concentration Camp Labour in the Soviet Union, 1929-56 S. G. Wheatcroft Soviet Studies, Vol. 33, No. 2 (Apr., 1981), pp. 265-295
5. More Light on the Scale of Repression and Excess Mortality in the Soviet Union in the 1930s S. G. Wheatcroft Soviet Studies, Vol. 42, No. 2 (Apr., 1990), pp. 355-367
6. Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932-33: A Reply to Ellman R. W. Davies, Stephen G. Wheatcroft Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 58, No. 4 (Jun., 2006), pp. 625-633
7. The Reliability of Russian Prewar Grain Output Statistics S. G. Wheatcroft Soviet Studies, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Apr., 1974), pp. 157-180
8. The Scale and Nature of Stalinist Repression and Its Demographic Significance: On Comments by Keep and Conquest S. G. WheatcroftEurope-Asia Studies, Vol. 52, No. 6 (Sep., 2000), pp. 1143-1159
9. Toward an Objective Evaluation of the Complexities of Soviet Social Reality under Stalin Stephen G. Wheatcroft Slavic Review, Vol. 58, No. 1 (Spring, 1999), pp. 91-95
10. Further Thoughts on the First Soviet Five-Year Plan R. W. Davies, S. G. Wheatcroft Slavic Review, Vol. 34, No. 4 (Dec., 1975), pp. 790-802
11. Victims of Stalinism and the Soviet Secret Police: The Comparability and Reliability of the Archival Data. Not the Last Word Stephen G. Wheatcroft Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 51, No. 2 (Mar., 1999), pp. 315-345
12. The Great Leap Upwards: Anthropometric Data and Indicators of Crises and Secular Change in Soviet Welfare Levels, 1880-1960 Stephen G. Wheatcroft Slavic Review, Vol. 58, No. 1 (Spring, 1999), pp. 27-60
13. New Demographic Evidence on Excess Collectivization Deaths: Yet Another Kliukva from Steven Rosefielde? Stephen G. Wheatcroft Slavic Review, Vol. 44, No. 3 (Autumn, 1985), pp. 505-508
14. Steven Rosefielde's Kliukva R. W. Davies, S. G. Wheatcroft Slavic Review, Vol. 39, No. 4 (Dec., 1980), pp. 593-602
15. Understanding Stalinism: A Reply Stephen G. Wheatcroft Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 58, No. 7 (Nov., 2006), pp. 1141-1147
16. A Further Note of Clarification on the Famine, the Camps and Excess Mortality A Further Note of Clarification on the Famine, the Camps and Excess Mortality Stephen G. Wheatcroft Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 49, No. 3 (May, 1997), pp. 503-505
17. Soviet Industrialization Reconsidered: Some Preliminary Conclusions about Economic Development between 1926 and 1941 S. G. Wheatcroft, R. W. Davies, J. M. Cooper The Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 39, No. 2 (May, 1986), pp. 264-294
18. Stalin, Grain Stocks and the Famine of 1932-1933 R. W. Davies, M. B. Tauger, S. G. Wheatcroft Slavic Review, Vol. 54, No. 3 (Autumn, 1995), pp. 642-657

The list is not exhaustive.

Re: "I made decent reading on this subject including books by Solzhenitsyn, Shalamov, Ginzburg, Margolin, Applebaum, Antonov-Ovseenko and others" Hmmm... "Do not read Soviet newspapers before a lunch..." (C) Bulgakov.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This only proves my point. He has zero books on the subject. ISI gives only 33 publication, with citation index of only 159 (some students do better). Sure, you can use his publications. But he is just an ordinary researcher, one of many thousands, not even close to Conquest or Solzhenitsyn.Biophys (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. No wonder that almost no one refer to his work. His articles look like personal attack pages rather than scientific research. He usually starts like that (rephrase): "it does not surprise me that Dr. X is such an idiot. And he is wrong, wrong, wrong.". Did you read novel by Chekhov "A letter to the neighbour-scientist"? That's him.Biophys (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure you are a good scientist in your real life, because good scientist always does a control experiment before making any conclusion. ISI gives:

1. For Conquest (Author=(Conquest R OR Conquest R*) Refined by: Subject Areas=( HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY OR SOCIAL ISSUES OR POLITICAL SCIENCE OR SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY OR HISTORY OR LITERARY REVIEWS OR INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS ) 36 (thirty six) citations;
2. For Applebaum (Author=(Applebaum A OR Applebaum A*) Refined by: Subject Areas=( HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY OR POLITICAL SCIENCE OR INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS ) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI.)) Eight citations;
3. For Solzhenitsyn (Author=(Solzhenitsyn A OR Solzhenitsyn AI) Refined by: Subject Areas=( HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY OR MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES OR HISTORY OR INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS ) AND Subject Areas=( HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY OR MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES OR HISTORY OR INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS OR POLITICAL SCIENCE OR LITERARY REVIEWS OR HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE ) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI.) Eleven citations.

Guess why? Because it is absolutely silly and ignorant to compare your area of interest (I mean biophysics and related sciences) and humanitarian disciplines (history etc). Your area of professional interests belongs to the most cited area of knowledge, so by comparing your student's ISI citation index with that of Solzhenitsyn you again demonstrated that you need to read more and, importantly, to adequately use the materials you've read.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand why Paul Siebert is so sensible about GULAG? Why just not write something like 'Solzhenitsyn wrote about GULAG camps as about 'extermination camps', and everybody can understand that it is an opinion of an eyewitness

And you are still holding Solzhenitsyn like kind of Aristotle who gave all final answers to everything.)Guys , you would laugh. When I brought as an evidence an article of Grigory Pommeranz, a GULAG survivor and longtime opponent of Solzhenitsyn, my entry has been vandalized same way if it was source of Solzhenitsyn. 06:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celasson (talk • contribs)

Re: "Why just not write something like 'Solzhenitsyn wrote about GULAG camps as about 'extermination camps', and everybody can understand that it is an opinion of an eyewitness." Because the opinion of an eyewitness is a primary source, and, according to WP policy should be used with great cautions. BTW, numerous examples demonstrate that eyewitness may be a poor source of information.

Re: "my entry has been vandalized" I remind you that by calling other editors "vandals" you just make your own position weaker. Don't throw baseless accuastions if you are not ready to support them with facts. Please, note that "vandals" are not those who make edits you don't like, but those who fit a WP:VANDAL criteria. It is rather easy to fight against real vandals: just follow the standard procedure specially developed for this purpose.

With regards to this particular case, please, try to understand two obvious things: firstly, WP can contain only verifiable facts and statements, so if you believe some scholars are wrong, please, provide a source that unequivocally prove that; secondly, your personal exparience (or the experience of your ancestors and relatives) is not a good sources of information for WP. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

PS. I personally see no problem to include into the article the statement that many former GULAG inmates described it as an extermination camp. However, that should be presented as the eyewitness opinion only; to avoid confusion, it is quite necessary to explicitly state that, by contrast to many eyewithness' opinion, GULAG camps were neither designed nor they functioned as extermination camps.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

to Paul Siebert you deleted the phrase and not taking in account that soviet statistics are not so trustful due to fraud , just because you want so much sell data of Zemskov as reliable while there is a number of scholars who doubt in this data and moreover write that 'historians of the Soviet Union there was a small but influential group of revisionists who attempted to "normalize" the Soviet regime. This involved a number of different tacks- some of them minimized the number of victims of Stalinism and Leninism or denied that there was any mass terror. Is it not removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia?

Paul Siebert:Because the opinion of an eyewitness is a primary source Are you sure that you careful study the article WP:No original research as example they give http://www.lib.umd.edu/guides/primary-sources.html where it is very clear stated :Secondary sources are less easily defined than primary sources. Generally, they are accounts written after the fact with the benefit of hindsight. They are interpretations and evaluations of primary sources. Secondary sources are not evidence, but rather commentary on and discussion of evidence. So the accounts of Solzhenitsyn, Shalamov and Pommeranz are in fact secondary sources. So I think it is less or more obvious what is a secondary/primary source and what is a vandalizing.You vandalized the article because it was not clear for you what is a secondary and what is primary source but from now on you are aware of it.Celasson (talk) 01:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "you deleted the phrase and not taking in account that soviet statistics are not so trustful due to fraud , just because you want so much sell data of Zemskov as reliable while there is a number of scholars who doubt in this data." No I deleted this phrase because (i) it was unsourced, and (ii) it contradicted to what many other scholars wrote on that account. You may add this phrase provided that (i) it will be supported by some reliable source, and (ii) it will be presented not as ultimate truth but as some scholar's opinion (because other scholars disagree with that). Please note that after opening of Soviet archives most scholars re-considered their earlier estimations of GULAG mortality. It is commonly accepted now that Solzhenitsyn's figures were a gross exaggeration. BTW, I also could accuse you in attempts to "sell the data of Solzhenitsyn as reliable", but I don't do that. My point is that you simply are not familiar with works of serious scholars and you prefer to rely upon the writings of political journalists.

Re: "Are you sure that you careful study the article WP:No original research" Yes, I am. WP policy states that "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, as that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material.". It also states that "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source."

Re: " Is it not removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia?" No. As I already wrote, this rather reflects the contemporary tendency to re-consider earlier high estimations of GULAG mortality based on newly discovered evidences.

Re: "You vandalized the article because it was not clear for you what is a secondary and what is primary source" This is becoming tedious. I could easily ignore you because your arguments are quite easy to debunk and because you provided no serious sources so far. If you want the others to take your point of view seriously, please, always do the following: (i) provide serious arguments that are based on reliable secondary sources, and (ii) respect your opponent.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

What is the meaning of nachalnik?

Babette Gross remembered her visit to a "work camp" on the Moscow-Volga Canal construction site in 1933 in her biography of Willi Münzenberg (p. 262—263). Aleksandr Eiduk was the nachalnik of this camp. What were the duties of a nachalnik?----141.13.170.175 (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Literally, nachal'nik means just "supervisor" or "boss". In criminal jargon, nachal'nik is used to address to prison or camp guards and higher rank personnel.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

German POWs and internees used this word to any Russian who had a little power, so this word was adopted in German language.

Nat|schal|nik* der; -s, -s ‹aus gleichbed. russ. načalʼnik›: russ. Bez. für Chef, Vorgesetzter, Vorsteher, Leiter

Duden

Celasson (talk) 06:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Who is the owner of this article

Who owns this article? Probably is time to protect this article from people who intentional denying Stalin's crimes?There are in Russia some cases where historian and archivists were persecuted just because they work with documents from the Stalin's epoch. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/15/russia-gulag-historian-arrested

Celasson (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe, this article (as well as all other WP articles) has no owner. If you believe someone took ownership of this article, please report to WP:ANI. Be prepared to substantiate your claim with serious arguments. If you want to get an advice on how to resolve the issue in another way, try WP:EAR.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

to Paul Siebert. Thank you for your ansewer. But I want to discuss it with other users not just with you.Is it OK so?Celasson (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure. That is why I recommended you to go to WP:EAR.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

PS. With regards to the Suprun's arrest, I am not certain about a real reason, but, from memory, the pretext was absolutely legal: Suprun was collecting information about living persons without their consent and he was being helped by some police officer who unlawfully opened to him an access to classified databases. Such actions are a subject of prosecution in all civilized countries.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Information about living people without their consent? What type of information it was: credit card numbers, medical files? The names of my own ancestors are there inside of such books: http://lists.memo.ru/index30.htm. Just try to explain me and other people. What a claim I can have against these entries that the claim could be sufficient to press charges against somebody?Criminal law is quite simple thing. Did somebody commit a crime or did not...Celasson (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't analyse this case carefully, however, off the top of my head, the issue is the usage of police database that is not open for general public. Was that just a pretext or a genuine reason is a separate question, however, unlawful access to such data is punishable in most countries. Anyway, this question has only tangential relation to the article's subject. Feel free to continue this discussion in more appropriate place.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

So, FSB takes good care of the privacy of "40,000 German gulag victims between 1945 and 1956, deported to the Arkhangelsk region"... The bottom line: not only the Soviet archives were never opened, but historians are still officially prosecuted for trying to get an access. But what kind of "data" have been then reported by Zemskov? Obviously, he reported only the "data" approved or even fabricated by the FSB (sorry, that was actually KGB at the time of first publications).Biophys (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

During our previous discussion I presented sources (Western reliable sources) where Zemskov's and similar data have been extensively analyzed for possible forgery. Analysis of GULAG statistics vs demographic data, official number of GULAG inmate vs the number of NKVD camp personnel, the number of prematurely released vs a number of those who arrived to their pre-arrest locations, the numbers from central vs local archives, etc, have been compared. No considerable discrepancy were found that forced Western scholars to rule out a possibility of major forgery. By contrast, the difference between the number those who were released before their terms' end and those who arrived home demonstrated that part of them were just allowed to die outside camps (to improve statistics). That findings (btw made by Wheathcroft, not by Appelbaum) lead to increase of actual camp mortality by ~10%.
However, again, no major forgery have been found by western scholars, and your amateurish statement demonstrates only the level of your own knowledge.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

To the contrary, the numbers provided by NKVD are highly misleading per sources. Let's take "Gulag" by Applebaum as the first randomly selected Western book. Page 579.

"In 1943, for example, 2,421,000 prisoners are recorded as having passed through the Gulag system, although the totals at the beginning and end of that year show a decline from 1.5 to 1.2 million"

A million of prisoners who jouned Red Army during the war is barely reflected in the statistics. The numbers do not include at least 6 million of "special exiles" and millions of POWs. And so on, and so on. Why do you think that you know this subject better than me? And even if you do, please try not to be offensive. OK? Biophys (talk) 01:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, and how does she interpret "as having passed through the Gulag system"? Does she mean the number of arrested? Or she adds POWs, jails/colonies', NKVD camps etc? Is yes, then it is not surprising that the numbers differ from what official statistics tells.
According to official records, the by Jan 1, 1943 the number of GULAG prisoners + labour colonies prisoners (convicted for minor crimes, terms <2-3 years, not GULAG) was 983,974+500,208=1,484,184, by Dec 31 it was 663,594+516,225=1,179,819, i.e. Appelbaum's 1.5 and 1.2 millions. It is quite clear where the numbers were taken from, and it is quite clear that Appelbaum repeats the same mistake (GULAG+colonies=GULAG).
Zemskov's numbers are:

Jan 1 population was 983,974

Into GULAG from:

NKVD camps 114,152

Other places of detention 355,728

Recaptures 3,074

Other 4,221

From GULAG to:

NKVD camps:

140,756

Other places of detention 140,093

Freed 336,153

Died 166,967

Escaped 6,242

Other 7,344

Dec 31 population 663,594 (change -320,380)

(obviously, I omit colonies as having no relation to the subject)

I tried to obtain the number of 2.5 million "having passed" through GULAG from these data, but I failed, because "having passed" is vague. It can mean whatever you want, starting from the number of released (literally, "to pass through" means to enter and to exit), to the number of transferred from one camp to another. Therefore, such a comparison of apples with oranges proved nothing.
Please, provide some other source that demonstrates concrete inconsistency in official numbers.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

PS. According to Ellman, Zemskov or Conquest, the total number of those who passed through GULAG is 1930-53 was 14-18 millions. It is unclear where the number of 2.5 million in 1943 only came from.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is strange, especially since she refers to the same NKVD data as Zemskov. No, she tells very clearly that colonies are not included in Gulag statistics. Fine, let's tell this differently. The numbers you are talking about is official Soviet statistics (prepared by NKVD). Such numbers were typically not just forged, but completely invented (as Conquest said), e.g. to prove great "successes" of socialist economy, and so on. It is fine to provide such numbers with appropriate attribution (Soviet secret police, NKVD), but such "data" can not be trusted, and we have 10 times higher estimates (see Antonov-Ovseenko) that came from Shvernik Commission if I remember this story correctly.Biophys (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you seem to completely forget our previous dispute. During this dispute I demonstrated that Antonov-Ovseenko's data had been analyzed by Western scholars and found unreliable. With regards to Conquest, please, explain what do you mean. This your statement directly contradicts to Conquest's opinion quoted above.
Re forgery (or complete invention). You seem not to understand what is my point. It is possible to "invent" absolutely abstract figures for propaganda reasons, however, I see no reason to invent a huge amount of data that were kept in classified archives (not intended for propaganda purposes) + bring these data into accordance with overall demographic data + forge NKVD records on the number of NKVD camp personnel (if, according to false records, you have 100 prisoners whereas in actuality you have 1000, you need 100 guards, not 10, and I don't know how the number of persons conscripted into NKVD troops can be falsified) + ... etc. You have to have a separate Gosplan to invent such a vast amount of self-consistent false records. This is absolutely impractical and physically impossible.
All said above is not my conclusions. I read that in western sources, and these sources are highly reliable according to all WP criteria. Please stop repeating the same ridiculous and amateurish arguments that have already been debunked a year ago.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

1. No one "proved" anything about Antonov-Ovseenko. Yes, his data can be disputed, just as any other data on the subject, because KGB archives with Gulag material were never opened to researches (and the archive of Shvernik commission has been destroyed to hide the truth about the numbers). Even two official commissions created by Russian Duma in 1990s could not get an access and were finally disbanded, as described in many books, and especially in the book by Albats who was a member of such commission). 2. Robert Conquest "Reflections on a Ravaged Century" (2000) ISBN 0-393-04818-7, page 101. He tells that whole Soviet statistics was completely invented. The 2.5 prisoners turnover million number was actually taken by Applebaum from another sources written by another western historian (who used NKVD data). The bottom line: let's not be engaged in originally research here ("I see no reason to invent", "You have to have a separate Gosplan to invent such a vast amount of self-consistent false records" as you tell). And let's not represent the NKVD data as the truth.Biophys (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: "No one "proved" anything about Antonov-Ovseenko"

"All in all, my conclusion is that Antonov's book should be used with the utmost care." (A. Antonov-Ovseenko's Book on Stalin: Is It Reliable? A Note. Author(s): Leo Van Rossum. Source: Soviet Studies, Vol. 36, No. 3 (Jul., 1984), pp. 445-447)

Re: Conquest. His statement relates to the Soviet statistics in general, however, he himself explicitly wrote that he trusted the GULAG's archival research made by Zemskov (see a quote above).

Re: "The 2.5 prisoners turnover million number" Firslty, give me a source, please, secondly, please, explain what does she mean under "turnover"? (BTW. Do you know the difference between "enzyme concentration" and "enzyme turnover rate"?).

Re: OR. All my statements are based on sources. I can provide them upon request.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Please provide sources otherwise your arguments look like original research. Bobanni (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. However, to do that, I need to know what concrete my statements in your opinion need to be supported by sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

To Siebert: I provided the source and direct quote of the source about 2.5 millions. That's book "Gulag" by Applebaum, page 579 (see above). This is a reliable secondary source. Nothing else is required. Same thing with the book by Ovseeenko. Someone criticized his book? This means nothing. Every notable book was praised by some and criticized by others.Biophys (talk) 04:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Something is required, nevertheless. To speak about contradiction between Appelbaum and Zemskov we need to make a direct comparison. However, comparison of GULAG's population with "turnover" is a comparison of apples and oranges (more precisely, of apples and something-that-noone-can-clearly-explain). I ask gain: "What does turnover mean?"

With regards to Antonov-Ovseenko, the fact that the book has been criticised at least means that what it is telling is not an ultimate truth. If the author is criticised for not revealing his sources, his book cannot be used as a source to demonstrate NKVD data falsifications. --Paul Siebert (talk) 06:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"What does turnover mean?" Turnover in GULAG does not mean anything else as turnover in meaning of demographics-the movement of population.

E.G. There is a coal mine and there is a zone, a camp unit and there is 350 people inside, guards, dogs and a commandant. It is winter and in the spring there are 200 in the spring. Then come more 150. So the number of prisoners is constant, but in reality 500 people come through the zone. The number 350 is the turnover. Do you get it? 98.166.128.202 (talk) 10:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Not completely. Let's consider another example. The same coal mine with 350 inmates. During a winter no one died and noone arrived in spring. What the turnover be in that case?--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No one died? In a country where people outside consentration camps starved in huge numbers? And the people in the labor camps, who actually were outcasts, had enough food and had brilliant health care? Do you ever heard about Tuberculosis,Scurvy,Pellagra? You do know NOTHING about subject you are trying to edit and you should stop vandalizing.Everything what you are doing -you collect evidences against yourself.Celasson (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw this page while vandal patrolling; Celasson, this is borderline WP:NPA. Please take the time to assume good faith as so not to hurt feelings or generally attack other users. Happy editing, Airplaneman ^talk 02:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "No one died?" Let me point your attention at the fact that we are just trying to understand what does the term "turnover" mean. This concrete discussion has no relation to the actual mortality.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

PPopulation turnover, measures gross moves in relation to the size of the population and is related to population mobility.Did you read about Tuberculosis,Scurvy,Pellagra and you are still so much sure that without antibiotic in Arctic Arctic with a limited amount of food and huge amount of work you would live long enough?Celasson (talk) 05:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It is intuitively clear for me what does "turnover" mean. My question was about the details of the procedure according to which the turnover was calculated, and about the data which were used for such calculations. (Of course, you may just state that turnover was extremely high, however, such a claim would be absolutely non-verifiable).--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

For understanding, how labor camp statistics were prepared you need to study number of eye witnesses ,unfortunately the accountants again and again support this phrase of russian historian Boris Chavkin 'Statistics as incarnation of lies'.05:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celasson (talk • contribs)

I saw this page while vandal patrollingVandal patroling? You archived messages 27 (!) of it belong to the year 2010!!!Celasson (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean. You see, I patrol the recent changes feed with igloo, a program, to spot vandalism. I came upon your edit, which said, and I quote:

“ You do know NOTHING about subject you are trying to edit and you should stop vandalizing.Everything what you are doing -you collect evidences against yourself. ”

First off, let's address the title of this thread. Who owns the article? Nobody does. That's the point of a free encyclopedia. Second, it is borderline WP:NPA telling someone they are vandalizing and know nothing about the subject without any verification. Third, you are shouting. The post of yours directly above mine excessively uses exclamation points. I have not archived any messages on this page. That is why I have no idea what you mean. It does not matter if you are connected to this event or not; if it is "such hell" for you to edit this article, don't. (see my talk page) Furthermore, I see no User:KGB Assassin in the immediate (last 100) edits in the history of the page. In fact, he doesn't exist. That, I also do not understand. Please clarify. If someone is bothering you, try to work it out nicely with them. Keep a level head, and don't attack. If they keep at it, feel free to report to WP:ANI, as was mentioned at the top of the thread. Another option is to ignore. Hope this helps, and please don't keep on saying stuff like what I quoted, as well as on my talk page: "How can you explain this???" Bottom line: it's unprofessional, and ticks off others. Thanks, Airplaneman ^talk 18:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I have read WP:NPA and could not find the paragraph which complies with your allegations.Or I would guess you make Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. But I removed this discussion to your user talk , so it will be everything in the same place.Celasson (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I am still not making sense of what you are saying. I just dropped in to say "calm down". That's all. I don't want to be involved in this more than I have to. You have left many of my questions unanswered. Thanks, Airplaneman ^talk 20:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You are not making sense at all, that is true, but you have not.Next time if you want to "calm down" somebody just read text to what you refer careful.If you have questions ask them without trying to calm down or accuse anybody.And your first question is....?Celasson (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I could not comprehend your first sentence. I have carefully read the text to which I referred. Please see my long post above for what I was asking. All I wanted to do was say "calm down" as it seemed as though you were angry, through your choice of words and excessive use of question marks and exclamation points. Regards, Airplaneman ^talk 21:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

All I wanted to do was say "calm down" as it seemed as though you were angry, through your choice of words and excessive use of question marks and exclamation points - so did my opponent who's exclamations you somehow did not notice. In your huge message above you did not write any sentence with a question mark. If you do not use question marks just write your question , I would love to answer them asap.Celasson (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I shall now exit this conversation, as it is going nowhere. Please take a look at WP:OWN. That was my point in the first place; no need to blow this out of proportion. You might want to also consider third opinion or dispute resolution. Airplaneman ✈ 02:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It will not go anywhere if you are trying to resolve a dispute suggesting to one counterpart to shut up.It is does not comply with the ethic standards of Wikipedia or general ethic standards.--Celasson (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

GULAG deniers

FYI: http://hnn.us/articles/1832.html .Celasson (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

What concretely did you want to say by that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing.Soviet history is not such easy topic even for historians. The new Russian historians command the language, understand the culture, and have far more access to documentation that the reigning revisionists of the West. The new Russian historians also have come to understand that a large segment of the Western academic world are fools or charlatans when it comes to the history of communism and go their own way.

How we can know that your western scholars are not fools or charlatans mentioned? Celasson (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I wrote I would like to have any evidence of existence of 'labour colonies'. Memories of survivors, locations of any of them,a text of a judgment etc. If you refuse I am OK with it. The people seem to be charlatans since they describe some institutions which did not exist this time.

About reputability of the novels that you try me to convince. That is the curriculum ( excellent work) for Harvard students. Remembering the Gulag No no Getty, Rittersporn, Zemskov'. GULAG:recommended readings, Duke University. Again no 'reputable'authors. Not that I want to say that in wiki should be introduced the opinion of Harvard professors only. The principle of WP NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW require The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. It is not a lack of viewpoint, but is rather an editorially neutral point of view. And I afraid you disregarded this principle repetitive. And repetitive disregarded warnings and cooperations offers. Can you explain why the article so important to you that you watch it day and night,without any break? Or it is a secret?--Celasson (talk) 02:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Firstly. It is highly inappropriate to edit others' post, or to move them to other sections. Please refrain from doing that in future, because by doing that you demonstrate behaviour resembleing that of disruptive editors and that will hardly help you in your future disputes.Paul Siebert (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Please check the history - I did not edited your posts. I just removed a part of the discussion from one paragraph which got to be too long to other one, what is common and is not prohibited.You are wrong again.

Firstly. It is highly inappropriate to edit others' post, or to move them to other sections. Please refrain from doing that in future, because by doing that you demonstrate behaviour resembleing that of disruptive editors and that will hardly help you in your future disputes.

Secondly, it is not a novel, it is the article which fully and meticulously summarised GULAG archival data. This work is widely accepted by western scholars, and if you have any doubts in that feel free to go to WP:RSN.

Thirdly, re neutrality, I am not sure it requires to treat equally some non peer-reviewed text and the article published in top-ranked historical journal. Obviously, priority should be given to the latter. Please, provide concrete arguments against that, and explain why this article is not a good source in your opinion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Harvard Curriculum is not peer-reviewed? Are you jocking?

I made a little research about GULAG deniers in the USA. I tried to find out who and in what instance refers to 'reputable' J. Arch Getty, Gabor T. Rittersporn, and Viktor N. Zemskov.

first shot: Voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA Raymond Lotta is a Marxist writer and Communist scholar who is the author of the 1984 book, America in Decline.HS!

I don't find good the idea that in this article will be used some works from communists or pro-communists authors . It is disrespectful of the victims.--Celasson (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Harvard Curriculum is not peer-reviewed? Are you jocking? " If it is, please, provide an evidence. In any event we cannot seriously compare the work made by some students with the work written by reputable scholars.

Re: "I tried to find out who and in what instance refers to 'reputable J. Arch Getty, Gabor T. Rittersporn, and Viktor N. Zemskov." This[3] is a list of the scholars who cite them. This list includes Ellman, Rosenfielde (the author of "Red Holocaust"), Khlevniuk, and other reputable scholars.

This source is very reliable, and, if you have any doubt in that go to WP:RSN. Until you have done that, I have no desire to discuss this issue anymore. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

In formal education, a curriculum (pronounced /kəˈrɪkjʉləm/; plural: curricula, /kəˈrɪkjʉlə/) is the set of courses, and their content, offered at a school or university.Did students write curriculum in the university which you have graduated from? In Harvard it is different, Harvard is the best world university in lot of ranks, by the way. And the curriculum is an evidence:you are mistaken or ,worse, lying. The probability that you are doing the repetitive vandalizing of the article professional is very high. --72.196.198.86 (talk) 15:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Am I lying by making a google search or by quoting a reliable source?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Do I doubt that the article were published in a magazine? No I did not.You are wrong, again, again and again...I doubt that the fact that a bunch of commies mock victims is against core principles of Wikipedia:

1. Assume good faith[4]
2. Neutral Point of view [5]

And these fundamental principles of Wikipedia should be respected.--Celasson (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with the policy you refer to. And, please, remember, that, in addition to neutrality other policies exist, namely, verifiability and no original research. Re assume good faith, "Physician, heal thyself".--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If I published a link to the explanation of the principle that makes the thing clear- I read the text.Unfortunately, your accusations are unsupported as the big piece of all what you are writing. I don't receive any pay for any my writings in WiKi.Can you confirm the same?--Celasson (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I have no idea what accusations are you talking about, because I just point your attention at WP policy. Secondly, neutrality requires all majority and significant minority POVs to be presented. In other words, you cannot say: "I have a good source, so your source is a piece of garbage". You must prove that your source is reliable and my is not (which seems to be impossible). Thirdly, the fact that you read the text is not sufficient. Please, show what concrete statement from your source refutes my words, and why this statement has more weight than the quote from my source does.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

"I have a good source, so your source is a piece of garbage"- That is right.That what you are doing all the time.You know there is no some kind of Stalin or somebody else in Wikipedia, who will come and proclaim that source is good and that is not. In Wikipedia people discuss. But you refuse discussion. I asked you two questions essential for continuing of this discussion but you don't answer them. Just answer if you paid for you editing and give an evidence that authors whom you promote against NPV principle are not liars. Then we will discuss NPV issue. If you have any questions to me, I am ready to answer.--Celasson (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Law of Spikelets, part 2

The question was what labour colonies were (according your own words "You are convinced of the existence of some type of 'mild labor colonies'. I am not convinced and asked about an evidence. You refuse because the possibility is very high that there is no evidence because it is a myth."). I believe the quote explained that. With regard to petty theft, you may look at RFSFR Penal Code--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, below is reproduced the article #162 (Theft) of RSFSR Penal Code, 1926:

162. Тайное похищение чужого имущества (кража) влечет за собой:

а) совершенное без применения каких-либо технических средств, в первый раз и без сговора с другими лицами, -

лишение свободы или принудительные работы на срок до трех месяцев,

совершенное при тех же условиях, но вследствие нужды и безработицы, в целях удовлетворения минимальных потребностей своих или своей семьи, -

принудительные работы на срок до трех месяцев;

б) совершенное повторно, или в отношении имущества, заведомо являющегося необходимым для существования потерпевшего, -

лишение свободы на срок до шести месяцев;

в) совершенное с применением технических средств или неоднократно, или по предварительному сговору с другими лицами, а равно, хотя и без указанных условий, совершенное на вокзалах, пристанях, пароходах, в вагонах и гостиницах, -

лишение свободы на срок до одного года;

г) совершенное частным лицом из государственных и общественных складов, вагонов, судов и иных хранилищ или в указанных в предыдущем пункте местах общественного пользования, путем применения технических средств или по сговору с другими лицами или неоднократно, а равно совершенное хотя бы и без указанных условий лицом, имевшим специальный доступ в эти склады или их охранявшим, или во время пожара, наводнения или иного общественного бедствия, -

лишение свободы на срок до двух лет или принудительные работы на срок до одного года;

д) совершенное из государственных и общественных складов и хранилищ лицом, имевшим особый доступ в таковые или охранявшим их, путем применения технических средств или неоднократно, или по сговору с другими лицами, а равно всякая кража из тех же складов и хранилищ, при особо крупных размерах похищенного, -

лишение свободы на срок до пяти лет.

Примечание. Кража материалов и орудий, совершенная на фабрике и заводе рабочим или служащим в пределах своего предприятия в первый раз и при стоимости похищенного не свыше пятнадцати рублей, влечет дисциплинарное взыскание по особой, устанавливаемой Народным Комиссариатом Труда, табели.

You can see that for most thefts (not only "petty theft") the punishment was either not connected to imprisonment at all(prinuditel'nye raboty), or the terms were from 1 to three years, and only in one case (d) the terms were longer. Obviously, those convicted according to this article went to colonies.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Law of Spikelets There are no a little reference to the Penal Code. Your state unsupported facts and then you trying to convince (I don't know whom, I am not so to be convinced without evidence, probably yourself, first at all) that the fact is supported. Same you trying to convince that Stalin was a kind and human and people were happy in the secret'labor colonies'.--Celasson (talk) 04:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The question was what was the punishment for "petty theft". I provided the quote that demonstrate that for most (not only petty tefts) the terms were shorter than 3 years. The law of Spikelets did change a situation, but for comparatively short period (until January 1936).--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

As said there no reference to the Penal Code.It does not make any sense, why they issue a new law if they can follow the Penal Code? We all understand, that in your world all people during Stalinism were happy and lived in 'labor colonies', where they had brilliant medical care and were eating fine cousine.My advice to you-read memories of survivors to have a real picture.--Celasson (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Please, speak for yourself, and don't put your own words in my mouth. Some people during Stalinism were happy, others were unhappy, some people were sent to GULAG, others to labour colonies. One way or the another, we step into a realm of speculation, which is hardly relevant to this talk page. Please, provide a reliable secondary source demonstrating your point (and refuting my point), or stop this.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I am very patiently waiting for evidences of existence of 'labor colonies'.Unfortunately you refuse to do so and so slow the discussion.If you ask me to demonstrate my point , the best thing to name the point what you want to be demonstrated by me.Just try to define.--Celasson (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

See my last post in the previous section.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

GULAG deniers? part 2

Physician, heal thyself (Ἰατρέ, θεράπευσον σεαυτόν) is a proverb found in Luke 4:23. “ And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country. ” The usual interpretation of this passage is, during the Rejection of Jesus, Jesus expected to hear natives of his hometown of Nazareth use this phrase to criticize him.[1] The moral of the proverb is counsel to attend to one's own defects, rather than criticizing defects in others, a sentiment also expressed in the Discourse on judgmentalism. Jesus used these words to show not only that he was fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah 61, but also, he was actually prophesying that his adversaries would say these words even as he hung on the cross at his crucifixion. I have no slightly idea what you want to say.That you are not a communist because you quote the Bibel? Or something else?--Celasson (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course, something else. Try to think about that more.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That is definitely is not my job trying to encrypt your epiphanies.If you make a statement please try to make it sound.--Celasson (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, since you seem to be unable to understand what I mean, I'll explain you that. Before trying to accuse others in not assuming good faith or non-neutrality, try to observe (or at least to understand) WP policy by yourself.

You already demonstrated several gross violations of WP policy sufficient for your block. For instance, your last post ("Just answer if you paid for you editing and give an evidence that authors whom you promote against NPV principle are not liars.") contains at least one severe personal attack and one example of gross misunderstanding for WP policy. Fortunately for you, I voluntarily decided neither initiate nor participate in any ANI discussions, so I will not go to ANI. However, noone can guarantee that other, less patient editor will not do that in future.

Please, be aware that even a simple comment on a contributor, not a contribution is not welcomed on WP talk pages.

With regard to "give an evidence that authors whom you promote against NPV principle are not liars", I don't have to and will not do that, because the source I use meets all strict reliable criteria: it is a secondary source that has been wetted by scientific community, published in a top rank history journal (not "magazine") and is widely cited. I sustained my burden of proof, and I have no desire to continue this discussion until you changed your tone to more friendly. Let me also point out that I'll revert all your edits if they will not satisfy WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV criteria, and I will not be obliged to give you any explanations of that because I did my best to explain you what WP policy tells on that account, and it is not my fault that you appeared to be unable to understand.

Regards. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll revert all your edits if they will not satisfy WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV criteria- so will do I.

...has been wetted by scientific community- and again an unsupported assertion. Everything that I write is consistent and all allegations supported. You need to understand is your idol Stalin who is for the majority of people is just a bloody dictator could so easy decide who follows rules and who does not. Wikipedia is a democracy where you need to based your opinion. I am not such friendly to people who hates democracy and does not want to live in a society with a lot of opinions.You promote opinion of a very little group of historian revisionists , who's statements can not be confirmed neither from you nor from somebody else. And the cause is very simple- they lie. You without obvious reason promote their opinions and delete entries what you personally dislike without giving any common-sense explanation. And what you are trying to sell as 'personal attack' is a very justified question.Why do you do it and if you have a monetary interest in this. I as said I am not paid for what I am doing here and I have no time for the discussions with some human being who repetitive vandalizes an Wiki article just because somebody pays him for that.So I have three questions to you:

1. Are you paid for your work in Wiki (No answer will mean 'YES')
2. Any evidence of the existence of 'mild labor colonies in 1930-1953 in USSR how Getty, Zemskov&Co. describe in their works.
3. Name an Nobel Prize Winner in history and explain why Solozhenicyn did get one.
4. Why do you think that you can solely decide if somebody's entry is against WIKI policies

If you find questions very personal you can write about, it is OK.--Celasson (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Re 1. The question is irrelevant to the current discussion;

Re 2. The GRZ article is a sufficient evidence;

Re 3. The first part is irrelevant; with regard to Solzhenitsyn, he got his Nobel Prize for a novel, not for a scientific study, and this novel should be treated as such;

Re 4. I don't think that. Moreover, I already proposed you (multiple times) to try to involve other editors to resole this stupid dispute; of course, you cannot just ask other editors who share your POV to join this discussion, because that would be WP:CANVASS. However, you can try WP:RFC or you can go to WP:RSN and to ask the question about Getty & co there. You also can try other ways to politely resolve this dispute. Instead of that you are wasting my and your time by throwing laughable accusations (which can easily lead to your block) or asking the same questions and ignoring the answers.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Answer for Question 1. It is relevant , you promote the view of a small number of revisionists and vandalise the article. It is very important if you are paid for that or know.

Answer for Question 2. It is sufficient for you.If they are writing about facts so common, there are plenty evidences...

Answer for Question 3. I ask you again ( I know that you ignore my and people have to see that). Has an eye witness of a crime be forensic professional.Absurd. The Harvard professors have all possible titles and you don't like them as scientists.

Answer for Question 4- LIE. I'll revert all your edits if they will not satisfy WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV criteriaUser talk:Paul Siebert. You wrote it yourself so like you who know the best where WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV criteria. It is obviously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celasson (talk • contribs) 20:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Re 1. "you promote the view of a small number of revisionists and vandalise the article." Prove it. And, please, explain, why all contemporary scholars (including Applebaum or Conquest) cite the GRZ article, use their figures (although not always agree with their conclusions)?

Re 2. I see no reasons to provide other evidences just because you simply dislike what GRZ say.

Re 3. "The Harvard professors have all possible titles and you don't like them as scientists." I simply don't understand what you mean. I provided quotes from the sources I use, you simply gave a link to some non-peer-reviewed article without pointing at any concrete fragment. Please, provide concrete quotes, explain how they contradict to what GRZ say and demonstrate why these authors are more authoritative than GRZ.

Re 4. Didn't understand.

Again, I outlined you possible ways to resolve our dispute. Please chose one of these variants and don't waste my time.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Re 1. "you promote the view of a small number of revisionists and vandalise the article." Prove it. And, please, explain, why all contemporary scholars (including Applebaum or Conquest) cite the GRZ article, use their figures (although not always agree with their conclusions)?- You write it yourself not always agree with their conclusions. That mean there are other opinion. Moreover, numbers of victims is an object of research not only historians but demographers ( them even more) The demographers say that GULAG population data is controversial, corrupt and not sufficient to make any conclusions. And hold Zemskov for some kind of charlatan: www.demoscope.ru

Re 2. I see no reasons to provide other evidences just because you simply dislike what GRZ say. You again forge the discussion. I did not delete anything, do I like it or know. I wrote all the time. If they are different opinions about the topic, they have to be introduce.

Re 3. "I simply don't understand what you mean. I provided quotes from the sources I use, you simply gave a link to some non-peer-reviewed article without pointing at any concrete fragment. Please, provide concrete quotes, explain how they contradict to what GRZ say and demonstrate why these authors are more authoritative than GRZ. Why I should demonstrate you that Harvard professors more authoritative than anybody else if I don't mean it? They are enough 'authoritative' to be mentioned in the article.--Celasson (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Re4: You suppose to know better than anybody what entry should be deleted and what should not. My question. Why you think so?--Celasson (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Most historians and demographers agree that GRZ GULAG statistics they meticulously collected is correct. The problem is with GRZ's conclusions: they try to deduce the total number of repression victims directly from the GULAG statistics. Since they do not consider other factors (e.g. the number of ex-prisoners who dies immediately after release) their conclusion oversimplify and embellish the actual state of things (it this particular case the real number of victims was ~20% higher). That is why their conclusions are being criticized, whereas their figures are not. However, since I included only figures, not conclusions (which seem to be an oversimplification), I see no problems with usage of GRZ in the article.

2. What concrete opinions do you want to introduce?

3. What concrete statements of "Harvard professors" (btw, are they supposed to have concrete names?) do you propose to include?

4. The sentence about Getty is deleted per WP:LEDE. Since the article devotes no or little attention to Getty's writings, this sentence cannot be in the lede.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Law of Spikelets

Regarding the Law of Spikelets, I do not accuse you in anything. I just suggest that you seem to misread this law. Try to read (as well as commentaries on it) again.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I copied and pasted an WIKI article, I can confirm that the translation from the original Russian text is correct. That's all.--Celasson (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

And I can confirm that interpretation was incorrect. Please, comment on that (since you claim you can read Russian, I will not translate this text[6]:

"6. В отношении трудящихся единоличников и колхозников, изобличенных в хищении колхозного имущества и хлеба, должно применяться десятилетнее лишение свободы.

При отягчающих вину обстоятельствах, а именно: систематических хищениях колхозного хлеба, свеклы и других сельскохозяйственных продуктов и скота, хищениях организованными группами, хищениях в крупных размерах, хищениях, сопровождающихся насильственными действиями, террористическими актами, поджогами и т.д.— и в отношении колхозников и трудящихся единоличников должна применяться высшая мера наказания."

And this (Инструкция ЦК ВКП(б) и СНК ССР от 8-го мая 1933 № П-6028):

"5. В отношении осужденных провести следующие мероприятия: а) Всем осужденным по суду до 3 лет заменить лишение свободы принудительными работами до 1 года, а остальной срок считать условным.
б) Осужденных на срок от 3 до 5 лет включительно направить в трудовые поселки ОГПУ.
в) Осужденных на срок свыше 5 лет направить в лагеря ОГПУ. 6. Кулаки, осужденные на срок от 3 до 5 лет включительно, подлежат направлению в трудовые поселки вместе с находящимися на их иждивении лицами."

"Prinuditel'nye raboty" means punitive labour without imprisonment.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a google translation:

1. In the cases of organizations and groups, organized destructive state, public and cooperative ownership by arson, bombings and mass damage to property - to apply the highest measure of social defense - shooting, without relief. 2. In respect of the kulaks, former traders and other socially hostile elements operating in the state (industrial and agricultural - farms) enterprises or institutions found to embezzlement or misappropriation of large sums of money these companies or institutions, as well as government officials and businesses, to apply the death penalty, with extenuating circumstances (in the case of single and minor theft) of capital punishment to replace a ten-year imprisonment. With theft, although small, committed by these social categories, but which carries a disorder or stop working SOEs (stolen parts machines and cars, willful destruction or defacing state farm implements, etc.) - and apply the death penalty. 3. In the relations of the kulaks, former traders and other socially-hostile elements who had infiltrated into the supply services, trade and cooperation, as well as officials of commodity distribution network is found to have stolen goods and selling them to the private market and the embezzlement of large sums of money - the use of capital punishment, and only under extenuating circumstances in cases of theft of small size, capital punishment was replaced by a ten-year imprisonment. The same punishment to expose and speculators, although not directly involved in theft, but speculating in goods and products, knowing that the goods are stolen from public agencies and cooperatives. 4. In respect of persons found to have stolen goods in transport, use, capital punishment, and only for extenuating circumstances (for single instances of theft or theft of small size) could be used ten years imprisonment. If the theft of transport produced with the participation of railway employees and workers, then they should apply the same measure of repression. 5. In respect of the kulaks as infiltrated the farm, and outside the farm, organizing or taking part in the theft of kolkhoz property and grain, apply the death penalty without relief. 6. With respect to workers' individual farmers and farmers found to have stolen the collective property and bread, should be applied ten years imprisonment. In aggravating circumstances, namely: the systematic theft of kolkhoz grain, sugar beet and other agricultural products and livestock theft by organized groups, large-scale misappropriation, embezzlement, accompanied by violent acts, terrorist acts, arson, etc. - and for farmers individual farmers and workers should apply capital punishment. 7. In respect of collective farm chairmen and board members involved in the embezzlement of state and public property, you must apply the death penalty and only under extenuating circumstances - a ten-year imprisonment.

In 6 cases of 7 a primary punishment for theft is a death penalty. Also the conclusion 'The primary punishment for theft according to this law was death by shooting' is absolutely correct.--Celasson (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Correct. However, the clause #6 dealt with the overwhelming majority of people (workers and farmers), whereas other clauses were devoted much more narrow groups of population. Going back to the initial subject of the discussion (petty theft), please, keep in mind that after a short period of terror, in 1 February 1933 the amendment was adopted that explicitly prohibited to apply this law to persons committed petty thefts.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not so clear what do you want to say.People were convicted for petty theft and were sent to labor camps. Nobody doubted it. --Celasson (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I doubt. And you made nothing so far to dispel my doubts and to demonstrate that it was a common practice during the GULAG era (1927-53) to sent people to GULAG camps for petty thefts. By contrast, I provided the document that specifically tells that imprisonment for petty theft was prohibited, and that prisoners serving shrott terms were send to NKVD labour colonies, not to GULAG camps.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Text of the documents you provided:

в) Осужденных на срок свыше 5 лет направить в лагеря ОГПУ. Google translation: Convicted for a period of more than 5 years to send to the camps of the OGPU.. You are wrong again. --Celasson (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

and that prisoners serving shrott terms were send to NKVD labour coloniesPaul Siebert (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Your text was : подлежат направлению в трудовые поселки (may be taken to labor settlements).Labor settlements (трудопоселение, trudoposelenie) were a method of internal exile that used settlers for obligatory labor. The main category of "labor settlers" (трудопоселенцы, trudoposelentsy) were kulaks and members of their families deported in 1930s before the Great Purge. Labor settlements were under the management of Gulag, but they must not be confused with labor camps.

'трудовые поселки'-trudoposeleniya it is the same that Specposeleniya, special settlements and the information about them you can find here:Forced settlements in the Soviet Union. Was it not your who wrote it: Re: "Is it correct, if you are writing about 'labour colonies' you mean Forced settlements in the Soviet Union?" No. I am talking about labour colonies, which, along with prisons and GULAG camps, were the major places of detention. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)? --Celasson (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Convicted for a period of more than 5 years to send to the camps of the OGPU.. You are wrong again." No. This is in agreement with what I already wrote, namely people convicted for longer terms were sent to GULAG camps, whereas people convicted for shorter terms (including those convicted for petty thefts) were sent to labour colonies.Paul Siebert (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Re forced settlements. Below is a quote from some article written by 'fools and charlatans' that explains the issue:

"THE PENAL SYSTEM ADMINISTERED BY THE NKVD (Peoples' Commissariat of Internal Affairs) in the 1930s had several components: prisons, labor camps, and labor colonies, as well as "special settlements" and various types of non-custodial supervision. Generally speaking, the first stop for an arrested person was a prison, where an investigation and interrogation led to conviction or, more rarely, release. After sentencing, most victims were sent to one of the labor camps or colonies to serve their terms. In December 1940, the jails of the USSR had a theoretical prescribed capacity of 234,000, although they then held twice that number. Considering this-and comparing the levels of prison populations given in the Appendixes for the 1930s and 1940s-one can assume that the size of the prison system was probably not much different in the 1930s.

Second, we find a system of labor camps. These were the terrible "hard regime" camps populated by dangerous common criminals, those important "politicals" the regime consigned to severe punishment, and, as a rule, by other people sentenced to more than three years of detention.' On March 1, 1940, at the end of the Great Purges, there were 53 corrective labor camps ('ispravitel'no-trudovye lageri': ITL) of the GULAG system holding some 1.3 million inmates. Most of the data cited in this article bear on the GULAG camps, some of which had a multitude of subdivisions spreading over vast territories and holding large numbers of people. BAMLAG, the largest camp in the period under review, held more than 260,000 inmates at the beginning of 1939, and SEVVOSTLAG (the notorious Kolyma complex) some 138,000.1"

Third came a network of 425 "corrective labor colonies" of varying types. These colonies were meant to confine prisoners serving short sentences, but this rule varied with time. The majority of these colonies were organized to produce for the economy and housed some 315,000 persons in 1940. They were nevertheless under the control of the NKVD and were managed-like the rest of the colony network-by its regional administrations. Additionally, there were 90 children's homes under the auspices of the NKVD.

Fourth, there was the network of "special resettlements." In the 1930s, these areas were populated largely by peasant families deported from the central districts as "kulaks" (well-to-do peasants) during the forced collectivization of the early 1930s. Few victims of the Great Purges of 1936-1939 were so exiled or put under other forms of non-custodial supervision: in 1937-1938, only 2.1 percent of all those sentenced on charges investigated by the political police fell into this category. This is why we will not treat exile extensively below.

Finally, there was a system of non-custodial "corrective work" (ispravitel'notrudovye raboty), which included various penalties and fines. These were quite common throughout the 1930s-they constituted 48 percent of all court sentences in 1935-and the numbers of such convictions grew under the several laws on labor discipline passed on the eve of the war. Typically, such offenders were condemned to up to one year at "corrective labor," the penalty consisting of work at the usual place of one's employment, with up to 25 percent reduction of wage and loss of credit for this work toward the length of service that gave the right to social benefits (specific allocations, vacation, pension). More than 1.7 million persons received such a sentence in the course of 1940 and almost all of them worked in their usual jobs "without deprivation of freedom." As with resettlements, this correctional system largely falls outside the scope of the Great Terror." (Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the Pre-War Years: A First Approach on the Basis of Archival Evidence. Author(s): J. Arch Getty, Gábor T. Rittersporn, Viktor N. Zemskov Source: The American Historical Review, Vol. 98, No. 4 (Oct., 1993), pp. 1017-1049)

I believe, the issue has been clarified now. Only one of five different components of Soviet penal system were the GULAG camps ("the terrible "hard regime" camps populated by dangerous common criminals, those important "politicals" the regime consigned to severe punishment, and, as a rule, by other people sentenced to more than three years of detention"). Please, note that "American Historical Review" is one of the most reputable historical journals, so we have no reason to doubt in what the article states.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. In the text of the legal documents you refer to there are is neither defined what is 'Theft' nor distinguished between 'petty theft' or 'other theft'. You are wrong again.--Celasson (talk) 03:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The question was what labour colonies were (according your own words "You are convinced of the existence of some type of 'mild labor colonies'. I am not convinced and asked about an evidence. You refuse because the possibility is very high that there is no evidence because it is a myth."). I believe the quote explained that.Paul Siebert (talk) 03:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No it does not. I wrote I want to understand what you are talking about and need any evidence of the existence of the 'labor colonies' in 1930-53.You have no evidences, is it correct?--Celasson (talk) 04:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the quote? I reproduce the fragment again: "''Third came a network of 425 "corrective labor colonies" of varying types. These colonies were meant to confine prisoners serving short sentences, but this rule varied with time. The majority of these colonies were organized to produce for the economy and housed some 315,000 persons in 1940."--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't need a quote, a need an evidence.You have no evidences. That is the fact.--Celasson (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

A quote from the reliable source that states that there were 425 corrective labour colonies in the USSR is an evidence that they did exist. I sustained my burden of proof, and I cannot imagine more unequivocal evidence. Probably, you can explain me which evidence you need? (In any event, since my goal is not to convince you, but to meet WP standards, which I definitely have done, I am not interested in further discussion).--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I explained you that 2 or 3 times already. It can be memory of a survivor, a location, a description, a judgment text.Somebody was in a mild 'labor colony' 1930-1953 if they were existent?--Celasson (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

In other words, you propose me to provide a primary source instead of secondary one? That is directly opposite to what policy states. Primary sources should be used with great cautions, and the articles should be based primarily on good quality secondary sources. The article in American Historical Reviews is a very reliable secondary source, so it is a much better evidence than those you request. One way or the another, you can go to your local library, or to buy this article online: you may find there more than a hundred references to primary sources (mostly to declassified archival documents) as well as a detailed description of all primary sources used for this study.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't ask you to use it in the article. There even two sources based on GULAG survivors memories written by Nobel Prize Winners but they somehow don't impress you. You know if American Historical Reviews publish some material they can not take responsibility for the veracity of the content , other way they were already broken.So you can stop repeate this mantra. If there are hundreds of references why you can not name it?

I did not asked you too much. Please name an evidence of existence some mild 'labor colonies in 1930-53. You have 3 days. In three days I will delete all refs to Zemskov and Co as not reliable source. And it is more than justified. --Celasson (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

By "Nobel Prize Winner" you probably mean Solzhenitsyn, right? Let me remind you that he won a prize in literature, not in history. As a rule, the opinion of the Nobel Prize winner in literature has zero weight in physics, history etc. You yourself will hardly agree to receive medical treatment from a Nobel Prise winner in literature, right? Solzhenitsyn's writings are considered obsolete now, after archival revolution and perestroika. Regarding the memoirs, althoug I have neither reasons nor desire to question them, however, these memoirs do not give us a full picture, and importantly, simply cannot be used in the article unless they are interpreted by some good quality secondary source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Strange but scientists in Harvard university don't share your opinion:GULAG So you can name a Nobel Prize Winner in History?--72.196.198.86 (talk) 11:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Please name an evidence of existence some mild 'labor colonies in 1930-53" Well, the concrete archival document is GARF (TsGAOR), f.9414, op.1, d.1356, 11.1-3. Are you satisfied?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: "You have 3 days. In three days I will delete all refs to Zemskov and Co as not reliable source." I believe you will provide needed rationale for that, otherwise all your changes simply will be reverted.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Rationale? That they are liars is rationale. Same time I will apply for you to bein g blocked . Because the possibilty is very high that you vandalize the article for money.So you have three questions to you need to be ansewerd.

1. An evidence of the existence of mild 'labor colonies' 2.Your confirmation that you don't receive any pay for your 'work' here 3. Name a Nobel Prize winner in history. --Celasson (talk) 11:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Re 1. The evidence has been provided. I can provide more, but I will not do that because this evidence is quite sufficient.

Re 2. Let me leave these your words uncommented.

Re 3. Irrelevant. The fact that there is no Nobel Prise in, e.g. mathematics doesn't automatically mean that every Nobel Prise winner in e.g. physics or economy is an expert in math.

Let me also remind you that if you want to be consistent you should also remove refs to Applebaum and other scholars who rely on RGZ figures.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

PS. I assume your good will, and, taking into account the history of your family, can understand your emotion. However, that doesn't change the fact that your argument are deeply flawed. To demonstrate my point, I can ask you three questions. Please, note that I do not want you to answer them, I am asking just to demonstrate my point:

1. Provide an evidence that Solzhenitsyn is not a liar.
2. Provide an evidence that memoirs are not a forgery;
3. Provide an evidence that the authors of the sources used by you take responsibility for the veracity of the content.

Please, believe that in actuality I do not claim Solzhenitsyn was a liar, he simply didn't have information which is available to contemporary historians. His data are simply outdated.

Please, take into account that I do not question the veracity of memoirs; however, I do not see how their veracity can be confirmed.

And, finally, I have no idea why did you decided that "Harvard scientists" can be more trusted than the editorial board of the leading history journal. I assume you simply do not know how the peer-reviewing procedure works.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

celasson asks:1. An evidence of the existence of mild 'labor colonies'

Paul Siebert answers: Re 1. The evidence has been provided. I can provide more, but I will not do that because this evidence is quite sufficient.

Lie, nothing has been provided so far.

celasson asks 2.Your confirmation that you don't receive any pay for your 'work' here

Paul Siebert answers :Re 2. Let me leave these your words uncommented.

I already explained. You promote the opinion of a very small group of historians supported from Russian government who decided that they should polish Stalin's image[7] , and you insist on aggressive censorship in their favor even if facts what they mentioned are not true and you yourself see it.Yes the question is very private but justified in this case.

celasson asks: Name a Nobel Prize winner in history.

Paul Siebert answers:Irrelevant. The fact that there is no Nobel Prise in, e.g. mathematics doesn't automatically mean that every Nobel Prise winner in e.g. physics or economy is an expert in math.

I don't know who give you such idea that an eye witness has to be an historian? A witness of a crime has to be a forensic science? Solid scientists use his book: G U L A G :SOVIET PRISON CAMPS AND THEIR LEGACY

And don't even hope that I will refuse to answer your question.There is very easy forensic procedure. If many witnesses independ talking the same , this is suppose to be true.If you compare "Archipelago GULAG" with other memories you can find , yes they describe same things. Of course Harvard scientists are higher in rank than somebody else because it is the best world school. I can not understand why you are so obsessed with The American Historical Review? If you go and make search with the keyword GULAG you get 53 articles.If in an article will represent an opinion opposite to Getty, Zamskov &Co. what you will do?--Celasson (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

People could be imprisoned in a Gulag camp for crimes such as unexcused absences from work, petty theft, or anti-government jokes.

The source (a non-academic web site) seems to be inaccurate. According to the Supreme Council Decree, June 26, 1940 [8] eight hours workday and seven days week (six workdays plus one day off) had been established. The clause #5 of the decree enacted that the workers who unauthorisedly left their work place were condemned to 2-4 month in jail, and those who were absent from work without excuse to 6 month of punitive labour without imprisonment. Prisoners were sent to GULAG only if their terms were longer than 2-3 years, so the website is in contradiction with the promary source. In addition, according to Getty et al, Wheathcroft and others, those who were found guilty in small thefts served their terms not in GULAG camps but in labour colonies where condition were much milder. I conclude that "crimes such as unexcused absences from work, petty theft, " should be removed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I have asked you already before. If you are going to correct the article, it is better to discuss the alteration. You refer to the law what says '2-4 months imprisonment'.Where people could be imprisoned expect of GULAG?If you know about some secret facilities about which we all are not aware you can inform about them. Petty theft.[9], did you removed the phrase 'petty theft' because in accordance with this law'The primary punishment for theft according to this law was death by shooting'? But Stalin had originally proposed that ‘as a rule’ the sentence under this decree would be the death penalty. The fact that only a tiny minority of those sentenced were shot probably resulted from a general unwillingness by judicial and security personnel to implement as originally intended what was widely seen as an impractical and barbaric decree (Khlevnyuk 1992, pp. 22 24; Solomon 1996, pp. 116 117) The conclusions: people could be sent to the concentration camps for unexcused absences from work or petty theft.Celasson (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Where people could be imprisoned expect of GULAG? The answer is in the text: in jail. Those convicted to somewhat longer terms (but shorter that 3 years) were supposed to went to labour colonies:

"The distinction between the two categories is that those of 'less social danger', i.e. with sentences less than three years in length, went into colonies rather than camps." (Glasnost' and the Gulag: New Information on Soviet Forced Labour around World War II Author(s): Edwin Bacon Source: Soviet Studies, Vol. 44, No. 6 (1992), pp. 1069-1086)

although in actuality the situation was even more complicated:

"Some 17.9 percent of the political prisoners and 41.7 percent of those convicted for the theft of public property were held in colonies, not camps, by 1951, although the overwhelming majority of them were serving terms of more than five years;"(Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the Pre-War Years: A First Approach on the Basis of Archival Evidence Author(s): J. Arch Getty, Gábor T. Rittersporn, Viktor N. Zemskov Source: The American Historical Review, Vol. 98, No. 4 (Oct., 1993), pp. 1017-1049).

The conditions in colonies were milder, they were situated in less remote parts of the USSR (although they were also under NKVD control), so one has to discriminate them from GULAG camps. With regard to the Law of Spikelets, you cite it incorrectly. Please, read the source again.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, I definitely have no time to read manuscripts of 'fools and charlatans'. I am just asking you about secret places what you call 'milder colonies', were there any survivors or any other evidence? Any evidence of their existence? About Law of Spikelets.Do you accuse me of lying?Celasson (talk) 22:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I definitely have no idea what 'fools and charlatans' are you talking about, therefore, I don't know how to comment on that. With regard to "secret places", let me remind you that there were prisons (jails), labour colonies and GULAG camps in Stalin's USSR. This fact is well known and well documented, and by no means is it secret.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it correct, if you are writing about 'labour colonies' you mean Forced settlements in the Soviet Union? Just try to answer the question or just say that you don't want ansewer. I am not a some kind of interrogator.

The new Russian historians also have come to understand that a large segment of the Western academic world are fools or charlatans when it comes to the history of communism and go their own way.

Do you need further explanations about fools and charlatans? --Celasson (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course, yes. Per WP policy, extraordinary claims require extraordinary support. Since the sources I use meet the most strict RS criteria, the claim that they are written (and published) by fools and charlatans is extraordinary. Therefore, this claim should be extremely well sourced (e.g. by providing several quotes from the articles published by several different high-reputable scholars it top ranked journals) to be considered seriously. Since you haven't done that yet, I simply have no reason to discuss this claim further.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Since the sources I use meet the most strict RS criteria, the claim that they are written (and published) by fools and charlatans is extraordinary. is merely your unsupported private opinion what is not of so much interest for me at the moment since I am still waiting for the answer on my question: Do you need further explanations about fools and charlatans? As said don't answer if you are not feel comfortable with it.--Celasson (talk) 20:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Is it correct, if you are writing about 'labour colonies' you mean Forced settlements in the Soviet Union?" No. I am talking about labour colonies, which, along with prisons and GULAG camps, were the major places of detention. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

And you can name a 'labor colony', a location, a survivor who has been there?

There is a data base of survivors.Sakharov Center Unfortunately there no one who has been in a 'labor colony', they all who was imprisoned served in an ITL (Corrective labor camps). Maybe you will have better luck.--Celasson (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no memoirs of former colonies inmates because the database contains only memoirs of GULAG camps survivors. Similarly, the absence of memoirs written by ordinary criminals does not mean that there were no ordinary criminals in the USSR.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I afraid if there are no evidences about any existence of 'labor colonies' all what was written about them has been written by charlatans.--Celasson (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

... the absence of memoirs written by ordinary criminals does not mean that there were no ordinary criminals in the USSR.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong again:YAKIMENKO Yuri Petrovich ,"In prisons and camps." 1996 M / n, 371 p.Memoirs of a former thief, recidivist, who have spent in custody a total of 18 years. Early in the war years, introduction to the robbery, three arrests in three years. The verdict in 1947 - ten years hard-labor camp, a five-year stay at the Construction Site 501, in 1952 the oil industry in Uhtizhemlage. Manners of criminals in the camp. The camp's arrest for the murder of an informer, was sentenced to 25 years hard-labor camp. Rechlag (Vorkuta), work in the mines, the strike concluded in 1953, political prisoners. Confinement in a prison in Latvia and the return to Vorkuta, translated into Ozerlag, familiarity with the first prisoners, dissidents, continued dating in Dubrovlag, the release in 1964 memoirs, many descriptions of the characteristic features of camp life, these eyes of an experienced camp inmate.

And you know what , there are lot of memories of innocent people who was sent to GULAG where they write about criminals 'blatnye' with hate and fear. But it is understandable- criminals tortured, robbed and killed people, raped women and children. But we need to remember that lot of them were former street children who lost their parents during the purges, deportations and famines. Lot of them were victims of the system.--Celasson (talk) 14:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstood me again. I meant that the absence of the memoirs of those who served their terms in colonies can mean just that these memoirs were either scarce (nothing to tell), or they were not included into the data base, because this data base is devoted to camps, not to colonies.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I am OK with it , if you bring a scarce memory, they main thing you have an evidence and not fool people.Any of my assertions is fairly supported. Unfortunately you don't support your edition with reliable recourses. --Celasson (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Your text is : подлежат направлению в трудовые поселки (may be taken to labor settlements).Labor settlements (трудопоселение, trudoposelenie) were a method of internal exile that used settlers for obligatory labor. The main category of "labor settlers" (трудопоселенцы, trudoposelentsy) were kulaks and members of their families deported in 1930s before the Great Purge. Labor settlements were under the management of Gulag, but they must not be confused with labor camps.

'трудовые поселки'-trudoposeleniya it is the same that Specposeleniya, special settlements and the information about them you can find here:Forced settlements in the Soviet Union. Was it not your who wrote it: Re: "Is it correct, if you are writing about 'labour colonies' you mean Forced settlements in the Soviet Union?" No. I am talking about labour colonies, which, along with prisons and GULAG camps, were the major places of detention. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)? --Celasson (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Before criticising your opponent, try to understand his point. Please, read the quote in the next section.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point. You are convinced of the existence of some type of 'mild labor colonies'. I am not convinced and asked about an evidence. You refuse because the possibility is very high that there is no evidence because it is a myth.--Celasson (talk) 03:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Labour colonies (not to be confused with trudoposeleniya or specposeleniya) are certanly not a myth! There are documents about them and they are mentioned in the official statistics. They were for petty criminals with terms up to 3 years (including those sentenced for absence from work, etc.), political prisoners were not sent to them and, therefore, there is no mention of them in the databases of political prisoners. But they were a part of GULAG - i.e. GULAG as an NKVD (MVD) department was responcible for them!

Olegwiki (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, if it was documented where can I find the documents? The current version of the article says that there was 53 camps and 423 colonies ( all databases give us a data for about 500 camps!). The article should comply with this article [10] or it should be corrected.Celasson (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, the article you mean contains no references to reliable sources, whereas the figures from this article have been taken from the article published in the "American Historical Reviews", one of the most reputable historical journal. Secondly, it is unclear from the list you refer to if all those camps existed simultaneously. For instance, the camps that were created for construction of various dams, railroads, plants, existed for only short period, and then were renamed or disbanded. Thirdly, each of the camps mentioned in this article could physically consist of several camps, therefore, I see no serious contradiction here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)