Talk:Gulag/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Additional information

Additional information for Paul Siebert is the following. Viktor Zemskov used documents taken from only one archive (Central State Archive of the October Revolution). That is his weakness. Quotation translated from Russian: “No objective counting of the number of repressed persons is possible without fundamental analysis of archival documents. The difficulty of this method is that the required data are very diverse and are not in one archive. They are in the State Archive of the Russian Federation, in the archive of the Goskomstat of Russia, in the archives of the MVD of Russia, the FSB of Russia, the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation, in the Russian Military and Historical Archive, in archives of constituent entities of the Russian Federation, in urban and regional archives, as well as in archives of the former Soviet Republics that now are independent countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States and the Baltics. Where, for example, can one determine the number of people shot in the second half of the 1930s and in the early 1940s in the Kurapaty hole (estimate for them is from 30 to 100 thousand people or, by some estimates, up to 200 thousand)? Only in Belarus. The same can be said of other mass shootings and other forms of repression of victims of Soviet regime.” Source: Лунеев, Виктор Васильевич (2005). Преступность XX века: Mировые, региональные и российские тенденции. Wolters Kluwer Russia. p. 378. ISBN 5466000981. Information about the author of this book: “Виктор Васильевич Лунеев – доктор юридических наук, профессор, Заслуженный деятель науки Российской Федерации, полковник юстиции, лауреат Государственной премии РФ является одним из известнейших криминологов, криминалистов и практических деятелей в современной Российской Федерации.” Source: [1]. Psychiatrick (talk) 08:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Updated Psychiatrick (talk) 07:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You again mix two different issues: the number of repressions victims and the population of GULAG. The archive used by Zemskov is the former archive of the GULAG administration, which was moved to TsGAOR (now GARF) when GUALG was dissolved. It contains more or less complete information about GULAG, however, as Luneev correctly notes, no complete information about other repression victims has been found so far.

Let me point out, however, that the issue we are discussing is the GULAG statistics, not the number of the victims of Stalinism. Therefore, the data provided by Zemskov, which are consistent with old estimate made by Timasheff and Jasny, and which are in agreement with the data of some local archives, are quite trustworthy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The data obtained from the only one archive and used by Zemskov are not complete. To emphasize this issue, I would like to provide an example by citing the following quotation translated from Russian: “In one of documents I find such a text: “GUZHDS of the NKVD of the USSR was established by the order of the narkomat dated 4 January 1940. The new body was created on the base on the Administration of the Railway Construction of the Gulag ... Performance of its camps was not set forth in the consolidated accounts of the Gulag for 1939 (emphasis added).” Then it turned out that it was the Dalstroy administration, ie the Kolyma memorable to all, that at its initial stage was independent of the Gulag and even entirely independent of the NKVD (and was directly subordinate to one of the departments of the VKP(b) Central Committee and the government). And as it is known, hundreds of thousands of prisoners passed through the Kolyma.” Source: Лопатников, Леонид (2009). "К дискуссиям о статистике «Большого террора»". Вестник Европы (№ 26–27). {{cite journal}}: |issue= has extra text (help) Psychiatrick (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

In the last paragraph of his article, Lopatnikov makes a reservation that he is not a historian, and his article is not a historical study. For instance, his attempt to contrapose Zemskov and Tsaplin ("В этом смысле от работ Земскова выгодно отличаются статьи Всеволода Цаплина. Он почти каждую свою цифру подтверждает ссылкой: фонд, папка, номер документа, страница. ") demonstrates the Lopatnikov's unfamiliarity with Zemskov's works: in his main articles, Zemskov provides enormous number of references to concrete archival documents, and every his statement is supported by such a reference. However, Lopatnikov is partially correct, especially regarding the execution of the Poles: this execution was not and could not be reflected in the GULAG statistics, and Zemskov's attempts to essentially equate figures of the GULAG victims and the repression victims are not correct (however, I already wrote about that). Regarding Dalstroy and other divisions of GULAG, I recall I saw the discussion of Dalstroy in the articles of western scholars who discussed the data obtained by Zemskov. I need to check it again, but I do not remember about any major inconsistencies.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

For this edit, there is also the Russian version of the article by Nicolas Werth: [2]. Psychiatrick (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The fact that major part of local archives was destroyed does not mean that the data from central archives were incomplete, because they simply summarised what the local archives were telling. In addition, Werth does not question the conclusions about the overall size of the GULAG population, he just demonstrates that many details are very hard to establish. However, that has no relation to the statistics issue. On the first glance, your edit seems to have some synthesis issues. I have no time to look at it more carefully, so I'll return to that in close future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Range of et al.

I'll think more about the reorganization of figures. I am, however, disappointed at the general trend, which involved removing reliably sourced content from current scholarship indicating possible underestimation while vastly expanding the narrative about doubts, overcounting, double counting, not "technically" GULAG (all capitals) and confusing, etc., etc., etc. Since I see absolutely no recent talk page discussion or postings related to Paul's reorganization of figures (does not involve POV, goodness) or to Paul's overhaul of the timbre of the content in question (that would be POV, for example, Ellman related to potential underestimation disappeared), I invite discussion here. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

BTW, do we mention where the keeper of the census was shot for population figures Stalin didn't like? I continue to have major issues with contentions of the reliability and completeness of Soviet era archives. The article also needs more about incongruous archival data. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Unlike widely publicized census data, the GULAG archives were intended for the internal usage only and therefore were kept as accurate as possible. Nobody was interested in underestimating them: the GULAG officials needed more finances dependent on the number of prisoners, and the government needed more workers for the GULAG projects. Early overestimated figures (before the limited opening of archives) made confusion and later gave rise to speculations about "underestimation". But even Conquest accepted Zemskov figures afterall. The "narrative about doubts, overcounting, double counting" etc. nicely explains the typical ways to get higher figures and is highly relevant. Better let the readers judge themselves how those figures are got and which components they have, not hide all that counting machinery behind the scenes. GreyHood ^Talk 17:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• I did not read anywhere that "Conquest accepted Zemskov figures". Neither does Applebaum in her book "Gulag". She only cites these data, with critical comments. And there are authors (in particular Anton Antonov-Ovseyenko) who still consider these data to be a fraud, with a reference to other archive data that contradict NKVD data. Hence we need a range of numbers.Biophys (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

During the past discussion between you, Celasson and me I posted the ref and quote to this Conquest's article. I made that on 02:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC). How can your above post be characterized in light of this fact?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• • Conquest cite related to Zemskov is presented in the article. Applebaum is a journalist. Anton Antonov-Ovseyenko is a former GULAG prisoner and not a neutral observer here. GreyHood ^Talk 19:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Odd, those who have survived repressive regimes elsewhere and gone on to be scholars thereof are highly regarded. Why should Soviet victims (Antonov-Ovseyenko) be singled out as unreliable? Sorry, unless you have reliable research debunking him as a quack or somehow aligned with political extremists, you can's decide to censor sources. (Same for Applebaum's work being highly regarded.) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Peters, the potential underestimation noted by Ellman refers not to the Gulag statistics, but to the scale of the repressions, which is the different subject (Ellman argued that it would be incorrect to non-critically accept Zemskov data as the total number of the repression victims). Therefore, it does not belong to this article. Regarding the sources I removed, I am not sure I removed anything significant, just shifted the weight on English scholarly sources. In addition, in any event I added much more sources than removed, however, if you have some cincrete source in mind, just let me know.
I plan to discuss the scale of Gulag deaths, because most scholars disagree with how Zemskov interprets the mortality figures. I agree that they are significantly understated by the official statistics. However, I would like to discuss it in the separate subsection, and, since, as you can see, I am somewhat busy with the MKuCR article, I cannot do that soon.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Penalty for jokes (ridicule of authorities)

Let's not delete cited content based on personal interpretations of RSFSR penal code section 58. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, in addition to famous 58th article, they made many other "laws" (or rather orders) including the famous Law of Spikelets,NKVD orders, etc. Biophys (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Actually it wasn't a personal interpretation, but the law is straightforward and the subsection 1a is short. The law is also thoroughly analyzed from the juridical point of view in a book by Dmitry Lyskov, «Stalin Repressions». A great lie of XX century ISBN 978-5-699-33737-8. I agree however that in a certain number of cases, there may have been misinterpretations of the law that led to unlawful rulings, however it doesn't mean systematic or lawful nature of these decisions, as currently suggested in the article. This either needs clarification or it can be reverted to my edit. Are we in agreement? BesterRus (talk) 09:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • No, we are not. The simple reliable and reputably sourced fact is that ridiculing authorities got you sent away. That is irrelevant to aspects of jurisprudence. It is the practice, not the word, that determines factual circumstances. Perhaps you are unaware that totalitarianism and the rule of law are ultimately mutually exclusive. As for Lyskov, anyone who is an organizer of Stalin's "Victory Bus" tour is not an objective source. If you'd like to create a section for contentions by Stalin apologists, feel free to do so, but please name it appropriately and don't attempt to represent it as reputable scholarship. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
    P.S. As I recall, I thought it was subsection 10, but that's from memory. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Either provide a source (with pages please),.. or don't. What you've provided so far is irrelevant and does not constitute a source, while I have provided mine. The social and political activities of my author are irrelevant. It isn't forbidden by law to depict Stalin on buses nor does it equal denying holocaust or anything of that nature. I urge you to take this more seriously. BesterRus (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

[3] section 58-10 'Anti-Soviet and counter-revolutionary propaganda and agitation'. People in camps called them 'chatterer'. And there were lot of them.Celasson (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Early estimates of the GULAG population

The table itself and its title are very confusing, because it does not explain what number of years are summarised in these estimates. It does not have any verifiable links, only unverifiable referenses. If these numbers are made for a one year, then whole table is a plain bogus, because for example Steven Rosefielde's Gulag numbers per one year never been over 1.5 million, but the table says he estimated 10.6 million - which is not true, see Rosefielde's book Gulag per Rosefielde Even chart right next to the table does not go over 1.8 million in a single year. Also on top of the article it says: "The total population of the camps varied from 510,307 (in 1934) to 1,727,970 (in 1953).[6]" Without a proper explanation that these numbers in the table are summary, and without the exact number of the summarised years, this table only discredit and contradicts to the whole article.

IMO, the table is quite clear. Thus,

"15 million 1940-42 Mora & Zwiernag (1945)"

means that, according to the authors (Mora & Zwiernag), who made their estimation in 1945, the population of Gulag was 15 million in 1942. The only exceptions are Solzhenitsyn (his estimate refers to the total number of those passed through Gulag) and Volkogonov (an average amount of inmates in every single year). This table is supposed to demonstrate how early knowledge about Gulag statistics was evolving, so your edit simply misleads a reader.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Re "It does not have any verifiable links, only unverifiable referenses." All references (70 to 78) are totally verifiable. They are the references to scholarly journals or university books, and I can guarantee that each of them totally supports the numbers provided in the table. Re Rosefielde, he simply quotes the same data that have been currently presented in this section (and in the chart). Most other contemporary authors agree that the chart shown in this section reflects the Gulag population quite adequately. Robert Conquest (cited in this section) expresses a common opinion that the total number of those passed through Gulag was 14 million (the figure that was derived from the same data set as the chart).--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

If you believe that the table's header is not clear enough, I agree that it might be modified. It is necessary to clarify, however, that the table shows earlier, outdated estimates of the Gulag population, which were made before the archives had been opened, so they do not reflect the present-days knowledge about this subject. In addition, this table demonstrates how widely these early estimates (made using different methods based on different indirect data) varied (from Timasheff and Yasny to Dallin and Nikolayevsky). The reason why I added this table is simple: many of those figures are being occasionally cited by some present-days authors, so we cannot omit them totally. However, we need to explain that these data are old data, and that both high and low estimates were being made in the past by different authors (almost concurrently).

However, your edit is misleading, and I revert it. If you believe it should be modified, feel free to do that, however, my explanations should be taken into account.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You are either liar, or you yourself did not read these references!!! The table said Steven Rosefielde's Gulag numbers for 1941 is 10.6 millions, but his actual book said 1.415 million in 1941 - check this verifiable reference: Gulag per Rosefielde. There is no single year Steven Rosefielde's would estimate more the 1.5 millions in Gulag. The whole table is bogus and plain lie. Wherefore I remove it until you get verifiable and true references. And I will take it to admins if you keep inserting fake data in Wiki - this is a plain vandalism! Innab (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure tertium not datur works here: I am not a liar and I read all these references. With regard to the ref you are talking about, it is a reference to the early Rosefilde's work published in 1981. Most authors reconsidered their early estimates based on new evidences. Rosefielde, Conquest, Wheathcroft, and many others do not support their old estimates. Currently they are inclined to believe in the data provided by Zemskov, which are summarised in the chart (although Rosefielde still doubts in them).

Since I have already had many emotional debates over this topic on this talk page, I understand your emotions and I do not request you to retract your insulting statement. However, I beg you to try to understand the point I am trying to make; it is quite necessary to keep in mind that this issue is very controversial and confusing, so one should think twice or trice before making any strong claim.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

All my references are verifiable and true. You may take it to admins if you wish, however, I doubt the result will be desirable for you. Again this table is supposed to demonstrate the evolution of old views, and by no means it reflects a present days knowledge. However, again, if you believe that it is unclear from this table that we are talking about the evolution of the views on the subject, and that it does not reflect the present days knowledge, feel free to modify the header to make it clear. We definitely need to show these figures, because some people still believe in some of them. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the table we are talking about has been prepared based on the table from (Edwin Bacon. Glasnost' and the Gulag: New Information on Soviet Forced Labour around World War II. Soviet Studies, Vol. 44, No. 6 (1992), pp. 1069-1086). Go to you library, find the Bacon's article, and you will see that I just slightly expanded this table, removed few lines and re-grouped them in chronological order.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I know Steven Rosefielde's work pretty good, and I have read his book that you are referencing in that table, so I can tell for sure that you are liar, and it is no such 10.6 million estimate in that book for single 1941 year. Provide us a scanned page from the book where you found it. Rosefielde did some minor adjustments, but he had never multiplied his numbers by 10. I will let admins know if you do 3RR and vandalism again. Innab (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, the reference we are talking about is not a book, but the article published in the Soviet studies journal (Steven Rosefielde. An Assessment of the Sources and Uses of Gulag Forced Labour 1929-56. Soviet Studies, Vol. 33, No. 1 (Jan., 1981), pp. 51-87). I did NOT referenced the Rosefilde's book you are talking about in this table. Secondly, the statement that, according to the Rosefielde's estimates made in 1981, the amount of Gulag prisoners was 10.6 million was made not by me, but by Edwin Bacon (Edwin Bacon. Glasnost' and the Gulag: New Information on Soviet Forced Labour around World War II. Soviet Studies, Vol. 44, No. 6 (1992), pp. 1069-1086). Thirdly, on the page 65 of the Rosefielde's article (Rosefielde, op. cit.) Bacon refers to you can find a table, according to which the Gulag population was as follows:

• 1941 10.6
• 1942 11.2
• 1943 11.2
• 1944 12.3

By no means I imply that these data reflect the present days knowledge. However, the fact that in 1981 Rosefielde published these figures (and Bacon cited them) is indisputable. You can go to your library, take both journals, open at pages 65 and 1070, accordingly, and see those figures by yourself.
Fourthly, your request ("Provide us a scanned page from the book where you found it.") is just a demonstration of your infamiliarity with our policy. I do not have to do that, I provided all needed references, so every educated person can verify the statements I made. Moreover, even if I wanted to scan a page, as you request, I simply could not upload this page to the article's talk page, because that is explicitly prohibited by our non-free content policy.

In summary, I suggest you to self-revert, because my edits meet all criteria of our policy. They are verifiable (correct references are provided), neutral (all significant views are presented) and they contain no statements that are not explicitly present in the sources I used. In addition, the table is totally relevant to the article (Gulag). Therefore, you have absolutely no legitimate reason to remove this table. Please, self-revert, otherwise you may inflict sanctions on you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, if you take a pause, have a cup of tea and think a little bit (or read the talk page history), you will see that our points of view coincide: both you and I do not believe in old inflated figures of Gulag population, and both of us see the Zemskov's data as reliable (the only difference is that you, for some reason, believe these figures belong to Rosefielde, although in actuality they had been obtained by a Russian researches Viktor Zemskov, how later published them in the American Historical Reviews in the article co-authored by Getty and Rittersporn). However, since other users expressed doubts in these figures, and were trying to add obsolete (and exaggerated) data, I decided to combine all notable obsolete data (both high and low) in a single table, to demonstrate the actual range of early figures (from relatively small figures of Jasny to astronomical figures of Nikolaevsky).

In any event, I spend long time for collecting the sources, for checking each figure in this table, and I do not want this table to be thrown away under laughable pretext. If you will not restore the table I will have to report you to ANI, and you will be sanctioned.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The table is well-referenced and verifiable, so such comments by Innab are not acceptable and are based on a major misunderstanding of Paul's position. However, I believe, Innab's insistence on removal of this table is driven by good faith considerations, even though defended by wrong arguments.

The table might seem a bit misleading, especially from the first glance, because the data there mostly contradict the graph beside, as well as contradict the modern and revised estimates (including by the scholars already in the table). Yes, the table says these are early estimates, but there are some questions still:

• 1) Why put so much emphasis in early estimates only, and why the table in this section doesn't include modern and revised estimates as well?
• 2) Shouldn't we put more emphasis in modern, supposedly more reliable estimates, and remove the early estimates altogether or move them into a separate article or section specifically devoted to the Gulag historiography? GreyHood ^Talk 22:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe there is no need in ANI usage, though Innab definitely owns Paul Siebert an apologize for wrong attestment of his work with sources. To resolve the issue, we may just expand the table and/or move it to a different place, as proposed by me above. This, of course, is better than complete deletion of interesting, well-sourced and relevant material. GreyHood ^Talk 22:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Re "Why put so much emphasis in early estimates only, and why the table in this section doesn't include modern and revised estimates as well?" Because these old data are still being cited occasionally by various authors, and an emphasis is being made on higher estimates, whereas lower figures are usually ignored. Since the table is devoted to the history of this issue, there is no need to include modern data, which are being discussed in details in the second part of the section.

Re "Shouldn't we put more emphasis in modern, supposedly more reliable estimates, and remove the early estimates altogether or move them into a separate article or section specifically devoted to the Gulag historiography?" I have no idea where should they be moved to. In actuality, this is the most appropriate section, because it is devoted both to the history of the question about the Gulag population and to the modern views.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Using the table means certain visual emphasis on the data. In this aspect, we put more emphasis in the early estimates and not in the new.

>this is the most appropriate section - then perhaps we could split the section into two parts: one devoted to History of estimates and another to Modern estimates. GreyHood ^Talk 22:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Being one of the authors of this section it is difficult for me to judge about the perception of this text by an ordinary reader. Taking into account the confusion that lead to the last conflict with Innab, I feel that this text is not as clear as I thought. Therefore, if you have any idea on how to improve it, please, do that. However, I am absolutely sure that the table that summarises the most important past works on that account should stay.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, we all agree that this data does not represent current view of the subject. If this is the case, then we should make it very clear in the header of the table that these numbers were later revised. Also would be nice to make notes about revisions by individual authors (such as Rosefielde). I do agree with GreyHood that this old data is misleading, especially from the first glance, because many people would just look only at the table itself, without reading the surrounding block. I really do not understand what value these old numbers are adding to the article, if they are wrong? I think this block only humiliates the historians who made an overestimate and make the whole article look confusing and self-contradictory. I think we should delete the whole table, and only leave reference to article about early mistakes, but for now I will fix the header at least. Innab (talk) 03:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see that you realised that you were wrong regarding my alleged falsification of the data, so no apologies are needed. Regarding the rest, the reason why I prepared this table was as follows. Many users continue to believe that currently available Gulag statistics is incomplete or totally falsified. In addition, since the writings of such authors as (early) Conquest, Rummel, Solzhenitsyn et al are still popular among some categories of Wikipedians, who are unfamiliar with the works of such authors as Jasny or Timasheff. As a result, they believe that early studies always provided high figures of Gulag population, and new (Zemskov's) data, which are being currently used by Rosefielde, Conquest, Whertcroft and others, are the revision of old figures downward. However, that is simply not the case. Depending on the methodology used by various early authors, the estimates varied from ca 2 million to ca 15 million, and new archival data simply provided additional support for the former, and refuted the latter. If we will not explain this point clearly, I anticipate the obsolete data will be added again and again as alternative estimates. The best way to avoid that is to collect the most important old studies together, in a separate table to give some perspective to a reader.

I admit I probably have not been able to convey this point clearly in the text I wrote. However, that is not a reason for starting this edit war. So let's discuss how to improve the section without removal of any data, which are totally accurate (I mean, I guarantee fully that all figures are supported by reliable sources).--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

PS Whereas I totally agree with the idea you are trying to convey, I had to partially revert this edit because the wording is not satisfactory. Firstly, not all these estimates were "overestimates". Thus, Timasheff's data are even underestimation, because the disenfranchised population included not only Gulag inmates, but also part of exiled (ssyl'noposelentsy) persons, who were formally free. The same can be said for Jasny's data, because Gulag labour force (the category he tried to estimate) included not only Gulag imnates. Let's think together about better wording.

Regarding Rosefielde, he never wrote that he accepted the Zemskov's figures without reservations. Moreover, in one of his works (Stalinism in Post-Communist Perspective: New Evidence on Killings, Forced Labour and Economic Growth in the 1930s Author(s): Steven Rosefielde Reviewed work(s): Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 48, No. 6 (Sep., 1996), pp. 959-987) he is very critical of some Zemskov's data, so had Rosefielde read your edits, I believe, he would object against them. Moreover, this particular author still supports relatively high numbers for repression victims in the USSR, as opposed to his most persistent opponent, Steven Wheatcroft.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I've rearranged and renamed some sections. Hope this helps. GreyHood ^Talk 16:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I still think we might need to expand the table, including estimates by Zemskov at least. GreyHood ^Talk 16:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is needed. By doing that, we will give equal weight to earlier estimates and to modern studies. Instead of that, let's look at the "Archival documents" section. In my opinion, it needs in rewrite. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's a valid point, that's why I wasn't sure about that myself. OK, better leave the table as it is if you insist. So you don't mind the changes already made by me? GreyHood ^Talk 17:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

As for the rewrite, the information in the "Archival documents" overlaps with the "History of Gulag population estimates" a bit. While better avoid the duplication, that's not a big problem in my view. What else needs to be fixed there? GreyHood ^Talk 17:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The section Brief history looks like it was a part of the intro splitted into a separate section, because it contains no information on Gulag founding (which is in the intro) but tells about the end of Gulag, which is not in the intro, and supplements key statistics also not in the intro. I'm not sure that such a situation with the intro and the first section is the best way to tell the introduction to the subject. Perhaps we might use some other organisation of sections, or at least divide the information between the lead and the first section in a more reasonable way. GreyHood ^Talk 18:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You are probably right. Try to rearrange the text accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I still think that header of the table is very confusing. Please remember that this article being read by Russian readers for whom English is second language, so the header should be very clear that these numbers are outdated and were revised later. I think we should include later revisions for the same historians (like Rosefielde), at least. Innab (talk) 00:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If you have any idea on how to make it more clear, feel free to propose new header. However, your last edit was not an improvement, because it simply misinterpreted the facts. The table summarises the estimates of the Gulag population different scholars made for different years using different data sets and different methodologies. Thus, Timasheff calculated the population based on the official election data (which allowed him to estimate the disenfranchised population, which was equal, according to him, to the Gulag population). He published his estimate in 1948, and that estimate was made for December 1939. Mora & Zwiernag according to Werth, were Polish officers who were Gulag prisoners before 1945. They made their estimates based on their own experience and using numerous testimonies they collected. They published their data in the Dallin&Nikolaevski's book in 1945. Conquest relied mostly on literary sources, and various pre-perestroika official documents, which he analysed very critically. And so on. In connection to that, I do not know what title can be more adequate then the current one.

Please, keep also in mind that the header of the similar table in the Bacon's article is "Estimates of the Gulag population around the outbreak of war".

Nevertheless, I have nothing against the modification of the current title; what I object against is a directly misleading header, or the header with unneeded editorialising. Remember, we must be neutral.

Re Rosefielde, I do not think he totally agreed with Zemskov's figures. He simply cites them. One way or the another, I do not think we need to combine old estimates and modern data in one table, because the main idea of this section is that there were no gradual evolution of the views on the Gulag statistics, it was a revolution (an "archival revolution") which changed our knowledge of Gulag statistics dramatically and sharply. That is why all old studies should be discussed separately from the modern findings.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I believe we can rename the section on estimates Outdated estimates of Gulag population or Outdated historical estimates of Gulag population, since in fact the historical estimates and their outdateness is the subject of the sections, and Timasheff's estimate for the particular year was too high. GreyHood ^Talk 00:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If you believe that will be an improvement, feel free to do that. However, I am not sure we have a right for such editorialising.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think Outdated historical estimates of Gulag population would be much more clear. I have made the change. Also I put a short note that Rosefielde later revised his numbers. Innab (talk) 00:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Why only Rosefielde? Conquest also accepted the figures from Zemskov (see the ref in the article). I think this type comments should be added to footnotes, not to the table itself.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, moved to footnotes. Innab (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Good. BTW, you were right about Wheatcroft. I forgot about him.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is an interesting article in Russian, by Denisenko, 2008 on pp. 106-142, which discusses the Soviet demographics in the late 1920s and in the 1930s, and on pp. 115-116 contains an interesting table of estimates of demographic losses before opening of archives and after. Might be related to this discussion and some others. GreyHood ^Talk 16:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone think that this article can use some improvements in terms of grammar and style? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexkvaskov (talk • contribs) 00:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Magadan, 09.06 019.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Magadan, 09.06 019.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 25 February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Magadan, 09.06 019.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent massive changes

I noticed the article has been massively changed during last month, and some changes are simply factually incorrect, or directly false (thus, replacement of 14 millions of passed through GULAG with 4-5 millions is simply vandalism, because this is a deliberate lie: Conquest clearly speaks about 14 millions). Therefore, I suggest to restore the stable version and then to discuss addition of factually correct changes (or stylistic improvements) step-by step. Please, leave edit summaries after every changes you made, which adequately explain these changes. Discussion of these changes on the talk page is appreciated.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I find it incredible that this article consistently has the figures reduced by between 10 and 46 million deaths depending on which accepted scholarly arguments or vaguely substantive evidence you are utterly ignoring.

I see a death toll at between 4 and 5 million, when the only thing that places the death toll anywhere under 14 million is archival material written by the material perpetrators of the act in a regime which (as a matter of independently documented fact) engaged in state manipulation of statistics itself. At the very least this should be explained for the interested reader and presented impartially.

This page has material falsehoods, flies in the face of all commonly accepted figures and what evidence there is, and does not even present a fair range of estimates and the basis for each in an intellectually honest manner appropriate for an encyclopedia.

It has become clear this page is something of a concerted scholarly white-wash, and any attempt to get it to represent what a historian or scholar would tell you, or even reflect the varying estimates or opinions that exist in an impartial way is utterly futile, so I shan't bother. I will say this: If you are writing about this for scholarly reasons, or doing research, I would strongly suggest you consult a wider range of sources than this page. --Spinlock bob (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Who concretely is a white-washer, in your opinion? Robert Conquest? Ellman? Wheatcroft? Rosefielde? Which reliable sources have been left beyond the scope?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

My (unanswered) letter to Wheatcroft

In the spirit of transparency, below is the complete content of my Email to Dr. Wheatcroft from over a year ago.

Dear Dr. Wheatcroft:

 

I’m writing to you today with questions regarding the Soviet Gulag—GULAG as well as in the wider sense including all camps, settlements, and prisons.

By way of background, my parents arrived in the U.S. in November, 1951 as WWII refugees. My mother escaped deportation to Siberia having been warned not to go home—her family was deported for 15 years, some re-arrested and deported for an additional 5 for a total of 20 years. My parents hid in the woods living off the land until the situation changed unexpectedly with the Nazi invasion a week later. They eventually fled Latvia to escape Soviet reoccupation—both had been listed for subsequent deportation. As Soviet bombs sank ships of fleeing refugees, my mother bundled her scarf over her face to not witness those perishing around them.

I’ve read your viewpoint on Soviet archives with regard to the Gulag, that (my paraphrase) there is no reason for archives to lie: lies would require coordination on the part of multiple reporting individuals/groups, and lies would only make the circumstances of those individuals/groups in charge at the time more difficult, e.g., insufficient supplies, work quotas not in line with camp population, etc. You’ve also made clear that information produced for public consumption is not reliable.

It is only in our Western sensibilities that “secret” implies “reliable.” For example, declassified NKVD (now FSB) documents cataloging Estonian deportations indicate:

• individuals transported in passenger cars “equipped for people traveling in summer”;
• each car carried only 30 passengers, not 40 or 50 as Estonians allege;
• every echelon of deportees included an ambulance railroad car with a doctor, paramedic, and two nurses;

whereas actual circumstances were of individuals packed standing into cattle cars and taken away with no consideration as to their welfare; the bodies of those who perished on the journey dumped in ditches along the tracks. In the case of my cousin’s husband:

• packed standing room only in a cattle car with other men, destined for a camp north of the Arctic circle;
• by the time the train reached its destination, two thirds of the men traveling in the same car as himself had perished;
• by the time they were force-marched to their destination, that is, arrived at the camp and processed, he was the only one left alive of those who had been in the same railroad car, that is, assuming 50 men to start, a 98% mortality rate during inmate transport;
• the rest being transported fared no better than his compatriots, only a handful of an entire train-full of deportees arrived at the camp alive.

To my first questions regarding the Gulag:

1. Where do archives record those that perished en route?
2. What is the level of your confidence that data on all who perished (both en route and once there) is complete?
3. In cases of deductions such as “given numbers A and B we can estimate the total life extinguished, C,” how do we assess our confidence interval if “C” is smaller than earlier alleged?

To your point that fabricating records would only make things more difficult, that is, that there is a systemic bias toward the correct reporting of total inmates, I would counter that the only systemic bias is to meet or exceed production quotas and report production appropriately in the hope of securing ones’ own continued personal survival.

Given there were at least two official euphemisms for death by starvation to be counted as medical conditions, given countless personal accounts of survival such as those of my own relatives who stole animal feed in pockets sewn into their clothes to have enough food to not starve, I propose, instead, an incentive to under-report the Gulag population:

• ensures a surfeit of workers to meet production quotas;
• deaths by starvation which do get reported are labeled death from natural medical causes—no “red flags” (no pun intended) raised; at any rate, there is a steady influx of replenishing replacements;
• no incentive to report all deaths—if the population is under-reported, inmate deaths become superfluous and require no paperwork, only burial in mass graves for sanitary purposes; there is the additional convenience that troublesome individuals can be made to disappear with no record of their fate;
• the only “incentive” in this model is meeting production quotas, whether of manufacture or agriculture or animal husbandry; in this context, the motivation to keep livestock alive far outweighs keeping people alive: every dead person decreases demand on supplies; meanwhile, every dead sheep is a reported decrease in production relative to quota.

As a microcosm, consider the inmate population figures reported by the Office of Railway Construction for 1939: 94,773 prisoners at the beginning of the year, 69,569 at year-end. However, prisoners were reported as having worked an impossible 135,148,918 man-days—consistent with an average prisoner population four-and-a-half times larger [sic. should be "as large"] working every day of the year. Given the precise accounting of population, we would presume an error in reporting productivity. However, given man-days were the “engine” that drove productivity—that is, directly correlated to that which cannot be falsified, such as kilometers of track laid, that rather points to man-days being the more reliable, the population figures much less so.

Ultimately, the Gulag was a system with disincentives to fully report population or to keep that population alive. When one lives in constant terror, indeed the certain knowledge born of that terror that regardless of their position or status in the hierarchy any moment might be their last—the next knock at the door will be someone coming to arrest you and take you away to your end—our ascribing motivation and projecting conduct is an abstract exercise in logic at best. One cannot truly comprehend what can only be understood through personal experience.

I would propose to you that there is a divide which Western scholarship is culturally and intellectually unprepared, indeed, incapable, of bridging between its—your—“outside-in” view and the experiences of those viewing the world of Stalin’s terror from the “inside” out. My experience from talking to family and other Siberia survivors is that we cannot even begin to imagine their daily lives—my aunt, for example, being beaten until her shoes ran full of her own blood after being accused of stealing a paltry amount of sugar. I commend the efforts of scholars to reach an objective accounting of Stalin’s atrocities. But any scholarship which seeks “objectivity” by distancing itself from subjective experience is not the path to the final reckoning. You would see Soviet archives as having the potential to be revelatory. The experiences of those in the system demonstrate that the archives are yet another layer of propaganda serving the dual imperatives of politics and personal survival under Stalin’s terror. If history serves to perpetuate the state, archives serve to perpetuate those in charge. Propaganda is a blending of truths, half-truths, and lies. We cannot ascribe credibility to Soviet archives in the absence of external, non-archival, confirmation—Soviet “secrecy” implies neither truth nor completeness.

Given the availability of archival materials in the post-Soviet era, I realize I must echo all those now anachronistic Cold War nationalist conspiracy-theorists perched atop their soap-box at Speaker’s Corner shouting at passers-by that whatever the Soviets put to paper, wherever and whenever they did so, is a lie. Admittedly, my view of current Western scholarship might do well to be more sanguine. Still, what I have witnessed in the post-Soviet era is a growing trend in scholarship to value Soviet archives über alles: I see archives being used to marginalize personal accounts, even denigrate other scholars (e.g., speculations of misplaced decimal points)—whereas personal accounts should be our touchstones by which we validate archival information. And so to my last question:

Countless individual stories tell of survival and death in the Gulag in circumstances beyond our comprehension; should our expectation of the quantitative human loss Stalin’s terror wrought be any more circumscribed?

My apologies for my intrusion and that, on reflection, this is surely neither the first such (lengthy) correspondence you have received nor the last! My thanks in advance for your indulgence.

Please consider my questions rhetorical, not a request for response. (Of course, I would be thrilled to hear back!)

 

Sincerely yours,

...

This is not intended to open a debate on my personal perspectives on the GULAG (or more generally "gulag"). However, the issues with "which" numbers out of inconsistent numbers to believe in the archives—or if anything recorded is accurate—are real. We can only report what scholars have concluded and the basis for their conclusions. Picking one "over" another or denouncing figures higher than those which appear to ameliorate the horror as "outdated" is pushing one's personal POV or the POV of a particular scholar. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

On my assertion regarding railroad workers/prisoners and man-days:

• 135,148,918 man days reported
• 95,773 inmates, beginning of year
• 69,569 inmates, end of year
• = 82,171 inmates, average, during year

1. 365 days in the year yields => 29,992,415 available man days based on population
2. => reported man days were 4.5[06103226] times total available, or 3.5 times more
3. 135,148,918 man days divided by 365 days in the year yields an actual average daily population of 370,271 inmates

Since you can't fake the outputs of man day productivity (track laid, repaired, switches installed, repaired,...) the correct inmate population must be 370,000 not 82,000. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The Acronym for GULag is TMI

"GULag" was the acronym for Гла́вное управле́ние лагере́й и коло́ний (Glavnoye upravleniye lagerey i koloniy)...

Is this necessary on the English-language version of the wiki? If you were to Google this, you'd either find the English wikipedia or Russian-language sites. It's cool that someone's got the acronym down, but the exact Russian and the romanization seem superfluous next to the translation. It adds no real value to anyone outside the Russian-speaking circle, and those in that circle can already read the Russian version... 184.88.40.136 (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Please correct

"legally" is misspelled as "legaly" in the second paragraph — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.244.220.95 (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

This section tells: "Outdated historical estimates of the GULAG population" and gives references to Anton Antonov-Ovseyenko, Steven Rosefielde, etc. How come? I am looking in book "Beria" by Antonov-Ovseyenko (1999, Russian edition, page 203). He quotes an NKVD document dated 18 January 1945 and tells that according to this document:

...average number of prisoners [in Gulag] was 17.6 million in 1942, which many times exceeds the "declassified" official (forged) data frequently published in press

He then tells about 13 millions in 1943 (many prisoners were sent to fight in WWII), etc. Hence the views by Antonov-Ovseyenko are not outdated. He refers to the recent (published in the beginning of 1990s) data by NKVD/KGB as fake because they contradict other data from the same organization. Now, looking at Rosenfielde (e.g. here, published in 1996), he tells almost the same: the "recent" data by KGB are internally inconsistent and therefore can not be trusted. Obviously, nothing is "outdated".

This must be fixed because the title claims something which is not in quoted sources. My very best wishes (talk) 11:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

In the same article, Rosenfielde states that per capita GULAG population in the USSR (600 to 100,000) was similar to current prisoner population. Do you imply that current population of Russian prison in about 10 millions?

Antonov-Ovseenko made many mistakes, for example, he misinterpreted census data. Rosefielde (op. cit.) and Ellman (Michael Ellman. On Sources: A Note. Soviet Studies, Vol. 44, No. 5 (1992), pp. 913-915) discuss his mistakes in details. Btw, Ellman (Michael Ellman. Soviet Repression Statistics: Some Comments. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 54, No. 7 (Nov., 2002), pp. 1151-1172) explain the origin of Antonov-Ovseenko's mistake: "confusing monthly average with annual figures and hence producing estimates 12 times too high".

Therefore, nothing is needed to be fixed. Not only A-O's data are obsolete, they have been demonstrated to be wrong.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Antonov-Ovseenko and Rosenfielde published their work after release of "new data" by the KGB in the beginning of 1990s. They criticize these KGB-provided data as a forgery (Ovseenko) or inconsistent (Rosenfielde). Hence, their work can not be described as "outdated". There is obviously a dispute among historians about this. Hence, this should be described as a dispute per NPOV. Some believe in such numbers (refs); others believe that other numbers are more correct (refs). It is actually a decision by a wikipedian to claim that one of the sides was "outdated" (although they published their work later !). Therefore, this is WP:SYN and violation of WP:NPOV. Speaking about article by Ellman, his claim you quoted appears as a single sentence in a short footnote, and it is not clear what exactly and how he trying to reboot. But even if he does, this should be described accordingly per NOR and NPOV.My very best wishes (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Ellman notes about this Antonov's mistake along with his other wrong numerical estimates, which had been noted by other authors (e.g., Wheatcroft (1996) and Rosefielde (1997)). That means that numerical estimates made by this author are questionable in general.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

This is illegitimate POV edit. This column of the Table was reserved for "Methodology", not "Criticism" of the author. In that particular case, the Methodology was simply reading an NKVD document that show such and such numbers (based on the book I quoted in the beginning of the thread), so it must be indicated as such. My very best wishes (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

And just to quote Rosienfelde:

"The counterargume to the authenticity of the NKVD documents has been elaborated by Laqueur. He and others point out that the KGB and military archives remain completely closed, together with most of the NKVD records, except those suspiciously available in the Central State Archive of the October Revolution of the USSR (TsGAOR), now part of the State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF), and he infers that they are disinformative, being either fabrications or incomplete."l This allegation is supported by statements of various senior officials that the scale of mass killings by the NKVD was many times greater than the documents purport, and by suggestions as to where the missing millions may be concealed.... Although no summary judgment on this important matter is yet possible, it can be conclusively shown, contrary to the claims of Getty, Rittersporn & Zemskov and of Wheatcroft, that the documents are seriously internally inconsistent."...

Hence this should be described accordingly. My very best wishes (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

According to sources quoted by Rosenfelde,

"The NKVD custodial contingent in the 1937 census was 2.75 million (Conquest, 1991a), which is 56.5% greater than the combined Gulag camp and colony populations, respectively 820 881 and 375 488 for 1 January 1937 reported in Getty, Rittersporn & Zemskov, 1993, p. 1048.

My very best wishes (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

This column explains how the figures were obtained. Ellman provides the description of this procedure, and, if you believe Ellman represents minority or fringe views, please, explain why.

Regarding Rosefielde, he tries to reject GRZ's data based on earlier work by Conquest. However, Conquest himself conceded later than the data provided by Getty, Rittersporn and Zemskov are generally accepted by all scholars, including him himself (see Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 49, No. 7 (Nov., 1997), pp. 1317-1319, the ref #11 in the article). --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

As clear from quoted sources, the most recent KGB-released data: (a) contradict previous estimates and other documents from the same organization; (b) can not be independently corroborated because the archives remain closed for researchers (and were never opened); (c) considered a fabrication or "inconsistent" by Antonov-Ovseenko and many other researchers quoted in review by Rosenfielde; (d) the inconsistencies include other NKVD documents, the number of guards (which would be significantly greater than the number of prisoners), the number of people who yearly passed through Gulag (approximately equal to the number of prisoners in Gulag, as noted by Applebaum) and probably other things. This all should be properly described per NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's separate two questions: validity of Antonov-Ovseenko's data, and reliability of archival information. Look at the table 1 from the source you quote. The author says "Entries in bold type either have been proven erroneous or have been strongly disconfirmed by the composite body of information". If you look at the figures obtained from Antonov-Ovseenko, they all are in bold. Therefore, Antonov-Ovseenko cannot be used as a source of reliable figures, even according to Rosefielde. There is no need to cite his opinion (which seems to be based on his old research) as some fresh piece of information.

Regarding the second question, Rosefielde's article is not the last word in the dispute. For more recent sources, see Conquest (1998). Wheatcroft (1997), Ellman (2002). They all agree that archival data provide valuable information, which forced them to reexamine their old high estimates downward ("The estimates I arrived at on Kolyma were indeed excessive, and as with other early estimates on the whole terror period, now that more is known they must indeed be subjected to major amendment", Conquest98, "It seems to be widely thought that this shows that earlier 'high' estimates of the scale of the terror were exaggerated." Ellman02).

--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The claim by Antonov-Ovseenko is based on archival information. He simply quotes an NKVD document, which is signed and dated by an NKVD official (see above). Could you please provide any refs that challenge this particular claim by Antonov-Ovseenko? Ellman and others dispute something else. No one is talking about "last word". I am talking about NPOV, we must describe what sources tell (see quotations above), including Ellman, Conqest and so on. The "disproved" (bold) is OR and POV that must be removed.My very best wishes (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I cannot provide a reference that challenge this particular claim, however, I provided the references that challenge a very similar claim, and the references that challenge Antonov-Ovseenko's numerical estimates in general. Taken together, that is quite sufficient. In addition, do you have any proof that the book published by Antonov-Ovseenko presents his recent results? Frequently, such books are just a collection of previous works by the same author. Thus, Rosefielde's "Red Holocaust", despite being published recently, is composed mostly on the articles published by the same authors earlier in peer-reviewed journals, so it contain not much fresh information.

In addition, the articles cited by me describe in details the sources for the estimates, and the procedures of those estimates. Can you please explain what concrete data were used by Antonov-Ovseenko, and what concrete procedure did he use for his estimates? Since we have a serious ground to suspect that he made the same mistake as he did previously, it is desirable to make sure he used some new methodology, which is devoid of above mentioned drawbacks.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, scholars will believe their own scholarship. As to "outdated", that is, at best, a POV given the widespread forgery of statistics, not recording the staggering death toll of those who died en route to the GULAG, et al. As an example, I have posted my letter to Wheatcroft below. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

"Prison-Industrial Complex" as comparable? Really?

Nowhere outside of Marxist propaganda, is the US prison system considered as brutal and terrible as the Gulag. The phrase "Prison-Industrial Complex" itself is a loaded terminology that insinuates prisoners are incarcerated not because they are an obvious danger to civilized society, but due to the evils of capitalism. Sure, there are debatable issues here, but the whole idea of including "Prison-Industrial Complex" in the "See Also" section smacks of denial through relativization-- a tactic that apologists for the horrors of the USSR are typically fond of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.117.214.153 (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Similarly the comparison to nazi concentration camps in the first section is wholly unwarranted and unjustified by the article itself, especially as the gist of the sentence is "gulags didn't have death camps," which is a bit of negative information that adds nothing to knowledge of the subject unless you're coming in with a preconceived notion that gulags are literally ethnic cleansing camps. 68.11.25.114 (talk) 01:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

 ^^^^^ exactly what i was going to say.

"Unlike the concentration camp system of Nazi Germany, the Gulag did not have death camps, in the sense of deliberate "death-inducing camps" established to murder a whole segment of the population.[8] Rather, Gulag camps could be described as "locations which had different degrees of death inducement [in the form of starvation, disease, etc.] at different times".[9]"

who writes this garbage except a far left kook? probably got a picture of chairman mao on their wall too, the biggest mass murderer of all. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.58.128.45 (talk) 07:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Gulag paintings of Nikolai Getman

Perhaps someone can look into this? [4], [5] The paintings are by former prisoner Nikolai Getman. Wikipedian Andrei Lomize wrote: "I have sent an email twice to Jamestown foundation (see my talk page [6]); they allowed using the pictures. Then I forwarded everything to OTRS twice, and they finally gave a permission. In any case, OTRS received my emails, and the reply to the second (last) email was positive." See here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Punishment_By_Mosquitoes.jpg Tobby72 (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's improve, not edit war (revert of revert)

I'm restoring, with some changes, the statement regarding the continuing practice of prison labor. Too much and too pointy to insert into the article as reference, I've condensed the source below:

"... In their geography, architecture and internal organisation, today’s prison colonies resemble the gulag archipelago. Throughout history, Russia’s expansive territory and the decision to locate colonies far from urban centres has meant that a prison sentence was as much exile as imprisonment. Inmates are mostly housed in barracks in open camps unlike the closed prisons in America or western Europe. This system, going back to tsarist times, is conducive to industrial-scale production—as well as the formation of prison gangs. ... Today roughly 43% of men and 60% of women incarcerated in Russia work some or all the time. Ilya Shablinksy, a member of the presidential human-rights council, ... saw evidence of women working up to 14 hours a day and having just one day off a month. Conditions at the colony approached those of “slave labour”. Also echoing the days of the gulag, when camp authorities relied on criminals to watch over the “politicals,” some inmates are given the job of instilling fear and maintaining order. In effect, says Laura Piacentini of Strathclyde University in Scotland, certain classes of prisoners are “involved in the administration of their own punishment.” Although the justice ministry nominally disbanded prisoner-discipline brigades as part of reforms in 2009, the practice continues. ... The process of reform ... worked in part: since 2010 the country’s prison population has fallen by 17.5%. ... But prisons are still divided between the “red”, run by prison authorities, and the “black”, de facto administered by inmates. Out of habit, prison bosses often think such informal mechanisms maintain order in a neglected and underfunded system. Svetlana Bakhmina, a lawyer... , remembers that when she first arrived, the prison authorities sent her straight to a solitary punishment cell for ten days. They wanted to “put me in my place, tell me who is boss here,” she says. “I understood that I had few possibilities to argue.” Information about prison conditions rarely reaches the public. Most prisoners re-enter society as marginalised citizens. ... At least on the surface, the state has been forced to respond. Prison officials have announced they will raise inmates’ wages and lower working hours. Deeper change would require reform of the police and the courts, which is unlikely to happen in the near future."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vecrumba (talk • contribs)

I have nothing against mentioning the continuing practice, but the sentence in question was patently false and of course not supported by reference cited. The newly added text on the issue is perfectly acceptable IMO. - Altenmann >t 22:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

What is "GULAS"? (not explained)

In the "Background" sub-section of the "History" section, we have the following sentence using the term GULAS (all caps): "GULAS system was introduced to isolate and eliminate class-alien, socially dangerous, disruptive, suspicious, and other disloyal elements, whose deeds and thoughts were not contributing to the strengthening of the dictatorship of the proletariat." Unfortunately, the term GULAS isn't explained, nor is any distinction or similarity to Gulag mentioned. Is this an error of spelling and capitalization, or simply something not sufficiently explained and integrated?Joel Russ (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Corrected.Xx234 (talk) 12:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Gulag. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080828051139/http://www.nwtc.edu/Archives/LaborCamps05-30.htm to http://www.nwtc.edu/Archives/LaborCamps05-30.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080227000846/http://www.stsg.de:80/main/zeithain/geschichte/gedenken/index_en.php to http://www.stsg.de/main/zeithain/geschichte/gedenken/index_en.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150101091042/http://www.jamestown.org/getman_paintings.php?painting_id=29 to http://www.jamestown.org/getman_paintings.php?painting_id=29
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081015012139/http://www.anneapplebaum.com:80/communism/2000/06_15_nyrb_gulag.html to http://www.anneapplebaum.com/communism/2000/06_15_nyrb_gulag.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Errors

The introduction of this article says "Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who spent eleven years in the Gulag....". This is categorically wrong. He was sentenced to eight years. He was released a few weeks before the end of his sentence when he was diagnosed with stomach cancer. He was arrested in late January 1945 and was freed into internal exile in Tashkent where he was to seek treatment for his cancer in very early 1953; he had only been out a few days when news of Stalin's death was announced. Stalin died March 5, 1953. He discussed this in his autobiography, The Oak and the Calf. 135.23.68.111 (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. - üser:Altenmann >t 04:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Also in the introduction, there is a passage that says "Some scholars support this view, [4][5] though it is controversial, considering that with the obvious exception of the war years, a very large majority of people who entered the Gulag left alive.[6]" Solzhenitsyn declares in The Gulag Archipelago that only 1 in 7 of the people who entered the Gulag left alive. Given the extremely harsh conditions that Solzhenitsyn describes - extremely long work days, very poor nutrition, working 7 days a week in conditions as cold as 70C below zero, minimal warm clothing, very dangerous work, etc. etc. - it's a wonder to me that ANYONE survived. The idea that the vast majority of prisoners survived seems extremely dubious to me unless Solzhenitsyn has been utterly debunked as an absolute fantasist. 135.23.68.111 (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, like most in the West, you are thoroughly confused. Gulag gained its notoriety primarily in the context of political repression. While in fact it was a regular penal system, for every Ivan, Semyon and Igor. What is more, it was seen mostly though the eyes of intelligentsia; you would not expect that Anton Pipkin, a kolkhoz tractorist who got 5 year of camps for drunk drowning of his tractor in a swamp, would write a heart-breaking memoir. While the mortality among "former people" and former Party bosses was indeed high, ordinary Russian kolkhozniks and plant workers were pretty much durable. And the evidence is the very Solzhenitsyn's Ivan Denisovich. Finally, not all Gulag camps were in Kolyma, Norilsk and Magadan. If you happen to look at the map, the majority of "major camps" are in Eastern Siberia. And even more minor ones were smeared pretty much evenly over all populated territory of the USSR. Therefore, taken together, the overall statistics was not so deadly as in the extreme cases. Once again, you may read Solzhenitsyn himself that some camps were like resorts, compared to others. For example, the notorious "Solovki" were one of them. On a personal memoir, one of my grand-relative spent 10 years in Donbass mines whereto we was "volunteeringly recruited" as a young idealistic Komsomol member, and 5 years of Gulag logging. An he used to say he would readily swap 1 year of underground Stakhanovite work for 3 years in Komi taiga any time. - üser:Altenmann >t 04:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Graph

Gulag prisoner population statistics from 1934 to 1953

The page includes graph with population statistics of prisoners in Gulag. This graph presents data essentially as a fact, even though these data are disputable. For example, according to review by Steven Rosefielde (e.g. here, published in 1996),

"The counter-argumet to the authenticity of the NKVD documents has been elaborated by Laqueur. He and others point out that the KGB and military archives remain completely closed, together with most of the NKVD records, except those suspiciously available in the Central State Archive of the October Revolution of the USSR (TsGAOR), now part of the State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF), and he infers that they are disinformative, being either fabrications or incomplete."l This allegation is supported by statements of various senior officials that the scale of mass killings by the NKVD was many times greater than the documents purport, and by suggestions as to where the missing millions may be concealed.... Although no summary judgment on this important matter is yet possible, it can be conclusively shown, contrary to the claims of Getty, Rittersporn & Zemskov and of Wheatcroft, that the documents are seriously internally inconsistent."...

and

"The NKVD custodial contingent in the 1937 census was 2.75 million (Conquest, 1991a), which is 56.5% greater than the combined Gulag camp and colony populations, respectively 820 881 and 375 488 for 1 January 1937 reported in Getty, Rittersporn & Zemskov, 1993, p. 1048.

So, I suggest to remove this graph. My very best wishes (talk) 03:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a very sad stats. There are both pro and contra arguments which estimates are best; at least today we experts don't have consensus. Therefore it makes sense for wikipedia to provide different opinions. As for this graph, regardless absolute numbers, IMO it shows reasonably correct dynamics. And dynamics is the major purpose of graph visualization. As long as the graph is based on consistent sources and properly attributed, IMO it is no WP:SYNTH, and we know there is no absolute WP:TRUTH. - üser:Altenmann >t 04:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

But where this graph came from and based on what numbers? It uses this reference, but I do not see it there. My very best wishes (talk) 14:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually it uses two references. And more numbers are in the first one: J. ARCH GETTY, GABOR T. RITTERSPORN, and VIKTOR N. ZEMSKOV, Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the Pre-war Years:A First Approach on the Basis of Archival Evidence. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I assume this suppose to be Figure C from this source, but the numbers on the Figure are different. My very best wishes (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

concur. - üser:Altenmann >t 03:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Gulag. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080327005552/http://publicist.n1.by:80/articles/repressions/repressions_gulag2.html to http://publicist.n1.by/articles/repressions/repressions_gulag2.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080311080150/http://publicist.n1.by:80/articles/repressions/repressions_organy1.html to http://publicist.n1.by/articles/repressions/repressions_organy1.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050927194547/http://encyklopedia.pwn.pl:80/33490_1.html to http://encyklopedia.pwn.pl/33490_1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090419222914/http://soviet-history.com/doc/prison/gulag_info1.php to http://publicist.n1.by/articles/repressions/repressions_gulag1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120117182523/http://www.fff.org/freedom/0895a.asp to http://www.fff.org/freedom/0895a.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120207142426/http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=1988&month=12 to http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=1988&month=12
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080330210330/http://www.historynet.com:80/wars_conflicts/world_war_2/3037296.html? to http://www.historynet.com/wars_conflicts/world_war_2/3037296.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090218232551/http://www.hoover.org:80/publications/digest/3063246.html to http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3063246.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100622052449/http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=9780300092844 to http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=9780300092844
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050306042638/http://www-hoover.stanford.edu:80/publications/books/gulag.html to http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publications/books/gulag.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090323052007/http://okay.com:80/dunc/gulag.htm to http://okay.com/dunc/gulag.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130510183123/http://www.esrc.ac.uk/my-esrc/grants/RES-062-23-0026/outputs/Download/39e3e3e8-a99e-47eb-a8ad-5f9e9a9099c2 to http://www.esrc.ac.uk/my-esrc/grants/RES-062-23-0026/outputs/Download/39e3e3e8-a99e-47eb-a8ad-5f9e9a9099c2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gulag. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nwtc.edu/Archives/LaborCamps05-30.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jamestown.org/getman_paintings.php?painting_id=29
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.anneapplebaum.com/communism/2000/06_15_nyrb_gulag.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Should MVD special camp be merged with this article?

In that article, it states that the camps were somehow associated with the Gulag. I'm not an expert, but I'm not sure it warrants an article of its' own. Correct me if I'm wrong. Verified Cactus (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gulag. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140531104804/http://my.telegraph.co.uk/beanbean/beanbean/4054641/A_Polish_life_5_Starobielsk_and_the_transSiberian_railway/ to http://my.telegraph.co.uk/beanbean/beanbean/4054641/A_Polish_life_5_Starobielsk_and_the_transSiberian_railway/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.historynet.com/wars_conflicts/world_war_2/3037296.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130803144222/http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/stalin.html to http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/stalin.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.osa.ceu.hu/gulag/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Cultural Influence

From the context, contributions should only be actual depictions, or at most dramatizations, from survivor accounts of Gulag. If so, "Call of Duty" is kind of a reach (notwithstanding it's in the movie section). If not, and we should treat this section like any other 'In Popular Culture' section (or whatever they're calling it this year), I have a few additions of my own. 50.64.119.38 (talk) 08:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gulag. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090408081337/http://www.wajszczuk.v.pl/english/drzewo/czytelnia/michael_hope.htm to http://www.wajszczuk.v.pl/english/drzewo/czytelnia/michael_hope.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Niclas Werth citation

I have noticed an edit war over inclusion of the following fragment:

According to Nicolas Werth, author of The Black Book of Communism, the mortality rate in the Soviet concentration camps in the pre-war year was between 3 and 7% and in the post-war years between 0.4 and 1.2%.

References

The information look strange to me, as 0.4% mortality rate means an approximately 250 year estimated life span of Gulag inmates. No serious researcher would cite those numbers as they only show flaws with somebody's methodology. I do not have an access to the French book but I have a 12 page conference article by the same author published in 2009: http://stanford.edu/dept/france-stanford/Conferences/Terror/Werth.pdf . He wrote:

Mortality rates in the Soviet camps varied considerably both geographically and over time. Amongst the most dreadful years, 1933 ( year of famine in the country and of uncontrolled growth of the Gulag) had a mortality rate of 15%. In 1938, 10% of the detainees perished in camps that had become terribly overcrowded because of the huge influx of all those sentenced during the « Great Terror ». But the most terrible years of all were 1942 and 1943 ( with an annual mortality rate in excess of 20%). In two years, nearly half a million detainees died, abandoned to their fate in camps that were scarcely provisioned at all. At the same time, however, a million people were set free before expiry of their sentences and immediately made to enlist in the Red Army. From 1948onwards, when the regime had come to realize the need to be « sparing » with the penal labour-force in a country that had been bled dry, the death rate in the camps dropped considerably at about 1-3% per year at the beginning of the 1950’s.

I have modified the text accordingly citing the lowest and the highest figures Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gulag. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120513172402/http://www.jamestown.org/aboutus/getmanpaintings/getmancatalog/ to http://www.jamestown.org/aboutus/getmanpaintings/getmancatalog/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gulag. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141213064253/http://www.memo.ru/history/polacy/g_3.htm to http://www.memo.ru/HISTORY/POLAcy/g_3.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Gulag - 12 mln

Another 12 million Soviet citizens died in a networ of forced labor camps collectively know by the Russian acronym Gulag, may of them from the physical toil of satisfying Stalins’s relentless drive to rapidly industralize the Sobiet Union.- Heidenrich, John G, How to Prevent Genocide: A Guide for Policymakers, Scholars, and the Concerned Citizen, Westport, Conn. : Praeger, Hardcover, 2001, Page 7

Narodziny i Upadek Rewolucji Komunistyczne CarrollWarren H, Wektory, 2008|, 78-83-60562-27-7, =Sadków|pages=278 |quote=W tej sytuacji niewielu było dane przeżyć dziesięć lat w obozach (...) Łączna suma 12 milionów ofiar to prawie dokładnie dwa razy tyle, ile zginęło w żydowskim holokauście...}}

I gave the 2nd source after the collapse of the USSR, C.J. Griffin again censors what he does not like — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erni120 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

It is not censorship to exclude materials backed by poor sources. This estimate is almost universally taken from Solzhenitsyn's anecdotal political writings on the Gulag from decades ago; while his work is noteworthy as an example of an indictment of the Soviet system by a former prisoner, almost no one in the field of Soviet studies nowadays take his figure of 12 million as an accurate accounting of fatalities in the Gulag labor camps. If this is to be included, proper context and a better analysis of where this estimate comes from will also have to be included. Seriously though, please stop adding these ridiculously high estimates of excess mortality under Communist regimes backed by poor sources.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's censorship. One author is a historian, the other deals with genocide, you had a problem to accept Davies, and now you have a problem with that. You do not determine whether the historian is right. Snyder's estimates are minimal, Warren maximum. I could ask you not to add Snyder's underestimated numbers and remove them. And that would also be censorship — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erni120 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Warren H. Carroll served at the CIA's anti-communism division, this is hardly an unbiased and reliable historian. AveTory (talk) 11:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

As a rule, the authors writing about genocides are less accurate in figures. They usually rely on the figures obtained by others, and they frequently use obsolete data. To resolve the dispute, please, figure out which sources are used by the author you are talking about. It is highly likely he never did his own archival study, and he just cited some other secondary source. Most likely, this source is mentioned in the History of Gulag population estimates section as one of early estimates.

With regard to the consensus figure the article provides, it is a result of a long discussion among left-wing (e.g. Wheathcroft) and right-wing (e.g. Conquest) historians, who came to a consensus on that subject. Since then, no fresh primary sources or other evidences have been provided that are capable of challenging this consensus significantly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Contradictory?

The opening paragraph states that the Gulag "was the government agency created under Vladimir Lenin", but later goes on to repeatedly state that "the legal base and the guidance for the creation of the system of "corrective labor camps" (Russian: исправи́тельно-трудовые лагеря, Ispravitel'no-trudovye lagerya), the backbone of what is commonly referred to as the "Gulag", was a secret decree of Sovnarkom of July 11, 1929", "The Gulag was officially established on April 25, 1930". References to prisons before '29 and '30 look like they vastly predate the Bolsheviks coming to power in 1917 (1906-1917), and the referenced Solovki prison camp was founded in 1923, a year before Lenin's death and after he had become incapacitated in 1922. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.72.134.103 (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree, it does seem contradictory. This article briefly mentions that the camps were started by lenin: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/04/14/seasons-in-hell-4 If anyone has a better link discussing the camps in more detail it would be great.

75.85.181.7 (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Calsem