Talk:Gulag/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Claim by Orlando Figes

C.J. Griffin is a vandal. He censures the calculations that do not suit him, he himself assesses which historian is right and removes the enumeration of recognized researchers like prof. Orlando. Maybe someone reminds this Stalin sympathizer that wikipedia is not his private sandbox.

Ad hominem is not suitable for a Wikipedia talk page. This is not an academic work but an op ed piece, and one that does not reflect the consensus view on gulag mortality based on archival evidence. This has nothing to do with “loving Stalin” which is ridiculous but providing the most reliable sources and estimates based in real evidence on a contentious historical event. It might be able to be included in the death toll section with proper attribution, but certainly does not belong in the lede.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Orlando is a historian of the USSR, you must have a specific reason to censor him. You can not write that critics of a larger number are right, let alone their calculations. And you do it notoriously, any enumeration that you do not support automatically removes

• Well, I am simply looking at the source [1], and it tells exactly what was claimed. BBC is an RS, and Orlando Figes is a reputable historian, the statement is recent. There is no consensus about these numbers among historians, and the claim by Figes is a proof. I agree with IP with regard to the content. My very best wishes (talk) 02:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

"Even according to the most coservative numbers, from 20 to 25 millions were repressed, of which probably 5-6 millions died as a result of their stay in Gulag" - that's what he says. "Probably 5-6 millions", "20 to 25 millions", completely unsourced - not something a respectable historian would say. And BBC is state-driven, it's not a RS when it comes to world history. AveTory (talk) 03:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, it is sourced to the BBC and Figes. Please ask on WP:RSNB if BBC is an WP:RS. The 20-25 million victims (those killed by the regime) is a common conservative number (please compare with democide numbers). 20 million appears even in the books by the most high ranking Soviet CPSU people. I am not telling this is the truth. Real numbers are much higher. My very best wishes (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Yakovlev was not a historian, he was a propagandist, a "grey cardinal" of the perestroika era when the official Soviet history was consecutively and intentionally rewritten. The encyclopedic information on death toll should be based on available historical documents, not on someone's guesswork, speculation or propaganda. AveTory (talk) 05:01, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

If he, a Soviet propagandist (as you say) tells 20 million, then what it was in reality? There are no reliable historical documents about it, that's the problem. There is only fake papers fed by the KGB people to Zemskov [2]. Let's admit it. My very best wishes (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

As far as history goes, reality is based on documents, not guesswork, as I said. The information in the Wikipedia comment you use as a ref is the exact definition of speculation. Historical documents on Gulag and NKVD were made public during the 1990s, scanned and published by numerous sources, including Memorial. I don't know whether those numbers are full or not. But they are supported by documents. Words such as "In the Stalin era vital statistics were incomplete", "No doubt the number of “free”people who were worked to death were never recorded" are not supported by anything, same as "skepticism" by Figes or Applebaum. AveTory (talk) 05:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with censorship, it has to do with notability. It seems wildly undue to include the estimation of every historian in the lede, especially if the source itself is not academic but an op-ed, like the Figes piece is. Undue weight should not be given to op-eds in the lede. Also, historians such as Figes who come up with high estimates are generally utilizing literary sources to get these estimations, not hard data from the archives. And yes, as the sources say, there is an emerging consensus among historians who are basing their evidence on the hard data, both conservative (Rosefielde) and more liberal (Wheatcroft) historians are putting out similar estimates, and these scholars are citing archival data exclusively, where as Figes clearly does not. And another thing, the Applebaum source is problematic because her absurd estimate of 4 million is found nowhere in the text of her book; it's just a blurb on the front flap. Unless a page # is included, it should not be included.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Of course one should include the numbers by Figes and the numbers by other historians, and that was already done on the page. However, saying there is consensus about these numbers among historians (and more generally in different RS) is POV and factually incorrect. My very best wishes (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The cited academic source asserts as much, and it is quoted within the citation for verification. Other scholars basing their numbers on archival evidence come to estimations which fall in this range, including those who often disagree, like Wheatcroft and Rosefielde. So this is definitely not factually incorrect in terms of academics who are basing their estimates on archival data and not literary/memoir sources, who of course have differing estimates.C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh no. For example, here Rosefielde tells that the "recent" data provided by KGB are internally inconsistent and therefore can not be trusted. My very best wishes (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The lead section should tell the reader about the most reliable estimates published in scholarly journals, while down in the article body more of the estimates can be described, for instance ones published in newspapers, magazines and books. Binksternet (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The ref by C.J. Griffin is not a scholarly research, but a brief review on a book by another author. I am not quite sure about the place of publication. Yes, it must be reliably published per policy (and BBC is such a place), but what really matters is the author. Is he well known? Is he generally regarded as a knowlegeable historian? If he said something, this is his conclusion. We can not exclude this per policy. For example, the numbers by Yakovlev would be just as valid as the numbers by Figes, Wheatcroft, Rosefielde, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The review was published in a scholarly publication, not some online blog. Therefore it certainly qualifies as a reliable source. Also, the numbers cited by Rosefielde and Wheatcroft are based on actual data, which is why their estimates are nearly the same. Yakovlev's aren't based on any actual archival data, which he rejects, but merely his own opinion.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

It does not really matter where it was published. This short review of a book is not a peer-reviewed scientific publication, but basically an opinion piece by the author. Now, is this author well known, and generally regarded as a knowlegeable historian? If he is, then his personal opinion costs just as much as opinion of famous Soviet politician (and historian) Yakovlev. My very best wishes (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it does matter where it was published. If this statement was patently false, the The American Historical Review would have forced the author to modify the content before publication. And he wasn't offering his own personal opinion, as Yakovlev does in his work, but says it as a statement of fact. EDIT: and I believe this fellow is the author, but I'm not sure of it: Dan Healey.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Here is your most recent edit. According to this author, "Archival researchers have found "no plan of destruction" of the gulag population and no statement of official intent to kill them". Yes, sure, they were not official "death camps" and there was no official plans to kill them. But does not he know about executions of prisoners in Gulag by firing squads described in books? My very best wishes (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I believe he means that they were not death camps equivalent to those of the Third Reich. This is evident given the number of releases vs deaths in the gulag, as he points out. Of course there were random executions and abuses that resulted in deaths, no one disputes that really.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Reference mislabeled

Reference [6] is labeled "Letter To the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee of the All-Union Nazi Party (Bolshevik)". "Nazi" should obviously be replaced by "Communist". 134.226.214.251 (talk) 11:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Fixed--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Protection level?

The top of this article has both the templates for pending changes and semi-protection. Which one is correct? Geolodus (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2019

Hannah Arendt not be used as an authority because her books lack research, it is pure opinion. Better works exist which are ironically mentioned in the article, nor should Nicolas Werth whose main work has been discredited by historians already. To include them both is an example of the article not representing an NPOV and verges into pure propaganda. Waterisfree (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please provide WP:reliable sources for why these sources should be excluded. DannyS712 (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The Origins of The Gulag

This article suggests, almost from its very first words, that the Gulag was a system which saw its origin in the regime of Vladimir I. Lenin, and by extension in the beginning of the long century of the Soviet Union. While this is technically correct, it neglects the fact that the infrastructure of the Soviet Gulag had been in place for centuries under the Russian Tsars. One can point specifically to the counter-revolution of Alexander III following his father's assassination or even earlier to the rule of Nicholas I following his tightening of state control after the Decembrist Uprising. The so-called Third Section of the Nicholaeven state is an important reference. Ultimately, to suggest that the Gulag was a Soviet creation, or even more specifically that it was the creation of Lenin himself is to ignore not only the long history of coerced labor and concentration camps in frontier Russia, but also to ignore the wider consequences of a Soviet state drawing significantly on the methods of state control originating in the Tsarist state. This is then by extension an overlook of the historical significance of a Soviet state which is as much an emblem of historical continuity as it is a radical break from it.

Refer to Daniel Beer's assessment: "The House of the Dead: Siberian Exile Under the Tsars" or Fyodor Dostoevsky's personal account of the same name, and compare it with Solzhenitsyn. The similarities in these two texts alone are suggestive of the continuation at the heart of this enormous and hideous infrastructure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charliemascia (talk • contribs) 04:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Sources

@The Banner: please elaborate on how www.projectinposterum.org, Poland's Way of the Cross, and Publicist.n1.by are reliable sources. MozeTak (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• @MozeTak: Please explain why you call this "abominable sourcing removed". No word why this source is bad. No need for removal as multiple sources are allowed. The Banner talk 22:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • It is a blog by an advocacy group. Please see: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland#Article sourcing expectations this fails by a mile. The book The way of my cross that is cited via projectinposterum and directly is a quasi religious book, not scholarship. Publicist.n1.by is a dead website, and the archived version doesn't even have an author. MozeTak (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Proof? The Banner talk 22:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, per WP:BURDEN, the proof should be provided by those who adds/restores materials, so you are expected to prove that it is not the advocacy group. Projectinposterum.org looks like SPS, and should not be used. If you can verify the Piotrowski's statement, it would be better to cite him directly. In addition, " However, according to the official data ... " is not encyclopedic. If any Polish figures of sentenced to Gulag are available, they should be presented, along with official Soviet data. I doubt the paragraph should be completely removed, because some facts are well known, but it needs a major revision, and some sources should be removed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I am asking why MozeTak claims that it is bad sourcing. The Banner talk 23:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Non academic with no editorial over site.--Moxy 🍁 23:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Expanding the "Background"

The "Background" section is, right now, a little confusing. I want to elaborate a little on the differences between katorga system and administrative exile, because right now the text makes it sound as though katorga was the only form of exile in Imperial Russia, and add in a bit more information about the first "special" prison camps set up during the Red Terror and the Civil War, specifically how they were distinct from the "regular" prison system. I think would help readers to understand the camps' historical precedent and evolution better. Thoughts? GeorgiaWonderCat (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

It sounds good your plan I support it.Driverofknowledge (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

There is far, far too much "however"ing

All throughout this article, editors who I believe are WP:TIGERing (as well as probably WP:SOCKing or WP:MEATing) are appending contradictory content and sources to section content to refute them, and reverting edits removing those content. This format is not encyclopedic. An encyclopedic article is not a place to have a debate, but to have a cohesive explanation. Turning it into an ideology war is not okay. It doesn't matter if you think you are right, and it doesn't even matter if you happen to be right, an article is not the place to hash out a dispute with constant self-contradiction. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

For the sourcing it's. Covered adequately on the page it shows, what the estimates are pre 1991. With historians who use archival data it even shows the criticisms, that some authors receive about their estimate which a lot of Wikipedia pages do show. Do you have an opinion C.J. Griffin it seems like you've been on this page for a long time?Driverofknowledge (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a prime example of what the thread starter is referring to:

"The emergent consensus among scholars who utilize official archival data is that of the 18 million who were sent to the Gulag from 1930 to 1953, roughly 1.5 to 1.7 million perished there or as a result of their detention.[2][3][4] However, some historians question the reliability of such data and instead rely heavily on literary sources that come to higher estimations.[2][8]"

It reflects to some extent the debate occurring within scholarship on the nature of the gulag and how many people died within it. Nothing wrong with this if it is done in a way that firmly upholds what sources say the consensus is, while still giving some appropriate weight to dissenting views. We see such disputes in other articles as well, including the article on Joseph Stalin, although that one does a much better job at remaining encyclopedic IMO.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like you agree this article needs cleanup to remove constant self-contradiction. My {{self-contradictory}} tag was removed. It's inarguable that the article is constantly contradicting itself. A la "X, however, not X." I suggest a broader and more cohesive consensus is needed. And I recommend reading WP:TIGER and WP:OWN if anyone is not already familiar with them. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 22:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Nicolas Werth

@Mhorg: Could you explain why you feel the text should label Werth as an anticommunist? It seems unnecessary to me. --RaiderAspect (talk) 10:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

For correctness of information, I believe it is important to specify that Werth is an anti-communist historian, for example he wrote some chapters of "The Black Book of Communism". Mhorg (talk) 11:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Editing

I've just given this a full copy-edit, and unfortunately found that some old errors had crept back in. Although the issues were not limited to English variants, it appears at least one other editor may have had strong feelings on the subject so it is perhaps worth restating the general rule that European subjects use European spelling. Of course, one of the peculiarities is that many victims of the Gulag system and its Tsarist predecessor were sent from the European Russias to the Asiatic side of the country, but there is nevertheless no apparent rationale for applying US English in this case. Perry Pat Etic Poleaxe (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet 74.73.230.173 (talk) 05:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

"Mortality rate" section

Now in the section "Mortality rate" there is only one table from the primary source, and copy-paste from Britannica, recently added by an IP-user, which does not discuss the table in any way [3]. As far as I can see, there is consensus among researchers (Khlevnyuk, Nakonechnyi) that the statistics of the Gulag on mortality (presented in the table) are greatly underestimated. . Actually, the question is discussed above, in the major 'Death toll' section. It is impossible to present this table without comments (WP:NPOV). Since anonymous deleted Khlevnyuk's comment, I suggest deleting this entire section - this kind of primary data should be given with a specialist's comment.--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

For the information that was provided it isn't talking about the death certificates that are listed on this page 1930-1959. The chart in the book is only giving the years 1930 to 1933 for the data for chapter 7 https://books.google.com/books?hl=ru&id=nCSUFttQVH0C&q=+figures+are+too+low#v=snippet&q=figures%20are%20too%20low&f=false the britannica source is showing the number for the 1930-1959 death certificates is used by reputable sources there is no need to deleting a entire section when it already says on the page (However, some historians question the reliability of such data and instead rely heavily on literary sources that come to higher estimations) and The tentative historical consensus among archival researchers and historians who access such data is that of the 18 million people who passed through the gulag from 1930 to 1953, is that at least[99] between 1.5 and 1.7 million perished as a result of their detention[2] though some historians believe the actual death toll is "somewhat higher.")188.148.132.176 (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) It is difficult for me to understand what the IP-user writes. Khlevnyuk's book discusses the same data as in the table (the same mortality rates, for example, 4.8% for 1932, the same archive - GARF 9414 [4]). And it is this data that is criticized as undervalued. The article in Britannica does not comment on this table in any way and is not related to the section, this link can be moved to the section above ('Death toll').--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

For that part of the page I put what Steven Rosefielde said about the date on the table. In 2009 Steven Rosefielde stated more complete archival data increases camp deaths by 19.4 percent to 1,258,537", the best archivally-based estimate of Gulag excess deaths at present is 1.6 million from 1929 to 1953.188.148.132.176 (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

So there is a contradiction between sources? Indeed, there is. That means the table should be removed because it provides only one set of numbers, which is misleading. My very best wishes (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Its the first estimate that was used when the archives were open. The page already acknowledges that its disputed in the same section of the page that shows all the estimates that have been made.190.201.111.85 (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I Put a new source that was on the page already that shows the numbers 1.6 1.7 is not really disputed any more and is the historical consensus.49.145.131.43 (talk) 01:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, whatever, guys. I know from books like Antonov-Ovseenko that a lot of these numbers were probably fabricated by the NKVD, but debating this now and here is meaningless. My very best wishes (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Malsagoff ( Malsagov ) An Island Hell : A Soviet Prison in the Far North

Account of S.A. Malsagoff - also spelled as Malsagov - who escaped from the Solovetsky Island prison camp in the Soviet Arctic in the 1920s.

An Island Hell

by

S.A. Malsagoff

archive.org/details/1926AnIslandHellMalsagoff/page/n49/mode/2up

full text

AN ISLAND HELL: A SOVIET PRISON IN THE FAR NORTH

Island Hell : A Soviet Prison in the Far North

By S. A. MALSAGOFF Translated by F. H. LYON LONDON: A. M. PHILPOT LTD. 69, GREAT RUSSELL STREET, W.C.i 1926

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN

archive.org/stream/1926AnIslandHellMalsagoff/1926_An%20Island%20Hell_Malsagoff_djvu.txt 2003:E8:5F02:C281:F83F:6BFD:4969:950E (talk) 03:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Number of jews in the gulag?

Throughout the gulag history how many of the prisoners were jewish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.44.249.19 (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Here "Repressions". Publicist.n1.by. Archived from the original on March 27, 2008. Retrieved January 6, 2009. you can find the official yearly data for prisoners, including their ethnic origin. Look for евреи (jews).109.252.201.66 (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Suggested New Section - Gulag Denial

During the 1960s - 1990s publications such as the New Statesman, London Review of Books, New York Review of Books, and The Nation printed articles that I would call Gulag Denial, suggesting that the gulag did not exist, it was a lie disseminated by conservatives, if it did exist it was not as bad as people said, etc. After Soviet Union dissolved, it became harder to write that kind of thing; they would persist with the line that it was not as bad as those on the right suggested. When Russian documents showed it was pretty bad, though not as bad as the worst estimates, they would attack their detractors for accuracy of those estimates: "You see, you claimed five million deaths, but it was far fewer than that, therefore you were wrong. Gulag was not bad." I think a section that highlights the left's denial of the gulag and its terrible toll, and their refusal to apologize deserves a section backed up by citations. I can't do that because I have no way to find the cites.

Do you have links to any of these sources? X-Editor (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Appelbaum

I removed one Appelbaum's statement, but it seems 3 million death she is talking about on her web site is the same as 2,749,163 deaths, the J. Otto Pohl's figure that she cites in her book. That means, I removed just a duplicated information. Please, do not re-add it. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)