Talk:Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Potential sources for Discussion

• Unnatural Deaths in the USSR, 1928-1954 losif G. Dyadkin 56 to 62 million unnatural deaths for the USSR overall, with 34 to 49 million under Stalin.[1]
• Let History Judge by Roy Medvedev lists death due to Stalinism at 40 million [2]
• Reading Stalin's Secret Police Files of the Executed by Hiroaki Kuromiya "Nearly one million people were believed to have been executed in 1937-38. Stalin kept the records of the executed." [3]
• How to prevent genocide: a guide for policymakers, scholars, and the By John G. Heidenrich number is set at 20 million. [4]
• The Unquiet Ghost: Russians Remember Stalin by Adam Hochschild 20 million deaths. [5]
• The Haunted Land: Facing Europe's Ghosts After Communism by Tina Rosenberg est. 25M [6]
• Encyclopedia Britannica, "Stalinism": 20M died in camps, of famine, executions [7]
• Stalinist Terror: New Perspectives, 1993 by Alexander Nove at 9.5 million [8]
• And also who is V. V. Tsaplin?

LoveMonkey (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

This is just pathetic. What you are doing is trying to divert and needlessly prolong this phony debate that you have imposed on the talk page even though I showed above that the sources you've used are unacceptable and present inaccurate data.It is clear that the edits made by you and your friends amount to pushing a certain POV based on flawed and inappropriate sources. There is absolutely no way that Yakovlev's flawed and discredited data and Johnson's baseless claim of "20 million dead Christians from atheist policies" can stay in this article.

You're trying to push the whacky POV that "20 million Christians were killed as a result of atheist policies" when in fact figures like that were exposed by Russian and western scholars to be based on "guesses, rumors, or extrapolations from isolated local observations." Once again, I refer you to Getty, Rittersporn, and Zemskov, who published an article in a scholarly journal specifically about this subject [9].

You have not responded to this. So, again, I'll present Viktor Zemskov, the world's leading expert about the Soviet prison data, had to say. There is absolutely no way that Johnson's claim of 20 million dead Christians in prison camps corresponds to reality: There was a great public reaction on article of R.A. Medvedev in “Moskovskie Novosti” (November 1988) with statistics of Stalinism victims [7] . According to his calculations, about 40 million were repressed in the period of 1927-1953, including dispossessed, departed, died of starvation in 1933 etc. In 1989-1991 this number was one of the most popular in propaganda of Stalin crimes and became one of the most-mentioned. Actually it is impossible to get such a number (40 million) even if you interpret “repression victim” term in the broadest way. According to R.A. Medvedev, these 40 million included 10 million dispossessed in 1929-1933 (really there were about 4 million), almost 2 million Poles, departed in 1939-1940 (really - about 380 000) - and so on about almost all components of this incredible number. According to R.A. Medvedev, there were 5-7 million repressed in 1937-1938 (really - 1.5 million), and 10 million in 1941-1946 - that is absolutely fantastical...There were 1 883 000 politically convicted in the period of 1921-1938; and in the period of 1921-1953 it results with not 4,060,000 but with less than 3 million. And we suppose here that there were no criminals among convicted “counter-revolutionists” in 1939-1953, which is doubtful. However, there were cases when political prisoners were convicted by criminal articles. 75.51.171.124 (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Hochsild, Heidenrich, Rosenberg are not reliable sources - they have zero expertise on Russian history, and don't even speak the Russian language. They didn't do P.hD research about any period of Russian history, nor have they done published anything about Russia in scholarly publications.

Medvedev and Dyadkin are old, discredited anti-Soviet sources.

Encyclopedia Britannica is not a scholarly source, and is superseded by scholarly sources that I cited.

You cite Kuromiya, but he doesn't support your allegation that 20 million Christians were killed by atheist policies.

Alec Nove was making estimations based on stuff like deaths from hunger and disease - he did not support the spurious claim about "20 million dead Christians from atheist policies". 75.51.174.240 (talk) 00:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I am only trying to give sources and collaborate with you here on the article talkpage. I am trying to work with you and find common ground and sources. And then information that can be added to and improve the article. I could say allot of sarcastic comments about how you are responding (just like you are doing) but then I'll let you speak for yourself. This is a project (wikipedia) based on communicating the available verifiable sources and working to reflect as much as possible those sources, NOT WHAT YOU THINK OR YOUR OPINION. Sorry there's other places online for that. There is a verifiable sources board here on wiki Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Start trying to use it with whatever sources to build content from acceptable sources. I'll bet that some of my sources will be considered valid there. And I'll bet that will instigate you into more of what you are already doing here. But I hope that you can and will see that no one is just pulling stuff out of thin air but the things you are rejecting are real and you simply keep making REALLY unacceptable and untenable demands that will not hold up against these first sources I have provided. As there are more. And I'll post some more later. At some point you will have to either choose to collaborate or get banned. Good luck with that. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

All I am seeing from you is an insistence on using sources and claims that are debunked by the mainstream scholarly

consensus.

Not one source you have provided is consider by any other source mainstream scholarly. They are obscure at best. All the while you attack well known and mainstream scholars like Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev. Tell me again how Encyclopedia Britannica is not a common and valid source for article creation here. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

20 Million Christians under atheist rule

Just one example as to how this statement could be understood.

What the ANON IP editor is failing to see is that if some of the sources are correct at saying that any where between 35 to 40 million people died during the atheist Soviet rule, that 20 million would be a correct estimate as to how many of that 35 to 40 million were Christian, remember that would be Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant. I would support changing the statement to make it conform to other sources as I would supporting adding other sources and figures to the passage to give people a more diverse understanding. As 80 percent of 30 million is 24 million. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

There wasn't any "atheist Soviet rule" and Russia did not conduct repressive policies that killed millions of people. Zemmskov, Getty, etc debunked their estimates in numerous scholarly works. The claims of 35 to 40 million come from propagandists like Solzhenitsyn and are based on "guesses, rumors, or extrapolations from isolated local observations" according to Getty in this American Historical Review scholarly article. I already presented extensive evidence debunking these estimates by Zemskov, which you have failed to refute. The scholarly consensus as expressed by Zemskov does not endorse these inflated estimates. The only sources cited for the "20 million dead Christians from atheist rule" are a non-expert in Russian history Todd Johnson and two pro-Christian propaganda sources. 75.51.174.240 (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Another example of edit warring behavior, disruptive editing non-consensus building, tenacious behavior. WP:HEAR. LoveMonkey (talk) 00:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

What the anonymous editor is avoiding is the simple fact that before the Communists over throw Russian and its neighbors they all were predominately Christian. So if 30 million people get hurt in a country where 80 percent of them are Christians and the people causing the hurt are against all religion then 80 percent of 30 million is well of 20 million Christians. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Your calculations amount to original research and are not useful for this article.75.51.174.240 (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Ahh so yours don't and mine do?? Have you thought about the possibility that I can source what I posted? Because so far none of the links you've provided have your sources saying, source one calls source two a liar and refutes their data outright and this refutation is accepted by international academia worldwide. You have posted KGB historians and you call them scholars and then tell people that they are not biased and they are considered world renowned and yet they are not common place at all. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Webpages as sources

I am wondering why the anonymous IP keeps posting webpages as sources thinking that the links are valid in or discrediting what some of the people used in this article say.

• http://www.a-lubyanka.ru
• http://actualhistory.ru/
• http://newsland.com/news/detail/id/845562/
• http://istmat.info/node/18484
• http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/
• http://www.historyfoundation.ru/

Not one of these meets WP:VS as far as I can tell. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The webpage www.a-lubyanka.ru is supposed to be the KGB and the link say that this O. B. Mozokhin guy is from the KGB so how can any of this for this source Mozokhin be credible? As there needs to be an English source showing Mozokhin specificially addressing other sources here on the article. If not then people are here engaging in misrepresentation of sources and original research WP:OR. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

You can't be serious because there is nothing in any of Wikipedia's guidelines prohibiting against the use of sources from the Internet. Please take the time to review the sources you are trying to discredit: the sovietinfo.tripod.com is a copy of an article appearing in the scholarly journal American Historical Review, so it's not just some random Internet page the way you make it out to be.

• The newsland.com link that I posted is originally from novdelo.ru or Novoe Delo , a prominent source for current news and politics in Russia. The article observes the political career of Yakovlev, and based on its sources suggests that he he was a traitor. So, it's absolutely a reliable source.
• I did not use a-lubyanka.ru as a source in this article, but only used it on the talk page to illustrate Oleg Mozokhin's impeccable credentials.
• I did not use historyfoundation.ru as a source in the article. Rather, I posted a link in which it carries Russian historian Aleander Dyukov's review of an anti-Soviet/Russophobic propaganda piece from Latvia called "Soviet Story" where he demonstrates that the piece falsifies history. Dyukov is not necessarily saying anything new in this publication, but is only citing the scholarly consensus represented by people like Viktor Zemskov.
• I did not use nor am I proposing to use istmat.info as a source in the article, but only referred to the scholarly sources that it cites to show that Yakovlev engaged in the falsification of history. I find that istmat.info puts Wikipedia to shame when it comes to 20th century Russian history, as the behavior found in Wikipedia consists of tag-teaming, canvassing, bullying, and what I call wiki-thuggery, all of which account for the deliberate falsification of history as found on many articles on this site.
• actualhistory.ru is a reliable source, as world-class scholars like Viktor Zemskov have contributed their work to it[10]. 75.51.174.240 (talk) 03:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

"You can't be serious" Please stop questioning of my sincerity. I have not questioned yours. So all of this according to YOU. And you are an anonymous IP address. The sources I have used are to books, books from Yale and Oxford and other University Presses. If this statement "of an anti-Soviet/Russophobic propaganda piece from Latvia" is common knowledge can you source that statement from a 3rd party English source? Wikipedia IS NOT THE PLACE to attack and attempt to dis-credit academia. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Criticism section of the article

I would like to include a criticism section to the article compiled from some of the sources that the anonymous IP has provided as long as those sources can be verified as valid and credible sources. I would ask the anonymous IP to create and post here content for the section. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Problems with the article

The main problem I have located with the article's text is two specific claims. Neither of them reflect a scholarly consensus and both of them are based on flawed, unreliable sources. Instead of being provided with valid counter-arguments as to why I am wrong about all of this, all I have seen above is very unproductive distractions, bashing, and the stubborn insistence that we have to accept the sources simply because they've been published.

1. The total number of Christians killed, as a result of Soviet state atheist policies, has been estimated at over 20 million.

The first source is a page by the academic Todd M. Johnson, identified as "Professor of Global Christianity.". Johnson specializes in various quantitative things about Christianity, but he does not have any special qualifications about Russian history and has not authored any scholarly works about the experience of Christians in interwar Russia. Just because a scholar is a specialist in one area of history doesn't mean he specializes in every single historical problem. Johnson's unsubstantiated allegation of "20 million were martyred in Soviet prison camps" is not only false demographically, but he misidentifies the reason for the repression of suspects by the Soviet police. Not even anti-Soviet agitators like Solzhenitsyn claimed that tens of millions of Christians were killed by Russia simply for being Christians. I have done years of research about Russian history, and this is the first time I have ever heard a claim like "20 million were martyred in Soviet prison camps". I refer to "Russian historian, doctor of historical sciences (2005), scientific worker of the Institute of Russian History" Victor Zemskov[11], the leading specialist about historical Russian prison data:

"There was a great public reaction on article of R.A. Medvedev in “Moskovskie Novosti” (November 1988) with statistics of Stalinism victims [7] . "According to his calculations, about 40 million were repressed in the period of 1927-1953, including dispossessed, departed, died of starvation in 1933 etc. In 1989-1991 this number was one of the most popular in propaganda of Stalin crimes and became one of the most-mentioned. Actually it is impossible to get such a number (40 million) even if you interpret “repression victim” term in the broadest way. According to R.A. Medvedev, these 40 million included 10 million dispossessed in 1929-1933 (really there were about 4 million), almost 2 million Poles, departed in 1939-1940 (really - about 380 000) - and so on about almost all components of this incredible number. According to R.A. Medvedev, there were 5-7 million repressed in 1937-1938 (really - 1.5 million), and 10 million in 1941-1946 - that is absolutely fantastical...There were 1 883 000 politically convicted in the period of 1921-1938; and in the period of 1921-1953 it results with not 4,060,000 but with less than 3 million. And we suppose here that there were no criminals among convicted “counter-revolutionists” in 1939-1953, which is doubtful. However, there were cases when political prisoners were convicted by criminal articles."

Unless you can present someone with qualifications like those of Zemskov who endorses what Johnson says, then a claim like "20 million were martyred in Soviet prison camps" should not be uttered by anyone.

One of the other sources is an explicit piece of propaganda and should not be entertained: "leaflet available at the Church of All Russian Saints in Burlingame, CA. This small publication was probably written in 1980s and is rich with information."[12]. The other one is similar - an American-based Christian propaganda source[13]. Such rubbish is beneath contempt.

2. During the purges of 1937 and 1938, church documents record that 168,300 Russian Orthodox clergy were arrested. Of these, over 100,000 were shot.

The cited source is Alexander Yakovlev, described as "an adviser to Mr. Yeltsin and a former Soviet propagandist turned extreme anti-Communist."[14], and someone who is reviled by many Russian people as a traitor and Russpohobe[15]: "...It was clear to all that Yakovlev was a traitor and a spy. It seems that this was was first publicly voiced by none other than General Lebed, at at the 21st Party Conference accused Yakovlev of being an agent under the influence of the United States."

Other sources showed the problem with Yakovlev's claims, based on a misinterpretation and distortion of church documents.[16] In 1914, there were 112,629 religious personnel in Russia, so how were 168,300 arrested in 1937? Oleg Mozokhin ,described as "PhD, Senior Research Fellow, Professor of the Academy of Military Sciences...Author of over 40 articles on the history of Russian intelligence services in the Soviet period", shows that in 1937 33,382 religious sectarian people and 13,438 in 1938 religious sectarian people were arrested. Some of these people were executed, some were imprisoned, and some were released, and they consisted of not only Christians, but also Muslims and Jews. Far more many Communist Party and Soviet state officials were repressed during this period, so you cannot portray the events as "persecution of Christians". So, there were not 168,000 arrested in 1937 as claimed by

Yakovlev, but 33,382 as documented by Mozokhin. Since Yakovlev is a controversial source who has been exposed for getting the facts wrong, he cannot be trusted in a sensitive historical subject like this. 75.51.174.240 (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Since, Todd M. Johnson has expertise on issues regarding Christian demographics, we cannot simply ignore his estimated number of Christians killed (even if he would be wrong). But as also discussed before, that statement doesn't actually claim that 20 million were killed, it only states, that the total number of Christians killed has been estimated at 20 million, and the sources you have shown do not deny that those estimates have been made. And as LoveMonkey suggested, you can add a criticism section instead. Cody7777777 (talk) 11:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Here is the problem. Not only KGB data (such as ones by Mozokhin) contradict to Yakovlev and many other sources, but they are also internally inconsistent and therefore considered fake by at least some researches [17]. One problem here: the KGB archives remain closed for independent researchers. Only a few independent researchers (rather than people who officially work for the organization [18]) were allowed to see a few documents preselected for them by KGB archivists. Therefore, a reliable cross-verification is hardly possible. BTW, Yakovlev in his book "Twilight" explicitly tells that some official data, and especially the number of executed, were fabricated, and he is not only an expert, but CPSU insider (a Politburo member). Therefore, modern-day KGB propagandists have no other choice, but to declare him a CIA agent (as he also described in the book).My very best wishes (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

These comments above are a pure and absolute case of WP:original research if I ever saw it.

No Anonymous IP your sources these are not commonly known people. You are not making any valid case by attack people like Alexander Solzhenitsyn and whom is very well known and others like Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev whom in 2002, acting as head of the Presidential Committee for the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repression, he was present at the announcement of the release of a CD detailing names and short biographies of the victims of Soviet purges. Yakovlev was this under the Russian government. None of your sources are known or common they appear to be obscure and also partisan. You are providing sources that do not hold up to your own standards that you dismiss the ones being used in this article with. You are not complying to Wiki policies as you will not submit them for verification on the WP:VS board here. You also will not collaborate and you are saying things that the common held academia do not propose nor support. Again how is it that these sources say due to the Communist take over of Russia and it's political repression these amounts of deaths are attributed to them.

See also: Mass killings under Communist regimes

• Encyclopedia Britannica citing Roy Medvedev -20M died
• Adam Hochschild -20 million+
• Iosif G. Dyadkin -34 to 49 million under Stalin
• Alexander Nove - 9,500,000 killed during the 1930s.
• Oskar Kurganov -66 million
• William C Cockerham -50 million deaths under the Soviet
• John Gold -50 to 60 million+ deaths by the Soviet.
• Robert S. Erikson
• Daniel Chirot -20 million
• Tina Rosenberg -25 milion
• Zbigniew Brzezinski -20-25 million
• Orlando Figes - 10 million
• Richard Pipes -10 million

There are more still. However..Anyone whom would make a statement like..

"There wasn't any "atheist Soviet rule" and Russia did not conduct repressive policies that killed millions of people. Zemmskov, Getty, etc debunked their estimates in numerous scholarly works."[19]

Can not be taken as someone here to contribute an article that reflects a common held consensus. No one should have any misconceptions about you. You are not here to do anything but push a POV. And a POV that is not supported by mainstream scholarly or valid sources. I am also willing to say that you are also distorting and misrepresenting the sources you are posting here. You are doing nothing more that edit warring. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

However one must be very careful with numbers because this is a comparison of apples and oranges. For example, Yakovlev tells in his book about numbers of clergyman arrested and killed (and he provides these numbers year by year, during the Great Purge). However, if we are talking about the numbers of Christians, this is something very different: one could reasonably argue that a vast majority of Russian population at the time of repression regarded themselves as Christians. Hence there are the differences. This does not mean any of these sources and number are invalid (including numbers provided by the KGB), however they should be properly used, attributed and frequently provided as a range of numbers. In fact, no one knows exact numbers.My very best wishes (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed what prompted my response was this comment.

"There wasn't any "atheist Soviet rule" and Russia did not conduct repressive policies that killed millions of people. Zemmskov, Getty, etc debunked their estimates in numerous scholarly works."[20]

The editor used the term "did not conduct" which means did not happen at all. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

LoveMonkey said, "No Anonymous IP your sources these are not commonly known people." -- You're joking, right? You do realize that academic journals and books are read by maybe 200 people around the world? Most people don't get their information from academic sources, but from TV, radio, magazines, newspapers, but a BBC report is much inferior to an article in a peer-reviewed academic journal. That you try to place obvious propagandists like Solzhenitsyn and Yakovlev above Zemskov is just laughable. 75.51.174.240 (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

"Not only KGB data (such as ones by Mozokhin) contradict to Yakovlev and many other sources, but they are also internally inconsistent and therefore considered fake by at least some researches" -- Zemskov is the leading authority about the subject, and he shows that the archival data are the most reliable out of all the available sources on the subject, which is accepted by leading western scholars like Getty and Wheatcroft. Rosefielde is a lone, dissenting voice, and his work does not support the claim that 20 million Christians were killed in camps.

Seriously, LoveMonkey? You're not really putting unaccountable Encyclopdia Britannica and anti-Communist political activists like Brzezinski and Richard Pipes on an equal footing with Zemskov? Either present someone with the same qualifications as Zemskov who says that the data are unreliable, or concede that what I am saying is truthful. It's quite remarkable that you still insist that Yakovlev is a reliable source in light of all the evidence I presented against him.

75.51.174.240 (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, You must be kidding, right? Address the substance with verifiable resources and have them in English. Don't bother with the browbeating because your wasting your time. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I already presented extensive evidence above confirming the reliability and authority of Zemmskov and Mozokhin.75.51.174.240 (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

You said that the sources have to be "commonly known people", and my response is to laugh at that because it is obviously not based on any research standards. Academic research is not a popularity contest. 75.51.174.240 (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

You posted webpages with no way to confirm them. They make no mention of Zemskov in English from English sourcing saying that my sources are propaganda. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a lot to respond here, but I do not think we should discuss anything at all with sockpuppet of a banned user per WP:DENY.My very best wishes (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

A List of false claims in this article

"Communism required the abolition of religion"- This was not the stance of marxist leninism which was stated earlier on in the article as the ideology of the soviet union. If this became the policy it is required that evidence is provided. Marxist leninism holds the oppisite that communism is required to abolish religion or let it die its natural death as Voronsky puts it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PAB1990 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources regarding above comment:

Voronsky: http://www.marxists.org/archive/voronsky/1918/church-state.htm "The battle against religious prejudices, against the church with its higher orders and its “shepherds,” is a primary obligation of every revolutionary socialist.

But this battle must be waged skillfully and carefully. The religious world outlook has been created over centuries and millennia. As long as there is social injustice, ignorance, and the dependence of man on the elements of nature and society, religion will exist in one form or another. The struggle must be ideological and in no instance should transgress these bounds. We communists would be philistines if we said that communism is not hostile to religion. We will never say this, for we have never been and will never be philistines and political mercenaries. But we would be committing a mass of the crudest errors if we stepped beyond the bounds of ideological battles and conflicts. People will object: and what about the separation of church and state?

The separation of church and state delivers a cruel and irreparable blow to the church which ruled under tsarism. But in essence this is merely an act of social justice. We cannot show preference to Orthodoxy over Buddhism, Catholicism, or a whole number of other religions."

Also read Bukharin Abc of communism: http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1920/abc/11.htm

"For this reason, the mere fact of the organization and strengthening of the socialist system, will deal religion an irrecoverable blow. THE TRANSITION FROM SOCIALISM TO COMMUNISM, THE TRANSITION FROM THE SOCIETY WHICH MAKES AN END OF CAPITALISM TO THE SOCIETY WHICH IS COMPLETELY FREED FROM ALL TRACES OF CLASS DIVISION AND CLASS STRUGGLE, WILL BRING ABOUT THE NATURAL DEATH OF ALL RELIGION AND ALL SUPERSTITION.

But this must by no means be taken to imply that we can sit down at our ease, satisfied with having prophesied the decay of religion at some future date.

It is essential at the present time to wage with the utmost vigour the war against religious prejudices, for the church has now definitely become a counter-revolutionary organization, and endeavours to use its religious influence over the masses in order to marshal them for the political struggle against the dictatorship of the proletariat."RedsaidFred (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, your quotation supports the introductary phrase you are trying to object. It tells: "The battle against religious prejudices, against the church ... is a primary obligation of every revolutionary socialist." The battle. But I agree, it is too simplistic. Some communists actually advocated new communist religion (God-Building), while the Russian Orthodox Church was used as a KGB-connected front organization after WW II. My very best wishes (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• You misunderstand, my objection was to ""Communism required the abolition of religion" as an idea or goal of the bolsheviks/ marxist leninism- it is also placed as a offical soviet policy which is not evidenced sufficeintly. What i have evidenced is that this was not the case and is contradictory to their actual beliefs and goals. This will be deleted until evidence is provided.RedsaidFred (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

proofreading

When an article is protected, editors should be extra mindful to proofread and spellcheck their changes. A word like manoeuvrabality cannot be fixed by a casual visitor. 75.210.158.226 (talk) 16:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Article name

1. Many changes (see this diff) were made by IP of banned User:Jacob Peters. They should be reverted. Any objections? Biophys (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
2. Werldwayd moved Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union to Treatment of Christians in the Soviet Union.
3. Why this article was unilaterally renamed? The current subject can be better described as "persecution" (also per WP:Common name) rather than as "treatment". Biophys (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed by reporter User talk:Hodja Nasreddin 01:55, 6 August 2011‎. 75.210.158.226 (talk) 16:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

20 million killed because of atheist policies

Just like the number of 20 million was not supported by neutral reliable sources it seems the number of 12 million cannot be relied upon either. All the sources are Christians with a high probability of having a stake in getting the number as high as possible. There is no dispute about the fact that a big number of Christians have died because of Soviet government policies. What has been insufficiently demonstrated is the claim that those Christians all died because of their faith. This seems highly unlikely given the fact that most of the persecution was concentrated in only two decades and that during those times most victims died for other reasons like Stalin's paranoia, ethnic "reforms", generic suppression of all who could even remotely pose a treat to power, agricultural policies etc. Many reasons besides aiming specifically at Christians. After the two decades of suppression the Orthodox Russian Church was even allowed to have sustained significant growth. To claim 12 million died as a cause of atheist/secular motives requires far better evidence than presented. This is a highly disputed claim! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.142.3.239 (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted addition of the following text:

The total number of Christians killed, as a result of Soviet state atheist policies, has been estimated at over 20 million.

First the sources are certainly not reliable there are things like anonymous leaflets or selfpublished staff with sentences like: Karl Marx, a German Jew who initially embraced Christianity, but later turned to Satanism., etc. Most people killed by Bolsheviks were not killed because of their christian faith but because of their class or ethnic heritage, false accusation in espionage, etc. The total number of victims is strongly debated but probably less than 20 millions. We need a better sourcing to enter an exact number of victims, I am not sure a reliable number of victims of faith-based repressions is available, though Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if someone wants to include statistics on religious persecution, they need better sources and rewrite. My very best wishes (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe the “Christian Martyrdom: A global demographic assessment“ reference qualifies as reliable, since its author, professor Todd M. Johnson, has expertise in religious demographics. However, according to the following books, the number has also been estimated to “12 million” (James M. Nelson), and “15-20” millions (David Barrett, cited by David Taylor). Since it is not our job to determine the correct number, I believe it is reasonable to state that the number has been estimated to range between 12-20 millions. (Also, please note that the proposed text, does not claim that 12-20 millions were actually killed, but merely that the number of victims has been estimated at 12-20 millions.) Cody7777777 (talk) 07:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I personally do not have objections to any version. My very best wishes (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems one-sided

This article seems written so as to advance one point of view over another. It's few sources mostly come from same group of publications that are primarily connected to the churches and faiths involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.158.64 (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It is not NPOV. --207.215.78.126 (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

'advance one point of view over another' is it possible to put a case for why persecuting Christians was a good idea (I know some people in commenting on the persecution of Christians in China seem to think its a good thing as 'Christians persecuted people in the past')- like maybe having articles on the Holocaust also display NPOV and try and justify anti-semitism? Of course the sources are from Churches and faiths - they are the people who suffered.

There are a lot of problems with primarily using one source. Questions need to be answered by examining the evidence. Did the persecution really occur? To what extent? Was it done because of their beliefs or were there unrelated reasons? (For example, if all the people in the regime were treated horribly, calling it "persecution of Christians" borders on disingenuous). What other sources can collaborate their claims? It is in the best interest of oppressed groups to exaggerate the claims of persecution to spin accounts in their favor. --207.215.78.126 (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

If an editor has RS evidence that the persecutions are some kind of hoax or that the murder of millions of people by Communists was justified then by all means present it. However, we are not going to say an article is NPOV because an alternative version of events that no one is even sure exists, has not been presented. Also we are not into Fringe theories and psuedo-history here. I am removing the NPOV tag pending a more substantive complaint than maybe there is an alternative version of events. This is an encyclopedia. We don't deal with maybes and we are not going to label an article NPOV because someone doesn't like it.

"flooded the schools and media with atheistic teachings"

This article is a complete joke. What would be for example "atheistic teachings"? Atheism is nothing more than disbelief in the existence of deities. That's all. Therefore, it cannot teach anything! Like the belief in gods, the disbelief in gods is NEUTRAL. It cannot motivate anybody to do anything, especially not to kill people. Religious and political dogmas, that obviously exist only in religions and political ideologies, is what can motivate people to oppress and kill.

At best, one may say "anti-religious Marxism", or something similar, but not "atheistic teachings". Atheism doesn't teach ANYTHING. In fact, many atheists follow religions, even Christianity! They are not incompatible.

So, this article is nothing more than a cheap attempt to make people believe that Atheism is something evil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.113.59.210 (talk) 13:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Recent category addition

I've removed the recent problematic addition of the "Category:Persecution by atheists" from this article as inappropriate and unsupported by reliable sources. The category misleads our readers by implying that persecution was inflicted because the persecutors were atheists (people who do not believe in gods), which is nonsensical. Atheism has no goal, creed or mission; it is merely the absence of belief in deities. While reliable sources say there has been persecution by totalitarian dictators and regimes, and communist regimes, and anti-clerical movements, and some of these even maintained a stance of "state atheism", there is no causal relationship between atheism and persecution of religious individuals. We already have more appropriate and accurate categories for this kind of persecution: Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union, Category:Anti-clericalism, Category:Persecution by communists, etc. Articles asserting causal persecution by a lack of belief have been deleted in the past, and with good reason. According to the sources already cited in this article, both the antireligious persecution and the embrace of state atheism were propagated as part of the communist policies. Persecution isn't a component of atheism. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you prove this declaration by providing at least two peer reviewed sources that say persecution isn't a component of atheism? As the king of peer review James H. Billington very clearly says that the atheism of the Soviet was a contributing factor in the persecution of believers. [21] , [22], [23]. Not facial hair and no atheism. I understand that you will continue to engage in WP:IDHT. However I would like to see how you rationalize Communism as being the sole cause even though there are indeed theist Communists and socialists. And if the Communists were not atheist why would they insist on people not only being Communist but also atheist. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Ihe burden of proof is on the editor wishing to add contested information. So let's look at your three sources. The first says the premise for "religious persecution" is the constitution of the Communist Party (see section 13), which is what I've been saying. It is this particular flavor of communist doctrine which imposed the atheist view and antireligious activities. He did not say "atheism was a contributing factor in the persecution of believers". In your second example, Billington says nothing about "persecution by atheists", and only says the Orthodox church was strong again after the collapse of the "atheist state". In your third example, again Billington doesn't say anything about "persecution by atheists", only about Stalin's somewhat religious send-off at Lenin's funeral. But the authors of your source, Banks and Gevers, do say that it was part of Bolsheviks politics to campaign in support of atheism, and it was also the Bolshevik regime that implemented collectivism reforms that resulted in making religion "a target of political persecution and destruction". (pgs. 34-35) So your sources agree that the campaign in support of atheist and also the persecution of the religious came from the Marxist-Leninist Bolsheviks. According to your sources, this article should be categorized as Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union. The category "Persecution by atheists" is not only unsupported and inaccurate, it's nonsensical. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I am asking for sources. As for Billington post word for word the first source I provided as it says the atheist in it for a reason. What reason is that then? Also again please source your comment persecution isn't a component of atheism. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Context and renaming

I think the use of the word "persecution" is very charged in this context, since it is meant to elicit support for one side over the other. The article should be either renamed to Anti-Christianity in the Soviet Union or Opposition to Christianity in the Soviet Union. It should be noted that the Church in Russia was very closely supportive of Tsarist reactionary forces and so, not only did the Bolsheviks oppose Christianity because it is an unscientific and obscurantist doctrine, but because the clerics and institution were actively regarded as part of a social apparatus that was persecuting the vast majority of the Russian people by holding them in a position which was disadvantageous to social progress. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

You can oppose something without repressing it. What editing criteria or policy are you using to justify your comment "I think"? Are you saying that sources are invalid for using the phrase like say the US Congress? [24] LoveMonkey (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

First, from an experimental science aspect both atheism and Christianity are "unscientific". There are no repeatable experiments that one can do to prove atheism or Christianity. However, the Christian apologist Gary Habermas commented on double-blind prayer experiments where people pray for others with terminal illness. Habermas admitted that most such experiments have not worked, but the three that he knows of that have indeed worked were cases of Bible believing Christians praying for the sick.[25]

Secondly, biblical Christianity is not obscurantist. One of the defining aspects of Christianity is that it had a number of eyewitnesses who died for their testimony. In addition, countries with a Protestant heritage are among the very freest countries in the world in terms of academic/political/economic freedom.[26]

Next, the word persecution is not too charged/strong of a word. In total, the number of Christians who were martyred for their faith under the militant atheism of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is 12 million.[27] In addition, there were churches that were demolished.

Lastly, except for irreligious countries with a Protestant/Christian heritage, atheistic countries don't have a good track record when it comes to freedom of thought (For example, Soviet Union, communist China, Pol Pot, Cuba, etc.). Knox490 (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

one of the Sources say 15 million to 20 million Christians died in prison camps (gulag) reputable scholars don't go that high ?

I am tagging you guys for Input with the page Since you have a lot of experience with this topic pre

WP:CAN Woogie10w Paul Siebert C.J. Griffin

I came across this page and upon looking at the sources they mention its prison deaths Example Page 4

1921–50, Christians die in Soviet prison camps 15,000,000

1950–80, Christians die in Soviet prison camps 5,000,000

https://web.archive.org/web/20160303220215/http://icl.nd.edu/assets/84231/the_demographics_of_christian_martyrdom_todd_johnson.pdf

the other says up to 12 million but doesn't specify the time I deleted it and Blue linked to the Excess mortality in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin page. but was reverted so Instead of going Back and forth and getting Blocked like the old me. I want to do it the right way and get Input from experienced editors on the subject to see if it should be removed or just rewarded differently or not.

Especially since how could 15,000,000 million die from 1921–50 when the General historical Consensus is around 1 million https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/ou_press/golfo-alexopoulos-illness-and-inhumanity-in-stalin-s-gulag-i363rKPYOp

New studies using declassified Gulag archives have provisionally established a consensus on mortality and "inhumanity." The tentative consensus says that once secret records of the Gulag administration in Moscow show a lower death toll than expected from memoir sources, generally between 1.5 and 1.7 million (out of 18 million who passed through) for the years from 1930 to 1953.

Steven Rosefielde. Red Holocaust page 67 and page 77 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."Jack90s15 (talk) 02:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Robert Conquest(2007) The Great Terror: A Reassessment, 40th Anniversary Edition, Oxford University Press, in Preface, p. xvi: "Exact numbers may never be known with complete certainty, but the total of deaths caused by the whole range of Soviet regime's terrors can hardly be lower than some fifteen million." Jack90s15 (talk) 02:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC) https://books.google.com/books?id=ubXQSk2qfXMC&pg=PR16&dq=Exact+numbers+may+never+be+known+with+complete+certainty,+but+the+total+of+deaths+caused+by+the+whole+range+of+Soviet+regime%27s+terrors+can+hardly+be+lower+than+some+fifteen+million&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwir0cLakIbjAhVopVkKHfoTApYQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=Exact%20numbers%20may%20never%20be%20known%20with%20complete%20certainty%2C%20but%20the%20total%20of%20deaths%20caused%20by%20the%20whole%20range%20of%20Soviet%20regime's%20terrors%20can%20hardly%20be%20lower%20than%20some%20fifteen%20million&f=false

I hope you realize that WP:CAN is inappropriate behavior on wikipedaia and could lead to negative consequences such as blocking. Consensus is supposed to occur organically, not by bringing in your buddies to influence a decision. WP:CAN literally says that "Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior."

In any case, none of the sources you mention give a number for Christians. For the sources to be valid in this article they have to specify the number of people who were Christian and died, not the total number of people who died - considering that Muslims, nonreligious, and other people were killed in the end too. On the other hand, the two sources on the article right now actually do specify estimates for Christians.

By the way, your latest source by Robert Conquest says that "...the total of deaths caused by the whole range of Soviet regime's terrors can hardly be lower than some fifteen million." That means that more than 15 million people died! That is a lower limit not the maximum limit.

From wikipedia's perspective, reliable sources should be cited for what they claim. The fact that death toll estimates vary among the sources shows that there is no consensus on the actual number of people who died among historians. So the only option is to cite a source and attribute what it says and let the readers of wikipedia decide for themselves. Wikipedia's measure of inclusion is WP:Verifiability - do the reliable sources make the claim, not asserting what one thinks is the only truth.Ramos1990 (talk) 02:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

(In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus) like I Said I tagged them to get Input from experienced editors on the subject to see if it should be removed or just rewarded differently or not.(Canvassing, sock puppetry, and meat puppetry While it is fine—even encouraged—to invite people into a discussion to obtain new insights and arguments) that all I am asking for is insight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus#Pitfalls_and_errors

No it is not acceptable to notify a selected number of editors when you are starting a discussion on a talk page. Considering that you are calling other editors by name on topic they have not engaged in does look an attempt at WP:VOTESTACK or even WP:FORUMSHOP. By posting on a talk page, you automatically attract random editors, not a select group with a particular bias. Plus, looking at the article history other editors have been more active and can provide better opinions on the matter. Discussions are supposed to happen organically not forced.Ramos1990 (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The Editor's I asked for Insight are Experienced in History of this Subject and editing about it and can Give Insight on the situation with a NPOV on the Subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack90s15 (talk • contribs)

We will see if they are or if this is indeed Canvassing. You should do like I did on the other article - discuss on talk page and wait for interested parties to voluntarily engage with the discussion. Not call select editors. This is dangerous since you have been blocked before it seems very recently back to back.Ramos1990 (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Jack90s15, despite being warned, you still continue to remove properly referenced information from this article against consensus. If you continue to do so, I am going to recommend a topic ban at WP:ANI. I have restored the WP:STATUSQUO. You must gain consensus for your contentious changes, which you currently do not have. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 02:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Anupam I did not remove the sources I added one and rewrote it? they are still there.I did not remove the sources the Sources they were still there when I made my edit,

I was following WP:BRD

WP:BRD states 'Similarly, if you advance a potential contribution on the article's talk page, and no response is received after a reasonable amount of time, go ahead and make your contribution. Sometimes other editors are busy, or nobody is watching the article. Either the edit will get the attention of interested editors, or you will simply improve the article

User:Jack90s15, You are not following BRD. Look at what you quoted. Does it not say "Similarly, if you advance a potential contribution on the article's talk page..."? Notice that it says talk page, not the article. So why are you inserting anything into the article [28]? Nowhere in this talk page discussion have you discussed 1) the rewording you are suggesting and 2) you never mentioned the source you were trying insert to support the rewording. So why are you inserting anything into the article?

State your proposition here in the talk page first and get a consensus or wait a few days for no response. Then after either a consensus or no response (after a reasonable amount of time) we can start making edits on the article. That is BRD. Anupam^Talk 03:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

You are correct User:Anupam. I don't think he is following BRD per your break down of the situation and I don't see any discussion of any rewording or this new source from his forced edit [29] here in the talk page at all. From his inappropriate bold edit from today, his source "Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity" talks about clergy and monastics only who were killed 20 years after 1922 (the end of the civil war). The source does not state the total amount of regular Christians who were killed. There is a big difference between mortality of religious leaders (very few people) and religious people (majority of the people).

User:Jack90s15, discuss your ideas here first before adding anything to the article. Making adds to the article while you are engaged in a talk page discussion is disruptive editing.Ramos1990 (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Slight rewording and source

After Anupam explained to me how to do BRD that right way I am going post my new edits on the talk page they are,

a Slight rewording to (The total number of Christian victims under the Soviet regime varies from different estimates). Since they do vary from different sources.

and for the Source I put it was to show a breakdown of deaths for that part of the era.

what do you think ? Ramos1990 about the rewording Since its still keeping the sources, and its acknowledging the estimates vary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#Discuss Be ready to compromise: If you browbeat someone into accepting your changes, you are not building consensus, you are making enemies. This cycle is designed to highlight strongly opposing positions, so if you want to get changes to stick both sides will have to bend, possibly even bow. You should be clear about when you are compromising and should expect others to compromise in return, but do not expect it to be exactly even.

like I said on your talk page I don't mind a compromise with this Jack90s15 (talk) 04:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

See my last comment. I made some observations on the source and rewording. To me the rewording sounds pretty vague or obvious. The sources seem to be more specific than that.Ramos1990 (talk) 04:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

OK Ramos1990 I am glad we are discussing this civilly what about,

(Some estimates put the total number of Christian victims under the Soviet regime in The Millions)? Jack90s15 (talk) 04:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

that seems like it word be a compromise for both of are concussions,Ramos1990 Since it is acknowledging the range that the Sources use. I am open to suggestions from you and if have you have a compromise also to this I am ready to listen to it.Jack90s15 (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Jack90s15, I think you have misunderstood policy here on Wikipedia. If statements are buttressed by reliable sources, which in this case they are, you have no right to remove them to WP:CENSOR information that you WP:DONTLIKE. Given that consensus is against your rewording of sourced information, I would recommend that you drop the WP:STICK before your POV pushing is addressed at WP:ANI. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 08:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Anupam I am not trying to censor anything my slight rewording still, acknowledges that the range is in the millions. Like the sources say and it's still keeping them the sources.

That's why I'm trying to follow the Bold revert discuss cycle to come to a compromise with it

Be ready to compromise: If you browbeat someone into accepting your changes, you are not building consensus, you are making enemies. This cycle is designed to highlight strongly opposing positions, so if you want to get changes to stick both sides will have to bend, possibly even bow. You should be clear about when you are compromising and should expect others to compromise in return, but do not expect it to be exactly even. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#Discuss

User:Jack90s15, good to see that you are trying to negotiate in the talk page instead for making bold edits to the article. We all know about compromising, but it seems you are the only one suggesting a reword when the wording on the article right now is pretty neutral and reflects what the sources say. I think your proposed second wording is pretty vague because the 2 sources (Nelson and Johnson) are much more specific and in terms of the article scope it does seem reasonable to include the numbers provided by reliable sources. From the scope of the article, it seems to be useful to show the numbers. The source you introduced - "Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity" - talks about clergy and monastics (religious leaders) who were killed 20 years after 1922 after the end of the civil war only, not the number of Christians (clergy + average people) in total that were killed in the whole Soviet period. I know that estimates can vary, but really we should go by what the sources say specifically. Not make vaguer statements. I think we could add instead "According to some sources,..." and that would soften the claim by attribution and put the weight on the sources themselves rather than putting it in wikipedia's voice. What do you think?Ramos1990 (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Ramos1990 I am Fine with what you Suggested with it,I agree with it Now how would it look with the wording you Suggested?Jack90s15 (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Cool. Will add the attribution wording to the sentence on the article then. It should soften the sentence.Ramos1990 (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Ramos1990 after Seeing it I agree with it consensus has been reached