Talk:Prague Declaration

Some comments on the most recent edits

1. The introduction: I don't agree with removing as much material from the introduction as you did. There may be room for improvement for sure, but for now I restored the former text. Information on which organisations/persons that hosted and organised the conference is highly essential, and had disappeared completely from the article. The introduction is also supposed to be a summary of the article, hence the most important results (such as the remembrance day) need to be included.
2. Infobox: "To promote a shared European historic narrative by equating communist crimes with those of Nazi Germany" is a somewhat tendentious wording, as the stated objective was to "condemn and teach about the crimes of communism" according to the information website set up by the Swedish Institute for Information on the Crimes of Communism. "Equating" is a term only used by the handful of opponents of this declaration, and is very ambiguous—what does it mean to "equate"? The declaration says the both regimes were terrible, but should be judged separately by "their own terrible merits", while calling for increased awareness of communist crimes (when Andrius Kubilius says that both Nazi and Soviet crimes are "unique", is that "equating"?). I haven't seen any proponents of the PD saying Nazi and Soviet crimes are "exactly the same", only that they are both terrible and both deserve attention. I replaced this wording with the stated objective from the first paragraph of the declaration.
3. I noticed you added a "citation needed" for the exact number of countries currently observing the remembrance day. I do agree that we do not have conclusive data on the exact number (we have verified 8 in the EU and 2 outside the EU, but it could be more), and this number has increased several times every year since the adoption of the declaration. For this reason I removed the whole sentence on the out of date report from 2010. We have a separate article which describes exactly how many countries that observed the day at any given time.
4. I noticed that you have removed/shortened a lot of material. In line with this, I also shortened the discussion of the six FM's letter, and also because the discussion of the Commission's response was too simplistic. The response by the commission spokesman was that "at this stage, the conditions to make a legislative proposal have not been met". Reporting this as "The proposal was rejected" is too simplistic. The "bottom line" quote is taken out of context, as it only refers to the applicability of specific rules (on racism) to the proposal. It could be included in a much more lengthy discussion on which rules that could be applicable to the proposal, but that is unnecessary as the other quote already fully explains the commission's position in this regard. More generally, a civil servant at the commission does not engage in political debate with the governments of six of the EU's member states, the civil servant was only explaining why those specific rules on racism were not applicable. I have noticed that Katz have tried to portray the commission's response as some sort of "victory" for his cause; that is nonsense of course, as the FM's in advance anticipated this response (anyone remotely familiar with the workings of the commission could have) and stated their objective as making a point. The commission didn't rule out that such a proposal could become a reality at a later stage, with the adequate legal framework in place, and did not comment on whether the proposal as such was a good idea or not, only on whether it was possible to implement it at the present time under the existing rules.
5. For some strange reason, Visegrád Group has been changed to Vyšegrád Group. I changed it back.
6. In the first sentence in the criticism/discussion section, the opinion of Katz & co. was portrayed as the opinion representative of all critics. That's not completely accurate. I'm in favour of keeping the Economist quote as a summary representative of various critics. Communist critics emphasize different things in their criticism (I've been watching a long video of a seminar organised by the Communist Party of Britain discussing/criticising the Prague Declaration).
7. I originally included the moustache quote, which you removed. Now you have reinserted it. If you really want to have this included, that's ok, but the first part comparing the counter-declaration to the Kremlin's ideologues and stating that it contradicts the EU position is the most relevant part, the most substantial comment. The moustache is a less serious comment, more like a joke. The occasion of the Katz declaration, i.e. his reasons for issuing a declaration on a specific date, has nothing to do with the Prague declaration, and in line with you removing unnecessary information, I removed this. Tataral (talk) 09:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Response to the above comments

1. i will probably delete a lot of stuff again. the introduction (and whole article) in an attempt to inflate the importance of the Prague Declaration, a POV you share, as evidenced by your edits (for example including a photo of Margaret Thatcher in an attempt to add authority to the Declaration, which Margaret Thatcher didn't even sign. The Prague Declaration aims at sweeping changes at the European level, but so far the only "success" is that the countries who already supported Black Ribbon Day enacted legislation changing the name of Black Ribbon Day. The request to legislate on denial of communist crimes and to equalise their judgement with that of Nuremburg was rejected. Shall I put that in the introduction?Spitfire3000 (talk) 09:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
2. the declaration itself repeatedly mentions treating nazi and soviet crimes as the "same", you repeatedly edit this page to add that POV because it is the POV of the creators of the Declaration. Pretending you don't know what "equating" means is ridiculous. It is the stated aim of the declaration and the prominent politicians who signed it,. You know exactly what it means and I understand why you find it embarassing, but that's the fault of the people who wrote the Declaration.Spitfire3000 (talk) 09:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
3. you keep removing the evidence that the PD does not have wide support in Europe. This is unacceptable. The PD is fully endorsed by a minority of member states. You use the non-binding EP recommendation as if it was already binding EU law. The motivation for that is obvious.Spitfire3000 (talk) 09:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
4. the proposal was rejected, and the justice spokesman explained "the bottom line". anyone with NPOV can see that is in context. if you want to say that the proposal could become a reality, you need to include the fact that there is zero chance of a majority of EU states harmonising their legal frameworks in this way. To anyone who knows how the EU works it is obvious that this was a polite "no, we'll think about it" - and nobody is thinking about it. They made a point - the point is that only a minority of member states think such a law is acceptable and necessary.Spitfire3000 (talk) 09:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
5. another editor did that.Spitfire3000 (talk) 09:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
6. "Katz & co" includes 70 parliamentarians, and rising. How many signed the Prague Declaration? if communists think differently then fine, they can have their opinion lower down where it belongs, because the CP of Britain is basically a fringe view in this context.Spitfire3000 (talk) 09:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
7. Joking about the Holocaust is very serious. The moustache quote explains the "equality" which you pretend to find confusing and unsupported.Spitfire3000 (talk) 09:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• My above comment is normally formatted, and if you make an error, then it's much easier for you to just readd your comments than for me going through my comments paragraph for paragraph in revision comparison mode to fix changes you made to my comments. (responding to edit summaries)
• There is no attempt to "inflate" anything, but a well sourced description of a declaration and the implementation of its various proposals.
• If I hold an opinion on this issue, then so do you. Many of your above comments are based mostly on your own opinions on this issue.
• I have actually no idea what the critics mean by "equating", that is a very loose, ambiguous term. It could mean lots of different things. Was Andrius Kubilius equating when he said "both regimes were unique and terrible" (or something)? Incidentally, that's what this declaration says too, as I understand it.
• No, I don't remove "the evidence that the PD does not have wide support in Europe" (itself an unsupported claim). The article doesn't claim the declaration has any other support than the documented support and impact (my view is that the declaration/its proposals have significant support in eastern and central Europe and in the European Parliament—as noted by the Economist—while western Europeans are mostly indifferent to the whole issue). The number of countries (and EU bodies) observing the remembrance day is meticulously and visibly documented in the other article. I see no reason to include an out of date report, with a statement you considered unsourced (on the number of countries observing the remembrance day) at the top of this section in this article.
• No, the proposal was not rejected in principle, i.e. as such. The response was: "at this stage, the conditions to make a legislative proposal have not been met". There is no need for us to interpret that statement beyond just reporting it. This is indeed a minor issue, as evidenced by the fact that one of the FM's gave an interview before the commission's response anticipating this response and describing the letter as an attempt to raise awareness in western Europe. There was no high-level comment on the proposal by six governments, only a statement by a civil servant on the technical/procedural side, the applicability of the existing legal framework.
• Katz' declaration, which was written by him and published on his private website, has not had any significant impact. It has hardly been reported by the media (except some very small, fringe newspapers in Gemany, and some articles in Lithuanian media). It's not remotely comparable to the PD in terms of influence. He just convinced some left-wing parlamentarians (mostly) from various countries to sign a declaration which easily looks like a declaration only on Holocaust issues, the contentious contents of which (attack on "Double Genocide", a term only/mostly used by himself, which is not defined, but could be interpreted as denial of the Holodomor for example) is buried deep down in the text. The PD, by comparison, was the result of a conference organised by the Czech government, not one individual sending e-mails to various people and publishing something on his own website. Tataral (talk) 10:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

‘Sweeping changes’ in what sense? Doesn’t it reflect what is mostly consensus in many ways? 2A02:A310:E23F:400:381D:B858:407:6CD9 (talk) 11:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Final response, explanation and suggestion

The term "double genocide" is far more prevalent in the sources than the term "Prague Process". Here's the latest use of the term, in the New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/31/opinion/the-suffering-olympics.html

And before you say "it's the Opinion section" - here's The Guardian using the term in the News section, without quotation-marks: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/21/european-commission-communist-crimes-nazism

You misunderstand the term and keep trying to link it to denial of Holodomor, which is ridiculous because Katz, Zuroff, the Seventy Years Declaration, and the vast majority of other people who oppose the Prague Declaration take great care to acknowledge Holodomor and the evil of all horrific crimes on all sides. The only difference is that they refuse the classification "genocide" whereas others believe in two genocides i.e. double genocide, stalin's and hitler's, equally. The Prague Process involves a lot of argument about the definition of genocide and the difference between killing a race and the number of races killed and whether or not political motives can be classed as genocidal, this presumably led to Landsbergis' "they were not all gypsies" comment. It is clearly a key issue for them and central to this whole debate.

The Prague Declaration is hardly ever mentioned by name in the sources, certainly not recently, and the "so-called Prague Process" is mentioned only once, by a supporter, in the most informal way possible. In fact I wasted 10 minutes trying to find a newspaper that mentions the Prague Declaration by name.

When you agreed to a "Criticism" section, you first used it to try to present all the opponents as communists.

You criticise my edits as fringe or unsupported or irrelevant, but you yourself put photos of Sarkozy and Thatcher on the page merely because they sent letters of support to the Conference that led to the Prague Declaration. Since then, Sarkozy and Thatcher have done absolutely nothing and didn't even sign the Declaration. But, conveniently, their portraits dominated the page and inflated the importance of the Prague Declaration.

The European Parliament is not Europe and a non-binding resolution is something people can vote on and then ignore. This is not "strong" or "wide" support in Europe. The real evidence of the level of support is the fact that very few member states (less than a third) actually find the proposal worth implementing officially, and it's only one of the PD proposals anyway, and they were implementing it already as Black Ribbon Day. The majority choose not to implement and the rest of the PD proposals remain off the books. The other event that attracted mainstream media coverage was the issue of a europe-wide ban on denial of communist crimes, which was rejected pending technical legal changes that nobody is working on because nobody sees the need, and because Hitler and Stalin's crimes are not considered equivalent/equal/same/comparable or whatever word you want to use. see blockquote below.

You constantly repeat that Katz just sits and writes letters to newspaper editors (this is a cheap slur and far from the truth). Then 70 parliamentarians sign a declaration he (among others) proposed, and you continue to insist that he runs an inconsequential unreliable "blog". I do not know many inconsequential blogs who have the support of 70 parliamentarians (and counting). His declaration directly and explicitly opposes the Prague Declaration but you ignore its importance because the signatories are "left wing" - as if democratically elected left-wing views don't count. If a conservative signs it, will you accept it? Then the Foreign Minister of Lithuania takes the trouble to clumsily insult the opposition politicians who signed the Seventy Years Declaration, repeating the insistence that Hitler and Stalin were the same and you still say The Seventy Years Declaration is inconsequential and you don't understand what "equal" means. Then the Prime Minister of Lithuania has to say something to the press because of the embarassment and scandal caused by the Seventy Years Declaration and Azubalis' reaction to it, and you still say it's inconsequential and unreported.

I agree - Neither The Prague Declaration, nor criticism of it, is reported on in the mainstream media more than a couple of times. There is very little I can find on Google News, whatever keywords i try. The sources for this wikipedia page (which i presume are the best and most various you can find) are mostly official announcements and there is very little media coverage. The hottest issue seemed to be the rejection of the proposal to ban denial of communist crimes (i.e. equalise punishment for denial of communist crimes with that for denial of nazi crimes). And that was a rejection. Your argument that the position expressed by the EU Justice Spokesman was "we will keep it under review" is undermined by his next comment (which you delete). He stated "the bottom line" as being the opinion that Stalin was not targeting ethnic groups. Therefore not equal. Therefore not requiring the same ban. It's very simple to see what he meant, and understanding him involves no magical massaging of words or biased viewpoints. You can call him "just a spokesman" if you want (you tried once already) but I can't find him retracting his words, being forced to retract them, or even trying to weasel out of them. It appears from the sources that the commission considers stalin's crimes to be different to hitler's, requiring different legal treatment. It also appears that the technical legal argument was just used as a smokescreen to hide the inflammatory "bottom line".

The EU Justice Spokesman argues that Stalin and Hitler's crimes were fundamentally different, but you delete that part of his quotation and swamp the text with long quotations about how the different crimes need the same treatment. You argue that The response was: "at this stage, the conditions to make a legislative proposal have not been met". There is no need for us to interpret that statement beyond just reporting it. ... well, why not report the second thing he said? I will write it here large so you can see it and remember it. It also contains the words "double genocide" again, even though you say only Katz uses those words. Here's the response from the Commission:

The Guardian reporting on EU Justice Spokesman Matthew Newman giving reasons for the rejection of an EU-wide ban on denial of communist crimes: -

...the commission ... rejects the idea of double genocide. "The bottom line is, obviously, what they did was horrendous, but communist regimes did not target ethnic minorities," said Newman.

We both have opinions, that's nothing surprising and it doesn't stop us from writing a good Wikipedia page. However, if you are stuck in the mode of considering Katz to be an unreliable Stalin-loving communist, you are never going to be able to write neutrally. I have also sometiems strayed from the neutral in order to balance your lack of neutrality ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_put_up_a_straight_pole_by_pushing_it_at_an_angle )

The PD article would best be improved by streamlining and ensuring that the reader can understand that the Prague Declaration does not represent the consensus in Europe, it is a well-funded minority view that has met little success and a lot of resistance, which is hardly reported on. That is the truth and that is clearly seen in the (few) sources.

I hope that explains things more clearly. I don't think it is productive to continue trying to collaborate with you on this page, I can't SOFIXIT, because you will just unfix it, add fluff and gloss, and we are heading for deadlock. Perhaps we should flag the page and hope to attract a wider range of editors to help balance it?

Spitfire3000 (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You continue portraying a comment made to the media by a civil servant, on something else (explaining why rules targeting racism are not applicable to the proposal, which is a legal issue, and which comes as no surprise), as a political argument on whether Europe should ban denial of communist crimes, when he said nothing in this regard. That's misleading and ridiculous. Civil servants do not engage in political debate with the governments of the member states, never. What the article actually said was that the commission rejected "an EU decision permitting rules that target racism and xenophobia as grounds for the drafting of a new law on totalitarian crime denial. According to the Commission, neither of those instruments mentions totalitarianism". The spokesman, in a comment to the media, then went on to explain in more detail why communist crimes were not covered by "racism and xenophobia" (which is the "bottom line" comment). The opinion of the commission on this issue is already fully included in this article. You take that other quote out of context. If we were to include this, we would have to expand this paragraph significantly with a completely redunant discussion that adds nothing to the article (because it's already explained in full), while you at the same time have removed information from other paragraphs and significantly shortened other quotes. It's not like that spokesman's boss, Commissioner Viviane Reding, is opposed to the Prague declaration or its proposals in general. She was present when the Warsaw Declaration was signed and released this statement "on the Europe-wide Day of Remembrance for the victims of all totalitarian and authoritarian regimes" (also, she represents the European People's Party. Their own think tank was a co-organiser of the conference leading to the Prague Declaration. The resolution in the European Parliament on the establishment of 23 August as a remembrance day was introduced by her own party).

Katz' website is a blog because it is a website used by a single individual to express his opinions (it also runs on Wordpress). Here he writes about "The Soviet-style treachery against one’s own doctoral dissertation supervisor" (himself) by a former student of him, for example[1], and there are many such examples of expression of opinion which is why I think this is a personal blog both in the technical sense and content-wise. I've never said Katz is an "unreliable Stalin-loving communist". Katz is clearly a person with strong views, who runs a blog to advance these views, and he also appears to be controversial in the Jewish community. He has not attracted any significant support from Jewish bodies for his cause, as he noted during a seminar he held at Yale last year; indeed, he is highly critical of Jewish organisations and persons in the United States and Israel, as he also noted. He also recognized during the seminar that he might appear as an eccentric or maverick as a far as his crusade against this declaration is concerned.

I have not "ignored" his most recent initiative, on the contrary. I have merely noted that the signatories were overwhelmingly left-wing (some of them far left), just as I have also pointed out exactly which groups and persons who supported the Prague Declaration and related initiatives. The initators have indeed themselves highlighted signatories who belong to the successor of the East German communist party. The media coverage of the initiative posted on Katz' blog (in Junge Welt) noted this support from this particular party, hence deeming it worthy of note.

Your idea that the PD "has met little success and a lot of resistance" is quite frankly nonsense. While not claiming it has met any more success than the one which is documented, it has met significant success for a declaration of its kind (all the success that could reasonably be expected), notably official/political developments in Europe and elsewhere (such as the adoption of the remembrance day and most recently the establishment of the Platform of European Memory and Conscience proposed by the declaration) and, as Katz noted at Yale, hardly any resistance, not from Israel and not from any other government. It is actively opposed by "a tiny group of people", as noted by Rubin (Katz and a handful of others). When some cause is actively promoted by a bunch of governments and in official channels, and not opposed by any governments, the opponents find themselves in the weaker position. Tataral (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Your repetition of the "tiny group of people" quotation is getting boring. That is one quotation, you can't find anyone else who expresses that opinion so extremely, and it predates the Seventy Years Declaration which was signed by 70 european parliamentarians and is currently being signed by more. I agree that a minority of governments are spending huge amounts of money promoting their ideas at the international level, and they are not being "opposed", but also their demands are very very far from being met and I see little progress that they didn't pay for. The commission rejected their proposal and stated that there is no grounds for a ban on denial of totalitarian crimes. That is a setback, however you try to twist it as "an alarm bell". It is evidence that the Prague Declaration contains controversial proposals that will never become law. If you think that the majority of member states are reforming their legal structure to accommodate the demands of the Prague Declaration then I would like to see your evidence.

I repeat - the Prague Declaration is hardly mentioned in the press, not even in the articles you selected for this wikipedia page. You say it has had a lot of success "for a declaration of its kind".... i presume you are talking about "declarations sponsored by right wing eastern european governments"? I presume you think that if the minority of states who already observe black ribbon day pass laws changing the name of black ribbon day, while everyone else ignores it or pays it lip service, that is a "success"?

You have some fairly persuasive arguments, but also some ridiculous arguments ("it runs on Wordpress", "tiny group of people") and overall I think we need to find a broader range of editors to judge what is and isn't NPOV. What do you think about that idea? I hereby propose it for the second time and wait for your response. Spitfire3000 (talk) 09:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

As stated before, the commission didn't "reject their proposal". The commission found, after considering the proposal, that the existing legal framework was not applicable. The commission has no opinion on whether such a proposal should be implemented in principle, only on whether it's possible under the existing legal framework. The commission is the administration of the EU, the political direction is decided by the member states. They could propose changes to the legal framework that would make their proposal possible. These things take years anyway. Things cannot be expected to happen overnight. Personally, I don't think this particular proposal in such a form will ever be a reality, because in many European countries, there are not laws against any form of "denial" (whether Nazi or communist), this was stated by the FMs to be a demonstration. This will likely only be implemented in the countries affected by communism, which make up a significant part of Europe however.

By "a declaration of its kind", I meant a declaration whose signatories are elder statesmen, historians, former political prisoners. Most declarations remain declarations only, they don't lead to practical results. By comparison, will the counter-declaration lead to any substantial political developments? Probably not. It will be a "protest!" by mostly left-wing parlamentarians, spearheaded by a former Vilnius professor. Russia, one of the world's most influential countries, has protested time and again against various political developments in Europe and the western world relating to the historiography of the Soviet Union, events in the Balkans, Chechnya etc., to no avail. Often they have been joined in their protests by political groups in the west who are for historical reasons sympathetic to the Soviet/Russian/Serbian etc. point of view.

23 August is currently (2011) observed by 10 countries + the European Parliament and the European Commission. That's more than before (when it was observed only in the Baltic countries). The number is likely to increase.

I think the only ones likely to spend time on an article like this and an even longer and quite tiresome discussion are those who already are familiar with this declaration. I recognize that not all parts of the article have been optimal and that there is still room for improvement. Tataral (talk) 10:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

"Double genocide" again

"Strictly speaking, the treatment of the Lithuanians by the Soviets since 1944 does not conform to the United Nations definition of genocide. However the fact that the goal of the Soviets was to prevent the reemergence of Lithuania as an independent state and that in the immediate postwar years, they deported nearly 120,000 Lithuanians to Siberia where many of them died because of the horrendous conditions makes the use of genocide to describe what was done to them legitimate."

Antony Polonsky (Albert Abramson Professor of Holocaust Studies, Brandeis University), in the introuction to Rachel Margolis, A Partisan from Vilna, Academic Studies Press, 2010

Is this what is meant by "double genocide"? (supposedly a "new far right Eastern European" concept according to critics, but actually representing beliefs held by mainstream western scholars, western governments and international bodies for decades) Tataral (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

There are also many "mainstream western scholars" who think it is not genocide, who uphold the UN definition (i am not sure whose definition could be more authoritative than the UN's). The EU does not refer to the treatment of the Lithuanians as genocide. You found an academic that argues that using the word genocide applied to the Lithuanian situation is "legitimate"? Well, not to the EU or the UN. And, when someone says "bottom line" they usually mean "applies to and summarises the core of everything i just said".

I think the words you should be concentrating on are "Strictly speaking, the treatment of the Lithuanians by the Soviets since 1944 does not conform to the United Nations definition of genocide."

I know you like strictness. Spitfire3000 (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The 1948 Genocide Convention definition was a definition made by a handful of countries in the 1940s. One of these countries was the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin. Indeed most of the world was not democratic at the time, and many of the UN members were themselves totalitarian states. Obviously this convention was tailored to exclude the Soviet Union's own crimes. This convention is only ratified by 140 countries, so it's not universally recognized. Multiple international bodies and multiple governments use a different and broader definition of genocide today. Many eminent scholars have applied a different and broader definition for a long time. Even the UN's own bodies, such as the ICTY, in effect use a different, broader definition. The 1940s convention is considered dated and its definition is not considered authoritative today. When discussing the definition of genocide, scholars (such as Polonsky) take care to emphasize that this definition is not the only definition of genocide. One could argue this convention to a degree represents the Soviet view, and today it's usually upheld by countries like Russia or Serbia who have an interest in such a narrow definition that excludes their own crimes. Even many of the countries which originally ratified the convention, have since also recognized Soviet crimes and other crimes that do not fall under a narrow interpretation of the 1948 Genocide Convention as genocides, in effect rendering a narrow interpretation of the Genocide Convention irrelevant in a modern context (Lithuania is both a signatory of this convention, and formally recognizes Soviet crimes in Lithuania as genocide, for example). Tataral (talk) 09:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The reason the USSR's crimes are not covered by the 1948 convention is because Stalin demanded it be removed. See Mass killings under Communist regimes

"Protection of political groups was eliminated from the UN resolution after a second vote, because many states, including Stalin's USSR, anticipated that clause to apply unneeded limitations to their right to suppress internal disturbances"

But today, few people in the western world view Stalin's views as valid, and a broader definition is replacing the 1940s definition in most of the western world (a process that started decades ago and is formally recognized in many ways), but obviously not in Russia, a country still struggling with being considered an authoritarian country. Tataral (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, most western writers and politicians, including conservatives, christian democrats and liberals, find holocaust equivalency disturbing, and it would be misleading to say that they support the declaration. TFD (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Most western conservatives, christian democrats and liberals do not deny the genocidal character of Soviet crimes, such as the Holodomor, and most western governments and people in the western world do not insist on a narrow interpretation of genocide as dictated by Stalin in 1948 (to exclude his own crimes). Saying Stalin committed genocide (or saying the Rwandan Genocide, the Cambodian Genocide, or the Armenian Genocide were also genocides), is not the same as saying the crimes were "equivalent" or "exactly the same", only that they all were genocides, terrible, and deserve recognition and attention. This declaration emphasizes that the crimes are not "exactly the same", but that they should be judged "by their own terrible merits". Nobody has said this declaration is supported by anyone but those who have expressed their support, but judging by the voting in the European Parliament, the views expressed in the declaration seem to enjoy broad support from the European People's Party (christian democrats and conservatives), ALDE (liberals) and Greens, but limited support from the left. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe voted over similar questions in 2006, with largely the same results, and the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE voted over such questions in 2009, also with comparable results. Tataral (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Most MEPs, including most conservatives, christian democrats, liberals and greens, did not vote in favor of the declaration. Your claim that opposition to the declaration is "denial" is outrageous. These statesmen did not deny the crimes of Stalin but disputed holocaust equivalency which has anti-Semitic connotations and is offensive to both left and right in Western Europe. TFD (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You are just making up strawmen. The topic of this article has never been voted over in a parliamentary body, it is a declaration issued by a group of historians, former political prisoners, and some elder statesmen after a conference on the history of communism years ago. Some of the proposals of this declaration have been voted over in parliamentary bodies and received broad support from the centre and centre-right parties (in fact support from every single parliamentary group in the European Parliament including the communist group). Indeed denial of the genocidal character of genocides such as the Holodomor is denial and is banned by law in multiple European countries. Denial of the Armenian Genocide is just about to be banned in France. I reiterate: Most western conservatives, christian democrats and liberals do not deny the genocidal character of Soviet crimes such as the Holodomor, or various other 20th century genocides such as the Bosnian Genocide, for example by insisting on the definition of genocide preferred by Stalin in 1948 which has long ago been replaced by a broader, modern definition in western discourse. Tataral (talk) 05:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You have no sources for your assertion and the comparison of holocaust denial with a dispute over the categorization of the crimes of Stalin is offensive. TFD (talk) 05:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't have time for your frivolous claims of this declaration being voted over and your frivolous claims of well sourced material being unsourced. By contrast, your own claims are completely unsourced. I don't care what you think is "offensive" based on your political views, it's voluntary to read Wikipedia's articles and debates. Denial is denial and Wikipedia has an article on Denial of the Holodomor. If you find that offensive, that's not my problem. Tataral (talk) 05:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You believe that the fact that people you claim supported a resolution did not vote for it is frivolous. Hard to argue against that logic. TFD (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about. You are the one arguing against some strawman, according to which, there was a vote on this declaration, when there was not. Tataral (talk) 06:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You are right, it was not a vote but a request that people sign it. Almost all moderates, left and right, outside Eastern Europe, refused to do so. That does not represent overwhelming support as you claim. TFD (talk) 06:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Your source for this alleged "request"? This was a declaration concluding an historical conference. Some people chose to sign it afterwards as well. There has never been any vote over this declaration, except in the Bulgarian Parliament. Proposals of the declaration have been voted over in the European Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE and received broad support. Tataral (talk) 06:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Apparently you can't decide if the PD is an east european right wing thing, or "the opinion of the entire EU".Spitfire3000 (talk) 06:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I have claimed neither, but you have demonstrated your POV again. The Prague Declaration is the opinion of European statesmen such as Havel and Gauck, and a group of historians and people wrongfully persecuted by communist regimes, who have made proposals that have found resonance among the political centre and centre-right establishment in Europe. Tataral (talk) 07:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I have admitted my POV a million times and you have admitted yours. That is why we need other editors to help. 70 left-wing parliamentarians (soon do be joined by conservatives) have declared the explicit opinion that the Prague Declaration stinks, and you dismiss this as "Katz's blog" because Katz doesn't have huge government funding for his POV. Nevertheless, his opposition has provoked response (for and against) in the media, from embassies, in governments........ I am sure if his "blog declaration" supported your POV you would allow its more prominent inclusion in the page, on the grounds that 70 parliamentarians signed it, and the foreign minister and prime minister of lithuania saw fit to respond to it, and the mainstream media reported it directly.Spitfire3000 (talk) 09:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

If "Katz doesn't have huge government funding for his POV", it's because it's not particularly notable. Tataral (talk) 10:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

POV dispute

Tataral, when the EP passes a nonbinding resolution on one of the many demands of the Prague Declaration, you value it highly, and try to make the page look like the "entire EU" supports the Prague Declaration. On the other hand, the UN definition of genocide you say is no longer valid because Stalin helped design it. For this and a million other reasons documented above, I call POV here and invite others to read our previous debates. I agree that sometimes your guardianship of source reliability is honourable, but using it to maintain your own POV on the page is not honourable and is against wikipedia rules, especially http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules. You have now become belligerent "i haven't got time / that's not my problem" and I can no longer assume good faith. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assume_good_faith We are supposed to be working together to make a better encyclopedia, not accuse people of "denying" Holodomor while they are repeatedly reported acknowledging Holodomor in their own writings and in reliable secondary sources. I had to argue strongly for you to "allow" a criticism section that didn't slur Jews as communists (really? that old canard?) And the Prague Declaration is hardly ever mentioned in secondary sources, in fact it is mentioned less than Dovid Katz who you find objectionable and refuse to allow his inclusion on this page, despite the fact that he has been regularly featured in the media, not only in opinion pages, and the Prime Minister of the country where he lives has responded to his Seventy Years Declaration which you say is unimportant. He lives in Lithuania - which you referred to as an "obscure country", showing your ignorance of the facts. Lithuania is one of the main sponsors of the so-called (by whom??) Prague Process You have flooded the page with every quotation you can possibly find where someone argues that Hitler and Stalin were the same, leaving the page a sea of almost identical quotations from the same ring of east european right wingers and official announcements which are carefully worded (you also like to only include the part of the quotation that supports your POV, deleting attempts to include other parts). When I offer criticism, you dismiss it as "extreme left wing". I have never met a clearer example of a gatekeeper with a strong POV. I appeal to other editors to assess the article, the debate on the Talk page, and to help us straighten the pole. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_put_up_a_straight_pole_by_pushing_it_at_an_angle Spitfire3000 (talk) 06:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this doesn't really deserve any substantial reply. You have yourself shown to have a strong POV that you are trying to push, whereas I have only reported official developments in this regard. You are completely misrepresenting what I have written, including made up claims of me claiming the "entire EU" support a declaration when I have made no such claims. We are not going to turn the article into a vehicle for the crusade of a few individuals. Tataral (talk) 07:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes I have admitted that I too have a POV, hence reference to the pole straightening. My POV is that the east european right wingers are trying to gain support for a declaration that only east european right wingers support fully. They have not gained this support, as evidenced by the sources. Your continual reference to one non-binding resolution of the EP, and one page of the huge Vilnius Declaration adopted by the PA of the OSCE, which the OSCE don't refer to as significant in their own press release, is getting tedious.Spitfire3000 (talk) 07:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You are entitled to hold the view that "the east european right wingers are trying to gain support for a declaration", but this view isn't supported by any sources. Firstly, this declaration concluding a conference attended by historians and political prisoners is several years old and nobody are trying to gain support for the declaration per se today. Various governments and politicians are trying to gain support for various of its proposals, and have succeeded in this as this article carefully documents. You are claiming that the more than 87 % of the European Parliament members that supported the remembrance day and the Platform of European Memory and Conscience are "east european right wingers", apparently. That doesn't seem like a mainstream point of view. If you find relevant references to a European Parliament resolution "tedious", that's not my problem. The European Parliament doesn't issue "binding" resolutions, there is no such thing in the European Parliament. Tataral (talk) 07:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

...which is exaclty why the EP resolution is not strong evidence of europe-wide support, and the signatories and sponsors of the Prague Declaration are a stronger clue as to its reach. Spitfire3000 (talk) 07:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

There are no claims made of "europe-wide support" or any other support than the documented support. A European Parliament resolution is relevant, whether you like it or not. Tataral (talk) 07:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

it is also of very little importance, whether you like it or not, and the wording you have used on this and other pages consistently tries to inflate its importance, to give the reader the impression of europe-wide cross-party support. I have tried to balance this impression by, for example, including criticism and mentioning how few member states have adopted the only proposal that has any support - but you keep deleting this fact because the best source is "out of date". you offer no other more up-to-date sources that suggest that black ribbon day has any more support since the PD, except for the EP resolution which has had little effect on anything except this wikipedia page and others you edit. Spitfire3000 (talk) 07:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That's more of your opinion; I have never claimed a resolution to have any more importance that it does have. Edits like this are certainly not helpful, encyclopedic or neutral[2] (it was removed as weasel words[3]). Tataral (talk) 07:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You yourself have used phrases like "hailing a historic victory" etc. Pot is calling kettle black. There is a POV dispute here and it is tagged as such. Please do not remove the POV tag until the dispute is resolved. I explained that there is a lot more to the POV dispute than those "weasel words" which were, by the way, yet another attempt to nullify the impression that a majority of european member states observe the rememberance day proposed by the Prague Declaration. Spitfire3000 (talk) 08:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

No, there is no POV dispute, it's you inserting blatantly unencyclopedic material into the article and making a point. I've never used the sentence "hailing a historic victory", I have merely cited the newspaper New Europe. Tataral (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

there IS a POV dispute, i am not the only editor who has pointed this out, you alone are here gatekeeping. Your opinion of whether or not their is a POV dispute doesn't seem to justify removal of the POVdispute tag. My insistence on it is evidence of dispute, whether you acknowledge me or not. I accepted many of your corrections and the deletion of the "weasel words" but i still dispute that the page is balanced. Seeing as my editing is so ineffective and not to your liking, I call on other editors to assist. That is the purpose of the POV tag. We are in dispute. We need help. If you think i am vandalising, try to ban me. Tag stays until this dispute is resolved.

more evidence of Tataral's POV is available on the Havel page. thanks to Tataral the Prague Declaration even gets a mention in the introduction of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A1clav_Havel where it was originally VERY prominent and has since been reduced in prominence thanks to my help. But, it is still too prominent, preceeding highly presitgious awards and jammed in the same paragraph as the far more important Charter 77. This is what I am saying: Tataral puts "legitimate" things in where it suits his POV, and deletes legitimate edits that don't. (yes, he also deletes bad edits and i have thanked him for that earlier in our exchanges). Tataral's arguments about the quality of sources are applied only when it suits his POV. He has used myriad excuses to exclude Katz, a major figure in the debate, whose contributions are acknowledged in the media and by governments and parliamentarians. Tataral says that using wordpress is a reason to exclude Katz, and ignores all the reasons to include him. Tataral called Lithuania "insignificant" and deleted one of my edits, then I explained to him that Lithuania is not insignificant. If he had read the list of signatories and his own inclusion of a photo of Landsbergis, one of the key proponents of the Prague Declaration AND Lithuanian independence, he would have known Lithuania is not insignificant. The fact that he deleted my edit without checking sadly leads me to believe he is acting in bad faith. Seeing as he is the only one here arguing, i appeal for more editors to help. The fact that Tataral unilaterally disagrees on the need for help means absolutely nothing. Spitfire3000 (talk) 09:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it's you trying to push the clearly fringe POV that 87 % of the European Parliament, the European Commission, the governments of half a dozen European countries etc. are all just "east european right wingers" (actually, there are very few if any "right-wingers" among the signatories of this declaration, there are social democrats, liberals, mainstream conservatives, greens and non-partisans, and its proposals are mostly advanced by the European People's Party, the Greens and the Liberals). Apparently you admit to being involved in campaigning against the declaration outside of Wikipedia. You continue to misrepresent everything I write, I've never said using Wordpress was the reason for "excluding" Katz' blog, I have only argued that it meets all criteria for being considered a personal blog, the publishing system is in itself not important. Katz, who admitted to appear as an eccentric and maverick in this debate, is an established scholar on Yiddish language, but that is not very relevant to this declaration on communism. The declaration belongs in the Havel article. It wasn't me who moved it near the top of the introduction (which was originally much longer). Tataral (talk) 10:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The European Commission did not endorse the Prague Declaration and half a dozen european governments is a minority in the EU. My POV is not "fringe" as i have explained many times, patiently trying to show you information you don't have access to. Do you think the Prime Minister of Lithuania takes time to go on radio shows and discuss "fringe" views?Spitfire3000 (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you are misusing the POV tag, the article seems well balanced with a significant criticisms section. --Nug (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. While there might be things that could be improved in all parts of the article, which I am willing to discuss, this isn't an issue of POV at all, and the article has a very long criticism section reporting various criticisms even when the criticisms were mostly directed at one specific country and its local conditions (Lithuania) and not at the declaration or its initiators or signatories in general, and even though almost all criticism (except the one from various communist parties) is the result of the campaigning of "a tiny group of people". The fact that the article doesn't portray everything in light of Katz' POV, i.e. that everything is just about "east european right wingers" (which is obviously a small minority point of view and quite absurd when we are talking about more than 87 % of the European Parliament) doesn't justify any tag. Tataral (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Spitfire, the European Parliament and Commission have embraced the proposals of this declaration that you find most objectionable.[4][5] Half a dozen European governments, when all the other governments are neutral and not a single government opposed, is not a minority view. If everyone else are neutral, the half a dozen get it their way. Tataral (talk) 05:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

the so-called Prague Process

Tataral seems to argue that this is an old declaration and is uncapable of being either "supported" or "unsupported". Therefore I propose removing the "Prague Process" information and merging it to another page as it is merely a collection of political developments related to interpretation of european history, and is not directly linked to the Prague Declaration. The same information is already on other pages or could be merged into other pages more appropriately.

The Prague Declaration is just a declaration in a long line of attempts to revise the perception of genocide and european history, and (leaving the merits of that revision aside) these "Prague Process" developments are not sufficiently linked in the sources to the Prague Declaration itself to be suitable for inclusion on this page. Added to this - the "so-called Prague Process" has been named as such only by supporters, and I can't find any other evidence it actually exists.

Removing the Prague Process from this page (leaving it on wikipedia in other more appropriate places), and leaving the criticism section, would seem to be a way of resolving most of the POV problems here. If I found a far-right organisation declaring that Black Ribbon Day should be observed, I wouldn't credit their declaration with all other related developments unless the sources showed that their organisation was the originator. The Prague Process doesn't even have an organisation and the sources don't show that the Prague Declaration was the key to many of the subsequent developments.

Spitfire3000 (talk) 09:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The developments covered in the aftermath section are related to the Prague Declaration, such as the Bulgarian Parliament officially endorsing the Prague Declaration, The Greens–European Free Alliance stating that the the Prague Declaration "should be the common basis for the research on and evaluation of communist regimes in all countries in East-Europe", the European Democrat Students adopting the Prague Declaration as part of their general policy, and the European Parliament adopting some of its proposals (the EPP's original motion for a resolution cited the declaration[6]). But there is a possibility that parts of that section could fit in a different article and some information could be moved. I don't know, at this time, which article that could be, it might not yet exist. The term Prague process is used in relation to these developments for example by Meike Wulf, in "Politics of History in Estonia: Changing Memory Regimes 1987–2009". In Neamtu, Mihail. History of Communism in Europe. 1. Bucharest: Zeta Books. pp. 243–265. Tataral (talk) 10:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

If i start deleting the unrelated stuff, will you claim i am a baseless vandal?

Which of the PD proposals did the EP actually adopt directly from the PD? The new suggestion for the name of Black Ribbon Day? Which is not even consistently used by the states that adopted it at national level? Those states are in a minority anyway, a fact you have made every effort to exclude from the page. Can we (carefully and unemotionally and unweasely) mention that several proposals have gone nowhere and one has been rejected? or is that just an "opinion"?

Many things are "related to the Prague Process" but that doesn't mean they should be on the Prague Declaration page, particularly while the "so-called Prague Process" is rarely so-called and doesn't represent a coherent body of action by an identifiable body.

I am glad you agree that the term "Prague Process" is very rarely used. And it seems to be used in inverted commas.

Thankyou for the Meike Wulf paper. Notable was his assessment of mythmaking in the Ukraine which parallels Lithuania exactly: "...the process of national mythmaking after 1991 needed to screen out crimes against humanity, fascist activism, and local collaboration in the Holocaust committed by these very "resistance fighters"". That supports Katz and Zuroff, doesn't it? Spitfire3000 (talk) 11:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I am open to the possibility of moving some material, but I suggest we discuss what to remove and where to move it before implementing it. The section is titled "aftermath" and Prague process used in quotation marks, but it could be removed from the section heading as it's not very essential to anything, just a practical term to sum of things that are clearly related and which have been going on for a couple of years. One cannot reasonably expect that out of a long list of proposals, all or many should be implemented right away by political bodies in Europe, that's absurd. If one or two or three are implemented after such a short time, that's more than what the signatories had likely expected. Not all the proposals are proposals for immediate practical results, but ideas for what should be achieved on a more general level (obviously not necessarily from one day to another). And again, the six FM's proposal wasn't "rejected" in principle. Tataral (talk) 11:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

23 August as a remembrance day commemorated by 10 countries and counting (increased from 3?), and by the European Parliament/Commission was an original proposal of this declaration, as was the establishment of the Platform of European Memory and Conscience. Tataral (talk) 11:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I have tried many times to remove Prague Process from that subheading, and i presume it was you who kept putting it back there because nobody else seems interested in this article. I propose calling it "Aftermath" and deleting everything that the sources do not link as a direct consequence of the PD. "Aftermath" means "Aftermath of the Prague Declaration" not "similar things that happened after the PD was declared". To use an admittedly oversimplified analogy - if some MEPs made a declaration calling for the Sun to rise and fall each day, you could not say that daylight was part of the "Aftermath" of their declaration.

And again, about the "rejection" - Can we use the wording "kept under review, pending legal changes that are highly complicated and will probably never happen due to a lack of enthusiasm and a lack of perceived necessity?" No, I think rejection is more accurate. so does the Guardian. It's not my POV, it's simply what the word "rejected" means in plain english. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/21/european-commission-communist-crimes-nazism

Thankyou for your answer on the fact that only two proposals have so far been taken up positively at european level. When taking up these proposals, was the Prague Declaration directly credited as the impetus? In other words, were either of these advances passed with explicit acknowledgement of the Prague Declaration? Spitfire3000 (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick reply for now: I think you are asking questions you know the answer to. As Heidemarie Uhl writes in "Conflicting Cultures of Memory in Europe: New Borders between East and West?", published in one of the publications you used previously (she is also cited in the article), the remembrance day and the other initative were proposals of this declaration.[7] As EurActiv reports, the 2009 EP resolution was drafted by Jana Hybášková, initiator of the Prague Declaration (she is also a co-sponsor of the adopted text on behalf of the EPP Group)[8]. The EPP Group's original motion for a resolution (on both the remembrance day and the platform) cites the Prague Declaration[9], while not the adopted text, it's also an official and public document, hence a source. There has been various press coverage of the efforts to create an institute or platform of memory and conscience, and on the remembrance day, making it clear that the proposals originate from the Prague Declaration. EUObserver reporting[10], other press coverage can be found. There was an article in an Israeli newspaper where Zuroff was interviewed some years ago which also made it clear that these proposals originated from the declaration, I might look for it later. I agree on just "Aftermath" as a section heading. Tataral (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

If you read the article carefully, you'll also see that everything that has happened after 2008 are indeed based on the Prague Declaration. For example the European Public Hearing on 18 March 2009 was organised by the Czech Presidency of the EU "in co-operation with MEPs supporting the Prague Declaration", and as "the third step towards the establishment of a European platform of memory and conscience to support the activities of institutions engaged in reconciling with totalitarian regimes in Europe." Its conclusions called for "the establishment of the Platform of European Memory and Conscience". I think the language used here ("third step" etc.) makes it pretty clear how the many developments are related. Tataral (talk) 05:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

And here is an article from RFE/RL[11]

"The Prague meeting is part of a process that started in 2008 when prominent European politicians, human rights activists, and victims of communism met in the Czech capital to issue the Prague Declaration, which calls for Europe-wide condemnation of, and education about, the crimes of communism. Now, on October 14, this process will mark a major milestone as the 20 institutions sign a "Platform for European Memory and Conscience.""

Tataral (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

An unrelated observation: The single most important person as far as the Prague declaration and initatives in the European Parliament based on it are concerned, Jana Hybášková, is the former chairwoman of the European delegation for relations with Israel, now the EU's ambassador to Iraq, and a well known friend of Israel who has a long track record of taking an interest in Middle Eastern issues (Iran) and advocating a pro-Israeli position. Which is one of several reasons I think Israel would be more likely to support this declaration than oppose it, per Barry Rubin's analysis, and as I understand Katz, having read/heard his comments on the Israeli position, I think he might agree with that. Tataral (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Opposition to the Prague Declaration and Putinism

I have looked more thoroughly into this material now, and it does appear that out of the main opponents of this declaration, many (almost all?) are in various ways affiliated with "World Without Nazism". For example the main initiator of the counter-declaration is described by the Russian state-owned TV channel Russia Today (to which he regularly gives interviews) as being "from the World Without Nazism Movement" and is a contributor to their website, they "sponsor" various events he takes part in, and this is also mentioned several times on his websites. As the article on that organisation with an Orwellian name makes it clear, it is an organisation set up by the authoritarian Putin regime to promote the Russian view on history, particularly in relation to the Baltic states (their "focus" countries). They claim the Soviet Union "liberated" these countries by occupying them twice in 1940 and 1944, and the organisation appears to have been founded to promote this idea in particular. As Wikipedia's article notes, it is intimately tied to the Russian foreign ministry and their aims, and widely considered (outside Russia) an astroturfing organisation set up by an authoritarian country mainly to attack three EU and NATO members (the Baltic countries) for political reasons.

The opponents of the Prague Declaration frequently use name calling against their opponents, such as defaming supporters of the declaration or its proposals as being Baltic and "far-right" and responsible for "obfuscation". In reality, almost all of the supporters of this declaration and process are affiliated with the centre-right European People's Party or even Greens or Liberals, and are all mainstream European democratic politicians. Such claims, however, make it legitimate to look into who the opponents are, particularly when they appear to choose to affiliate with for example Putinist propaganda organisations.

It is interesting to observe, that while the European Union and initatives related to this declaration all emphasize that both Stalinism and Nazism were terrible and not in any way claim Nazism was a lesser evil than it was (why would the Czech Republic or Poland make such claims? Makes no sense), Russia (the perpetrator of the Stalinist crimes) only talks about Nazism and doesn't say a word about Stalinism (in fact, they erect new statues of Stalin and promote revisionist history in school textbooks). It is well documented that there is currently a trend of Neo-Stalinism in Russia today, particularly since Putin came to power, and today, Russia is considered an authoritarian country in the Democracy Index (whereas the countries supporting the initatives of the Prague Declaration are all democratic countries). The "World Without Nazism" "movement" (actually a GONGO) is arguably an organisation advocating such views in line with the current ideology in Russia.

It is highly notable that the main opposition against initiatives of this declaration has come from Putin's Russia, as for example the BBC reported (Resolution on Stalin riles Russia). It appears that this declaration is opposed, as one would expect, mainly by Russia, by left-wing groups (mainly communist parties), and by those otherwise affiliated in various ways with or sharing their views, i.e. by those upholding a pro-Soviet view on history according to which the Soviet Union was "good".

As noted before, the initiators of the counter-declaration highlighted the support from "a vice president of the Bundestag". The Bundestag has a whole bunch of vice presidents and the only one who signed their declaration was the sole one from the party historically known as the East German communist party, who joined the East German communist party in 1983. The first press coverage was an interview in the newspaper Junge Welt (once the largest newspaper of East Germany, now considered to be "extremist" by the authorities in its own country). Tataral (talk) 10:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking more into "World without Nazism", another of our articles has this description

"2010 saw the Russian Federation Council member Boris Shpigel initiate the formation of the organisation "World without Nazism" in Kiev, with the aim of creating the situation where questioning Russia's version of historical events is equated with Holocaust denial. The organisation's management board has two Estonian resident representatives Maksim Reva and Andrei Zarenkov, who according to the Estonian Security Police are radical nationalists who promote Russian chauvinism"

The organisation is also known for its extensive use of Soviet Union rituals and symbols in its events, as the article on it points out.

When we are discussing "double genocide", the founder of "World without Nazism", Boris Spiegel, claimed Georgia committed "genocide" during the 2008 South Ossetia war, in line with the Russian nationalist position, a term he is not, however, willing to use when it comes to Stalin's deportations of large numbers of people from the Baltic countries, many of whom did not survive. Tataral (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is an accurate summary. We all abhore Nazi crimes and the Holocaust was really a terrible thing, but it seems that when democracies attempt to shine the light on Stalinist crimes, a small vocal group attempts to obsfucate that with appaling accusations of "Holocaust obsfucation". --Nug (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. There appears to be an orchestrated campaign by World Without Nazism against the declaration. He is an article by its founder/chairman[12], published by the Russian Embassy. Interestingly he accuses the countries formerly dominated/occupied by Russia of undergoing "rapid nazification," thereby explaining the name/goals of his organization. Boris Spiegel is rather controversial due to his strong pro-Putin stance.[13] Spiegel also proposes a common history textbook for all of Europe based on the Russian view on history. His statement on behalf of the organization is otherwise highly critical of the historical role of the "Western European democracies," in line with Russian/Soviet historiography. Tataral (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Child affected by malnutrition.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Child affected by malnutrition.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)