Talk:Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation

V of CMF

A sloppy selection of the name: "Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation" :-) - Altenmann >t 17:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

people who got the medal

why aren't they mentioned in the article ?

http://victimsofcommunism.org/mission/history/ names

1999 "Soviet dissident Elena Bonner, Bulgarian Prime Minister Philip Dimitrov, Lithuanian statesman Vytautas Landsbergis, and longtime labor union leader Lane Kirkland"

2003 Vaclav Havel

2005 Pope John Paul II

Looks as if these six people were the only repicients . --Neun-x (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Philosophy section

Philosophy section as iyt stands has no relevnce to the foundation. Yes, the foundation may have philosophy and its goals. But such section must come from sources which specifically discuss foundation. Wikipedia already has hundreds of articles about evils of communist ideology, we cannot repeat them in this article. - üser:Altenmann >t 02:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, "Only socialist countries have achieved the tragic distinction of launching rockets into outer space while millions of their citizens starve to death in famine."ref name="Smith"/" is not "philosophy", but ignorant propaganda bullshitting. Holodomor was in 1930s while rockets were in 1960s. Just the same we may speak about United States as "only capitalist countries launching rockets while genocide of its indigenous population or lynching negroes or not giving voting rights to women" and so on. - üser:Altenmann >t 02:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Recent IP edit now has sources

So maybe it's not a good idea to revert again without discussion. I may have missed something, but it looks more or less right. Doug Weller talk 18:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I reverted. The WP:ONUS is on the IP to get consensus for their changes. And given they started without sources, it's clear a POV motivation is here. Those sources will need close analysis for reliability, NPOV, and WP:Due; I am highly skeptical about their changes. By no means is all or even most anti-communism "right wing" or "conservative", and these are clearly being used as snarl words. Even many socialists and other anti-capitalists oppose authoritarian Communism. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

And I see that the sources were being used in regard to the Black Book of Communism. We are not going to WP:COATRACK this article with one-sided criticism of that book. The sources at that article are clear that the book was praised as well. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation is one of the biggest tent anti-communist organizations around, many of the stakeholders and decision makers are right wing or conservative but many aren’t (for instance the current government of Taiwan). The Black Book of Communism has been debated to death, what we had before the IP’s addition was fair and I echo Crossroads’s coatrack concerns. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a look again tomorrow but it's now taking clearly fringe conspiratorial positions or at least it's taken one by blaming COVID deaths on Communism. Doug Weller talk 20:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting that we use them as a definitive source for anything but I don’t think their position is fringe or conspiratorial. Their logic appears to be that the CCP’s initial coverup and non-transparent governing mechanisms are responsible for turning what should have been a manageable regional cluster into a global pandemic, they then ascribe that specific failure by the CCP to prevent a pandemic to communism at large [1] which is pointy and oversimplified to the point of being a pretty much useless statistic but not technically inaccurate. The first half of that argument (that the CCP’s initial coverup and non-transparent governing mechanisms caused this to turn into a pandemic) is something you will find in the pages of any WP:RS, the only contentious thing is the attribution of the deaths to communism writ large. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Personally I think its a jump too far as theres nothing about health crisis coverups and non-transparent governing mechanisms inherent in communism, examples of both can be found in every system on earth to some extent, and it removes any responsibility for COVID deaths from other governments which I think is inappropriate at a time when so many are struggling to hold their own governments accountable for their response to the pandemic. I don’t see it as advancing any conspiracy theories, although I think it would be fair to characterize the claim writ large as hyperbolic. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: if not conspiracy, it's still fringe. As you say, it remove responsibility from governments and that view is definitely not mainstream. I just saw the figures for deaths per million, and the UK, whose government has been late and confused, is at the top, then the US. Doug Weller talk

Lets be clear about what part is fringe though, the fringe part is blaming global COVID-19 deaths on Communism. Blaming them on the CCP isn't fringe, I think its clear to everyone at this point that the CCP fucked up monumentally in containing this thing and warning the world about it. Everyone who trusted the CCP even a little bit has suffered, the only mostly uninfected major nation is Taiwan and thats because they started from a position of zero trust (well actually less than that, from a position of deep mistrust) in the CCP and took action when the CCP was (we now know dishonestly) saying no action needed to be taken. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I missed something but I saw no source for calling this organization "right-wing/conservative". I also don't get the need for adding all these sources when we already link to 'The Black Book of Communism' in the article (and ergo the controversy surrounding the body count). I also don't see the need for bringing out the fact that "historians, scholars, and analysts" have criticized the book.....rather than just noting them as critics here and letting the reader go to the aforementioned page to read deeper as to their background.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Greetings, gentlemen. Sorry for not taking part in this discussion earlier. I was busy with other matters before I noticed activity on this talkpage. Anyways, as I was stating earlier in my recent edit summary, while left-leaning individuals may express anti-communism themselves, the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation in particular has never supported any leftist causes, and the Foundation's chairman, Lee Edwards, is a conservative scholar and a distinguished fellow in conservative thought at the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing thinktank in the United States. Other conservative and right-of-centre leadership figures in the VOCMF include Lev Dobriansky (A member of the Republican Party and the Ambassador to the Bahamas under President Ronald Reagan), Paul Hollander (A Hungarian critic of communism and left-wing politics in general), John Kirk Singlaub (A US Major General and founding member of the CIA who criticized President Jimmy Carter's withdrawal of troops from the Korean peninsula and was directly implicated in the Iran-Contra affair), George Weigel (A Catholic conservative activist and supporter of authoritarian regimes), Jack Kemp (A conservative Republican and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under President George H.W. Bush), Sali Berisha (A right-wing conservative Albanian politician and former President and Prime Minister), Emil Constantinescu (A centre-right politician and former President of Romania), Mart Laar (A centre-right politician and former Prime Minister of Estonia), Vytautas Landsbergis (A conservative Lithuanian politician and former President of Lithuania), Guntis Ulmanis (A centre-right Latvian politician and former President of Latvia), Armando Valladares (A centre-right Cuban anti-communist activist and supporter of the Contras in Nicaragua), and Lech Walesa (A centre-right Polish politician and former President of Poland). All of these figures are at the very least, right-of-centre, and none of them have endorsed any left-wing organizations or activities. 195.91.48.221 (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Lech Walesa was at one point in the 1990s center right, they certainly aren’t anymore though... I’d say they’re endorsing what at least in Poland are considered left-wing organizations or activities [2][3]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Civic Platform (PO) is not a left-wing party though, and it has never been. At best, it is a centre to centre-right liberal conservative political party in support of a free market, the European Union, and slightly more liberal stances on social issues, but by and large, PO is still right-of-centre. And not to mention that being concerned about liberal democracy is not a left-right issue, considering that any position on the political spectrum is capable of authoritarianism. 195.91.48.221 (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Where do you see that Lech Walesa is a Civic Platform party member? I’m not saying its not true but its not supported by either the Lech Walesa page, the Civic Platform, nor does it come up in a google search. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know that things like opposing a withdraw from Korea (which was opposed by people on both sides on the aisle) or being part of the CIA really reveals someone as right [or left] wing. Also, a lot of the foreign (to the United States) politicians you mention fall well outside of the spectrum of American right-wing politics. (Which I assume the basis of the right-wing declaration.) People like Lech Walesa and Guntis Ulmanis couldn't get elected as dog catcher in the GOP at this point (due to their stances on things like labor unions, health care and so on). The common thread among just about everyone you listed is someone who spent a large part of their career fighting communism and/or being victims of it. In any case, it's OR to start labeling this group as "conservatives" or "right-wingers" based on your assessment of their backgrounds. I see no RS on that. It's a relevance issue as well because (as others have pointed out) a wide variety of characters opposed communism during the Cold War (including liberal icons like JFK).Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Except that the VOCMF was founded in the 1990s, way beyond JFK and related left-leaning US politicians' lifetimes, and none of them were members or leaders of the Foundation. Once again, we are discussing the listed leadership figures here, not other personas. They are not the topic of this discussion. And Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, not one written from a Americentric perspective. Whether the figures "fall outside of the American political spectrum" (Which is ironically original research in itself) is irrelevant, because in no way did I imply an American basis for such declaration, and they are right-of-centre precisely due to their support for free-market economics (privatization, deregulation, austerity, etc) and socially conservative policies. 195.91.48.221 (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

It's still OR. It also doesn't make a whole lot of sense (regardless of when it was founded) to label a organization "right-wing" that opposed a philosophy that also attracted opponents in socialist/left-wing politics in other nations as well. (The Labour Party in the UK is a example). Bottom line: you need some RS for this if you want support.....and even then, I question the relevance here. (Although RS would possibly garner support for your POV from others.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

"Right-wing anti-Communist" is a redundant expression similar to "left-wing anti-Fascist." Certainly while the center opposes both Communism and Fascism, the terms imply a much stronger antipathy which comes from the opposite end of the political spectrum. The section on the people involved clearly shows their right-wing credentials, that should be enough. TFD (talk)

To User:Rja13ww33: Let's get one fact clear here. While there are certainly centrist and even left-leaning anti-communists out there, the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation in particular is overwhelmingly led and staffed by figures who have well-established right-wing credentials, as their sections and related sources clearly show. Ergo, the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation is, at the very least, a right-of-centre organization, and this fact should be explicitly mentioned in the article's lede. 195.91.48.221 (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

You need to get a RS for that. So far, all I've heard is your (questionable) evaluation of the backgrounds of the leadership of this group......that's WP:OR. I (also) still question the relevance of labeling this group "right"....but as I said, RS may garner your POV more support from others.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The fact that Lee Edwards et al are conservatives is obvious if you take a look at these sources in particular:

https://books.google.com/books?id=ZJ7phRjZmUsC&pg=PA81 https://books.google.com/books?id=Sag0i4r-Ic8C&pg=PR10 https://www.heritage.org/staff/lee-edwards https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/lee-edwards-when-the-new-right-was-new/ http://old.nationalreview.com/nordlinger/nordlinger200407221016.asp https://europeanconservative.com/2019/04/paul-hollander-1932-2019/ https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=I9kRAAAAIBAJ&pg=6859%2C844160 http://rightweb.irc-online.org/gw/2815.html https://web.archive.org/web/20081012074837/http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jzQtw1kATj1xCqPcAmwgCKDtNpDQD93LGSJG0 https://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/64535087.html?dids=64535087:64535087&FMT=ABS https://www.jstor.org/stable/25154655?seq=1 https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-cathedral-and-the-cube-reflections-on-european-morale/ https://www.thebostonpilot.com/opinion/article.asp?ID=186256 https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9504E6D7163EF93BA25756C0A9659C8B63 https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9407E5D71E3EF933A25757C0A9679C8B63 https://web.archive.org/web/20110524210141/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/articles/950213/archive_011365.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20110524205906/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/961209/archive_035121.htm http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,977006-2,00.html 95.102.240.38 (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

While that's a valid argument, we cannot use it per "no synthesis." You would need a source saying that it was run by right-wingers, not just sources for each person running it that there were right-wing. Unfortunately, not much has been written about the group. I know that they received some coverage in Canada because they had to change the wording of their inscription and then their permission to use the original location was revoked. But it's probably a separate organization. TFD (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Just a note for you: a few links didn't work. But the one on Paul Hollander illuminates what you are trying to do here. Even your source (which I am not even sure is RS) calls him a "anti-communist scholar" and later says "Hollander was often cited, particularly in conversations with libertarians, classical liberals, and conservative scholars (that is, those who best understand the threat of collectivism)". In other words, a critic of communism cited by other critics of communism. I don't think this really qualifies him as a conservative or right-winger. This is a lot of OR and SYN. And again I ask: what is the relevance (to the reader) as to whether this group is right-wing (or whatever) considering the broad coalition that stood against communism during the Cold War?Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. To even begin to consider this as a possibility, we would need WP:Reliable sources that state that this group is right-wing or conservative. Not just certain individuals associated with it - that's WP:Synthesis. And lest I later be accused of moving the goalposts, I will note that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: a communist-sympathetic opinion outlet that is just trying to tar all opposition to communism as right-wing would not be a good enough source. And it should be noted that the 1993 Act of Congress which authorized the memorial passed unanimously (i.e. by left-leaning and right-leaning members) and was signed by Democratic U.S. President Bill Clinton. The article Anti-communism also makes clear that anti-communism is not just a right-wing thing. So I do not see the utility of these labels at all. I think they would contradict the spirit behind WP:LABEL. Even though "conservative" and "right-wing" are not inherently value laden and are indeed in many cases both accurate and proudly worn by that to which it is affixed, in this case it misleads the reader about this group and about anti-communism and is clearly intended to be value-laden beyond what is appropriate. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Not that it proves anything about the organisation, but Clinton's signature cannot be seen as endorsing it, even if he did. He had no choice. But it's true that we might have an article which shows that the organisation is basically run by conservatives but that we can't call conservative or right wing. Doug Weller talk 01:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I see a slippery slope here, if we can characterize an organization by characteristics of its leadership without a WP:RS making the contention about the organization as a whole then it would be perfectly logical to go and describe the Republican Party as a “white male Political Party.” Likewise most corporations (especially outside the US and EU) could be described as a “male company.” If WP:RS say the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation is less big tent than I’ve been led to believe I can accept that, but I haven't seen it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

What slippery slope? I said we couldn't call it conservative or right wing on the basis of its leadership. Doug Weller talk 16:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I’m agreeing with your final sentence and explaining why I agree. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The real question (that no one will answer) is: why exactly is it relevant that they are right-wing (if they are)? (Given the history of this.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rja13ww33: I don't understand - are you saying that the politics of an organisation isn't relevant? For one thing, it's about aims. A right-wing anti-communist group likely has different aims than a left-wing one. Doug Weller talk 13:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Different aims? That's highly questionable. Different tactics.....that's for sure. Certainly there were people (for example) who agreed with our effort to contain communism/the USSR who opposed involvement in the Vietnam War and/or (say) Contra aid. But at the end of the day, they all saw containment as important. That's what is relevant in this regard in my opinion. This group is not about any specific action of the Cold War...just the object of it.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not questionable at all. To take the extremes, a left wing group might be wanting to replace Communism with a non Marxist-Leninist form of socialism, a rightwing group with fascism. Doug Weller talk 19:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

To me it's highly questionable. It's sort of like labeling a group that fought the NSDAP as left/right. We are talking a broad coalition of opposition to a ideology.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

In Roads to Dominion (p. 9), Sara Diamond writes, "At an elite level, anticommunism was about preserving economic inequality, the libertarian strain in right-wing thinking. At a more mass level, anticommunism was about obedience to authority and repression of domestic political dissent and deviant tendencies in the broader culture." She then explains how it provided a unifying cause for the U.S. Right.[4] Paul Hollander was definitely a man of the Right. TFD (talk) 02:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly a quote from a (obscure) sociologist proves. The politics of this are quite clear. They brought into the same tent leaders like Konrad Adenauer (who was jailed in Nazi Germany) and James Callaghan with people like Thatcher, Reagan, Kohl, etc. This is not to mention the various parties in France, the UK, and so on that despite their leftist leanings were also (in some form or another) part of the Cold War coalition. As far as Mr. Hollander's views go, I see nothing that says he is a right-winger. Just that he was a critic "of communism and left-wing politics". Which doesn't automatically make him right wing. (He could be centrist for all this article says.) Bill Clinton ran (in 1992) criticizing a lot of left (and obviously right) policies. The coalition historically has been so broad that labeling any group as anything (other than anti-communist) is pretty meaningless.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Sara Diamond is actually well known as a scholar of the American Right and owns the largest private collection on the subject, which is now housed at Berkeley.[5] Of your list of prominent Cold Warriors, all of them except Callaghan were right-wing. Adenauer, for despite being briefly imprisoned by the Nazis several times, had supported Hitler's rise to power. There's very little in Callaghan's entry in the Cold War Reference Guide to classify him as an anticommunist. When he was foreign secretary, Labour cut defense spending and as PM he negotiated loans for the Soviet Union and told the U.S. not to invade Angola. On the other hand, his support for detente was weak and he thought the USSR should also stay out of Angola and he wanted the UK to keep its nuclear weapons.[6] Whereas to Adenauer, fighting communism was the most important thing, Callaghan had it lower down the priority list. And it's questionable with his economic policies whether Callaghan was left at all.

It's like being pro-life, pro-death penalty, anti-Islamist, anti-same sex marriage, etc. They are not necessarily right-wing positions, just that they are central to the U.S. right and all the activists are right-wing.

To return to my main point, we don't have to say that an anticommunist group, especially one that exaggerates claims made in reliable sources is right-wing. The only people who want to re-fight the Cold War are right-wingers. I mean, how many of your Democratic friends do you think you could drag out to a demonstration against Castro?

TFD (talk) 03:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I've never heard of her [Diamond]. I can't think of any text on the Cold War where I have seen her cited. And she is neither a historian nor a political scientist. Adenauer was right-wing? With all respect, that is preposterous. His stance (for example) on the social welfare state would get him called a socialist by most right-wingers. As for Callaghan, he knew exactly who he was dealing with in the Soviet Union.....saying this on arms control: "The Soviet Union's propaganda clearly wishes to use public opinion in this country to get the West to reduce its own arms while doing nothing themselves. In this way they would gain nuclear superiority. This is simply not on." It's important to note: this was at the same time when the nuclear freeze movement was gaining momentum in the United States and so were similar movements in Western Europe. (Like the Greens Party in West Germany.) If you are going to label everyone I list (short of someone who is an out and out communist) as being "right-wing".....I guess this is moot. But I'll leave this off by pointing out the Labour Party (in the UK) had plenty of Cold Warriors and no one in their right mind would call Labour "right-wing". In any case, if we are in agreement that this is SYN, there is not much point in arguing.Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

You should be aware that the German welfare state was first spearheaded by Chancellor Otto von Bismarck in the 1870s and 1880s, who was an ardent right-wing Prussian militarist conservative and a staunch anti-socialist. He instituted a welfare state solely to attempt to weaken the SPD, which ultimately failed however, since by the beginning of the 1910s, the SPD has become the largest political party in the Reichstag. As for James Callaghan's remark, it was said in the context of global nuclear disarmament, not a ideological opposition to communism. You yourself have stated that the remark was made at a time where a mass movement for global nuclear disarmament was gaining momentum, and James Callaghan of course was a supporter of it. Telling a world power to disarm and decommision their nuclear warheads is not anti-communism, but rather, anti-militarism. 95.102.240.38 (talk) 05:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Certainly I am aware of it. But you yourself pointed out his motivation. Callaghan's remark came at a time when a lot of (far) lefties wanted a freeze regardless of what the Soviet Union did. He knew better because he realized who we were facing and the danger they posed. In any case, I'm not sure why exactly this is a point. The bottom line is: the opposition to the Soviet Union/communism became a broad group that included plenty of left-wingers. (By any sane measure.) Furthermore, this is a pointless argument since almost everyone here agrees this constitutes a SYN issue. (Regardless of who you want to call left or right.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 05:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but the criterion for whether or not someone is obscure is not whether or not you have heard of them. If your reading is limited to people you believe will confirm your beliefs, you've probably not heard of many people unless right-wing sources choose to comment on them. Adenauer was a life-long Christian Democrat, which is the main right-wing party in Germany. Thatcher, Kohl and Reagan not only belonged to the right-wing party in their respective countries but belonged to the right-wing of those parties. Together they tried to restart the Cold War by cancelling detente and increasing military spending. While one may argue whether they were correct, it's clear that they were both right-wing and anticommunist. The position of left-wing, moderate and center-right politicians before them had been peaceful coexistence and detente. And in fact some Labour politicians have been called right-wing for support of the Cold War and defunding social programs. But again you are confusing opposition to Communism with anticommunism. Jews for example don't believe that Jesus was God, but that doesn't make them anti-Christian. TFD (talk) 05:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, I checked some of the Cold War books by some of the heavyweight historians of the era. If she's in one: let me know. What you don't seem to be getting here is: I mentioned Thatcher, Kohl and Reagan along with Adenauer & Callaghan as obviously comparing left [Adenauer & Callaghan] with right-wingers [i.e. Thatcher, Kohl and Reagan] who all found themselves on the same side in the Cold War. (I was obviously not saying Thatcher, Kohl and Reagan were left-wingers.) Not that there were not some differences that developed along the way in terms of details/strategy.....but the goals were very much similar. In any case, if the point here is: all Cold Warriors/anti-communist were/are right-wingers.....we'll have to agree to disagree. But I'd say the point is moot (isn't it?) since we all (yourself included) consider this a SYN issue yes?Rja13ww33 (talk) 06:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Adenauer was a man of the Right as leader of the Christian Democratic Union and before that the predecessor Center Party. On the spectrum they were between the conservatives and liberals, which is how they got their name. In the post-war era, the Right in developed countries supported social welfare programs. That doesn't mean they were left wing. And their other major objective was anticommunism. While all noncommunist parties opposed communism, the degree of opposition became increasingly extreme as one moved to the right. At the extreme, they were killed or outlawed, while the Left supported diplomacy or made alliances with them. Anticommunism underwent a revival in the 1990s as the European Right tried to justify its support of Nazism during WW2. Their argument was that they had supported the lesser evil. But of course Social Democrats had never supported Nazism.

I didn't say btw that Diamond was an expert on the Cold War. She is an expert on the American Right. Have you read any books about it?

TFD (talk) 08:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, I am not really interested in debating left vs. right or something as silly as "opposing communism" vs. anti-communism if we are in agreement that this is SYN (as it stands now). Are you still in agreement that this is SYN? If yes, there isn't much to talk about.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's synthesis. My point though was that the description is redundant. We would expect that most if not all of the leadership would be to the right of mainstream Republicanism. TFD (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Thats interesting, most are center-right (especially the Europeans) which is to the left of mainstream American Republicanism although whats "mainstream" for Republicans has drifted awfully right in the last few years. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Reagan and Thatcher were clearly in the right-wing of their respective policy and had similar ideologies. Thatcher did not align with the U.S. Democratic Party even though her policies were to the left of them. In any case the leadership of anticommunist groups tends to come from people to the right of Reagan and Thatcher. Reagan and Thatcher at least eventually adopted a policy of diplomacy with Communism. TFD (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Anti-communist groups or groups that (among their aims) are anti-communism? Because if the latter counts (and I think it should), there are plenty of groups that are left/center-left political organizations in the West that have taken a anti-communist stance. But in any case, if we are all in agreement this is SYN....this whole argument is moot at this point.Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Could you name any left-wing anticommunist organizations? TFD (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

You need to re-read my last post and advise as to which one you are looking for.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Criticism

Regarding this, I do not think that just because it is an essay, it should be dismissed like that; it seems to make very fair or rational arguments; it just seems to be common sense to avoid a Criticism section and incorporate it elsewhere, unless we actually have a separate article about the criticism. which makes it especially notable. And I disagree that "this is not about the organization's history anyway" because it is actually about it, the narrative it is pushing and so is relevant there. Davide King (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I think we currently have a WP:DUE issue vis-a-vis Ghodsee. While she is a notable critic currently an extensive summary of her work is the *entirely* of the criticism section... I think we’re using her for too much. Surely this organization has any number of notable critics? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed it is too much, especially if other critics turn up. And the organization likely has supporters as well. If academic supporters turn up then they should be added and the section renamed "Reception". I still hold that putting this criticism under "history" doesn't fit because it isn't about the history of the organization. It's about the topic as a whole. It's easier to find as its own section anyway. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The organisation is one of the anti-communist organisations promoting the victims of Communism narrative. This narrative, which may have took its name from the organisation as it popularised the term, is well discussed in The Criminalisation of Communism in the European Political Space after the Cold War (2018) by Routledge. By the way, I just noted we have Democracy promotion as category but I am not sure that is warranted as the organisations in the Category are those whose main aim is that ("[a] central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article."). The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation's main aim is "educating Americans about the ideology, history and legacy of communism." Davide King (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree we should avoid criticism sections. Also, I don't know if this is criticism, it's just an objective description of what the organization does. Calling it criticism is giving equal validity to a organization that promotes fringe views. TFD (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, I agree with that but unfortunately many users seem to take it at face value, hence why I felt the need for my additions, which were not meant to prove that they are or their narrative is wrong, just that they are pushing a popular among the public but fringe view within academia and scholarship. It is simply taken as fact that reliable sources, including academic ones, support the concept of Communist mass killings or Victims of Communism. No one denies the events indeed happened but a few authors and organisations such as this one make a connection that ties small-c communism, socialism and the broad left to mass killings, as George Watson, who also claimed Hitler was a Marxist, has argued in The Lost Literature of Socialism. Davide King (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

We have to explain that they see Communist ideology as the cause of the killings, although we don't have to get into details about academic arguments. The only thing we should point out is that their 100 million figure is unsupported in academic writing and perhaps explain that they chose an exaggerated number in order to prove their point that Communism was worse than Nazism. I don't think btw that Watson is read by many anti-Communists. While the typical right-wing narrative is that Nazism and Communism derived from Jacobinism, Watson saw them as deriving from anti-Jacobinism. TFD (talk) 20:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

That is good by me, but what is you proposed edit and how would you word it and reference it? Davide King (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Does any of you see a problem with me putting this back? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victims_of_Communism_Memorial_Foundation&diff=990819724&oldid=990817531Davide King The Four Deuces.Isabella Emma (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC) Sockpuppet. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Isabella Emma, we already say "[t]he 100 million estimate favored by the foundation is dubious, Ghodsee says, as their source for this is the controversial introduction to the The Black Book of Communism by Stéphane Courtois", so it is not a big deal to me. However, since the organisation is the one pushing the 100 million and beyond estimate, I think it is fine to provide context, even if it does not directly mention the organisation; what matters is that they mention the 100 million estimate which the organisation is pushing. My biggest concern is that we present Ghodsee as a criticism when, as noted by The Four Deuces, "it's just an objective description of what the organization does. Calling it criticism is giving equal validity to a organization that promotes fringe views." That is why it would be better to rename it Scholarly analysis and add more of, you guessed it, scholarly analysis. Davide King (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The three sources given do not appear to mention the VOCMF at all, so it is not clear to me how this material is appropriate. The criticism section should be about criticism of the VOCMF, not criticism of the Black Book of Communism. Criticism of the BBoC belongs in the article about that book. Likewise, if you change the section to be "Scholarly analysis", the content should still be about the VOCMF directly. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

AmateurEditor, funny you say that when this is literally the problem of Mass killings under communist regimes, which implies there is an accepted terminology for it, when there is not. Crossroads removed Ellman from The Black Book of Communism but kept Snyder, even though neither explicitly mentioned the book but they are relevant in discussing Stalin and Stalinism, which are one of the main topics of the book. You seem to give a really strict reading of synthesis here but not at the other article. You were arguing that citing Conquest was fine, even though he did not discuss mass killings under Communist regimes but only the Soviet Union, to give context, which is exactly what those sources are doing in giving context for the estimate pushed by the same book the organisation uses. Davide King (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Davide King, the MkuCr article does not imply that "there is an accepted terminology for it" (it explicitly states the opposite: that there is no consistent terminology and why that is). I argued that Conquest was fine to be included in Mass killings under communist regimes as a supplemental source because he was directly discussing a mass killing under a communist regime, not "to give context" (and I argued he should be considered a supplemental source only because he is not an aggregator source and so cannot be used as justification for the aggregator topic's/article's existence). What criticism was included or removed from the BBoC article should be discussed on the talk page for that article. I am not familiar with the details of that, but what is done elsewhere should have no bearing on what we do here. We should all be following a strict reading of WP:SYNTH everywhere. If you can find a source that criticizes the VoCMF for their use of the BBoC figure, then that would justify inclusion in the criticism section here. AmateurEditor (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

That there is no consistent terminology is precisely why the article as currently-structured should be deleted or rewritten; I support the latter. You correctly write "[w]e should all be following a strict reading of WP:SYNTH everywhere" but previously stating "what is done elsewhere should have no bearing on what we do here." Except it has bearing when we try to be consistent and we are not consistent with those two articles. Either way, whether we add the criticism of the estimates is not a big deal to me. My point is what The Four Deuces wrote, namely that "[w]e have to explain that they see Communist ideology as the cause of the killings, although we don't have to get into details about academic arguments. The only thing we should point out is that their 100 million figure is unsupported in academic writing and perhaps explain that they chose an exaggerated number in order to prove their point that Communism was worse than Nazism." We should not dismiss scholarly analysis as criticism, or "giving equal validity to a organization that promotes fringe views." Davide King (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Please focus on this article for discussions on this page. Our consistency between articles occurs by being consistent with wikipedia policies, so lets also focus our discussions on this page as much as possible on policy, rather than other articles (which may or may not be correctly following policy). AmateurEditor (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

This section was about a scholarly analysis being labelled Criticism but it got interwined with The Black Book of Communism and whether criticism of its estimates should be added here. So going back to the main point of this thread, do you disagree with what The Four Deuces wrote about the organisation? Davide King (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

AmateurEditor, by the way, I think the better example was not Conquest but Washington. You wrote "[i]f you look at the 'print sources' list at the George Washington article, three of the first four sources listed there are not about George Washington [...]. The sentence helps to provide useful information to the reader despite not being directly about George Washington." This is exactly why it is useful that "we [...] point out [...] their 100 million figure is unsupported in academic writing and perhaps explain that they chose an exaggerated number in order to prove their point that Communism was worse than Nazism." Same thing about the "victims of Communism" narrative. While The Criminalisation of Communism in the European Political Space after the Cold War (2018) by Routledge may not directly mention the organisation, it is relevant and, to use your own words, "useful information to the reader despite not being directly about [the organisation]." It is clearly about the "victims of Communism" narrative that the organisation obviously promotes and from which came one of the names of the narrative itself, so it is very relevant and useful. Davide King (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

If by "do you disagree with what The Four Deuces wrote about the organisation" you mean what you quoted earlier ("[w]e have to explain that they see Communist ideology as the cause of the killings, although we don't have to get into details about academic arguments. The only thing we should point out is that their 100 million figure is unsupported in academic writing and perhaps explain that they chose an exaggerated number in order to prove their point that Communism was worse than Nazism."), then I would say that this statement by TFD is misguided in that we should not be starting with conclusions when deciding what to add to the article. We should be finding sources that discuss this organization and adding all the relevant information from those sources, whatever they say. About your comparison to the George Washington article example, the difference is that while the sentence in question there was not directly about George Washington (it was about Benedict Arnold, as was the source), it was directly about the related subtopic/section where it was included (the section header is "West Point espionage" related to George Washington) and did mention George Washington (as did the source). With the example in this VoCMF article, the sentence is not directly related to the subtopic/section (which is about either Criticism or Scholarly Analysis of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation). The sentence in question for this article is about criticism of the Black Book of Communism number, rather than criticism of the VoCMF for using that number. That is why the charge of WP:COAT has been raised. WP:COAT states, in the "All About George" example section, "The rest of the paragraphs that have little to do with XYZ – the main Article – itself and continue to "hang" other negative unsourced "coats" on this coatrack, leading to a biased, slanted article." Notice that the last sentence in the section that is about the VoCMF use of the number is not being called out as inappropriate ("The 100 million estimate favored by the foundation is dubious, Ghodsee says, as their source for this is the controversial introduction to the The Black Book of Communism by Stéphane Courtois."). AmateurEditor (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

AmateurEditor, thanks for your comment and clarity. I want to make clear that, despite our disagreements, I appreciate your comments and contributions. Why do you think that is misguided? I do not think The Four Deuces based that statement by starting a conclusion; it is simply what the organisation does, saying on the front page of its website: "Marxist socialism is the deadliest ideology in history." As for the rest, I agree we need a source mentioning and be about the organisation. However, I do not think we should see Ghodsee as criticism. I also think that the "100 million estimate favored by the organization is dubious, as their source for this is the controversial introduction to the The Black Book of Communism by Stéphane Courtois" is not supported just by Ghodsee, so I am not sure it should be attributed as if that is only her view, which is shown to be false it is just her view as widely discussed at The Black Book of Communism; in other words, she is summarising the scholars who have criticised it not presenting that as her view. If her perspective "falls quite squarely within the mainstream of scholarship on these foundations and the political projects of which they have been a part since the early 1990s", as I and other users think it is, we should not attribute it or imply that is just her view. Ideally, we must attribute everything, although in practice "not all material is attributed. Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." That is why I agree with Buidhe and Newimpartial that "[w]hat this article is missing is a more general treatment of this scholarship, which should ideally be incorporated into the History section to produce a less sycophantic view" and that "[t]here are other sources that could be cited for academic analysis", so it should be expanded. Davide King (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Davide King, lets just assume that everything in the article is "likely to be challenged". I have no problem with anything that is added to the article (or any other article) so long as there is a reliable source cited that justifies it. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I think the current version is fine and that we can generally agree on it, while discussing further additions or improvements, and how to incorporate them. Davide King (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding this revert by Opalzukor, citing NPOV, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view actually says "[a]ll encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." We do not give equal weight to scholarly analysis and fringe views. Davide King (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King:Yeah, sorry, I had just arrived from Special:RecentChanges and didn't take enough time to review the edit at hand. Again, apologies for your time. Opalzukor (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Opalzukor was right to revert. I very much doubt the claim that the Black Book of Communism is so fringe that Ghodsee (who goes on about "achievements of Communism") is totally mainstream and doesn't need WP:In-text attribution. The Black Book of Communism was published by a university press and received many positive reviews too. A couple of editors simply asserting that certain criticisms of Communism are fringe does not make it so; such has to be demonstrated. Given the politicized nature of this topic, we need to be all the more cautious. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, The Black Book of Communism is one of the most influential and controversial books. You seem to be overstimating how much praised the book actually was and understimating how much criticised it was. The book was praised by news media, some journalists and historians but Soviet and Communist studies scholars gave much more more mixed or critical reviews. You seem to view as though Courtois and The Black Book of Communism are mainstream in academia; they may be mainstream among news media and the population, especially in the Anglo-American sphere and in Eastern Europe, but it is not mainstream within academia and Soviet and Communist scholarship. They are actually revisionists in positing Communism as the greatest evil, even greater than Nazism. That you criticise Ghodsee for going on about "achievements of Communism" is besides the point, as the point is showing the organisation may be mainstream and popular among news media and the population but it holds fringe views in academia and scholarship. Davide King (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see what wrong with adding context to that part of the page when it explains the main criticism they have for using that book.Doug Weller do you have any input on this discussion?Isabella Emma (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC) Sockpuppet. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Since the "Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation made an effort to compile updated ranges of estimates and concluded that the overall range 'spans from 42,870,000 to 161,990,000' killed, with 100 million the most commonly cited figure", it is not surprising criticism of the estimates, including that of Rummel since the 161,990,000 seems to come from him, who gave the highest estimates, and The Black Book of Communism, which popularised "100 million [as] the most commonly cited figure", is very relevant and due, especially when they use those estimates to push the view "Communist ideology as the cause of the killings", which "is unsupported in academic writing and perhaps explain that they chose an exaggerated number in order to prove their point that Communism was worse than Nazism." Davide King (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

There are other sources that could be cited for academic analysis, such as https://www.cairn.info/revue-revue-d-etudes-comparatives-est-ouest-2020-2-page-151.htm I don't have access but you may be able to get it a WP:RX. (t · c) buidhe 21:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment whatever one may think about any other aspect of this issue, the inclusion of China's Great Leap Forward as a "Mass killing under a communist regime" is most certainly controversial within the reliable sources on the topic. Since most of the deaths listed in the Black Book are from the Great Leap Forward, it should not surprise anyone that the total it provided is also controversial within the RS, as indeed it is.
• As far as scholarship about the Memorial Foundation itself is concerned, I have looked at the recent scholarship about it and other parallel groups. The perspective articulated by Ghodsee (as an anthropologist, probably the central field in studies of both genocide and the construction of historical memory) falls quite squarely within the mainstream of scholarship on these foundations and the political projects of which they have been a part since the early 1990s. What this article is missing is a more general treatment of this scholarship, which should ideally be incorporated into the History section to produce a less sycophantic view. This is particularly true since the organization has doubled down on its Sinophobia by backing the China virus conspiracy theory. Newimpartial (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

  Newimpartial, this was a good comment and summary. Actually, I did incorporate it at History, since it was there where estimates were mentioned, including their China virus conspiracy theory, but I was reverted; and then it was turned into a criticism section, which in my view misses the point and is problematic since, as both you and The Four Deuces noted, "it's just an objective description of what the organization does. Calling it criticism is giving equal validity to a[n] organization that promotes fringe views." Davide King (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

  Just so that we are clear: the China virus theory is clearly FRINGE; the treatment of the Great Leap Forward as state violence falls more into the category of "controversial" or minority views. Newimpartial (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

  As I told Davide King previously, I think attributing all the COVID-19 deaths to "Communism" is over the top. That said, I don't think they espouse the "China virus" theory, as I understand that to be the theory whereby China created the virus or it escaped from a lab. However, that China's authoritarian system of government (i.e. the Chinese Communist Party) has at least some responsibility for making the situation worse is not fringe (e.g. [7]). Equating criticism of the CCP to "sinophobia" is propaganda-esque. The CCP is not the same thing as the Chinese people.

  Since both here and at Talk:The Black Book of Communism#No challenges in "Overview" people are still making unsourced assertions about what is a minority view or fringe, then I may as well make one of my own: the minority or fringe view is that of the relatively few academics who engage in apologism for authoritarian regimes (almost all of which have collapsed or engaged in severe economic reform), that absolve those regimes and their ideology of responsibility for - whoopsie! - tens of millions of deaths as a result of their policies, and that act like all criticism of Communism is just a right-wing agenda. I mean, that's the impression I've gotten from my research (e.g. [8]) Crossroads ^-talk- 04:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

  You're citing one NYT article (not peer reviewed research), whose author, Alan Ryan, is described as a "British philosopher" and does not appear to have any expertise on Soviet history. Therefore, I expect that this comment will be given very little weight. (t · c) buidhe 06:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

  He's a political philosopher. And it's just an example. The point is that unsourced pronouncements of what's minority or fringe should indeed be given even less weight. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

  The point is that you are being very dismissing of us by writing "unsourced pronouncements of what's minority or fringe", when this is simply our summary of scholarly conclusion based on an analysis and reading of literature. We should not give the same weight to non-experts in the field, even if they may still be academic, such as one non-peer-reviewed New York Times article by a philosopher. Again, that communism, socialism, the left, or whatever one prefers, is prone to mass killings seems to be a very popular view, but it does not reflect the consensus among scholars and experts in the field. This organisation has promoted those views, basing their numbers on controversial scholarship, including any excess death under Communist regimes, when scholars and other experts in the field have extensively criticised this or even disagree with the concept of Communist death tolls, that literally any death under Communist regimes, including deaths due to World War II and Civil War victims, must be the fault of Communism and must be added to the toll. Davide King (talk) 12:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, exactly. It is the same amateurish methodology in The Black Book of Capitalism, adding up as many deaths as possible that occurred under capitalist regime (in this case, eg. the world wars are attributed to capitalism) and attributing them all to the capitalist system. Luckily there is no Victims of Capitalism Memorial Foundation. (t · c) buidhe 23:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

  Buidhe, I agree. To be fair to them, The Black Book of Capitalism seems to be more of a response of The Black Book of Communism to show how flawed the analysis and methodology used was and how, by following their same methodology, capitalism has actually killed more.

  But, as you noted, there is no Victims of Capitalism Memorial, there is no Victims of Colonialism Memorial or Victims of Imperialism Memorial; we still have Columbus Day as a national holiday. There is no capitalism equals to Nazism, even though Nazism was still capitalism and some right-wing authors still push the view it was actually left-wing and socialist so as to show the crimes of Communism and Nazism are on the left and the left is exceptionally prone to mass killings. Again, I agree it is amateurish methodology and it is simply more complicated than that, but this double standard exists and may well be an example of systematic bias which reflects the Prague Declaration, a political decision by the European Union (and to be clear, I am pro-Europeanism and anti-Putin but I oppose, like most scholars have done, the equivalence of Communism and Nazism, especially if/when the same, equal standard is not applied to capitalism, colonialism and imperialism, and other atrocities), rather than scholarly consensus.

  Courtois and The Black Book of Communism are actually revisionists, not mainstream, in positing Communism as the greatest evil, even greater than Nazism. This same narrative is specifically pushed by this organisation, so a short sentence as suggested by The Four Deuces to highlight that is relevant and due. It does not seem we all actually disagree on this, we just need to find a source specifically mentioning the organisation when discussing the criticism of the estimates, that "their 100 million figure is unsupported in academic writing and that perhaps they chose an exaggerated number in order to prove their point that Communism was worse than Nazism."

  Now why am I writing all this? Because this same narrative has been used to dismiss Ghodsee, who is the perfect choice as an anthropologist, "probably the central field in studies of both genocide and the construction of historical memory", and "falls quite squarely within the mainstream of scholarship on these foundations and the political projects of which they have been a part since the early 1990s", as argued by Newimpartial, as undue or POV-pushing, apparently just because she also talked about "achievements under Communism." Since this aforementioned narrative is held as either correct or mainstream, if one talks about "achievements under Communism", one must be an "apologist", for how could someone talk about the achievements of something that is seen as equal, if not even worse, than Nazism? Except, apart that Ghodsee's comments about Communism are irrelevant (and the wording has since been changed to reflect only the organisation) since her comments about the organisation, which is what we are discussing, are well within the mainstream and should be presented as an accurate scholarly analysis rather than a criticism, historians have also talked about the achievements under capitalism, in spite of colonialism, imperialism, slavery and other atrocities, genocides and mass killings, therefore Ghodsee's comments about Communism are only a huge thing for those who think Communism is equal to Nazism, when historians had no problem talking about the rise of living standards under capitalism while either opposing or in some cases minimising its atrocities.

  The reason why I wrote all this is that in my view it is relevant not only to this article but to all Communist-related articles; and that this must be keep in mind, since many users simply take for granted that the Prague Declaration represents scholarly consensus rather than one POV. Hence, Ghodsee's views and description of the organisation are mainstream and should not be reported as criticism.

—Davide King (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

It is unlikely any of us will change each others' personal views, and it's probably best we not head further down that road. I don't see how anthropology has any primacy in this matter over the field of history. Anthropologists can study what people think about what happened, but studying what actually happened is the job of the historian. Ghodsee the anthropologist herself admits (obliquely) that she is not so mainstream among academics that she does not need WP:In-text attribution. Emphasis added:

• This anti-communist political project requires the production of a certain historiography of the communist past, and in this project, both Western and East European academics have perhaps unwittingly obliged, as long as the European Union provides the funds. It is ironic that the present day historiography of the communist past is so ideologically driven. With the tacit support of Brussels, there exists today in Eastern Europe an institutionally sanctioned Denkverbot [prohibition on thinking] about the everyday lived experiences of communism. In an era of supposed free speech and freedom of conscience, politicians, scholars, and activists silence other stories about the past, including any open discussion of socialism’s achievements in terms of literacy, education, women’s rights, and social security by focusing exclusively on the crimes of Stalin and the double genocide thesis. pp. 117-118.

Whatever editors may personally think of her statements about the Powers That Be of the EU corrupting the field is not relevant. All sorts of people who endorse minority or fringe views claim that they're being silenced or that people only reject their views for political or financial reasons. The crucial point is that even she herself admits that many academics and scholars do not agree with her views of Communism. This is why she should only appear with in-text attribution, and why I think her commentary excepting the criticism of the 100 million figure should be in a criticism section.

Aeon, from which much of her commentary comes, is not a scholarly, peer-reviewed source. Scott Sehon, her co-author therein, is a philosopher who does not appear to have expertise relevant to the history of Communism. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, I agree "[i]t is unlikely any of us will change each others' personal views, and it's probably best we not head further down that road" but I hope my comment was still helpful and relevant because I think that is a problem and because making death tolls of ideology is amateurish and does not give much way for context and background. However, I have to disagree about Ghodsee. What do you even mean "[a]nthropologists can study what people think about what happened, but studying what actually happened is the job of the historian"? The addition is not about what actually happened but what people think about what happened, i.e. the construction of historical memory, which, as noted by Newimpartial, is exactly the speciality of Ghodsee as an anthropologist. You seem to think that just because she is wrong in your view about what actually happened, then she must be wrong too about what people think actually happened. I also disagree on your reading of her that "even she herself admits that many academics and scholars do not agree with her views of Communism."

But this is not about "her views of Communism", which scholars are free to agree or disagree with, as that is a politicised field; it is about the memory and on that she "falls quite squarely within the mainstream of scholarship on these foundations and the political projects of which they have been a part since the early 1990s." This is supported by The Criminalisation of Communism in the European Political Space after the Cold War, "Bridges Across the Atlantic? Intertwined Anti-Communist Mobilisations in Europe and the United States after the Cold War" and I believe Buidhe, The Four Deuces and Newimpartial can provide additional academic sources. You also miss the point that we are not just citing Aeon, we are also citing History of the Present: A Journal of Critical History. Sometimes we allow the use of something published in less than green sources if it is written by an expert as this is the case because, again, we are not using her to state what actually happened but the memory of it. I mentioned Sehon because you used Ryan to prove a point, which was a strawman, since no one here is denying that millions of people have died but that it was the fault of communism alone is only one POV and that academic and scholarly sources as well as historiography is more complicated and nuanced than that "tens of millions of deaths as a result of their [Communist] policies." Davide King (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Scholarly analysis

I have tried to follow the discussion and apologize if I have misunderstood any of the disputes.

In my opinion, the article should not contain any mention of the Black Book of Communism or Communist mass killings beyond what is in articles about the Foundation. If people who write about the Foundation do not think that a discussion belongs in what they write, then we should not second guess them.

Also, the scholarly anaylsis section should be incorporated into the rest of the article. It is not analysis or criticism that the Foundation equates Communism with murder or that it sees it as worse than Nazism. It says that on the front page of its website: "Marxist socialism is the deadliest ideology in history." All we are doing is using reliable secondary sources instead of the site as a primary source because they are preferred.

Of course their views depart from mainstream thinking on the subject, but it's not our role to debunk them in this article.

TFD (talk) 07:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, I agree, but the problem seems to be that several users do not see this organisation as promoting fringe views. As I wrote above, I did actually incorporate that in the body at History, right after their estimates, but I was reverted. Do you think it would be better to move it back there? Davide King (talk) 12:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I added the criticism section originally, but agree that it would be better incorporated into the History section until editors agree on the inclusion of a scholarly analysis section, which I fully support. The Ghodsee sources directly state that the estimate the foundation uses comes from the BBoC, so including it in that context is WP:DUE by my estimation. Davide King, have you considered adding relevant material on the foundation from the source The Criminalisation of Communism in the European Political Space after the Cold War (2018)? I don't have access to it, but it appears you do. EDIT: I see someone has renamed the criticism section. I did not see this prior to my last edit.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

C.J. Griffin, I did actually add a short sentence about The Criminalisation of Communism in the European Political Space after the Cold War (2018) in my edits but it was reverted. As I wrote here, "[w]hile [it] may not directly mention the organisation, it is relevant and [...] 'useful information to the reader despite not being directly about [the organisation].' It is clearly about the 'victims of Communism' narrative that the organisation obviously promotes and from which came one of the names of the narrative itself, so it is very relevant and useful." If Mass killings under communist regimes is turned into Victims of Communism covering the narrative, then I agree this work is more suited for that but until then it is relevant here, too. If we can get more scholarly analysis, including the work linked by Buidhe here, then a section about it could be made, but as things stand I think it is fine to incorporate Ghodsee after the estimates by the organisation at History. Davide King (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

All we msut say is that they are an anti-communist organization and their website says:

• COMMUNISM KILLED OVER 100 MILLION Keep the flame of liberty alive
• "When we don’t educate our youngest generations about the historical truth of 100 million victims murdered at the hands of communist regimes over the past century, we shouldn’t be surprised at their willingness to embrace Marxist ideas." - Marion Smith, Executive Director and CEO

If readers want to know about whether those ideas are reasonable or fringe, they can go to the relevant articles. It actually makes the article appear biased if we use it to debunk their views. And that actually strengthens rather than weakens their following. But we are not supposed to do either. Anyway, a reasonably informed reader will interpret this information to place them on the extreme right.

TFD (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, I agree, but the problem is that we present it is "a conservative [Lee Edwards is a founding member of the conservative Young Americans for Freedom and a distinguished fellow at the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, and most of those others mentioned were either conservatives or Republicans] and anti-communist organization which seeks to equate communism with murder, such as by erecting billboards in Times Square which declare '100 years, 100 million killed' and 'Communism kills'" as Ghodsee's opinion rather than what the organisation actually is. We should perhaps move this sentence to the lead, add Marion Smith's quote and other quotes you provided. Mass killings under communist regimes is currently presented as a mainstream view with scholarly support, so "[i]f readers want to know about whether those ideas are reasonable or fringe", they are going to think those ideas are reasonable and so the organisation is not on the extreme right but centrist, rather than being "a [conservative] organization that promotes fringe views." We are currently not presenting a NPOV which does not give equal validity to fringe views but pushing the POV of the organisation. Davide King (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

We're not doing that. As I explained in the last section, Ghodsee herself admits that many scholars and academics hold views different from hers. No matter how much two editors agree with her and gesture vaguely towards some other book that supposedly corroborates her, there's no getting around her own admission. And I have to say that the claim that this organization is on the "extreme right" is obviously way off. Where do editors like that think the political center even is? It sounds like anyone who is not a Communist must be a right winger according to such a measurement, right in line with authoritarian Communist propaganda, if this organization is "extreme" right just like the Neo-Nazis are merely for echoing those particular positions. Those positions are held by many academics (namely, disagreeing with Marxism and/or supporting or approvingly citing The Black Book of Communism). Stating and endorsing such a claim makes it hard to take other unsourced asserted statements seriously. Horse Eye's Back and AmateurEditor likely also have thoughts to add. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

You won't find a lot of academic specialists citing the victim statistics from the Black Book (which is what this Foundation does) and you won't find a lot of academics identifying the Foundation's sinophobic positions as "mainstream" or part of the "political center", either. I think as long as editors stick to scholarship that actually discusses the Foundation's activities and positions, its position on the right-hand side of the political spectrum will be obvious enough. Newimpartial (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Please define "Sinophobia". You know that the Chinese government is not the Chinese people. Criticism of the Trump administration is not "Americophobia". I think it could be argued that this foundation in particular (though not anti-communism in general) is right-of-center, but the claim that it is extreme right is way beyond that. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I think this time I'll reference thefreedictionary's "Fear of or contempt for China, its people, or its culture". The foundation has shown "fear of or contempt for China" in its interpretation of the Great Leap Forward famine and in its response to the coronavirus pandemic - in both instances attributing to the Chinese Communist Party an exaggerated responsibility for causal chains that were well outside of its control. As Tom Fowdy has observed, Relentless obsession with the country’s ruling Communist Party provides an acceptable facade for this mindset, morphing Sinophobic ideas and the apprehension of China with Cold War cliches and imagery... which is what I see here. Newimpartial (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I think we can all agree with Newimpartial's statement that we should all "stick to scholarship that actually discusses the Foundation's activities and positions" for the article. Hopefully, no one thinks the blog post by Tom Fowdy qualifies and it was only referenced here for discussion purposes. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it was, although I dare say that Fowdy's expertise on China exceeds that of all editors who have contributed to this particular page, combined. Newimpartial (talk) 03:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed Crossroads. Well put.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, I think you are again conflating what actually happened, on which scholars hold different interpretations but generally agree on key facts, and the memory of it. Ghodsee is mainstream for the latter point, which is what we are discussing and the paragraph is about. Is there any other anthropologist or scholar who disagreed not on her view of Communism but on her views on the memory and the narrative? We have provided two more sources in support to that.

Lee Edwards is a conservative academic at The Heritage Foundation, "an American conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C., primarily geared towards public policy. The foundation took a leading role in the conservative movement during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, whose policies were taken from Heritage's policy study Mandate for Leadership.[4] Since then, The Heritage Foundation has continued to have a significant influence in U.S. public policy making, and is considered to be one of the most influential conservative public policy organizations in the United States."

Lee was also a founding member of the conservative Young Americans for Freedom. This is hardly centrism and you made a straw man of it, accusing us of allegedly using Communist propaganda that would describe social democrats or other left-wing or more moderate socialists as right-wing, when those are clearly conservative academics who belongs to the right-wing of the political spectrum. Similarly, Lev Dobriansky was an anti-communist advocate and member of the Republican Party, a political party we can agree belongs to the right.

Anti-communism is mainly a right-wing movement. Leftists opposed to the Soviet Union were not anti-communists but anti-Stalinists, or anti-Leninists. As noted by The Four Deuces, the position of left-wing, moderate and centre-right politicians before Adenauer, Kohl, Reagan and Thatcher had been peaceful coexistence and détente. Davide King (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment about the addition (and removal) of a review, OR and backed by the source

I was about to revert it with the edit summary "this is simply a postgrad student's review which doesn't mention data and the comment about being dangerous has nothing to do with the subject of this article but is about how the two main people he is writing about are portrayed". The review, which is about The Left Side of History: World War II and the Unfulfilled Promise of Communism in Eastern Europe, can be found here [9]. The text "However, Ghodsee’s argumentation is not based on the analysis of data and her work has been criticized because it “risks being read idealistically and could be dangerous to the impressionable" is half original research not discussed in the review and half misrepresentation. It's not "her work" that was discussed in the review, it's a specific book that we don't use as a source, and the context of that quote is: "Finally, Ghodsee writes about Thompson and Elena hagiographically and, whilst Ghodsee does not make it explicit, her admiration lies with their idealism and enthusiasm for a fairer world, not necessarily with their Communism. However, as this aspiration was deeply connected with their Communist tendencies and because this distinction is not 146 REVIEWS: BOOKS © School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University College London, 2016. made clear, this text risks being read idealistically and could be dangerous to the impressionable. This book fails to appreciate the utopic nature of Communism and the fact that much of what was promised in the Communist ideology could never be implemented in reality. Rather, Ghodsee ought to make it clearer in her argument that these partisans were admirable because of their determination, irrespective of their political, economic and social beliefs." Doug Weller talk 07:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Would it be possible to provide a link to the edit you are discussing? TFD (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, I suppose Doug Weller was referring to these edits by Thonotosassa which were also reverted by C.J. Griffin. They added "However, Ghodsee’s argumentation is not based on the analysis of data and her work has been criticized because it 'risks being read idealistically and could be dangerous to the impressionable.'" They also changed "Ghodsee has asked 'Is it a coincidence that this sudden surge of concern with commemorating the victims of communism appeared in the wake of the global financial crisis that began in 2008?'" when the previous wording of "These efforts have intensified in the wake of the global financial crisis" was perfectly fine. They changed "which seeks to equate communism with murder" to "which seeks to link communism with murder" but I cannot tell whether this is an improvement. Finally, they added "Ghodsee and Sehon also write 'But quibbling about numbers is unseemly. What matters is that many, many people were killed by communist regimes'", which is besides the point since no one is denying many people have died but that quibbling about numbers, to prove how bad communism/the left/socialism are, is "unseemly" and is exactly what organisations such as this one do and is the point of criticism. Davide King (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Off-topic

There has been a recent attempt to introduce the line "Ghodsee and Sehon also write that "quibbling about numbers is unseemly. What matters is that many, many people were killed by communist regimes.". This seems to me to be veering off-topic and turning into a discussion about something else other then organization itself.

User:Horse Eye's Back has said that "Not sure you can make that argument when the entire discussion of the Black Book is off topic" which I would reject given that the Black Book of Communism is being discussed within the context of the organisation and the organisation is being directly commented upon in Ghodsee's criticisnm of it. This cannot be said to be the same for the above line.PailSimon (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

You are mistaken. That line comes at the end of the first section about the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. If it was off topic then its a weird sentiment for them to sum up that section with. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

You're correct, I was mistaken.PailSimon (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Nazi conncection

A editor recently added this: The Foundation was born out of National Captive Nations Committee, whose co-chairman was Yaroslav Stetsko, a Ukrainian Nazi.[6][7]

That seems like a attempt to connect this org to Nazis. The first reference talks about the fact Congress approved a memorial to the victims of communism. The second mentions Stetsko....but says nothing about him being a Nazi. I think this entire statement should be removed.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

That looks like OR and contradicts the WP:RS we have which talk about the formation of the organization. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Even if Stetsko was a Nazi (his bio says he was a collaborator during the German invasion of the USSR).....what relevance could that have here? This received Congressional approval and he wasn't part of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Public Law 103-199 says:[10]

(A) The National Captive Nations Committee, Inc., is authorized to construct, maintain, and operate in the District of Columbia an appropriate international memorial to honor victims of commumism.

(B) The National Captive Nations Committee, Inc., is encouraged to create an independent entity for the purposes of constructing, maintaining, and operating the memorial.

It's not as if the Captive Nations Committee and the Foundation had nothing to do with each other.

TFD (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

They do.....but it's fairly tenuous. This got Congressional approval (and was signed on to by President Clinton). How many Nazis are/were in Congress?Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

After WW2, the U.S. shifted from fighting Nazism and Fascism to fighting Communism, causing them to forgive the pasts of their former enemies. See for example "How Thousands Of Nazis Were 'Rewarded' With Life In The U.S." (NPR November 5, 2014) Bear in mind, these were ex-Nazis. They weren't trying to overthrow the U.S. government. TFD (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I think everyone is aware of Operation Paper Clip and so on.....but I don't see the connection between that and this organization. By the way, the National Captive Nations Committee was authorized by a joint Congressional resolution and the president. (Ike at that time. The guy who spent a war fighting Nazis.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Operation Paperclip was about scientists. The U.S. also recruited intelligence officers (i.e., SS) from Germany and the "captive nations" in order to help them on the new war on Communism. Hence the captive nations movement was dominated by ex-Nazis and collaborators. TFD (talk) 04:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• I removed it per myself and the two others above who criticized it. It was an OR misuse of WP:PRIMARY sources, together with an unreliable book from a publisher "dedicated to advancing movements for radical social change". [11] Clearly a case of WP:POV labeling. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Crossroads.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Kristen Ghodsee reverts

Doug Weller (talk · contribs) Why did you revert my edits?

Original (2 paragraphs):

According to anthropologist Kristen Ghodsee and professor Scott Sehon, the 100 million estimate favored by the organization is dubious, as their source for this is the controversial introduction to the The Black Book of Communism by Stéphane Courtois. Ghodsee and Sehon also write that "quibbling about numbers is unseemly. What matters is that many, many people were killed by communist regimes."

According to Ghodsee and Sehon, the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation is a conservative anti-communist organization which seeks to equate communism with murder, such as by erecting billboards in Times Square which declare "100 years, 100 million killed" and "Communism kills". Ghodsee posits that the foundation, along with counterpart conservative organizations in Eastern Europe, seeks to institutionalize the "Victims of Communism" narrative as a double genocide theory, or the moral equivalence between the Nazi Holocaust (race murder) and those killed by Communist regimes (class murder). In her view these are suspect efforts to distract from the global financial crisis and the failures of neoliberalism.}}

Edited (1 paragraph):

Kristen Ghodsee and Scott Sehon doubt this 100 million estimate, which comes from the The Black Book of Communism, but write that "quibbling about numbers is unseemly. What matters is that many, many people were killed by communist regimes." According to Ghodsee and Sehon, the Foundation seeks to equate communism with murder. Ghodsee posits that the foundation seeks to institutionalize the "Victims of Communism" narrative as a double genocide theory.

Keep in mind WP:WEIGHT and WP:COATRACK. This article is about the Foundation, not Kristen Ghodsee's opinions about "neoliberalism" and anti-communism. For the latter, readers can go to the appropriate page. 2001:569:7D8E:5300:4D0D:6AB3:D37:22B4 (talk) 15:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Consensus is to keep the long standing version not need to whitewash.Starkid1979 (talk) 02:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

User Starkid1979 is a sockpuppet and has been blocked indefinitely for it. 2001:569:5179:F000:C95C:B77A:7F8C:29A0 (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The long-standing does have WP:EDITCONSNSUS and should be maintained until a new consensus is reached. Newimpartial (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Read WP:ONUS: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Consensus for inclusion of this long, off-topic tract was never established. In fact, there were many objections to it, as the above discussions on this talk page show. 2601:547:500:E930:F0F1:7593:1E58:D3C (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Ghodsee's input is noted but there is no need for the next long discussion about Ghodsee's hypotheses about what the European Commission and Obama had in mind in 2008. This article is about the Foundation and not about Ghodsee's speculations which are WP:UNDUE and need be removed.XavierItzm (talk) 04:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Ghodsee posits that the foundation, along with counterpart conservative and anti-communist organizations in Eastern Europe, seeks to institutionalize the "Victims of Communism" narrative as a double genocide theory, or the moral equivalence between the Nazi Holocaust (race murder) and those killed by Communist regimes (class murder). In their view, the promotion of an anticommunist paradigm, "100 million dead", was embraced by Western and Eastern leaders to distract from the financial crisis of 2007–2008 and rising scepticism of neoliberal capitalism that followed.

How is this text, which I restored, that refers directly to the foundation supposed to be WP:Undue ~ cygnis insignis 14:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

References

You are WP:COATRACKring a speculation about what Barack Obama, the European Community, and some "Eastern leaders" were thinking in 2008. The Foundation's origins are in the 1990's. The quote you are inserting literally reads: "the promotion of an anticommunist paradigm, "100 million dead", was embraced by Western and Eastern leaders to distract from the financial crisis of 2007–2008". This article is about the Foundation, not about Ghodsee's wild speculations. This is incredibly WP:UNDUE, not to mention the paraphrasis does not follow from the quote, so you might be misquoting, which is a very serious offense on Wikipedia.XavierItzm (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

User:XavierItzm I strongly concur with your assessment. I've added the appropriate templates to that subsection. 2601:547:500:E930:F0F1:7593:1E58:D3C (talk) 01:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I restored an edit that seems fine, I didn't add it, the claims of "incredibly Undue" and "wild speculations" and "serious offense on wikipedia" is unpersuasive. Demonstrate that the source is unreliable and not about the article topic. ~ cygnis insignis 07:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Cygnis insignis Over a third (!) of the article's entire History section is dedicated to expounding, without critique or reservation, Kristen Ghodsee's communism apologia and off-topic speculations. Claiming that's not WP:UNDUE is extremely disingenuous of you. 2601:547:500:E930:F0F1:7593:1E58:D3C (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The templates are warranted and the text needs to be edited in the light of the templates. But I maintain that Ghodsee's detailed wild speculations belong in a Ghodsee article, with, at most, a brief mention on this article that she objects to the Foundation's priors. XavierItzm (talk) 05:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@XavierItzm: Agreed. User:Oolger also appears to be disruptively removing the maintenance templates, against WP:WTRMT policy. 2601:547:500:E930:1464:A8D6:CC28:10E6 (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@XavierItzm: I have issued a warning to the offending user. 2601:547:500:E930:1464:A8D6:CC28:10E6 (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

lobbying

A visit to the site's front page shows reports on recent programs, signatory on a plea to agencies not to broadcast what they describe as the "genocide games" (sept 8 2021), 'VOC Spurs Uruguay’s Elimination of Cuban Medical Brigades Program' (sept 2), and 'Coalition for a Prosperous America and VOC Urge House Armed Services Committee to Prohibit U.S. Investment in CCP Military Firms'. Is there a secondary source, other than affiliates, that discusses these 'programs' for the Lobbying section of this article? ~ cygnis insignis 01:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation counts all COVID-19 deaths in their "100 million" communist death toll

To quote VOC's executive director Marion Smith, While the pandemics final human toll is still unknown, those who have perished from the outbreak must be included in the global count of 100 million deaths at the hands of Communism[12], which comes from one of their reports stating roughly the same thing (those who have perished and will perish from the novel coronavirus must be included in that count): [13]

This is something VOC seems to talk about a lot[14][15] and there are some secondary sources discussing this, though they appear to mostly be of a lower quality. Here are some examples: [16][17][18][19] To be frank, this claim seems patently absurd and about as WP:FRINGE as one can get, though I'm somewhat ambivalent about adding mention of it due to the quality of the secondary sources. Thoughts? Endwise (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@Endwise: If we get discussion in more reliable sources, then maybe. As you say, it's fringe of fringe. Doug Weller talk 16:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The Townhall.com article seems to be the least-worst secondary source on the matter, which is certainly not very inspiring. Endwise (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

"US-funded" at top

LemonPie00, I reverted your addition of "US-funded" because it lacked a clear source and was not explained later in the article. If a reliable source (WP:RS) says this clearly, can you add the information later in the article first instead, with a citation to the source? Llll5032 (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

According to their 2021 Annual Report (page 36), they received $5,024,062 in revenue in FY 2020, 73.6% of which was from individual donations, 16.8% from government funding, and 9.6% from "foundation" (I'm not sure what foundation means). Endwise (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

That is good information and I would support adding it later in the article. I don't know if getting 16.8% government funding qualifies as "US-funded" for the top. We may need to see if third-party sources say it. Llll5032 (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think 16.8% would really qualify either, particularly when I'm pretty sure that part of that is governments other than the United States making donations too. Note as well that the original act of congress did not include funding, and they had to raise funds themselves to finance building the actual original memorial.[20] I'm trying to find what secondary sources/third parties say about their funding, but I'm not coming up with much. Endwise (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Washington Post article

Here's a good article from the Washington Post which will provide a [[WP:RS]] for many of the viewpoints stated in this comment page. It also came up with some appropriate contrary views as selected by a professional journalist. It explains things like the purpose of the Foundation better than the current article, I think. And it says that the Foundation "relies on donations, not tax dollars.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2022/09/20/victims-of-communism-museum-opens/

A new anti-communism museum in D.C. tallies 100 million victims of Marx’s ideology

By Justin Wm. Moyer

Washington Post

September 20, 2022

Now, especially given the rise of left-wing regimes in Latin America, he argues that the threat is returning. “This is a huge challenge that has come back,” Bremberg told me. “The entire country needs to be more aware of the danger and evils of communism....”

"In the United States, however, unpacking the history of communism — an ideology associated with John Reed, Woody Guthrie, Isadora Duncan, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Paul Robeson, Lucille Ball, the Hollywood 10 and Rage Against the Machine — gets complicated quickly. This philosophy that killed tens of millions also inspired generations of activists. Roberta Wood, 73, joined the U.S. Communist Party in 1969. At the time, the nation was in the throes of the Vietnam War, mired in persistent segregation, and awash in revolutionary rhetoric among youth...."

"Wood says communists are “against the victimization of anyone under any system.” “I can’t defend everything that’s been done in the past century-and-a-half in the name of communism.... this museum could be the basis of a whole other museum called ‘Lies About Communism.’ ”

--Nbauman (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Different Victims of Communism memorial

Recently @111.88.133.31 made an edit but he didn't know how to properly cite sources so he put this URL in the edit summary here.

However the URL he shared sent people to an article about the Canadian Victims of Communism memorial.

Have any other editors encountered people who have mistaken the American memorial for the Canadian memorial? Is this perhaps something we should address and clarify? The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)