Talk:Human rights in the Soviet Union

Protected

I asked both sides of the revert war to state objections to every removed sentence by both sides. Instead, the talk page deteriorated into personal bickering. The page is protected until boths sides come to senses to discuss every piece in the page version difference.

I see that this war drags for a long time. If certain issues were already discussed earlier, please copy the corresponding pieces relevant to the mutually disagreed phrases here, for ease of tracking of conflict resolution.

Please put each disputed phrase into a separate section. Siction titles like "Massive reverts" or "Main conflicts" are unhelpful in tracking down what was discussed and when.

Please consider inviting an independent mediator.

If you want this page unblocked as soon as possible, please avoid any personal references regardless offensiveness. "I told him so" is just as useless for article content as "he is a moron". - Altenmann >t 17:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You write: "I have explained this and other things to him plenty of times". This phrase sounds like a one-sided action. It does not say about whether the issue was resolved. It does not say whether he agreed or disagreed with your explanations and whether his disagreement was well-argumented. For each item the final decision must be clearly written, for future direct reference. - Altenmann >t 18:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It is good that you decided to do something here, but you should note that Biophys again reverted everything mostly to his old version, saying that he supposedly fixed the earlier disputed statement in the edit summary [1]. -YMB29 (talk) 06:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Section "Soviet concept of human rights and legal system"

Here I am setting an example of the structured discussion. Please finish it yourself. - Altenmann >t 18:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

section title and scope

I suggest to remove "and legal system" from the title. Its presence creates confusion and gives an oppirtunity to go off-topic. The main topic in "concept of human rights" regardless where and how it was defined or implemented, in particular, how it was refliected in the Law. Please notice that cited references must explicitely connect human rights and soviet law, otherwise it will be original synthesis, regardless how evident it seems. - Altenmann >t 18:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree. -YMB29 (talk) 07:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Comparison of Soviet and Western concepts

• (Biophys) However the Soviet conception of human rights was very different from conceptions prevalent in the West. According to Western legal theory, "it is the individual who is the beneficiary of human rights which are to be asserted against the government", whereas Soviet law claimed the source of human rights is the state [ref Lambelet, Doriane [...] The Soviet state was considered as the source of human rights [ref name=shiman...
• (YMB29) The Soviet conception of human rights was different from conceptions prevalent in the West. According to Western legal theory, "it is the individual who is the beneficiary of human rights which are to be asserted against the government", whereas Soviet theory states that society as a whole is the beneficiary. ref name="Lambelet

The immediate issues:

• Both refer to Lambelet, but say it differently. What exctly Lambelet say? - Altenmann >t 18:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
• Who said that they are "very different"? - Altenmann >t 18:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
• Text of Biophys compares apples and oranges: Western piece is about beneficiary, while Soviet piece is about source. - Altenmann >t 18:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
• Text of biophys repeats the phrase. - Altenmann >t 18:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Altenmann, frankly speaking, if you wish to fix this particular segment in the current version, please do it. I agree with your edit in advance because you a good content contributor, and you know the subject.Biophys (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I don't want to write generalizing articles at all, although I started quite a few of them, to fill the apparent voids. I consider it waste of my time. I prefer filling knowledge gaps about specific topics. There are still lots of them. - Altenmann >t 19:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well you can see that Biophys has "fixed" the statement to misuse the source again. The source clearly says (as I wrote before): "Consequently, Soviet legal theory holds that it is the collective, society generally, that is the ultimate benefiaciary of human rights. Western legal theory holds that it is the individual who is the beneficiary of human rights which are to be asserted against the government."([2] p66) The difference in conceptions can be sourced to the same source (first sentence in my version). -YMB29 (talk) 07:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please write the correct summary, to be put into the article. - Altenmann >t 18:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

phrase about "emphasis"

(YMB29) Within the Soviet Union emphasis was placed on economic and social rights such as access to health care, adequate nutrition, education at all levels, and guaranteed employment. The government of the Soviet Union considered these to be the most important rights, without which political and civil rights were meaningless.

Why this phrase was deleted? - Altenmann >t 18:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I would like to hear Biophys' explanation as to why this keeps on happening. -YMB29 (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

References

Not neutral

This article is not neutral, not even close. --TIAYN (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This is how it is tagged. Do you have any specific suggestions? - Altenmann >t 19:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The lead seems to be one big aggressive attack on the Soviet Union and thecommunist system. Try to include some positive information in the lead to even it out, or instead, re-write the lead. --TIAYN (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes the article is far from neutral. The purpose of my editing here was to at least get rid of some of the most ridiculously biased statements. -YMB29 (talk) 07:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• I think one can safely remove last phrase in the intro about the totalitarian state (although SU was indeed described as such). We could also debate alternative versions of the introduction if someone suggests them.Biophys (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

  Tot-state is about human rights, and it is in place in the intro. - Altenmann >t 00:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Please explain which information is false or misleading and which information must be added. Please explain which phrases are stated in non-neutral tone. Please keep in mind that some topics cannot be "evened out" by their essence. By the way, the intro says nothing about "communist system", whatever you understand under this term. - Altenmann >t 00:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Well using Biophys' version:

(i1) The Soviet Union was a single-party state where the Communist Party ruled the country. All key positions in the institutions of the state were occupied by members of the Communist Party.

True, but does not explain what this has to do with human rights.

(i2) The state proclaimed its adherence to Marxism-Leninism ideology that restricts rights of citizens to private property.

Marxism-Leninism cannot be described simply as restriction on private property. And this assumes that this restriction is always bad.

(i3) Independent political activities were not tolerated, including the involvement of people with free labour unions, private corporations, non-sanctioned churches or opposition political parties.

Could be rephrased to better fit in the lead and maybe a source would help. For example: Independent political activities, like involvement in oppositional political parties, were strictly limited.

(i4) The regime maintained itself in political power in part by means of the secret police, propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, personality cult, restriction of free discussion and criticism, the use of mass surveillance, political purges and persecution of specific groups of people.

Certainly not the only ways the power was maintained. This can be the negative side but what about the positives (economic security/rights, growth in living standards, enthusiasm)?

(i5) Soviet Union was regarded as a totalitarian state by prominent historians, such as Robert Conquest, Richard Pipes, Karl Popper, Hannah Arendt, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Juan Linz.

Yes I agree this is of course too biased.

-YMB29 (talk) 07:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that much of the content of the lead section does not belong there. All stuff about who ruled and how may be placed to section "Background".

Please review the guidelenes Wikipedia:Lead section, write it anew, following the standards, and suggest here, for discussion. - Altenmann >t 19:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Detailed reply:

(i1) : does not belong to intro - Altenmann >t 19:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(i2) : a particular detail unnecessary in intro. - Altenmann >t 19:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(i3) : mixes apples and oranges and confuses many things. For example there was no concept of "free labor unions" at all, but this much be explained: (a) how it happened and (b) what human right is belongs to.

(i4) : no clear link to human rights stated. - Altenmann >t 19:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(i5) : Unclear comment: "of course too biased". This phrase is a statement of fact. - Altenmann >t 19:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

i1. "Single-party state" is important as it implies limiting political freedoms.

I2-i4. One should mention in Introduction which civil rights were limited. Let's be specific. But if anyone suggests here better version of introduction, let's discuss it.Biophys (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

re: i1-i4. Yes, I thought about this, but came to conclusion that it makes no sense to put this list in the intro: it will basically repeat the table of contents. IMO a general phrase suffice, kind of "many traditionally recognized human rights were restricted, even those which were formally declared". - Altenmann >t 00:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

How about this:

The Soviet Union was established after a revolution that ended centuries of Tsarist monarchy. The emerging Soviet leaders sought to establish a new order and understanding of equality based on the Marxist-Leninist ideology. The Communist Party ruled the country and mobilized the entire population in support of the state ideology and policies. As a result civil and political rights were limited. However the principles of guaranteed economic and social rights were actively developed instead. -YMB29 (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, section "Soviet concept of human rights" does not give the description how it was understood by Soviet Union itself. Can anyone? - Altenmann >t 00:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well it was there but Biophys removed it. Look at the version he reverted:

Within the Soviet Union emphasis was placed on economic and social rights such as access to health care, adequate nutrition, education at all levels, and guaranteed employment.[3] The government of the Soviet Union considered these to be the most important rights, without which political and civil rights were meaningless.[3]

See that is the problem with working from an old version "censored" by Biophys. It is like being thrown back to square one... -YMB29 (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No, this version of introduction tells nothing about human rights in the SU. It suppose to briefly summarize the content of the article.Biophys (talk) 05:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

What are you referring to? -YMB29 (talk) 06:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

YMB, he is probably referring to your version of the intro. Did you read and understand Wikipedia:Lead section? I have a suspicion you didn't. Your suggestion mostly belongs to "Background" section. - Altenmann >t 07:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I did read that... Are you both referring to what I wrote immediately above (where you asked about the Soviet concept of human rights)? Or to what I wrote above that at 04:54, 17 February 2010? -YMB29 (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I mean the both. Let's be specific when we summarize the content: there was no freedom of expression, no right to travel abroad, no property rights (beyond having personal belongings), no due process, there were no free labour unions, no private corporations, no independent political parties; all churches were tightly controlled or prosecuted by the sate. Moreover, even the idea of human rights in the "western" (mainstream) meaning of the word has been officially rejected by the Soviet authorities as "Bourgeoisie propaganda", at least prior to signing the Helsinki Accords in 1975. Altenmann noticed that words about the "totalitarian" system should stay in the introduction. That's fine, but if we follow this route, an appropriate example would be Human rights in Nazi Germany, an article that we do not even have.Biophys (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

When did he say that totalitarian should be there? That is how the USSR was described by critics in the West, but if we include that then we have to mention what you said about bourgeois propaganda to show the Soviet perspective...

You were told to not get into specifics in the introduction. The views on rights and comparisons can be in other sections. Maybe you can post your suggested version? -YMB29 (talk) 02:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I am still waiting for an answer. -YMB29 (talk) 04:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

So this article is not based on WP:RS any more but on someones dream perhaps? "the principles of guaranteed economic and social rights were actively developed instead". From where do you get things like that exactly? Or is it just random "positive information" that first popped into head? It was not bad article a while a go. Sorry to see that its been rewritten and filled with self published original nonsense lately.--Termer (talk) 04:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes the article is bad now because it does not fit your POV...

The article was filled with "self published original nonsense" even more before I started editing it. I am looking to change that but you and Biophys like to edit war. The intro can be sourced (there is already a source about guaranteed social and economic rights), but funny how you never complained about the previous intro not being sourced... Guess it is "self published original nonsense" when it is not in line with your personal POV.

Did Biophys ask you to post this here? You both did not show up when the discussion above was attempted. Now when the article is unprotected and I made changes, you both ran in here to revert and complain. Shows that you don't care about discussion, but only about edit warring. -YMB29 (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The former lead was not neutral, saying the Soviet Union "guaranteed economic and social rights" is not POV. Since the lead does mention if they were successful or not. So claiming this is POV is stupidity and clearly biased by Termer. --TIAYN (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that at this moment the introduction must be as breef and general as possible. The topic is large and if we start putting separate subtopic into intro, it will become chaotic and POV difficult to maintain. I suggest the bode of gthe article take reasonably good shape, then the intro may be rewritten as a summary of the article, if decided necessary. A good article is very difficult to write. It is very easy to pile lots of criticsm on what happened in the Soviet Union. It is much more difficult to help readers to understand how the noble principles of Liberté, égalité, fraternité declared by Paris Commune and declared put to implementation in the Soviet Union have implemented as political repression and economic stagnation. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The article lacks:

• history of the evolution of rights of the human
• class characher of any rights: working people are beneficiary (not the "society"; there is basic misunderstanding of many western researchers: accorsing to Marxism there is no homogeneous "society": there are antagonistic classes in pre-sociaist society and non-antagonistic classes under socialism (a new invention of marxism-leninism) ). And exploiting classes had no rights. And under communism some rights become meaningless: e.g., in a stateless society gthere is no need for political rights.
• how exactly it was reflected in soviet law (not only how it was described by western researchrs)
• how declaration and implementation of rights went different ways
• [what else missing I missed?]

I can try and add some missing pieces of the mosaic, but I don't want to be caught in the middle of revert war. As I see, both sides ignored the suggestion of Altenmann to discuss added and deleted pieces one by one rather than revert to and fro. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well thanks for commenting. I am going to try to add some of the things you mentioned to the article, but as you can see that has been made difficult by Biophys' reverting and refusal to discuss... -YMB29 (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk about ALL human rights.

It's suspicious that you forgot to mention all the human rights that weren't violated in the USSR. (Right to education, health, food, house, etc) Talk about all human rights, not only about the ones wich are useful to criticise the USSR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.16.166.168 (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Introduction

I would question the reference to two views, being "the communist ideology adopted by the Soviet Union and another by its critics". The Soviet view was the official interpretation/whitewash of a dictatorship, not the view of a majority of the people, or the reality. It is rather like saying that there are two different interpretations of the Holocaust, one that of the Nazi ideology adopted by Germany and another by its critics". Would people consider that an accurate introduction?Royalcourtier (talk) 07:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Lenin's works

Volunteer Marek, why is one of Lenin's works a secondary source? Also, why did you ignore my last question? Socialistguy (talk) 01:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Because it was written by Lenin, a person "close to the events". See WP:PRIMARY. I don't know what your last question was. Volunteer Marek  01:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, it's on your talk page. WP:PRIMARY says that "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia". Aren't Lenin's work reputable? Socialistguy (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Are texts of the type "kill, shoot, hang" "reputable"?

Texts of Lenin were strictly censored in the SU, to make him "reputable".Xx236 (talk) 08:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927051409/http://litek.ws/k0nsl/detox/anti-humans.htm to http://litek.ws/k0nsl/detox/anti-humans.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071008041146/http://www.demokratizatsiya.org/Dem%20Archives/DEM%2001-04%20armes.pdf to http://www.demokratizatsiya.org/Dem%20Archives/DEM%2001-04%20armes.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Begining of the addition of new sections on the article

As the last (most likely) human poster said, there is a specific oddity to how lacking the article is in an expansion of information concerning the positive human rights are within the article, and I plan to correct this. --Saum22

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, as Human rights in the United States is indeed a problematic article, the disproportionate part of which is dedicated to both warranted and completely unfounded criticism, violating WP:UNDUE and WP:PROPORTION. Unlike that article, Human rights in the Soviet Union is quite balanced and describes that state's human rights record in an impartial way using academic sources and not random articles picked up on Google. Pizzigs (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I concur with the assessment that "Human rights in the Soviet Union" is a quite balanced article. I remove the banner. Lone Internaut (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

This article has no mentions of the positive human rights in the Soviet Union.

Either, this should be rectified, or the article should recieve a 'non neutral' tag at the top of the page. I've added the non neutral template until this can be discussed. Opok2021 (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Be more specific. What "positive human rights" are you talking about? Do you have any sources that talk about these rights? Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Of course Soviet propaganda always claimed that all human rights are respected in the Soviet Union, but violated in "capitalist countries". But it was a lie. As one historian said, it was "a set of phantom institutions and arrangements [in the USSR] which put a human face on the hideous realities: a model constitution adopted in a worst period of terror and guaranteeing human rights, elections in which there was only one candidate, and in which 99 percent voted; a parliament at which no hand was ever raised in opposition or abstention.". My very best wishes (talk) 02:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

"Right to private property"

In the beginning of the article, it is claimed that the Soviet Union, [sic] "restricted citizens' rights to own private property". It's undeniable, yes, that the Soviet Union restricted private property- but as a "right"?

Where is the basis for the description of "private property" as a right? The United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights states that "Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others"- but it does not speak of private property. Private property is not recognized as a right by the United Nations, which is what I presume this to be based on. Subsequently it should be removed, or replaced with "right to property" as a whole. Kalivyah (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

If we agree that USSR restricted private property but want to remove "rights", then the phrase should be modified how? "USSR restricted citizens' what to own private property"? I think it's a bit of a tautology, because "rights" here is understood as legal capability to own property. The discussion on UN DoHR is also misguided in my opinion, because if you "own property alone" it's precisely what "private property" means. Cloud200 (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The USSR restricted private property, but it is not a right. This is about "human rights" in the Soviet Union- and presumably the basis of the article is in the UN DOHR. Private property should not be mentioned. Kalivyah (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

No, this is not a legal analysis of UN DOHR implementation in the USSR and it wouldn't make sense as it was only enacted in 1948. It's a much broader overview of human rights in the USSR and your limiting of the scope to point out alleged inconsistencies is unjustified. Cloud200 (talk) 09:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

We are talking about Right to property here. It was limited to certain types of personal property in the USSR. My very best wishes (talk) 02:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The reliability of The Black Book of Communism in this article

Following WP:BRD, tagging @Genabab and @JArthur1984.

Background:

1. Genabab removed The Black Book of Communism from the bibliography list here: [3] stating that it is an unreliable source.

2. I reverted this edit here [4], saying that multiple RSN discussions (e.g. [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]) did not conclude that the source is unreliable.

3. JArthur reverted my reversion here: [10] saying that the source is unworthy of inclusion.

This book was written by highly reputable scholars and has become cornerstone source material on this topic. It has had its share of criticism (mostly for bias by those who disagree with the book's ideas), but to dismiss it as an "unreliable" or "weak" source on Human rights in the Soviet Union seems like an odd editorial decision that neither follows the consensus of reliable sources or of wikipedia editors who've discussed this very topic. Can you please elaborate on why we should ignore the above and remove this book from the bibliography section of the article? spintheer (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

It’s quite a silly source, that three of its main contributors criticized as sloppy and driven by the editorial obsession to arrive at a specific conclusion. The editors in the linked discussions who thought it should be deemed unreliable are quite right. But - it’s not necessary for us to go so far as that. The present question is not whether it should be deemed generally unreliable, but whether it should be in the bibliography section of this article. No, there is real scholarship available to list on this topic JArthur1984 (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok how about this: Regardless of what other wiki editors have concluded, the books own authors have concluded that it is wrong. furthermore, historical reviews of the book have universally lampooned it too.

More importantly its not even cited in the page?? so why include it in Bibliography. Genabab (talk) 11:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)