Talk:Presidential Commission to Counter Attempts to Falsify History to the Detriment of Russia's Interests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NVO (talk | contribs) at 12:38, 19 June 2009 (Where did the title came from? Suggesting a rename). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 12:38, 19 June 2009 by NVO (talk | contribs) (Where did the title came from? Suggesting a rename)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Soviet Union C‑class Low‑importance

	Soviet Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Russia C‑class Low‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law on countermeasures against the rehabilitation of Nazism, Nazi criminals and their associates in former republics of the Soviet Union

I have redirected Law on countermeasures against the rehabilitation of Nazism, Nazi criminals and their associates in former republics of the Soviet Union to section Criminalization of criticism of the Soviet Union. I collected some references on the law at Talk:Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee#Lex SAFKA?. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Nataliya Narochnitskaya is no longer a State Duma deputy. She didn't stand for re-election in 2007. I've amended the introduction to reflect this. Shotlandiya (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd also say the statement that the commission will criminalise those who criticise the Soviet Union is rather alarmist. We don't have any evidence for this. Surely the best way to re-word this would be to start with "Critics of the commission believe...", and then add a reference? Shotlandiya (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Not similar to Holocaust denial laws

Some countries -- most notably Germany -- are in deep shame of the evil things they did, and in order to make sure these things won't repeat, are punishing people who would try to sweep knowledge of them under rug or -- worse -- attempt to justify this evil. Russian actions are diametrically opposite: Russia is concerned not with the evil it did -- it attempts to sweep it under rug -- but by maintaining its supposed glory. Comparing enforced glorification of the state with laws against denial of Holocaust is very irrespectful of victims of the Holocaust; indeed, of all victims of the World War II.

It is regrettable that Russia has chosen such a talking point in order to justify the commission and its related law. However, Misplaced Pages strives to be an encyclopædia, and encyclopædic standards do not permit granting undue credence to this self-glorifying political notion. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 16:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Err.. the legislation is based on holocaust denial laws in Germany. Your points about the intent of the law are interesting and it is a relevant debate but this does not change the fact that the laws are based on similar laws elsewhere in Europe. The EU's proposed genocide denial directive is also relevant. I think your wording that the law will criminalise "criticism of the Soviet Union" is unfair and POV. It doesn't make any sense either as Putin himself has strongly criticised the Soviet Union. This article should not become another cudgel to bash Putin/Medvedev over the head like some of the other obviously biased and politicised anti-Russian Misplaced Pages articles. Shotlandiya (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the parallel is denial of Holocaust = denial of atrocities = what the "Historical Truth Commission" represents. We are, in the sake of NPOV, not making that parallel in the article. That the law will criminalize "criticism" is exactly what the law does, that characterization is neither unfair nor POV. (In fact, where the Baltics are concerned, which were first invaded by the USSR, the law submitted by United Russia, Putin's party, enforces a historical lie.) Putin "criticized" the Soviet Union? Please, he has stated that even as a drunken student he knew the Baltics were not "occupied."

Finally I will thank Shotlandiya to cease slanderous personal attacks such as "I expect this to be reverted by the Russophobic Baltic nationalists who stalk Misplaced Pages". I count Russians amongst my friends and they, me amongst theirs. PetersV TALK 19:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Shotlandiya, your edit warring on Edward Lucas demonstrates your desire to stamp out perceived (your personal interpretation) "Russophobia" everywhere on WP. Do not sublimate your POV into personal attacks. PetersV TALK 19:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

As long as the comparison is unsourced, it is original research and has no place on Misplaced Pages. Colchicum (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

What about the RT article in the external links section? —Zalktis (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It does not outlaw "criticism of Soviet Union"

I'm sorry but the law does not criminalize "criticism of the Soviet Union," it outlaws "falsification of history." The former claim is speculation by Western and opposition press, not a fact or a generally accepted view. Let's let the commission actually do something first, and judge only after that. Let's try to write this article in a neutral way, not engane in similar kind of polemics and speculation as the Western press. For now, let's just state the fact: it criminalizes falsification of history only. BTW, this edit summary is not a reason to revert: .

No, it criminalizes criticism. The USSR invaded and occupied the Baltic states before the Great Patriotic War, for example. Using "occupation" to describe actions of the Red Army will be criminalized according to the legislation introduced by United Russia. PetersV TALK 01:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Criminalizing the claim "it was occupation" does not equal "criminalizing criticism." This is your WP:OR, and we should not use the formulation here. Offliner (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps:

While ostensibly outlawing "falsification" of history, the law criminalizes criticism of the USSR which, inter alia, accuses the Red Army of any act of "occupation"

It could have been titled something other than contending only Russia does not lie about its history. PetersV TALK 01:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless you want to say the law proposes to criminalize any account of history which the Russian administration declares to be a lie regardless of factual basis. Outlawing criticism of the USSR is the kinder gentler NPOV construct here. PetersV TALK 02:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

"Criminalizes the criticism of Soviet Union" is your formulation. It is not what the law says. It is also WP:OR if you don't provide a source for this exact formulation. Why do you insist on using this obviously non-neutral formulation? What is wrong in just using the neutral formulation "it criminalizes the falsification of history"? Why is it not enough? We can then discuss the speculations of what opposition press, etc. claim the law implies in another chapter. Offliner (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand what this debate is about. Just find a reference to this claim then properly attribute this claim, and be done with that. Otherwise, delete this claim as untrue. Is a day to find the reference enough? (Igny (talk) 04:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC))

Reference? Please, do read the already existing references - "The bill has attracted criticism because of its definition of Nazi rehabilitation, with those who "belittle" the Soviet Union's role in the war or criticise it in any way being regarded as equally culpable as those who glorify Hitler." . -- Sander Säde 05:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between to criticise the Soviet Union's role in the war and to criticise the Soviet Union. Since we have just established that the claim is merely a misunderstanding, can I remove it now? Or you have some other reference? (Igny (talk) 06:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC))

The source clearly says or criticise it in any way. So where is the misunderstanding, I think it cannot be read in more then one way? According to the quote, general criticism of Soviet Union will become illegal. And I must say that I find this to be a truly sad day for Russia, when that happens. -- Sander Säde 06:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There is the only way to read this. "belittle" the Soviet Union's role in the war or criticise it . As in belittle someone's something or criticise it . Where did you get the quote about the criticism of Soviet Union? In any case, the claim should be attributed as in

Telegraph reported that according to some critics of the legislation, it is aimed at the criticism of the Soviet Union's role in the war

Not quite what the current version of the article says. (Igny (talk) 06:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC))

I do think that it means Soviet Union, not its role in the war in the quote. Otherwise it would be a rather weird sentence for the Telegraph. Compare, "with those who "belittle" the Soviet Union's role in the war or criticise the role of Soviet Union in any way" vs "with those who "belittle" the Soviet Union's role in the war or criticise Soviet Union in any way". However, is the draft of the proposed bill available for public? Might be easiest just to check the original source, instead of looking for quotes. -- Sander Säde 06:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There are basic grammar rules to follow to avoid misreadings like "belittle" the Soviet Union's role in the war or criticise the war What you think does not matter because such an outrageous statement deserves such a wide coverage in media that you should not have a problem to find dozens of references not just one ambiguous statement in one paper. (Igny (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC))

criminalize "criticism of the Soviet Union," is back to the article, thanks to Digwuren. I have yet to see a reference in support of this claim. I am generous I will give it 6 hours more to find ref and otherwise I will remove it later tonight.(Igny (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

So I guess no to discussion, let us just fight. On the other hand I understand that it is hard to discuss when sources do not support the POV which is being pushed here. (Igny (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

Neutrality

Still a horribly biased article. Some of the links (Ministry of Truth) have no place here and simply highlight the one-sided nature of this piece. "Criticism of the Soviet Union" is silly. I think the POV tag is fair given the disagreements about the article. Shotlandiya (talk) 08:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree removing such links. But overall the article is not so bad that it deserved to be tagged. What points should be introduced? Peltimikko (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I want to point out that this is highly controversial topic and, therefore, it is natural to expect these tags to appear in the article. This is also a relatively new topic so I suggest you to wait and see how it works itself out. Do not expect that a new article will be up to the high standards from the start, POV issues will haunt it for a long time. (Igny (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC))

Sorry guys, please explain point by point what exactly is wrong with this article, so far I haven't seen any dispute what exactly is not neutral enough in the article. Feel free to address the issues in the article or on the talk page here. Simply tagging the article without a clear case is not acceptable. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 03:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Vladimir Belaeff from San Fransisco

Vladimir Belaeff – the president of Global Society Institute – is rated as an expert from San Fransisco, and he glorifies the offical view of Russia goverment. The background of the source is odd: (1) The website of Global Society Institute has only email address (not even street address) (2) Opinions of Vladimir Belaeff are published in the Russian website "Russia Profile" which is owned by RIA Novosti (owned by the Russian government) (3) There is no evidence that Vladimir Belaeff even lives in San Fransisco, because Global Society Institute do not even mention the street address. So, seems Vladimir Belaeff is just shooting his opinions by the name of the one-man "institute" (compare: Johan Bäckman and Johan Beckman Institute). Peltimikko (talk) 06:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

There actually is an address on the page - under privacy notice, same address is given in WHOIS. However, that is an address of a mall, with an attached UPS store. So, this is just a rented mailbox and nothing more. But what strikes me as really strange is "Global Society Institute, Inc". It is rather strange to see a scientific institute, that is also a corporation - and furthermore, offers various services. I tried to find out more about Vladimir Belaeff - and scholarly sources give zero matches for that name. POG gives lots of matches, but all of them in post-Soviet space, many in Russian blogs and forums. So I must agree - this seems like a one-man "institute" and the title of the professor is highly dubious, as he doesn't seem to belong to any scientific institution.

That does not make Belaeff's opinion unsuitable for the article, though - however, the source has also opinions of three other experts, two of which (Ethan S. Burger and Stephen Blank) are from real scientific institutions. Edward Lozansky is a physicist, but American University in Moscow was merged with International University in Moscow (note: should be "of Moscow") in 2000. So perhaps we should include the opinions of all four experts to the article? -- Sander Säde 07:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it's a copyvio

The text beginning with "... former Soviet-Bloc nations" up to "...denial of Holocaust" (before, up to "...homelands to rule") is verbatim from the source, hence a straight up copy vio - doesn't matter whether it's attributed or not.radek (talk) 08:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me guess. If I paraphrase the quote, you will delete it as original research? (Igny (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC))

So what is wrong with the paraphrased properly referenced and attributed quote? (Igny (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC))

Please refer to my original edit summary: "if this info is to be included it needs to a) not be a copyvio, b) presented in context, c) include other sources". So yes, I will remove it, but not for OR. Copy vio is pretty basic thought - so no argument needed to remove it in that case.radek (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yury Mukhin

There seem to be some controversy with the following statement:

Yury Mukhin, an author well known for his denial of the Soviet responsibility for the Katyn massacre and the editor in chief of Duel, welcomed the creation of the commission.

Issues:

is his view notable?
can somebody create an article on him - apparently a disambig is needed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It was an obvious attempt to link the Katyn denial to this legislation by writing a synthesis of two articles about one guy. Quite possibly the guy is notable. Quite possibly the Katyn denial is relevant to this legislation. Should we allow this synthesis into the article? No. Find me a reference which links the Katyn denial to this committee directly and I will be ok with that. (Igny (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

In that case, the Katyn denial should be added to his bio, and a note that he supports this commission, without a mention of Katyn, to this article. Sounds fair? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

That is ok. (Igny (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

Note that there is also an Olympic swimmer by the same name - presumably a different person.radek (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the swimmer's Valeryevich and the publicist's Ignatyevich. It is most curious that this guy voiced his approval of the commission, because his work consists almost entirely of supporting nearly every notable conspiracy theory in existence, from Holocaust denial to the moon hoax. --Illythr (talk) 01:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

But to think that his support somehow tarnishes the legislation constitutes a logical fallacy. (Igny (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

An argumentum ad Mukhinum, yes. Still, curious... --Illythr (talk) 01:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Quote about the possible legislation

Just some quotes from the references provided:

The ruling United Russia party also has proposed a draft law that would mandate jail terms of three to five years for anyone in the former Soviet Union convicted of rehabilitating Nazism.

Its priority, he said, was to challenge what he said were distorted interpretations of the Soviet Union's role in World War II.

Russia Moves to Ban Criticism of WWII Win

How can it be misread into criticism of Soviet Union's actions/activities? (Igny (talk) 05:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

I don't know either. It seems that the wordings used in the sources are not POVish enough for some of our editors, so they have to invent their own formulations. We trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please stick to the sources. Offliner (talk) 05:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I want to point out that there is no law yet. There are just speculations about the draft of the law. Any such speculation should be worded very carefully and close to the sources here to avoid POV interpretations, the very same which are being pushed by a certain group of editors here. (Igny (talk) 05:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

The statements are worded carefully to reflect what the sources say. The fact that what sources say doesn't jive with your POV is a different matter.radek (talk) 05:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I literally copied what the sources said. Could you copy paste the quote which supports your POV interpretation that criticism of Soviet Union or criticism of the Soviet Union's actions are to be outlawed.

the government has announced that it is considering passing a law to criminalize statements and acts that deny the Soviets won World War II, or claim it used poor tactics in battle or did not liberate Eastern Europe.

further evidence of Moscow's continued suppression of dissent

In an Orwellian twist, the drafters of the bill, which is being called the law "Against the Rehabilitation of Nazism,

Russia's new bill, however, would stop anyone reexamining a history fraught with half-truths and lies propagated by the Soviet government, then carried into the present on the backs of unrevised text books and a general aversion to looking too closely the country's past.

For starters. radek (talk) 05:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah good. That is what I am trying to say. I do not think the current version of the article has any conflict with your quotes? (Igny (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

Hey, why aren't we discussing these issues in an AFD? AFDs are much more amenable to webforuming! Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 10:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not get your point. However, an RfC may be in order to attract the attention of uninvolved editors. (Igny (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

"Fictions and Falsifications in Evaluating the USSR's Role On the Eve of World War II" AKA Poland blamed for starting World War II.

Here is some about this Historical Truth Commission. A paper titled Fictions and Falsifications in Evaluating the USSR's Role On the Eve of World War II by Col. Sergei Kovalyov, director of the Russian scientific-research department of military history, has blamed Poland for starting World War II: "Everyone who has studied the history of World War II without bias knows that the war began because of Poland's refusal to satisfy Germany's claims," Kovalyov called the demands "quite reasonable." He observed: "The overwhelming majority of residents of Danzig, cut off from Germany by the Treaty of Versailles, were Germans who sincerely wished for reunification with their historical homeland." at the same time Many Western historians believe Hitler was encouraged to invade by the treaty of nonaggression signed by Moscow and Berlin, called the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, which secretly divided eastern and western Europe into spheres of influence.--Termer (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, in an article in Vremia novostei, historian Ivan Sukhov muses that Kovalyov's interpretations run ominously close to being justifications of the Nazi regime's actions in Poland. In a follow-up article, Kovalyov's claims were deemed unacceptable themselves may be a kind of rehabilitation of Nazism that count as falsification of history, and therefore may themselves be in contravention of the proposed law. —Zalktis (talk) 08:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if Russian government or the author will apologize. Just run into a related blog. Back on topic, unless the HTC takes any action, a mention of this would be off topic here. It will be interested to see what kind of truth will the HTC chose to defend... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

According to Vremja Novostei article the paper published on the web cite of the Russian Ministry of Defence on "Poland blamed for starting World War II" was directly related to the Commission/campaign "for the sake of historical truth" in Russia that according to Vremja Novostei has just taken grotesque form.--Termer (talk) 06:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Dyukov used this incident to score some points for the commission. --Illythr (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Vladimir Belaeff

Recent edits by User:Igny saying if vremya novostey is ok so is belaeff's opinion...not that I have a problem with adding all sorts of opinions to the article. But once it's about "Historical Truth" and opinions like Belaeff who claims that the symbol of the Latvian Air Force during World War II was a swastika, and that They largely ignore the key role of the Latvians in the establishment and defense of Soviet power during the Russian Civil War. the reason I'm bringing this up, while "Poland started WWII" doesn't need any comments, it might be necessary to point out the facts in the context that Latvia didn't have an air force during WWII and the Red Latvians who allegedly had an important role in establishing the Soviet power in Russia were defeated by the Estonian army and the Latvian army in the Estonian war of independence and Latvian war of independence. --Termer (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

After looking for other source to back up such claims, I came to the conclusion that they may be factually false, so I self reverted. (Igny (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC))

Good call, as the Latvian air force was incorporated into the Soviet air force in 1940, suggesting that the symbol of the Latvian Air Force during World War II was a swastika reads like the Soviet air force used swastika as a symbol during World War II. Not to mention the Latvians must be quite surprised finding out that they as a nation of 1.3 million had a major role in World history by establishing the Soviet power in Russia.--Termer (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

But what does it do?

We seem to be missing a key element of the article here. Can someone please add what the Commission is supposed to do? IMO, ru:Комиссия по противодействию попыткам фальсификации истории в ущерб интересам России#Задачи provides a useful starting point. —Zalktis (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Zalktis: We don't know if it's actually supposed to do anything. Maybe the show is already over. Maybe it will pop up at some point in the future. NVO (talk) 12:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Where did the title came from? Suggesting a rename

Historical Truth? Is this particular rendition used anywhere else? Yup, the full name is atrociously long, but the subject as far away from seeking truth as ... you name it. And they don't even pretend to hide it. Yup, reducing the name to anything acceptable to all parties is a PITA, but still a rename is strongly suggested.

Remember, there is no single truth in history. Not even close. NVO (talk) 12:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Categories: