Jump to content

Talk:Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dthomsen8 (talk | contribs) at 22:57, 9 August 2019 (Assessment: Sociology (C/Low); Discrimination (C/Low); Atheism (C/Low); Russia (C/Low); Former countries (C) (Rater)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Context and renaming

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

You can oppose something without repressing it. What editing criteria or policy are you using to justify your comment "I think"? Are you saying that sources are invalid for using the phrase like say the US Congress? [1] LoveMonkey (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First, from an experimental science aspect both atheism and Christianity are "unscientific". There are no repeatable experiments that one can do to prove atheism or Christianity. However, the Christian apologist Gary Habermas commented on double-blind prayer experiments where people pray for others with terminal illness. Habermas admitted that most such experiments have not worked, but the three that he knows of that have indeed worked were cases of Bible believing Christians praying for the sick.[2]
Secondly, biblical Christianity is not obscurantist. One of the defining aspects of Christianity is that it had a number of eyewitnesses who died for their testimony. In addition, countries with a Protestant heritage are among the very freest countries in the world in terms of academic/political/economic freedom.[3]
Next, the word persecution is not too charged/strong of a word. In total, the number of Christians who were martyred for their faith under the militant atheism of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is 12 million.[4] In addition, there were churches that were demolished.
Lastly, except for irreligious countries with a Protestant/Christian heritage, atheistic countries don't have a good track record when it comes to freedom of thought (For example, Soviet Union, communist China, Pol Pot, Cuba, etc.). Knox490 (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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


WP:CAN Woogie10w Paul Siebert C.J. Griffin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Steven Rosefielde. Red Holocaust page 67 and page 77 more complete archival data increases camp deaths by 19.4 percent to 1,258,537" The best archivally based estimate of Gulag excess deaths at present is 1.6 million from 1929 to 1953."Jack90s15 (talk) 02:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


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

I hope you realize that WP:CAN is inappropriate behavior on wikipedaia and could lead to negative consequences such as blocking. Consensus is supposed to occur organically, not by bringing in your buddies to influence a decision. WP:CAN literally says that "Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior."
In any case, none of the sources you mention give a number for Christians. For the sources to be valid in this article they have to specify the number of people who were Christian and died, not the total number of people who died - considering that Muslims, nonreligious, and other people were killed in the end too. On the other hand, the two sources on the article right now actually do specify estimates for Christians.
By the way, your latest source by Robert Conquest says that "...the total of deaths caused by the whole range of Soviet regime's terrors can hardly be lower than some fifteen million." That means that more than 15 million people died! That is a lower limit not the maximum limit.
From wikipedia's perspective, reliable sources should be cited for what they claim. The fact that death toll estimates vary among the sources shows that there is no consensus on the actual number of people who died among historians. So the only option is to cite a source and attribute what it says and let the readers of wikipedia decide for themselves. Wikipedia's measure of inclusion is WP:Verifiability - do the reliable sources make the claim, not asserting what one thinks is the only truth.Ramos1990 (talk) 02:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus) like I Said I tagged them to get Input from experienced editors on the subject to see if it should be removed or just rewarded differently or not.(Canvassing, sock puppetry, and meat puppetry While it is fine—even encouraged—to invite people into a discussion to obtain new insights and arguments) that all I am asking for is insight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus#Pitfalls_and_errors
No it is not acceptable to notify a selected number of editors when you are starting a discussion on a talk page. Considering that you are calling other editors by name on topic they have not engaged in does look an attempt at WP:VOTESTACK or even WP:FORUMSHOP. By posting on a talk page, you automatically attract random editors, not a select group with a particular bias. Plus, looking at the article history other editors have been more active and can provide better opinions on the matter. Discussions are supposed to happen organically not forced.Ramos1990 (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Editor's I asked for Insight are Experienced in History of this Subject and editing about it and can Give Insight on the situation with a NPOV on the Subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack90s15 (talkcontribs)
We will see if they are or if this is indeed Canvassing. You should do like I did on the other article - discuss on talk page and wait for interested parties to voluntarily engage with the discussion. Not call select editors. This is dangerous since you have been blocked before it seems very recently back to back.Ramos1990 (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jack90s15, despite being warned, you still continue to remove properly referenced information from this article against consensus. If you continue to do so, I am going to recommend a topic ban at WP:ANI. I have restored the WP:STATUSQUO. You must gain consensus for your contentious changes, which you currently do not have. Thanks, AnupamTalk 02:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


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

I was following WP:BRD


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

User:Jack90s15, You are not following BRD. Look at what you quoted. Does it not say "Similarly, if you advance a potential contribution on the article's talk page..."? Notice that it says talk page, not the article. So why are you inserting anything into the article [5]? Nowhere in this talk page discussion have you discussed 1) the rewording you are suggesting and 2) you never mentioned the source you were trying insert to support the rewording. So why are you inserting anything into the article?
State your proposition here in the talk page first and get a consensus or wait a few days for no response. Then after either a consensus or no response (after a reasonable amount of time) we can start making edits on the article. That is BRD. AnupamTalk 03:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct User:Anupam. I don't think he is following BRD per your break down of the situation and I don't see any discussion of any rewording or this new source from his forced edit [6] here in the talk page at all. From his inappropriate bold edit from today, his source "Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity" talks about clergy and monastics only who were killed 20 years after 1922 (the end of the civil war). The source does not state the total amount of regular Christians who were killed. There is a big difference between mortality of religious leaders (very few people) and religious people (majority of the people).
User:Jack90s15, discuss your ideas here first before adding anything to the article. Making adds to the article while you are engaged in a talk page discussion is disruptive editing.Ramos1990 (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slight rewording and source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

User:Jack90s15, I think you have misunderstood policy here on Wikipedia. If statements are buttressed by reliable sources, which in this case they are, you have no right to remove them to WP:CENSOR information that you WP:DONTLIKE. Given that consensus is against your rewording of sourced information, I would recommend that you drop the WP:STICK before your POV pushing is addressed at WP:ANI. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 08:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anupam I am not trying to censor anything my slight rewording still, acknowledges that the range is in the millions. Like the sources say and it's still keeping them the sources.
That's why I'm trying to follow the Bold revert discuss cycle to come to a compromise with it

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

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


Ramos1990 I am Fine with what you Suggested with it,I agree with it Now how would it look with the wording you Suggested?Jack90s15 (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Cool. Will add the attribution wording to the sentence on the article then. It should soften the sentence.Ramos1990 (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ramos1990 after Seeing it I agree with it consensus has been reached