Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine/Evidence

Was there a vast left-wing conspiracy against him, as Ultramarine's history suggests?

Well, no.

Ultramarine made several additions to Democracy before the beginning of his timeline; one of them the quite striking, and controversial claim of his pet version of DPT. I presume Mihnea Tudoreanu was watching this; he appears to have made a couple of edits on Democratic peace theory. A few days later, I made a couple edits on Democracy, including the paragraph on DPT, which had just been edited and showed up on my watchlist. I looked at DPT itself, which had an NPOV tag, and tried to NPOV it. An edit struggle resulted.

I did not know M. Tudoreanu existed then, or until six weeks later, when he created a section Talk:Democracy#Ultramarine_and_the_meaning_of_NPOV which independently echoed my own impression of Ultramarine. I sent him a note of sympathy; and later encouraged the RfC, in the hope it would improve Ultramarine's behaviour, which it did for a while. I did not write any of it, but I did comment on the RfC itself.

I place this here because it deals with intentions, past knowledge, and the non-existence of e-mails. Diffs will document none of these.

Similarly, I could probably prove, with some trouble, that I was actually an officer of the conservative debating society at college; but I cannot prove, in the same sense, my present politics; although they have not significantly changed. So this is a comment. Septentrionalis 19:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you choose the democracy pages rather than the criticisms of communism page? Do you part company with the other accusers on that one?--Silverback 19:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What (literally) does this question mean? Choose the democracy pages for what? I suspect that Silverback is assuming some things that are not the case, but I can only guess what they are.Septentrionalis 22:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You chose to discuss these democracy articles in your posting here, yet you also chose to be one of the plaintiffs in this arbitration case, which documents a lot of other things than the articles that you discuss above. One of those is the anti-communism page. I ask you whether you are in agreement with the other plaintiffs on these issues? If you haven't looked at the whole situation, you may inadvertently be supporting the "progressive" clique. If you don't support the whole of their accusations, perhaps you should have just offerred evidence, instead of joining as a plaintiff.--Silverback 01:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WHOOPS!, apologies, I thought you were one of the plaintiffs, I see that you are not. My bad. Perhaps you may still have something in my post you are interested in responding to.--Silverback 07:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Septentrionalis is indeed one of the plaintiffs, that is the signature user:Pmanderson prefers. Ultramarine 15:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that Criticisms of communism existed until after writing Mihnea; I believe not until Ultramarine mentioned it on the RfC. Since his remarks suggested that Ultramarine was attempting to use {{twoversions}} in the same deprecated manner as on Democratic peace theory (see my comments at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ultramarine#Two-versions) I commented on the talk page.

Mihnea Tudoreanu and Ultramarine had made a better and more NPoV article than either of them would have done alone; Ultramarine was revert-warring to his solitary version. I proposed a compromise, which did stop the revert war for a while, and which resulted in an edit including most of the points that either had written. I count as an accomplishment there that Mihnea considered, and supported inclusion of, much of Ultramarine's writing; Ultramarine had been insisting, as too often, on everything he wanted at once.

I see that I am being warned against being 'objectively pro-Communist'. I regret that this ancient fallacy should have resurfaced; "objectively pro-Fascist" was one of Stalin's chief lies, and its mirror image is scarcely better. I don't have to agree with Mihnea's politics to edit productively with him; he's a good editor.

I chose to bring this before ArbCom because of Ultramarine's conduct. His manners, his rules abuse, his insistence on enshrining a PoV, his bullying are unacceptable on any article, no matter what the article and no matter what the PoV. In fact, I agree with his PoV rather more than he thinks; I have expressed my PoV on Talk:Democratic peace theory#PoV, and the Communist states were a disaster. But PoV essays will not do here; Wikipedia is not a blog.Septentrionalis 18:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like your proposed "compromise" was just to vote to pick one version and then allow additions by consensus. That is ordinary editing, no compromise at all, and apparently you were only able to form a majority, not a consensus. Perhaps that is because of personal attacks such as characterizing someones posts as "rants". You should know that the "Criticims of communism" article itself is already a two versions approach, only necessary because the anarcho-communists clique has control of the communism article. A better compromise would be to take a non-deletionist approach for anything that can be cited, with careful sharing of prime real-estate in the article, and counterpoints also allowed for an questionable material. While these approach usually allows the article to get messy, in my experience it also makes the articles more useful and informative.--Silverback 00:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is pretty much what I was trying to do. Perhaps I should have done what I did consider: making a third edit combining the points of both of the existing edits; although this might have worked no better than what happened.

I didn't do so chiefly because the two edits, while clearly deriving from a common source, had evolved into different structures, in different orders. The diff between them was useless. I would have had to use one order anyway, or make a third; the former would have been picking sides to some extent; both editors might well have objected to the latter. Then I would have had to make sure that the third edit contained all the points on both sides, and was still readable. And remember, I hadn't been watching the page, and the differences were not well documented on the talk page - there might be a dozen places where the two of them saw vital differences in a single word, and I might fail to see that the texts differed there. I decided to have the parties do it, to avoid these pitfalls. (I may have underestimated the extent to which Ultramarine's text was already contained in Mihnea's, but it was at least 80-90%.) Septentrionalis 03:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that I did not start from scratch when I wrote my first version of the Criticisms of communism article. Rather, I tried to work with the material that was already there (written by Ultramarine). I included all his major points, as well as a number of others that his version did not contain, while NPOV-ing the whole article. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 03:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In reviewing the first version I notice that the "20th century Communist states" section starts right off with the usual marxist apologia for communist states, that hardly seems fair in a "Criticism of communism" article, to have the apologia come before the criticism, especially given that it had been forced out of its proper place in the communism article. Cuba is treated lightly, the repression of emigration is mentioned as possibly a means to suppress dissent, instead of a coercive way of maintaining a cheap captive cheap force that had to apply itself to whatever the central planner(s) wanted. Surprisingly, given Pmanderson's involvement, Hoffer's "The True Believer" is not even mentioned, I'm sure there are plenty of good points against the self-delusion of the marxist, the state is supposed to fade, apologia.--Silverback 03:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an apologia; that's a definition. It can, of course, be used to phrase an apologia; it can also be used to phrase two criticisms:

• "The Communists were always promising to reach communism, and never did." I added this to the article.
• "Not only didn't Communism work, communism wouldn't work either." The existence of such criticisms is implicitly in the article, I think, but should be brought out. (It is in Criticisms of socialism, which is included by reference.Septentrionalis 19:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Also, Hoffer should be explicitly in the article. Both of these omissions are a side-effect of Ultramarine's cascade of complaints. He made dealing with Criticisms of communism actively unpleasant; and what time I gave to it (before the protection) was spent answering him, rather than doing any editing. I did supply actual criticisms of the labor theory of value, but that's about it.

Emigration as a means to suppress dissent reflects Ultramarine's original text. Mihnea added in North Korea.Septentrionalis 04:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"In reviewing the first version I notice that the '20th century Communist states' section starts right off with the usual marxist apologia for communist states" - are you referring to the mention of the fact that the term "communist state" is an oxymoron? I'm sorry, but that's not apologia, that is fact. The original definition of communism - which, by the way, was the only definition of communism from the mid-19th century to the mid-20th century when the term "communist state" was invented in the West - clearly holds that communism must involve the abolition of the state. As a general rule, we allow the liberals to define liberalism, we allow the conservatives to define conservatism and so on. The proper definition of an "-ism" is the definition given by its supporters. Would it make sense to have an article on liberalism that used the Marxist definition of liberalism? Of course not. Likewise, it doesn't make sense to have an article on communism that uses the liberal (or generally anti-communist) definition of communism. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 04:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In its proper place, in the communism article, the communists own definition would have primacy. I think you should look at The True Believer. Yes, communism has a glorious future with the state disappearing, but is that really a good excuse for apologizing for states such as Cuba currently? Should you be allowed to ignore the fact that even well intentioned communist believers ended up with the worst kinds of states despite their good intentions? Does the glorious state disappearing future justify purges and re-education camps and lies, deciet and propaganda and the deamonizing of others? --Silverback 04:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that kind of justification being presented as an argument anywhere in the Criticisms of communism article. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 04:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In its proper place, in the communism article, the communists own definition would have primacy.

This asserts that the Communists should own Communism; and the anti-Communists should own Criticisms of communism. I disagree with both of these; and would do so even if they were not contrary to policy. Also, it is not the Communists' special sense, being the OED's primary definition:

A theory which advocates a state of society in which there should be no private ownership, all property being vested in the community and labour organized for the common benefit of all members; the professed principle being that each should work according to his capacity, and receive according to his wants.

Would the present discussion be better at Talk:Criticisms of communism? Septentrionalis 04:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think there is article ownership, but in practice, in a collegial community, there is some taking of turns, the subject matter gets to be described or defined first, and where there is a constituency as on the communism article, they get to also get their definition in, but properly attributed as such, and not at the expense of the usual definition which in the english language, it is usually state communism which is meant. However, on the communism article it is the clique which owns it and suppresses fair characterization. So, it appears the community was not collegial to the anti-communist constituency on the anti-communism article, letting it make its summarizing or introductory points without the response and apologia coming first.--Silverback 05:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like Ultramarine was not as good and effective in making the anti-communist points, and didn't argue for a more fair article organizational structure as well as he could have. Still, I have the impression, that some contributers knew how to do a fairer job in this article, but were blinded by their own POV.--Silverback 05:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the definition of communism and the relevance of the Communist states for Marxist theory, this is discussed in this section [1]. Note that they have excluded every criticism from this important section in their article. Ultramarine 15:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ultramarine has said this before. Mr West replied then that they were included in substance in this section; and I agreed, with one exception: I propose to add something about Marx's hostility to liberal democracy (which I believe Ultramarine misunderstands) when the page is unprotected. Conversation here.

Done, although it needs to be fitted to context; so are the other additions suggested on this page. Septentrionalis 19:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ultramarine has a simple remedy. He need merely ask the page be unprotected, and add anything he wants to the collaborative version, as he has never done. If he adds exactly the text he has linked to, it will need to be edited for readability; but that is no different risk than any other edit. Septentrionalis 19:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I regret that Ultramarine continues to ignore all invitations to edit the collaborative version, of which this is the latest. If he would play with others, instead of trying to write an UltraPedia on his own, this request for arbitration would probably have been unnecessary. Septentrionalis 18:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More examples of false insinuations in order to avoid create a good, factually correct encyclopedia. It was Septentrionalis, not I who first insisted on having two versions of the article and added the Two-version template. I have numerous times tried to discuss the differences in the talk pages. They blankly deny referenced studies and facts, showing that are only interested in pushing their POV regardless of accuracy. They just refer to their own POV as the "consensus", arguing that this excuses all factual inaccuracies.

Ultramarine's complaints have been discussed at great length (now over 200K) not blankly denied. The rest of his history is equally inaccurate. Septentrionalis 19:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this is a question of some importance for Wikipedia. Should blank denial be allowed to triumph over referenced studies and research? Should one small clique, desperately afraid of letting others know the advantages of liberal democracy and the drawbacks of communism, be allowed to impose its will by force? Ultramarine 19:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If this somewhat eccentric suggestion were true, surely this discussion would be over liberal democracy (which is not even on my watchlist), rather than two obscure articles, which I know about only by chance? Septentrionalis 19:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is at least one core of the problem. Ultramarine has never recognized, and now denies, that:

• Other editors have disagreed with him in good faith.
• Most of the disagreements have been over editorial judgment, not questions of fact.
• This is a tempest in a teapot, as the saying is.Septentrionalis 19:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The recent comments by Silverback show the kind of views that he and Ultramarine seem to have in common: The belief that Wikipedia is a mouthpiece for zealots of different ideologies to evangelize and spread their particular version of The Truth, while fighting the zealots of other ideologies. Thus, Ultramarine and Silverback are "individualists" fighting against the "communist cabal" that I am supposedly a member of, and Wikipedia is an ideological battlefield where the purpose of the game is to get your side's propaganda included in articles and the opposing propaganda removed. The idea of writing for the enemy never even occured to Silverback; indeed, he thinks we must be hypocrites because we actually include opposing arguments from different points of view in our writings! We must support totalitarianism because we try to include the totalitarian point of view in articles dealing with it! -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I go one step further, not only do I include the totalitarian point of view. I call it the totalitarian point of view. I don't call Castro's Cuba "socialism", I don't document Kruschev and Breshnev's "reforms" without mentioning their suppression of emigration, etc. There is objective truth, and I bet if bullets were flying at you as you tried to escape you would realize it.--Silverback 18:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your straw men hardly count as including the opposite (in this case totalitarian) point of view. Objective truth certainly exists, but people do not agree on what that objective truth actually is. I firmly believe that my own political views are correct, which of course implies that opposing political views are wrong. However, I understand that many other people do not agree, and that it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to spoon feed The One True Ideology to its readers. If I wanted to promote my views on the internet, I'd make a website and write articles there, not on the wiki. You are most welcome to do that yourself. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to see the adjective "political" used here: You "firmly believe that my own political views are correct, which of course implies that opposing political views are wrong." You distressed me not long ago with your insistence that the adjective doesn't belong there, that you believe the correctness of your own views on any subject whatever, such as the assessment of art, implies that opposing views are wrong. That you have specified "political" here allows the inference that you are dialing back a bit on that, and recognizing (as the non-Hegelian world has no trouble recognizing) that "this painting is beautiful" and "this painting is ugly" may both be true, in different respects, i.e. to different observers, of the same painting. Just an observation to the effect that I'm happy to observe your progress away from the sort of dogmatism Hegel has always inspired on both left and right. --Christofurio 15:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most marxists believe their own views are so correct that they justify any means including deceit and coercion to achieve them. People can agree on objective truth if they are intellectually honest and don't think the ends justify the means. Marxists redefine "freedom", "fascism", "colonialism", "progressive", "liberal" and other terms to suit their own ends. Of course, one of the consequences of believing in the ends so much, is that marxists presume to make decisions for others and tend towards inherently coercive central planning, and can only collaborate until they gain control, and they then find areas of disagreement among themselves that result in purges, coups and assassinations.--Silverback 05:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting that you accuse "marxists" of, among other things, redefining political terms to suit their own ends, while you are defining "marxism" to suit your ends. "Marxists believe their own views are so correct..."; "Marxists redefine..."; "Marxists presume to make decisions for others..." - forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't intellectual honesty involve allowing your opponents to speak for themselves and restraining yourself from mudslinging or reducing their position to straw men? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 02:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, the process of intellectual honesty involves agreeing to definitions of terms and applying them rigously, not allowing everybody to have their say. Of course it is more complicated than that, while definitions may be slightly different that they may be in general use, if the definition is going to stray too far from the usual meaning, an intellectually honest approach would require creation of a new term or phrase so that confusion, deceit and perjoration are avoided. Within such a framework, of course, they would get a chance to explain themselves, however, critical analysis should be applied to avoid deceit of others and to help them escape self deceit.--Silverback 03:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I may be conflating intellectual honesty with critical thinking here, because they are tightly linked in my mind, and contrasting them with mere free speech, which is also of course linked to the others. The contrast is that free speech should not imply respect for the speech of others regardless of the content or quality of that speech.--Silverback 03:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this is not confined to Marxists; if it were, the Brave New World since 1991 would be much better than it is. This is symptomatic of the True Believer in any political faith. Septentrionalis 18:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You forget that some political faiths value limited government without coercive central planning and probably most political faiths value honesty, and openness. Can't you defend marxism without calling everybody liars? You completely mischaracterize true believers. They usually are so confident in their position that they are sure total intellectual honesty will vindicate their position, and they welcome the challenge of the oppositions best arguments, and may even be better able to express those arguments that their proponents.--Silverback 00:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If everybody read Mill and followed his advice, that might be true; but they don't, so it isn't. (I am not defending Marxism, any more than Eric Hoffer, whose book I refer to above; please click on the link.) Septentrionalis 01:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see that "true believer" was being used as a term of art limited to mass movements. Obviously, true believers in individualism, egoism, science, etc. could not be generalized to on this basis. I would be hesitant also to generalize to all forms of Christianity. Some might justify deceit and immoral means to advance their "cause", there are others whose belief requires integrity even in the most trying circumstances.--Silverback 01:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not find this at all obvious; consider the Fichteans, for example. It is possible that their egoism may have limited the amount of 'True Belief' (in Hoffer's deprecatory sense) among them. But I do not see how to test such an hypothesis, and I think Hoffer would disagree. +

In such cases, the True Believers are certainly not believing what their founder actually taught. Is that surprising? This is one reason for the capital letters.

Furthermore, I am not using True Believer as a blanket condemnation of any system of doctrine. Some systems encourage pious frauds, others don't; but everybody has them. Septentrionalis 02:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some might be defrauded by pius seeming frauds, but I doubt that many encourage such frauds (except perhaps by being gullible and inadvertently rewarding them). I don't see from the limited summary in the article how the True Belief he is criticising could apply to anything but collectivism, religions, of course, being one kind. I am not familiar with Fichteans, based on reading the article, it would seem as incongruous as a True Belief that solipsists of the world should unite. Now if you are merely suggesting that some forms of egoistic true belief could justify deceit, that is probably a different form of "justify", for instance, nihilism ala Stirner, would, of course, not have to "justify" it.--Silverback 02:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in reading The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult by Murray Rothbard. Clearly, your beloved egoistic individualists are not exempt from True Belief and cult-like behaviour. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 02:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It has been awhile since I reviewed that, correct me if I am wrong, but, however cultlike, I don't think they sank to the level of the ends justifying the means, justifying deceit, justifying coercion against others, etc., like the mass-movement collectivism we were discussing.--Silverback 03:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than believing the ends justify the means, Objectivists believe the means justify the ends. As long as an action is taken in accordance with the means they endorse (i.e. dogmatic respect for private property), the consequences - no matter how horrific - are irrelevant. I have seen Objectivists justifying mass murder, colonialism and nuclear war [2]. I have no doubt they could just as easily justify slavery by invoking property rights. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 03:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they do accept unequal outcomes, however, slavery is specifically against their ethic. I would think that nuclear war that involved innocent civilian victims would also be against their ethic. As for mass murder and colonialism, it depends on what you mean by those. I suspect they would be happy to offer people living in the third world opportunities, and they would favor choice on abortion. I've seen these called colonialism and mass murder respectively. I consider the Food and Drug Administration to be mass murderers, as well as anyone who has voted for a politician that they knew supported it. I suspect however, that objectivists come down on the right side of this issue.--Silverback 03:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just read the article I linked to: [3]. Here, I will quote from it:

"The U.S. should confiscate the stolen oil properties, and then return those properties to their rightful owners--Western oil companies--if those companies agree to pay the cost of waging this war. The U.S. could then continue occupying and defending these oil-rich territories if the oil companies agree to pay for this protection. And we must surround the evil nations to keep them absolutely cut off from Western civilization. Any short-term threats they pose before they starve should be met by our most deadly weapons involving the least risk to American soldiers and civilians. Our standard of value must be: The rights of one American, whether a soldier or a civilian, are worth more than the lives of all men, women and children in all these nations combined. Over time, pioneers, with the paid support of our military, can go into these isolated territories, subdue the remaining savages, install a civilized, colonial government protecting the rights of both the pioneers and the savages, and settle the land--as American pioneers subdued the savage, murderous American Indian tribes and settled America."

"The most fortunate beneficiaries of these actions will be the inhabitants of the savage nations, just as in 1945 the inhabitants of conquered Japan were far more fortunate than the inhabitants of the Soviet Union, which we tragically chose not to conquer back then using our nuclear bombs."

From Capitalism Magazine. As you can see, when I said mass murder, colonialism and nuclear war, I had in mind a perfectly literal meaning of those terms. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 04:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Much of his justification was based on nationalism (another form of collectivism) not objectivism. He generalized from individual rights of self defense including the right to risk innocent bystanders, to nations having such rights, as if they were organic entities. He fell prey to this hegelian/fascist notion which I don't think is supportable.

Most objectivists are pacifists except in self-defense. Which is not to say he doesn't have some good points, which I would make in a different way. Certainly, the US has every bit as much right to oppress Iraqi's as Saddam did, which is, of course, no right at all. The sovereignty of a nation is only worthy of respect to the extent that the nation protects rather than violates the rights of its citizens. The Iraq War is one of the most just and noble in history (which isn't saying much), it was fought without conscripts and with special care and targeting, etc. to minimize civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure, and it was fought with no terroritorial ambitions. The attack even attempted to reduced casualties among the thousands of innocent Iraqi conscripts by negotiating surrenders or token involvement of the regular Iraqi army and focusing instead on the Republican Guard. Contrast that with WWII, where the US is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of its own innocent conscripts, purposely targeted civilian infrastructure with indiscriminate bombing and, of course, fought on Stalin's side, aiding him in the oppression of "his own" innocent conscripts. As noble as the U.S. purpose was in Vietnam, it is morally undermined by the use of conscripts. In Serbia, civilian infrastructure was purposely targeted. In the first UN sanctioned gulf war, civilian infrastructure was purposely targeted, and over 100,000 innocent Iraqi conscripts were murdered in their bunkers, instead of targeting responsible parties like the Saddam Hussein government and his Republican Guard. It is racist to argue that Saddam had more right to rule Iraq than the U.S. does.

As for the oil, do the Bedouin have more right to exploit it than those who discovered it and invented the technology that makes it available and valuable? Geographical territorialism based on ethnicity is certainly open to question. Does proximity to a resource they are ignorant of confer ownership? Are the local indigenous populations being exploited by mining oil, or is it just a valuable resource that is being exploited (used)? I can respect pacifism, but someone who thinks he can defend some other war over this one has an uphill rhetorical climb.--Silverback 04:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The title of this section is self-explanatory. I probably wrote the first version of this article (and as such will probably have to eventually recuse myself from this arbitration), but as I read the two versions it is a painful experience and I lose my way even as to what the differences are. Fred Bauder 18:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of sourcing appears to have been a problem with the article since it was spalled off from Communism, long before I knew about it. (See Talk:Criticisms_of_communism#Initial_comments.) I added only

• the criticisms from Emma Goldman and Bertrand Russell (sourced);
• part of what is said about Jevons (sourced to "capitalist economists");
• the criticism that the Communists always promised to attain communism and never did (the promise is sourced to Khrushchev; the criticism is unsourced, but like many of Ultramarine's references to "critics of Communism", it reflects the Cold War consensus, and I have no doubt a source could be found.)

Mihnea had added significant amounts of "Trotskyite" criticism, so sourced.Septentrionalis 20:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have confused yourself with User:172[4]. That's perfectly understandable, I've done so myself. Given his is role, you probably should recuse yourself anytime you find yourself similarly confused.--Silverback 18:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, I have figured out what happened. Fred Bauder 21:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the factual differences between the two versions, they are discussed here [5]. The single most important criticisms that are deleted are those that involve Marxist theory itself, since their version gives the impression that the Communist states were totally unrelated to Marxism [6]. Their section [7]. Ultramarine 18:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that the material in their section on the lack of democracy and free labor unions are included by me in other sections. It was certainly not only the left who criticized these problems. Ultramarine 20:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I said above under #Conspiracy that Ultramarine has an obvious remedy for this grievance: editing the collaborative version, which he has never done. (This would require unprotecting the page; but he is the only one who wants it protected, and his revert war the only reason to protect it.) Septentrionalis 20:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The single most important criticisms that are deleted are those that involve Marxist theory itself, since their version gives the impression that the Communist states were totally unrelated to Marxism [8]. Their section [9]. Ultramarine 18:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point and probably the source of a lot of conflict over content. Fred Bauder 22:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have recused myself as I can see that much of this dispute originates with the conflict between 172 and Ultramarine. The roots of this conflict lie way in the past and I participated in much of it. In fact, I left Wikipedia partly because of it. (Obviously I returned to serve as an arbitrator). Criticisms of communism is kind of ghetto article as is Communist state, created to avoid significant criticism of totalitarianism in the Communism article itself. That Criticisms of communism itself should mostly consist of criticisms from leftist points of view is a continuation of the problem. Certainly Trotsky and Emma Goldman are significant critics, but most significant criticism comes from moderate and right wing sources which are barely mentioned in the "consensus" version (Not that I think much of Ultramarine's production either). I am tempted to jump into the conflict myself (as though it would do any good), but the press of business prevents such foolishness. Fred Bauder 15:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to hear that; the heart of the dispute, as far as I concerned, consists of Ultramarine's beliefs about policy and his conduct on Democratic peace theory; Criticisms of communism is evidence for these, as a pattern of misconduct. Would you consider rejoining this case insofar as it touches on those issues only?

172 is not a party to this arbitration. I've had two or three brief contacts with him:

• He helped Mihnea Tudoreanu with his RfC against Ultramarine, which I supported.
• I think it was he who reverted my only edit to Communism.
• He may still have been supporting Mihnea against Ultramarine after I first saw Criticisms of communism, but that was at most a couple reverts to a version I thought should be changed.

Ultramarine's inclusion of him is a smokescreen.

Since you have now recused yourself, please let me briefly know what more arguments are relevant for this section. I will look them up and add them if you do not have the time. Note that I briefly mention the history of communist criticisms of the Communist states [10]. I feel however that a simple list of names of left and right critics would be of doubtful value and would be endless. Ultramarine 19:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some critics are more significant than others, for example Milovan Djilas and Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev. Robert Conquest, Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn, Arthur Koestler. All of those were at some point in their lives, Communists - Yakovlev a powerful member of the Politburo. There are also critics on the right, critics of Marxism, communist theory and communist practice. The article is greatly improved if citations are made to those critics rather than to what you or I think of it. Fred Bauder 01:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will look them up. I do mention Yakolev and Conquest in the reference list in the article regarding human rights violations, but maybe a more direct citation is needed, although not even the other version denies the human rights violations. Solzhenitsyn and his book Gulag Archipelago is mentioned directly in the text. I will add another argument from Richard Pipes against Marxist theory. Ultramarine 02:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would add Louis Fischer amd François Furet. Septentrionalis 01:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any more relevent arguments against communism, please add them. That you claim to know more arguments against communism but do not add them in more evidence that you have no interest in NPOV. Ultramarine 02:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no stock of secret anti-Communist arguments which I'm tryng to keep you out of - if there is any such storehouse, it's secret to me too. The criticisms in the present text of the article are (in general) the consensus position of the West in the Cold War, which is why sources do not leap to mind. Almost all of them are fifty years old (although the details may be new); some of them 75 years old. Septentrionalis 04:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simply false. Look at the publishing dates of the book in the references list or the publishing dates of papers in the inline references. Ultramarine 04:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is new data (although new books do, and ought to, repeat old data), but the assertions against Communism which those data support are quite old. In many cases, the picture is larger and has more detail, but the basic image has long been visible. Of the five men Fred recommended to you, two are dead; except for Yakovlev, their major works were published long ago. Septentrionalis 05:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since communism is dead as a vital political force, it is to be expected that serious criticism of it is rare. Fred Bauder 21:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly; but Ultramarine has written (in some of his edits on Lenin) as though the murders of the Cheka were unknown until the Black Book of Communism was printed, and he still seems to think so. Septentrionalis 21:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is a special French situation. Due to the strong influence of communism among working people and intellectuals the truth of such things was discounted. For many French The Black Book WAS the first credible expose of the crimes of communism. Fred Bauder 22:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have never thought so and the reference list in the article includes many books before the Black Book. Also in the Lenin discusssion I mentioned other books published before the Black Book of Communism. Note that this is another example of Septentrionalis tactics where he tries to insinuate problems with my editing style. At the same he continues to blankly delete referenced facts by refering to a "consensus" [11]. Ultramarine 22:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And, among non-Communists, George F. Kennan. Septentrionalis

And Max Stirner, who demonstrated that Hegelian criticism also resulted in nihilism, and not the religious mysticism of historical determinism and the dialectic.--Silverback 06:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Silverback, if you know it well I would be thankful if you could briefly describe the argument and add it to the text. Note that Septentrionalis is deleting the Two-version template so you have to look in the history to find the other version. Ultramarine 06:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, the article about him seems to describe it fairly well. I well add it later. Ultramarine 06:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have added it and also a more direct mentioning of Yakovlev's research. Can be found by looking in the history since Septentrionalis continues to delete the Two-version template and the referenced facts. Ultramarine 22:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have added many new referenced studies and arguments. Please let me know what else can be improved. The reverts unfortunately break to footnote system but the numbers are still correct and the references can be found after the main text. Ultramarine 08:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]