Over the past 18 months that I've been contributing to Wikipedia, I've been
asking Fred over and over again to stop charging that I am a Stalinist, a
Communist, or a Soviet supporter. These are outright lies. **I am not a
Stalinist or a Communist.**
However, I do not ask that readers of the mailing list believe take my word
for it, but rather judge me by the work I've contributed to WP, as opposed
to the second-hand lies and distortions on the mailing list. Enclosed in
this e-mail below is an example of some of my work, which should put these
stale lies and slandars to rest once and for all.
As sources, I've used, e.g., Gregory, Stuart, Goldman, Lewin, McCauley--
sources that are wholly within the mainstream of Western Soviet and Russian
studies (btw, my user page can direct you to links on the leading academic
journals in the field).
Incidentally, my work on the Soviet economy and history on Wiki owes more to
the likes of Friedrich Hayek than anything coming from the Stalinist USSR.
As an example, here is my article on the economy of the Soviet Union. Yes, I
do avoid lacing my writing on Soviet histroy with emotive, bellicose,
Reaganite anticommunist rhetoric, but this is a matter of style and not
substance per se and staying on topic (hence, I don't bring up the Gulags,
the Great Purges, the terror-famines, the deportations, etc. when it isn't
on topic).
Note my recomendations for further reading in this article and the listing
of [http://assets.cambridge.org/0521826284/sample/0521826284WS.pdf The
political economy of Stalinism: evidence from the Soviet secret archives /
Paul R. Gregory] in particular in the external links.
-172
The '''economy of the Soviet Union''' was based on a system of state
ownership and administrative planning. Like other [[Communist state]]s in
the former [[Warsaw Pact]], the Soviet Union forged a [[centrally planned
economy]]. Since the dissolution of the [[Soviet Union]] ([[1991]]), all but
a handful of the 15 former Soviet republics have dismantled their
Soviet-style economies (''see'' [[History of the Soviet Union
(1985-1991)#Restructuring the Soviet system|Transition from economic
planning in the former Soviet Union]]).
==Planning==
Based on a system of state ownership, the Soviet economy was controlled
through ''[[Gosplan]]'' (the State Planning Commission) and ''[[Gosbank]]''
(the State Bank). The economy was directed from [[1928]] by a series of
five-year plans. For every enterprise planning ministries (also known as the
"fund holders" or ''fondoderzhateli'') defined the mix of economic inputs
(e.g., labor and raw materials), a schedule for completion, and wholesale
and almost all retail prices.
Industry was long concentrated after 1928 on the production of [[capital
goods]] through [[metallurgy]], machine manufacture, and chemical industry.
In the Soviet terminology, the capital goods are known as ''group A goods'',
or ''means of production''. This emphasis was based on the Marxist economic
theory about the necessity of a more rapid growth of the ''production of
means of production''. Since the death of Stalin ([[1953]]), consumer goods
(''group B goods'') received more emphasis.
===Drafting the five-year plans===
Under [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]]'s tutelage, a complex system of planning
arrangements had developed since the introduction of the first five-year
plan in 1928. Until the late-[[1980s]] and early-[[1990s]], when economic
reforms backed by Soviet leader [[Mikhail Gorbachev]] introduced significant
changes in the traditional system (''see'' ''[[Perestroika]]''), the
allocation of resources was directed by a planning apparatus rather than
through the interplay of [[market economy|market]] forces.
'''Timeframe.''' From the Stalin-era through the late-[[1980s]], the [[Five
year plan|five-year plan]] integrated short-range planning into a longer
timeframe. It delineated the chief thrust of the country's economic
development and specified the way the economy could meet the desired goals
of the [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union|Communist Party]]. Although the
five-year plan was enacted into law, it contained a series of guidelines
rather than a set of direct orders.
Periods covered by the five-year plans coincided with those covered by the
gatherings of the [[Congress of the CPSU|CPSU Party Congress]]. At each CPSU
Congress, the party leadership presented the targets for the next five-year
plan. Thus, each plan had the approval of the most authoritative body of the
country's leading political institution.
'''Guidelines for the plan.''' The [[Central Committee of the CPSU]] and,
more specifically, its [[Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee|Politburo]]
set basic guidelines for planning. The Politburo determined the general
direction of the economy via control figures (preliminary plan targets),
major investment projects (capacity creation), and general economic
policies.
The Politburo sent its list of priorities for the five-year plan to the
[[Sovnarkom|Council of Ministers]], which constituted the government
bureaucracy of the USSR. The Council of Ministers was composed of industrial
ministers, chairmen of various state committees, and chairmen of agencies
with ministerial status. This committee stood at the apex of the vast
economic bureaucracy, including the state planning apparatus, the industrial
ministries, the trusts (the intermediate between the ministries and the
enterprises), and finally, the state enterprises. The Council of Ministers
elaborated on Politburo plan targets and sent them to ''[[Gosplan]]'', which
gathered data on plan fulfillment.
'''Gosplan.''' Combining the broad goals laid out by the Council of
Ministers with data supplied by lower administrative levels regarding the
current state of the economy, ''Gosplan'' worked out, through trial and
error, a set of preliminary plan targets. Among more than twenty state
committees, ''Gosplan'' headed the government's planning apparatus and was
by far the most important agency in the state bureaucracy. The task of
planners was to balance resources and requirements to ensure that the
necessary inputs were provided for the planned output. The planning
apparatus alone was a vast organizational arrangement consisting of
councils, commissions, governmental officials, specialists, etc. charged
with executing and monitoring economic policy.
The state planning agency was subdivided into its own industrial
departments, such as [[coal]], [[iron]], and [[machine]] building. It also
had summary departments such as [[finance]], dealing with issues that
crossed functional boundaries. With the exception of a brief experiment with
regional planning during the [[Nikita Khrushchev|Khrushchev]] era in the
[[1950s]], Soviet planning was done on a sectoral basis rather than on a
regional basis. The departments of the state planning agency aided the state
agency's development of a full set of plan targets along with input
requirements, a process involving bargaining between the ministries and
their superiors.
'''Planning ministries.''' Economic ministries performed key roles in the
Soviet organizational structure. When the planning goals had been
established by ''Gosplan'', economic ministries drafted plans within their
jurisdictions and disseminated planning data to the subordinate enterprises.
The planning data were sent downward through the planning hierarchy for
progressively more detailed elaboration. The ministry received its control
targets, which were then disaggregated by branches within the ministry then
by lower units, eventually until each enterprise received its own control
figures (production targets).
'''Enterprises.''' Enterprises were called upon to develop the most detailed
plans covering all aspects of their operations so that they could assess the
feasibility of targets, thus opening up the most intense bargaining phase in
the planning process. As the individual enterprise drafted its detailed
production plans, the flow of information was reversed; enterprise managers
and even rank-and-file workers often participated in the planning process at
this level. According to Soviet reports, roughly 110 million Soviet workers
took part in discussions in the final period of state planning in the
late-[[1980s]] and early-[[1990s]].
The enterprises' draft plans of the were then sent back up through the
planning ministries for review. This process entailed intensive bargaining,
with all parties seeking the target levels and input figures that best
suited their interests.
'''Redrafting the plan.''' After this bargaining process, ''Gosplan''
received the revised estimates and re-aggregated them as it saw fit. Then,
the redrafted plan was sent to the Council of Ministers and the Party's
Politburo and Central Committee Secretariat for approval. The Council of
Ministers submitted the Plan to the [[Supreme Soviet]] (the rubber-stamp
parliament) and the Central Committee submitted the plan to the Party
Congress, both for rubber stamp approval. By this time, the process had been
completed and the plan became law.
'''Approval of the plan.''' The review, revision, and approval of the
five-year plan were followed by another downward flow of information, this
time with the amended and final plans containing the specific targets for
sector of the economy. At this point, implementation began and was largely
the responsibility of enterprise managers.
==Economic development==
Starting in 1928, the [[five year plan]]s began building a heavy industrial
base at once in an underdeveloped economy without waiting years for capital
to accumulate through the expansion of light industry, and without reliance
on external financing. The country now became industrialized at an
unbelievable pace, perhaps surpassing [[Germany]]'s pace of
industrialization in the nineteenth century and [[Japan]]'s earlier in the
twentieth.
Industrialization came with the extension of medical services, which
improved labor productivity. Campaigns were carried out against [[typhus]],
[[cholera]], and [[malaria]]; the number of physicans increased as rapidly
as facilities and training would permit; and death and [[infant mortality]]
rates steadily decreased.
As weighed growth rates, economic planning performed reasonably well during
the early and mid-[[1930s]], [[World War II]]-era mobilization, and for the
first two decades of the postwar era. The Soviet economy became the largest
and the strongest after that of the [[United States]]. The Soviet Union
became the world's leading producer of [[oil]], [[coal]], [[iron ore]],
[[cement]], and [[steel]]; [[manganese]], [[gold]], [[natural gas]] and
other [[minerals]] were also of major importance.
Growth slowed after [[1960]], but this was considered characteristic of a
mature, industrialized economy at the time. However, the planning ministries
had failed to loosen their control of the enterprise level in time to stem
the prolonged stagnation of the [[1970s]] and [[1980s]], which showed signs
of deep flaws in the Soviet model.
The planned economy was not tailored at a sufficient pace to the demands of
the more complex modern economy it had helped to forge. As the economy grew,
the volume of decisions facing planners in [[Moscow]] grew overwhelming. The
cumbersome procedures for bureaucratic administration did not enable the
free communication and flexible response required at the enterprise level
for dealing with worker alienation, innovation, customers, and suppliers.
As growth rates sank, supply shortages of food and consumer goods became
more and more widespread. Perhaps belatedly, calls for greater freedom for
managers to deal directly with suppliers and customers were gaining
influence among reform-minded Communist cadres during the mid-1970s and
1980s. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, all but a handful of the
15 former Soviet republics scrapped their Soviet-era systems of centralized
planning and state ownership (''see'' [[History of post-Communist Russia]]).
==Agriculture==
[[Agriculture]] was organized into a system of state and collective farms.
Organized on a large scale and highly mechanized, the Soviet Union was one
of the world's leading producers of cereals, although bad harvests (as in
[[1972]] and [[1975]]) necessitated imports and slowed the economy. The
[[1976]]-[[1980]] five-year plan shifted resources to agriculture, and
[[1978]] saw a record harvest. [[Cotton]], [[sugar beet]]s, [[potato]]es,
and [[flax]] were also major crops.
Despite immense land resources, extensive machinery and chemical industries,
and a large rural work force, Soviet agriculture was relatively
unproductive, hampered in many areas by the [[climate]] (only 10 percent of
the Soviet Union's land was arable), and poor worker [[productivity]].
Conditions were best in the temperate black-earth belt stretching from the
Ukraine through southern [[Russia]] into the west spanning the extreme
southern portions of [[Siberia]].
Stalin established the USSR's system of state and collective farms when he
moved to replaced the NEP with collective farming in 1928, which grouped
peasants into collective farms (''[[kolkhoz]]es'') and state farms
(''[[sovkhoz]]es'').
===Agricultural labor===
Stalin's campaign of forced collectivization was a major factor explaining
the sector's poor performance. In the new state and collective farms,
outside directives failed to take local growing conditions into account.
Also, interference in the day-to-day affairs of peasant life often bred
resentment and worker alienation across the countryside (although some
landless or poor peasants benefited from the process). The human toll was
catastrophic. In the collective farms, low labor productivity was a
consequence for decades to come.
The ''sovkhozy'' tended to focus on larger scale production than the
''kolkhozy'' and had the ability to specialize in certain crops. The
government tended to supply them with better machinery and [[fertilizer]]s.
Labor productivity (and in turn incomes) tended to be higher on the
''sovkhozy''. Workers in state farms received wages and social benefits,
whereas those on the collective farms tended to receive a portion of the net
income of their farm based, in part, on the success (or better yet lack of
success) of the [[harvest]] and their individual contribution.
Although accounting for a small share of cultivated area, private plots
produced a substantial share of the country's [[meat]], [[milk]], [[egg]]s,
and [[vegetable]]s. Private plots were among many attempts made to
restructure Soviet farming. However, the weakness worker incentives and
managerial autonomy, which were the crux of the problem, were not addressed.
Although the Soviet Union was the world's second leading agricultural
producer and ranked first in the production of numerous commodities,
agriculture was a net drain on the economy.
==Trade and currency==
Largely self-sufficient, the Soviet Union traded little in comparison to its
economic strength. However, trade with noncommunist countries increased in
the [[1970s]] as the government sought to compensate gaps in domestic
production with imports.
In general [[fuel]]s, [[metal]]s, and [[timber]] were exported.
[[Machinery]], [[consumer goods]], and sometimes [[grain]] were imported. In
the [[1980]] trade with the [[Council for Mutual Economic Assistance]]
(COMECON) member states accounted for about half the country's volume of
trade.
The Soviet currency was non-convertible between [[1926]] and [[1937]]. Since
1937, the exchange rate was pegged by [[Gosbank]], the state bank,
responsive to the fulfillment of the government's economic plans. Soviet
[[bank]]s furnished short-term credit to state-owned enterprises.
==Further reading==
* Paul Gregory and Robert Stuart, ''Soviet and Post Soviet Economic
Structure and Performance'' 7th edition (Boston: Addison Wesley, 2001).
* Marshall Goldman, ''What Went Wrong With Perestroika'' (New York: Norton,
1991).
* Marshall Goldman, ''Lost Opportunity: Why Economic Reforms in Russia Have
Not Worked'' (New York: W. W. Norton, 1994).
* Moshe Lewin, ''The Making of the Soviet System'' (New Press, 1994)
* Mary McCauley, ''Soviet Politics 1917-1991'' (Oxford University Press,
1992).
==External links==
* [http://assets.cambridge.org/0521826284/sample/0521826284WS.pdf The
political economy of Stalinism: evidence from the Soviet secret archives /
Paul R. Gregory]
* [http://www.hubbertpeak.com/reynolds/SovietDecline.htm Douglas B.
Reynolds, "Soviet Economic Decline: Did an Oil Crisis Cause the Transition
in the Soviet Union?"]
* [http://faculty.washington.edu/aseem/afganwar.pdf Rafael Reuveny and Aseem
Prakash, "The Afghanistan war and the breakdown of the Soviet Union," Review
of International Studies, 25 (1999), 25, 693-708].
* [http://rrojasdatabank.info/agfrank/what_went_wrong.html Andre Gunder
Frank, "What Went Wrong in the 'Socialist' East?"]
_________________________________________________________________
Watch the online reality show Mixed Messages with a friend and enter to win
a trip to NY
http://www.msnmessenger-download.click-url.com/go/onm00200497ave/direct/01/
I am very sorry to hear that 172 is considering leaving the project. I am
also disturbed by the nature of this discussion.
To be clear, I myself have had frustrating, caustic, and even exasperating
arguments over edits with 172 myself. I do not always find his
presentation of self to be very congenial, although I am in no position to
throw stones. Nevertheless, I am convinced of the integrity of his
historical research, and his sincerity in applying the standards of sound
scholarship to Wikipedia. while we are not and ought not to be constrained
by the limits of conventional encyclopedias and scholarly research,
academic historians are people who dedicate the better part of their lives
to learning about and understanding events. In my experience they
generally hold themselves to high standards, and I think Wikipedia can
benefit from those standards and the work of such historians. In these
terms 172 has made many valuable contributions.
It disturbs me that some -- I think VV, Fred, Stan and perhaps others --
characterize this as a right/left argument. Even they understand that 172
himself sees it as a scholar/non-scholar argument. I have gone over the
articles in question and I think that this is indeed the root issue. Of
course, many people in the US (and perhaps other countries) sees the
difference between academia and non-academia in terms of politics (scholars
are liberal or Marxist), but I do not think this is constructive.
Every Soviet scholar understands that Stalin played a key role in many
awful things, involving millions of deaths. I don't think 172 has ever
denied this. I do, however, think that he has tried to establish a
framework for understanding Soviet history that is grounded in scholarly
research and not just Cold War rhetoric. My sense is that anyone who has
studied history at the graduate level (although I am sure this is true of
many non-scholars too!) has had to slog through now only huge amounts of
historical material, but some pretty complicated historical debates. Of
course in the process one learns just how bad things were in the Soviet
Union, especially during certain periods and for particular groups of
people. But academic historians have to go beyond just saying "SU = bad"
or "Stalin = bad" to say something more insightful about how and why
whatever happened happened. I think 172's contributions have been informed
by this concern, and I think some people here systematically misunderstand it.
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.690 / Virus Database: 451 - Release Date: 5/22/2004
My account has been banned by Guanaco. I was attempting to note at the page re: Saddam Hussein; that it is inappropriate to refer to him as "Saddam". Guanaco apparently decided to take it upon himself to ban me without warning, over an edit war in which he was involved.
Guanaco should be desysoped immediately.
Not only has he committed this crime, he has also removed my vote from Requests for Adminship. This is a clear example of the cabal at work -- there is a cabal, and it just removed my vote.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger
Abe had to ask:
> Fred, are you accusing me of strategizing to "downplay the atrocities
of
> leftist totalitarianism?" If that's the case, then you are a liar. I
do
> not do this, intentionally or unintentionally.
I would hope that we could handle misunderstandings and ambiguities
better than this. Better, perhaps, would have been:
"Fred, I hope you're not accusing me of blah, blah, blah. Because I'm I
do not do this, even unintentionally."
Ah, but who am I to criticize? I'm the one who opened this can of worms,
er, fine kettle of fish -- oh, well, can't make a leopard change his
spots...
----
(Seriously, folks, I think we're starting to get somewhere, and I
predict if we can focus more on the issues than on the personalities the
place we're heading for will be a happy one -- full of what Jimbo likes
to call WikiLove :-)
Uncle Ed
Re: "You stand convicted by your own words. This exerpt is an excellent
example,
no famines, no mass murder, no gulag, no deportations. And most especially,
no failure to produce enough to adequately feed the Soviet people."
Fred,
Did you look at the title? The article is on the "economy of the Soviet
Union," focusing on the Soviet Union right before its collapse, the Soviet
Union of the 1980s-- not the Stalinist USSR of the 1930s. In addition, the
article compares well to Encarta's entry in both tone and substance
(http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761553017_2/Union_of_Soviet_Socialist_R…).
Also note this except taken from the article: "As growth rates sank, supply
shortages of food and consumer goods became
more and more widespread. Perhaps belatedly, calls for greater freedom for
managers to deal directly with suppliers and customers were gaining
influence among reform-minded Communist cadres during the mid-1970s and
1980s."
Again, note: "Stalin's campaign of forced collectivization was a major
factor explaining
the sector's poor performance. In the new state and collective farms,
outside directives failed to take local growing conditions into account.
Also, interference in the day-to-day affairs of peasant life often bred
resentment and worker alienation across the countryside (although some
landless or poor peasants benefited from the process). The human toll was
catastrophic. In the collective farms, low labor productivity was a
consequence for decades to come."
BTW, an aunt of mine was murdered by the Stalinist USSR. Aside from her one
surviving sibling, the rest of her family was murdered by Nazi Germany. I
don't need some senile, 1950s era U.S. McCarthyite throwback lecturing me
about totalitarianism.
_________________________________________________________________
Check out the coupons and bargains on MSN Offers! http://youroffers.msn.com
Too many cooks ruined the soup.
I just barely checked in and after a peruse--PLEASE UNSUBSCRIBE ME!
How about 173?
Jack
wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org wrote:
> Send WikiEN-l mailing list submissions to
> wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikien-l-owner(a)Wikipedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of WikiEN-l digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Can we ban 172 now? And VV too! (in response to Fred
> Bauder) (Stan Shebs)
> 2. Re: Can of worms: my new diet (Michael Snow)
> 3. Response to Jack Lynch (Abe Sokolov)
> 4. Re: Response to Jack Lynch (Fred Bauder)
> 5. Re: Can we ban 172 now? And VV too! (in response to Fred
> Bauder) (Fred Bauder)
> 6. Response to Jack Lynch (Abe Sokolov)
> 7. RE: Response to Jack Lynch (Jack Lynch)
> 8. Re: Can we ban 172 now? And VV too! (Sheldon Rampton)
> 9. Response to Jack Lynch (Abe Sokolov)
> 10. WikiReader Free Software and Free Contents (Thomas R. Koll)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 22:20:20 -0700
> From: Stan Shebs <shebs(a)apple.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Can we ban 172 now? And VV too! (in response
> to Fred Bauder)
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <40BEB514.8020303(a)apple.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> steven l. rubenstein wrote:
>
> >
> > It disturbs me that some -- I think VV, Fred, Stan and perhaps others
> > -- characterize this as a right/left argument. Even they understand
> > that 172 himself sees it as a scholar/non-scholar argument. I have
> > gone over the articles in question and I think that this is indeed the
> > root issue. Of course, many people in the US (and perhaps other
> > countries) sees the difference between academia and non-academia in
> > terms of politics (scholars are liberal or Marxist), but I do not
> > think this is constructive.
>
> It's perhaps unfortunate, but at least in the US, the 20th-century
> history specialty has become intensely politicized. It shouldn't be
> too surprising perhaps - there are lots of hints scattered through
> Wikipedia alone - but I wasn't aware of the full extent of it until
> researching some of the material about Robert Conquest, both online
> and in print. Revisionism and post-revisionism for Cold War history
> is just one facet; you have people being called "court historians" by
> their colleagues if they present an establishment point of view, you
> have people shopping around for politically-compatible departments,
> etc. I think money is a corrupting influence behind the scenes; there
> are lots of factions with $$$ to give out to historians who lean one
> way or the other. Public universities have also found themselves in
> difficult positions, having to choose between a history professor with
> locally unpopular views and continued funding from the state
> legislature. It's not just "liberal/Marxist scholars" either, there is
> a sizeable contingent on the other side too - just think of Daniel
> Pipes and his crowd.
>
> The unfortunate aspect for us poor Wikipedians is that it can be very
> hard to know what to make of the dueling experts. Is Conquest more or
> less authoritative than 172?
>
> Stan
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 22:25:02 -0700
> From: Michael Snow <wikipedia(a)earthlink.net>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Can of worms: my new diet
> To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <40BEB62E.3000109(a)earthlink.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>
> Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>
> >I'm sorry I opened this can of worms.
> >
> Now, now, Ed, even with the personal attacks thick upon the air here,
> you really should know better than to start comparing respectable
> contributors to worms.
>
> --Michael Snow (practicing the selective quotation and interpretation
> that seems to be so popular on this list)
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 11:26:38 +0000
> From: "Abe Sokolov" <abesokolov(a)hotmail.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Response to Jack Lynch
> To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <BAY7-F46g9S83w4bnN30002c80d(a)hotmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>
> Re: "I don't feel 172 is reliable in regards to contentious issues"
>
> Why? Are you able to offer any evidence from my user history that I have
> insisted on the contribution of material that is inaccurate? If so, I'd
> appreciate it if you brought it to my attention, as I emphatically oppose
> the addition of dubious content on Wikipedia.
>
> That's what I do. How would you like it if I made that claim about you on
> the mailing list? To take this on the mailing list with no basis for making
> this claim, in a context that knowingly will diminish a user's credibility
> among a wide readership to me is the most debasing form of attack there is.
> These kinds of statements might be superficially "civil" in tone, but
> they're the remarks that truly do the most to spread mistrust and animosity
> among Wikipedia users.
>
> When I make off the cuff remarks on talk pages, they're brushed off and
> dismissed, as they should be. But the remarks that truly impugn a user's
> credibility and integrity aren't. But perhaps that was your point.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Watch the online reality show Mixed Messages with a friend and enter to win
> a trip to NY
> http://www.msnmessenger-download.click-url.com/go/onm00200497ave/direct/01/
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 06:01:12 -0600
> From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Response to Jack Lynch
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <BCE46F28.3F66%fredbaud(a)ctelco.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> It is mostly a matter of emphasis, of consistently editing articles to give
> a positive spin to totalitarian leftist political organizations. Admitting
> atrocities, but downplaying them is a tactic, the strategy is to present
> leftist totalitarianism in the most favorable light possible.
>
> Thus a naive reader is mislead by what appears to be an objective "academic"
> stance but is in fact just clever presentation of a distinct point of view.
> That the majority of the historians in the academic community support this
> view adds a figleaf. But on Wikipedia, everyone is free to edit any article,
> including those who are "politically incorrect".
>
> Fred
>
> > From: "Abe Sokolov" <abesokolov(a)hotmail.com>
> > Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> > Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 11:26:38 +0000
> > To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> > Subject: [WikiEN-l] Response to Jack Lynch
> >
> > Re: "I don't feel 172 is reliable in regards to contentious issues"
> >
> > Why? Are you able to offer any evidence from my user history that I have
> > insisted on the contribution of material that is inaccurate? If so, I'd
> > appreciate it if you brought it to my attention, as I emphatically oppose
> > the addition of dubious content on Wikipedia.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 06:26:26 -0600
> From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Can we ban 172 now? And VV too! (in response
> to Fred Bauder)
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <BCE47512.3F6B%fredbaud(a)ctelco.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> I think we are getting down to the issue here. Academic politics are
> definitely involved. I find the book, In Denial: Historians, Communism &
> Espionage, by John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr, hardcover, ISBN 1893554724
> to be useful in sorting these matters out. This book, of course, supports
> the traditionalist point of view as opposed to the revisionist school.
>
> Fred
>
> > From: Stan Shebs <shebs(a)apple.com>
> > Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> > Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 22:20:20 -0700
> > To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Can we ban 172 now? And VV too! (in response to Fred
> > Bauder)
> >
> > steven l. rubenstein wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> It disturbs me that some -- I think VV, Fred, Stan and perhaps others
> >> -- characterize this as a right/left argument. Even they understand
> >> that 172 himself sees it as a scholar/non-scholar argument. I have
> >> gone over the articles in question and I think that this is indeed the
> >> root issue. Of course, many people in the US (and perhaps other
> >> countries) sees the difference between academia and non-academia in
> >> terms of politics (scholars are liberal or Marxist), but I do not
> >> think this is constructive.
> >
> > It's perhaps unfortunate, but at least in the US, the 20th-century
> > history specialty has become intensely politicized. It shouldn't be
> > too surprising perhaps - there are lots of hints scattered through
> > Wikipedia alone - but I wasn't aware of the full extent of it until
> > researching some of the material about Robert Conquest, both online
> > and in print. Revisionism and post-revisionism for Cold War history
> > is just one facet; you have people being called "court historians" by
> > their colleagues if they present an establishment point of view, you
> > have people shopping around for politically-compatible departments,
> > etc. I think money is a corrupting influence behind the scenes; there
> > are lots of factions with $$$ to give out to historians who lean one
> > way or the other. Public universities have also found themselves in
> > difficult positions, having to choose between a history professor with
> > locally unpopular views and continued funding from the state
> > legislature. It's not just "liberal/Marxist scholars" either, there is
> > a sizeable contingent on the other side too - just think of Daniel
> > Pipes and his crowd.
> >
> > The unfortunate aspect for us poor Wikipedians is that it can be very
> > hard to know what to make of the dueling experts. Is Conquest more or
> > less authoritative than 172?
> >
> > Stan
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 13:30:30 +0000
> From: "Abe Sokolov" <abesokolov(a)hotmail.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Response to Jack Lynch
> To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <BAY7-F84KuFXFMnLW0l00054bf9(a)hotmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>
> Fred, are you accusing me of strategizing to "downplay the atrocities of
> leftist totalitarianism?" If that's the case, then you are a liar. I do not
> do this, intentionally or unintentionally. Unless you're deliberately
> modeling yourself after Joe McCarthy, try to find a way to spew your
> political rants on the mailing list without hurting people and tearing them
> down in the process.
>
> BTW, please read Slrubenstein's posting (and try to comprehend). At the
> moment, Im to pissed to be capable of expressing whats he getting across
> clearly and politely.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Watch the online reality show Mixed Messages with a friend and enter to win
> a trip to NY
> http://www.msnmessenger-download.click-url.com/go/onm00200497ave/direct/01/
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 10:57:56 -0400 (EDT)
> From: "Jack Lynch" <jacklynch(a)excite.com>
> Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Response to Jack Lynch
> To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <20040603145756.5BA45109EE5(a)xprdmailfe1.nwk.excite.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> --- On Thu 06/03, Abe Sokolov < abesokolov(a)hotmail.com > wrote:
> From: Abe Sokolov [mailto: abesokolov(a)hotmail.com]
> To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 11:26:38 +0000
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Response to Jack Lynch
>
> Re: "I don't feel 172 is reliable in regards to contentious issues"<br><br>Why? Are you able to offer any evidence from my user history that I have <br>insisted on the contribution of material that is inaccurate? If so, I'd <br>appreciate it if you brought it to my attention, as I emphatically oppose <br>the addition of dubious content on Wikipedia.<br><br>That's what I do. How would you like it if I made that claim about you on <br>the mailing list? To take this on the mailing list with no basis for making <br>this claim, in a context that knowingly will diminish a user's credibility <br>among a wide readership to me is the most debasing form of attack there is. <br>These kinds of statements might be superficially "civil" in tone, but <br>they're the remarks that truly do the most to spread mistrust and animosity <br>among Wikipedia users.<br><br>When I make off the cuff remarks on talk pages, they're brushed off and <br>dismissed, as they should be. But the remarks that tru
> ly impugn a user's <br>credibility and integrity aren't. But perhaps that was your point.<br><br>
>
> I have found you unreliable in some areas of politics or history because of your demeanor, not because of some specific factual inaccuracy.<br> Yours is a matter of POV, rudeness, and haughtiness, not one of fraud, falsification, or incompetance.<br> I understand that you feel that your expertise invalidates concerns of POV, or asigns you a superior intellectual status, but I assure you that you are mistaken.<br> That being said I have slowly noticed the general quality of your edits, and that gives me some reason to strive to see past your partisan persona.<br> The spiteful and uncompromising condescension which I encountered the first time we disagreed was not my first impression of you actually.<br> You made a fine impression, complimentary and pleasant when first we spoke, as I was seconding a self-nomination you placed as a brilliant prose candidate.<br> Jack<br><br>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
> The most personalized portal on the Web!
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 10:52:00 -0500
> From: Sheldon Rampton <sheldon.rampton(a)verizon.net>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Can we ban 172 now? And VV too!
> To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <p06020443bce4f682198f(a)[10.255.72.22]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
>
> Stan Shebs wrote:
>
> >Because there's no possible excuse for personal attacks. It doesn't
> >matter how strongly you feel about the issue, your personal history,
> >nothing.
>
> The people who think that Abe *initiated* personal attacks should
> take another look at the title of this thread. This entire discussion
> is taking place in the context of an attack on Abe in which a
> proposal is on the table to ban him. Moreover, the discussion here
> has been mean-spirited and unfair. Abe posted the text of an article
> he wrote about the failings of the Soviet economy. I read the
> article, and I could see that it contained several clear, strong
> criticisms of Stalinist policies that hurt the economy. Nevertheless,
> Fred and others responded to the article by waxing nasty and
> sarcastic. They cherry-picked phrases out of the article that made it
> sound like Abe was blaming workers for poor productivity, and then
> threw in gratuitous accusations of being an apologist for dictators
> because in their opinion Fred's article didn't say enough about the
> Soviet gulags. As far as I can see, Fred is the one who initiated
> this attack, and he did it dishonestly. He has a different POV than
> Abe, and he's trying to resolve it by having him banned and by
> warring about the content of his article on this listserv.
>
> Sure, Abe shouldn't have called Fred "senile," but in the overall
> context of nasty discourse that has characterized this thread, I
> don't think Abe's comment stands out as being more egregious than the
> insults that have been thrown his way.
>
> --Sheldon Rampton
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 16:03:17 +0000
> From: "Abe Sokolov" <abesokolov(a)hotmail.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Response to Jack Lynch
> To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <BAY7-F67v1jNovUKF7n0000c402(a)hotmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>
> Oh, now I remember that critical theory nomination. I'm sorry if I was being
> a bit harsh at the time (I was trying to react to your comments and not you
> personally). But still, that was really a good article, written for the most
> part by a well known philosopher and English language translator of Jürgen
> Habermas while he was contributing to Wikipedia I think that if you reread
> my comments, you'll find that they aren't as harsh as you're making them out
> to be.
>
> I might be wrong, but if I could remember correctly you said something to
> the effect of the prose sounding like "intellectual masturbation." I repied
> that that could be your ignorance. But at the same time, I admitted that I
> was ignorant of just about every other article nominated for featured status
> and pointing to the fact that I wasn't making likely-to-be uninformed
> criticisms of them. If anything, I was trying suggest that you might want to
> withhold your oppostion, that's all. BTW, at the time I think that I was
> also confusing you with another user with a similar user name.
>
> I hope that this clarification and apology will put the tensions between the
> two of us at bay
>
> -172
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®
> Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 18:19:51 +0200
> From: "Thomas R. Koll" <tomk32(a)gmx.de>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] WikiReader Free Software and Free Contents
> To: WikiEN-l <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <20040603161951.GC13324(a)tomk32.homelinux.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Hi folks,
>
> As you might have read on wikipedia-l or de:Wikipedia we have started
> to make PDFs out of our contents at de:
> Today I want announce to those who haven't heard about it yet, that
> I'm planning to do a WikiReader on Free Software and Free Contents.
> The plan is to get it done by June 9th as a kind of gift for
> the WOS3 conference in Berlin. Jimbo and Eloqunce will held speeches and
> there's the "Wikipedia Community Day".
>
> Generating the PDF and such is easy, but the time consumpting thing
> is finding a final TOC and extending some of the articles.
>
> I hope that some of you are interested in the topic and take a look at
> the current TOC.
>
> ciao, tom
>
> == External Links ==
> * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiReader
> * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiReader/Free_Software_and_Free_Co…
> * http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiReader
>
> --
> == Weblinks ==
> * http://www.tomk32.de - just a geek trying to change the world
> * http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:TomK32 - Free Knowledge
> * http://tinyurl.com/27c88 - WikiReader Internet: bald im Druck
> * http://tomk32.bookcrossing.com - Free Books
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 11, Issue 9
> ***************************************
Oh, now I remember that critical theory nomination. I'm sorry if I was being
a bit harsh at the time (I was trying to react to your comments and not you
personally). But still, that was really a good article, written for the most
part by a well known philosopher and English language translator of Jürgen
Habermas while he was contributing to Wikipedia I think that if you reread
my comments, you'll find that they aren't as harsh as you're making them out
to be.
I might be wrong, but if I could remember correctly you said something to
the effect of the prose sounding like "intellectual masturbation." I repied
that that could be your ignorance. But at the same time, I admitted that I
was ignorant of just about every other article nominated for featured status
and pointing to the fact that I wasn't making likely-to-be uninformed
criticisms of them. If anything, I was trying suggest that you might want to
withhold your oppostion, that's all. BTW, at the time I think that I was
also confusing you with another user with a similar user name.
I hope that this clarification and apology will put the tensions between the
two of us at bay
-172
_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
--- On Thu 06/03, Abe Sokolov < abesokolov(a)hotmail.com > wrote:
From: Abe Sokolov [mailto: abesokolov(a)hotmail.com]
To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 11:26:38 +0000
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Response to Jack Lynch
Re: "I don't feel 172 is reliable in regards to contentious issues"<br><br>Why? Are you able to offer any evidence from my user history that I have <br>insisted on the contribution of material that is inaccurate? If so, I'd <br>appreciate it if you brought it to my attention, as I emphatically oppose <br>the addition of dubious content on Wikipedia.<br><br>That's what I do. How would you like it if I made that claim about you on <br>the mailing list? To take this on the mailing list with no basis for making <br>this claim, in a context that knowingly will diminish a user's credibility <br>among a wide readership to me is the most debasing form of attack there is. <br>These kinds of statements might be superficially "civil" in tone, but <br>they're the remarks that truly do the most to spread mistrust and animosity <br>among Wikipedia users.<br><br>When I make off the cuff remarks on talk pages, they're brushed off and <br>dismissed, as they should be. But the remarks that truly impugn a user's <br>credibility and integrity aren't. But perhaps that was your point.<br><br>
I have found you unreliable in some areas of politics or history because of your demeanor, not because of some specific factual inaccuracy.<br> Yours is a matter of POV, rudeness, and haughtiness, not one of fraud, falsification, or incompetance.<br> I understand that you feel that your expertise invalidates concerns of POV, or asigns you a superior intellectual status, but I assure you that you are mistaken.<br> That being said I have slowly noticed the general quality of your edits, and that gives me some reason to strive to see past your partisan persona.<br> The spiteful and uncompromising condescension which I encountered the first time we disagreed was not my first impression of you actually.<br> You made a fine impression, complimentary and pleasant when first we spoke, as I was seconding a self-nomination you placed as a brilliant prose candidate.<br> Jack<br><br>
_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!