Talk:Enemy of the people/Archive 1

Archive 1

The word "totalitarian"

Sorry if this offends someone, but IMHO, totalitarian is totally appropriate here, consider it technical. It is not meant as a derogative term. And appropriately here, those who attempted to change its totalitarian nature, were considered EotP. If you disagree, please explain why the Stalin's regime was not totalitarian. --Humus sapiens|Talk 03:38, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Seconded. The term is completely admissible within this context, which, btw, explains why the regime is called totalitarian. Mikkalai 04:19, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Its not a question of whether I consider the USSR to be "totalitarian" regime, its a question of whether its a neutral descriptive term or not. IMO its almost as bad as saying its was an "evil" regime which is cleary against our NPOV policy. If the article just lists what the Soviet government did then most readers will conclude that it was a totalitarian regime, and those who wont probably wouldn't believe it even if the word was in the article. But if no body agrees with my interpritation of NPOV policy then I wouldn't try and revert it.Saul Taylor 01:30, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• • Unlike the word "evil", the word "totalitarian" has an encyclopedic meaning. What the article describes is an attribute of a totalitarian regime: everyone who disagrees is automatically an enemy. The neutrality of the term matches the neutrality of the topic. Nevertheless, you convinced me that what I wrote should be in the article. Doing it. Mikkalai 03:44, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Totalitarian only means evil to people who believe Democracy is good. Totalitarianism not only has an encyclopedic meaning, it was the espoused philosophy of the Stalinists. They believed it to be a superior system, just as people who believed in the divine right of the czar believed that system to be superior. They would not have thought totalitarianism was evil; rather democracy and capitalism were considered evil. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 06:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

phrase about small children

The phrase was pure nonsense. No one bothered to take children away from alive parents. They went into exile with parents. Because of civil war and then pretty soon WWII there were too many familyless children to fill orphanades with. Mikkalai 08:56, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ok. I don't know much about the subject. I'm just trying to help out with the prose. Regards, Ddama

Relax. It's not about you. It's about the one who put this phrase and about me who failed to nail it immediately. Mikkalai 07:08, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

But surely, the children could be taken away from the parents and they would be less resistant against forces such as this in the future. Anon. 16:22, 04 June 2008 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.192.217 (talk)

Vile POV propaganda

What the hell is this POV piece doing here? Shorne 05:35, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

sometimes

Disputed sentence: Being branded an "enemy of the people" sometimes meant imprisonment, deportation, or execution, often accompanied by property confiscation.

Boraczek: "sometimes" is too weak, as the imprisonment etc. was a "logical consequence" of being an "enemy otp"

Shorne: Prove your claim with documentation.

My proof: by the very meaning of the word enemy ("opponent, antagonist"), it is clear that calling someone "enemy of the people" implies that the people should be protected from that man. Thus it served as a justification of imprisonment, deportation, or execution. This is why I called it a "logical consequence".

I suggest this wording: Branding an "enemy of the people" was a justfication for imprisonment, deportation, or execution, often accompanied by property confiscation. Boraczek 10:14, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your "logical consequence" does not follow at all. Forgive me for not taking the time to go over it with you.

I've put in a proposed compromise. Let me know what you think. Shorne 10:19, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I think your proposal is still a bit too weak to capture the essence of the matter, but it's acceptable as a compromise. Boraczek 11:33, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shorne, This article is, probably, not just about the Soviet Union. But, particularly in the late 1930s, being branded as "an enemy of the people" USUALLY meant imprisonment, deportation, or execution, often accompanied by property confiscation, and I actually doubt that there were any cases when one was labelled 'an enemy of the people' without any consequences of that kind. As a documents, one can check, indeed Article_58_(RSFSR_Penal_Code) or Khrushchev's report On_the_Personality_Cult_and_its_Consequences, quoting: "Stalin originated the concept 'enemy of the people.' This term automatically made it unnecessary that the ideological errors of a man or men engaged in a controversy be proven. It made possible the use of the cruelest repression, violating all norms of revolutionary legality, against anyone who in any way disagreed with Stalin, against those who were only suspected of hostile intent… On the whole, the only proof of guilt actually used, against all norms of current legal science, was the 'confession' of the accused himself. As subsequent probing has proven, 'confessions' were acquired through physical pressures against the accused. This led to glaring violations of revolutionary legality and to the fact that many entirely innocent individuals… became victims."

So, this is not central to this article, but 'sometimes' is, I would say, too weak, because there was no point in labelling someone as 'enemy' except for imprisonment or execution. Anyways, the article can be improved in many ways. For example, this sentence One might wonder why there were so many enemies of workers left... does not fit the format of an encyclopaedia. Reason: 'one might wonder' is informal. Also, presumably, there were no enemies of workers at all (because it is pure nonsense - to be an enemy of all the workers in the country), only calling someone - 'enemy' - meant. So at least it should be corrected to 'One might wonder, why it was claimed (!) that there were so many enemies left...' Commentor 21:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Strictly Soviet

It seems like this article is giving the mistaken assumption that this term/policy was exclusive to the Soviet Union. In a recent example, a Reuters cameraman was arrested in Baghdad by American forces and is to be held without trial indefinately for being "an enemy of the Iraqi People". (Unsigned by 24.231.207.90)

You or anyone else are welcome to expand. The more enemies the merrier. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 05:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales

Jimbo Wales is one of them. So is Shanel, let's purge them! 205.188.116.71 08:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Operation TIPS

I am removing a reference to Operation TIPS inserted in the Soviet Union section by User:67.176.146.161. I believe that the analogy is strained at best, risks trivializing the horror of Soviet human rights abuses, and could expose this page to accusations of partisan POV.

Additionally, I think inserting a fragmentary reference to Operation TIPS in the middle of the section on Soviet history disrupts the flow of the section and is a distraction from it.

I will not revert if anyone believes the material should be put back; but if you do re-insert, please give the analogy enough context that it will not be unnecessarily distracting or inflammatory. Baileypalblue 01:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

1984 inspired by enemy of the people

Should it not be mentioned about the similarities between the novel 1984 and this article? I think George Orwell (real name Eric Blair) got most of his inspiration from Soviet Russia for his book 1984, and Enemy of the people, must have been mentioned at some point. 88.109.200.67 14:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Beria timemag 1101530720 400.jpg

The image Image:Beria timemag 1101530720 400.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The fellow trying to add a supposed US history of use of "enemy of the people"...

... asserts it is fact with no evidence or citation. I'm guessing it's not an accident that he/she/it claims to be a proud IWW member, this is POV-pushing, trying to mitigate Communist crimes by claiming parallels in the West. A²Kafir (and...?) 04:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the fact that I belong to the IWW implies... what, exactly? Do you have any idea what the Bolsheviks did to anarchists? Hint: Try looking up the "Nestor Makhno" Wikipedia article. If anything, I should have an anti-Communist bias. How does it "mitigate" the behaviour of the Soviet Union to point out that the same phrase -- "enemy of the people" -- has also been used in the USA? You're the only one POV-pushing (and being rude to boot) here. SmashTheState (talk) 05:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Evidence, first. Verifiable sources is what Wikipedia's about. A²Kafir (and...?) 05:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Please provide quotations that US did indeed use the term "enemy of the people" during the McCarthyism times, rather than public enemy or enemy of the state . Otherwise the US-related piece must be removed. `'Míkka>t 20:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Enemy of the American people and Enemies of the American people are quite popular expressions, by Google. `'Míkka>t 20:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• note I agree that anti-communist sentiment (along with xenophobic sentiment in WWI and WWII) led the american government (and people, sometimes) to treat critics as enemies of capitalism and the common interest. Anti-union crackdowns, mcarthyism, and the red scare all provide ample possible situations where the US treated socialists as though they were "enemies of the people". However, we need some citations for the use of the phrase either directly or by someone describing the incident. The sources I provided on the AfD page should be a good start. I can also recommend some good history books, notably Manchester's The Glory and the Dream, which while pro-union is a very reliable source for American history between the Bonus Army march and the impeachment of Richard Nixon. The sources need to be there, not vague waves about google searches. If you want the material inserted, then you need to provide the sourcing. I'm happy to help wherever I can, but I can't help retain contentious claims in the body of an article without proper sourcing. Protonk (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Phrase and two false refernces removed with this edit

Neither citation provided says that "enemy of the people" was used commonly in America, in the McCarthy era or any other. First reference: [1], Hannity saying "enemy of the state." Not relevant (but could be to the other article as an example). Second reference: [2] a reference to Ayn Rand using the phrase once, ironically, in The Fountainhead. User insists references say things they do not say. Again, user is free to start articles on phrases like Enemy of America or anything else he/she/it desires, but it has to be supported by references that say what you purport them to say. A²Kafir (and...?) 02:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"Enemy of America" and "enemy of the state" are as close to "enemy of the people" as whatever Russian phrase is translated into English as "enemy of the people." This is evidenced by the fact that this article is not named "enemy of the (Russian) people" or "enemy of the (French) people." What does "enemy of America" mean if not "enemy of the American people"? But of course, your pet admin has privately colluded with you that if I persist in editing this article, I will be banhammered. Because patriotism is NPOV. And war is peace. So I guess you can add whatever you like to the article at this point. Might I suggest a nice ASCII drawing of the stars and stripes flying proudly overhead? SmashTheState (talk) 04:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep it civil. Consider this a warning. No one is here to enforce some kind of pro-USA propaganda. You don't know my politics, or a2Kafir's, or anyone else who doesn't announce it. Assume good faith. Protonk (talk) 04:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This one's pretty sure he can read minds. Happens every once in a while; I'm used to running into them in Ann Arbor. Lots of anger, etc. A²Kafir (and...?) 04:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Fellow Worker, this is one where you're not in the right; please do observe the courtesies. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC) (I.U. 660, Milw. G.O.B.)

no basis is offered for connecting the latin phrase hostis publicus with the expression,"enemy of the people." to establish such a basis would require demonstrating continuous use of the phrase or showing that the french phrase, for example, was a consciously chosen rendering of the latin phrase, a conscious nod at that expression. as it stands, this claim is very dubious. chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14D:4002:1CC8:E6CE:8FFF:FE5E:4F7C (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Remove 'globalize' template

I propose to remove the 'globalize' template. The term was almost exclusively used by the Soviet Union and the references to the "enemy of the state" and "public enemy" articles are sufficient to cover international use of similar terms. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Many socialist and communist organizations around the world embrace the idea of class treason, and this should be addressed in the article. MattW93 (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Rename the Article?

I think that the term "Enemy of the People" (an almost exclusively Soviet phrase) may be too specific to the Soviet Union, and that the phrase "Class Enemy" would be more reflective of the term in international socialism. Reference would still be made to the Soviet version of the phrase in the Soviet section, but "Enemy of the People" is really the Soviet version of "Class enemy", and this has caused confusion as to the relation to "Enemy of the State" in the article. MattW93 (talk) 01:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

can not agree. "Enemy of the People" was used by leftists during the (late) 1960s in the US and no doubt other Western countries. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Daily Mail headline of 26 Jan 2017

Don't forget the modern usage in mudslinging. Now I am not meddling into the Brexit and post-Brexit debate (though I pity the Brits) but smearing those judges with full names and photographs under that heading is a new step in gutter journalism (and the DM rag has been in that gutter to the gills already) --WernR (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Nazi Germany section

User:2602:306:32a2:c7a0:4c46:16ca:452c:3e26 claims that the (now deleted) Nazi Germany section is mistranslated however I haven't really found evidence to support that but I don't know German. If the section truly is mistranslated it should be removed, but I'm not convinced especially without any supporting evidence. I don't want to get into an edit war over this so I am discussing this on the talk page. Snood1205 (talk) 23:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I reverted again, since the IP removed it again. As far as I'm concerned, it should stay in until someone shows proof that it's mustranlated or untrue. Until then, I'm considering this as a typical case of trying to promote Nazism by amelioration. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

That was my thought as well. Thank you. Snood1205 (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Snood1205, @Beyond My Ken, hey, nobody is advocating Nazism by removing the reference. INSERTING something positive to Nazism would be achieving that end. I actually speak German, being from Austria, and the translation in the Der Stürmer article is actually "enemies of the state", which we have another article on which does mention the Nazis. The Red Volumes have a great number of typos in them, so mistranslated words are probably numerous. The person who played a leading role in writing Japan's constitution was a young white woman named Beate Sirota Gordon, so for a much lengthier, less important series of books requiring multiple German-and-English speaks, not-totally fluent writers were likely used. But enemies of the people and enemies of the state essentially mean the same thing, so it's hardly an err on their part. If you really want to have Nazi Germany in the article, business insider quotes Joseph Goebbels basically using the phrase here. That is a reputable source. If you keep adding the inaccurate translation you will be doing a disservice to the truth.2602:306:32A2:C7A0:703D:23D1:F54B:43D1 (talk) 02:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

You are absolutely incorrect in saying that only something positive about the Nazis is required to advance that cause, since the removal of anything negative also does exactly the same thing. And no, "enemy of the state" and "enemy of the people" are only the same thing when the state accurately reflects and represents the will and desires of the people. That is true in a democracy, but it is not true in other political systems, such as a dictatorship.

Please provide a link to the German text of the Der Sturmer article which you claim has been mistranslated. You must have access to it, since you claim to know what the accurate translation is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

You aren't making any sense, you barely educated baboon. If anything, inserting the Nazi quote is promoting Nazism because you aren't refuting or giving any context to it--about how such rhetoric led to Nazi aggression. Moreover, the Nazi mention was only put in after Trump made his enemy of the people comment. I would say someone is promoting an anti-Trump agenda through association. This article has been up since March 2004, but it took a sinister turn only after Trump made his comment.

And yes, within the context of the source of the source, enemy of "the people" and "the state" are used interchangeably a number of times. This very Wikipedia page says the two are similar, you idiot.

I have the Der Stürmer paper in my desk someone, but unlike you I have a life that isn't dedicated to Wikipedia; so of course I'm not going to waste time and effort on articles most people will never read or know about. But don't let that stop you, old man, from trying to feel important. 2602:306:32A2:C7A0:703D:23D1:F54B:43D1 (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Nice to meet you too. Provide the link asked for, or the remainder of your posts on this subject will be deleted. Barely Educated Baboon (ape-like grunts) 04:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

BTW, who has pages of Der Sturmer "in [their] desk some[where]"? There are really only two possibilities, and I'm pretty sure which one you are. An idiot (drooling) 04:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)