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

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

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

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

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

Not similar to Holocaust denial laws

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It does not outlaw "criticism of Soviet Union"

I'm sorry but the law does not criminalize "criticism of the Soviet Union," it outlaws "falsification of history." The former claim is speculation by Western and opposition press, not a fact or a generally accepted view. Let's let the commission actually do something first, and judge only after that. Let's try to write this article in a neutral way, not engane in similar kind of polemics and speculation as the Western press. For now, let's just state the fact: it criminalizes falsification of history only. BTW, this edit summary is not a reason to revert: [1].

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

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

Perhaps:

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

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

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

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

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

Reference? Please, do read the already existing references - "The bill has attracted criticism because of its definition of Nazi rehabilitation, with those who "belittle" the Soviet Union's role in the war or criticise it in any way being regarded as equally culpable as those who glorify Hitler." [2]. -- Sander Säde 05:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutrality

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

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

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

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

Vladimir Belaeff from San Fransisco

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

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

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

No, it's a copyvio

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

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

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

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

Yury Mukhin

There seem to be some controversy with the following statement:

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

Issues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote about the possible legislation

Just some quotes from the references provided:

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

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

Russia Moves to Ban Criticism of WWII Win

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

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

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

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

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

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

further evidence of Moscow's continued suppression of dissent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vladimir Belaeff

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

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

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

While the paragraph is indeed best left out, it's worth mentioning the both of the above claims are true: Latvia did have its own air force until the 1940 occupation, and its planes bore this roundel. Likewise, the Red Latvian Riflemen were instrumental in the suppression of this 1918 uprising, which was the last serious effort to wrestle power from the Bolsheviks in the civil war. --Illythr (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I recently came across Belaeff, assuming the same tome, (1) swastika -> by that same logic, might as well call Hindus Nazis; (2) hypocritical Eastern Europeans ignoring (selective amnesia) the roles of their sons in establishing and maintaining Soviet power -> by that same logic, if a Zoroastrian robbed a bank, then bank robbery is a Zoroastrian religious/cultural value; also ignores counting "Yestonians" and their equivalents across Eastern Europe as native sons. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

But what does it do?

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

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

Where did the title came from? Suggesting a rename

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

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

What replacement name can you suggest? Дигвурен Дигвурович_Аллё? 15:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, PITA. Perhaps Russian commission against falsification of history ... again too long and missing the "contrary to" punch line. Right now the title has its bit of orwellian truth, but my point was, the subject has not yet reached any public exposure to make it a household name like "Un-american" or "Ministry of Truth" or similar ghosts from the past. NVO (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see that there is controversy here. Leaving the "to the detriment" part aside for the moment, using anti-falsification per the commission title:

1. "Historical anti-falsification commission"
2. = "Historical anti-(anti-truthification) commission"
3. = "Historical (anti-anti-="pro") truthification commission"
4. = (most precisely) "Commission for the promulgation of historical truth"
5. = (shorter) "Commission for historical truth"
6. = (seems appropriate) "Historical truth commission"

Now let's add the to the detriment part

1. "Historical anti-(anti-Russian-falsification) commission"
2. = "Historical (anti-anti-="pro") Russian-falsification commission"
3. = (most precisely) "Commission for the promulgation of Russian falsification of history"

I don't know, but somehow that whole "to the detriment of the Russian Federation" thing throws it off, unless that's what it really means of course. Since I'd prefer to WP:AGF the positions of those that support the position of the Russian Federation, I think I'll stick to supporting "Historical truth commission"—or "Commission for historical truth"—as a reasonable and appropriate title. PetersV       TALK 16:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This logic infers that an anti-anti-Fascist is a (anti-anti-="pro") Fascist. Sounds familiar? ;-) --Illythr (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

How about just "History Commission of Russia" or "History Commission (Russia)"? Peltimikko (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Too broad; this will ambiguously cross into the names of numerous real organizations i.e. [[4]] NVO (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering that you know the answer to your question, and did not actually make any suggestions, this request looks like trolling. And I noticed that one of the editors already took the bait and started feeding the troll. (Igny (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

• Thanks for considerate behavior; may I also suggest next time also addressing these disrespectful person(s) by proper name(s). NVO (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The current title "Historical Truth Commission" is definitely ambiguous. There are a number of "Historical Truth Commission"'s that have been set up from time to time all over the world. For example the Tulsa race riot Commission in the US has been referred to as a "Historical truth commission" [5]. There has been a 'historical truth commissions' in South Korea [6], in Australia [7] etc. So the article should be called the way it's been referred to the most in media, either Russia's Historical Truth Commission [8] or simply Medvedev's history commission [9]--Termer (talk) 03:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Russia's Historical Truth Commission is fine by me. Point taken on ambiguity. PetersV       TALK 04:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Links

For future reference, I would mention that should reputable scholarly sources draw parallels with past efforts at the control of the portrayal history to the benefit of/anti-to the detriment of Russia's legal (by its choice) predecessor, then those links will be appropriate to (re-)insert. Just want to plant the seed for when/if that time comes so we don't get into add/delete reverts. Vecrumba       TALK 02:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

OSCE resolution

How is it relevant to the Commission? It probably should get its own article, but the presence of the passage here is odd. Perhaps a quote from one of the members? instead... --Illythr (talk) 15:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Rename

Renamed the page to something that is more close to the official name. Offliner (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Still, the old name did desribe more closer the purpose. I suggest a short name History Commission (Russia). Peltimikko (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Support Peltimikko's suggestion - it's both neutral and readable (as long as there are no other History Commissions in Russia). --Illythr (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Shorter names still exist as redirects, so this article should really be named with the full title Presidential Commission of the Russian Federation to Counter Attempts to Falsify History to the Detriment of Russia's Interests. --Martintg (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I tried using the full name, but it was too long technically. Offliner (talk) 08:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Is that really true? This title is even longer [10] What's the character limit anyway? --Martintg (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can move it to the full name, please do. Didn't work for me. Offliner (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

"Something that is more close" is not appropriate. If we use legalese, the "to the Detriment of Russia's Interests" tidbit is crucial, as discussed both above and in independent sources. Colchicum (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd be for using legalese myself (i.e., I'm for using the full name). Also, what is the "(Russia)" part included in the title for? It's not like there are any other countries with a similar commission that is named exactly the same.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:34, October 15, 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly the only such commission I'm aware of, "(Russia)" is not needed. I second having the full title (to the Detriment...) if it can fit. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  14:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. The MediaWiki (per distribution) title maximum length is 255 characters (the title proper, wiki-space does not count). Is there some place to request technical help? VЄСRUМВА  ♪  14:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

(od) The answer is that the full title has been blacklisted to prevent vandalism. Move has to be done via move request. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  14:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved; length is a small price to pay for precision.  Skomorokh, barbarian  11:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Presidential Commission to Counter Attempts to Falsify History (Russia) → Presidential Commission of the Russian Federation to Counter Attempts to Falsify History to the Detriment of Russia's Interests — Article title should be full title of commission, per consensus on talk. Move has already been attempted and failed. Said title is currently blacklisted, move requires administrative intervention. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  14:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support per discussion above.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 11:13, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
• Support per arguments and what appears like consensus above.radek (talk) 11:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support --Martintg (talk) 11:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support. Still, I rather favour much shorter headings such as History Commission (Russia) or History Commission of Russia Peltimikko (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral leaning to weak oppose - I too would prefer History Commission (Russia) rather than this Godzilla of a name. It probably won't even fit in one line on most screens... --Illythr (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support. It is better than the current title, i.e. as monstrous as it is but at least accurate. Still, Peltimikko and Illythr may have a point. Colchicum (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Very weak support, its better than current half-assed title which tries to be official but at same time still isn't, but that's about it. I personally believe that we should stick with WP:COMMONNAME here and neither current nor proposed title qualify by that.--Staberinde (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Proposed title is tooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong Bobanni (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Roy Medvedev

Greyhood keeps removing quotations by Roy Medvedev, an extremely respected historian, [11], [12]. The quotation is sourced to two completely different and valid sources, it is properly attributed and hence its removal would require not only consensus, but a reason. Greyhood has failed to show any sources for his claims (and the claim that Medvedev is "controversial" is defamatory at best) - and should he manage to find a source stating that Medvedev is wrong, then it would be "...according to Medvedev..., although [some other source] says that Medvedev is incorrect, as...". You know, the way NPOV works - not just removing claims that displease some editors, but sources, reasons and discussions. --Sander Säde 17:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that a citation by any historian has zero weight if it so obviously contradicts reality (there are at least 4 professional historians in the commission, which can be easily checked by looking through the members list: Artizov, Sakharov, Narochnitskaya and Svanidze). From those two Andrey Nikolayevich Sakharov was the Head of the Institute of the Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Andrey Artizov continues to be the head of the State Archive of Russia. These people could be criticized like everyone, but to claim that those very top academic historians are "not recognized among professionals" is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. One could not so simply discard all those publications, citations, Russian and international awards and top academic offices. I do not know what problems Medvedev has with them, but the characteristic "not recognized among professionals" looks like belonging to the yellow press, not encyclopedia, and is clearly defamatory and contradicting the reality in this case.

I do not know why you and Vercrumba consider Medvedev "probably the most respected historian in modern-day Russia". I'd say that Sakharov is highly respected for all I know (except certain administrative measures of his), and such people like Valentin Yanin are clearly more prominent (though Yanin studies a different period). Roy Medvedev, by the way, was heavily criticized (e. g. by Sergey Kara-Murza [13] [14]) exactly for the fact that he "had unique access to materials during the Soviet era" yet failed to produce realistic numbers related to Gulag despite every possibility to do so (while Viktor Zemskov, at the same period, managed to do the job properly and his numbers are widely accepted now). Medvedev's writings on Kirov murder involved very poor work with his informants and were eventually disproved by a special investigation on request by Alexander Yakovlev, Gorbachov's aide, even as Gorbachov supported Roy Medvedev.

Overall, Roy Medvedev, to say the least, is a bit outdated and does not have a clean reputation, he is a typical career-first author, catering to Gorbachov in 1980s and to Putin in present. GreyHood ^Talk 18:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, after some thinking I could add that it is likely that Roy Medvedev, after all his catering to Putin, still had to stay aside any of the prominent positions held by Artizov, Sakharov, Narochnitskaya and even Svanidze, and Medvedev was not invited to the discussed Presidential Commission. So his extraordinary criticisms are quite understandable, but of course not acceptable in encyclopedia, especially at such a prominent position in the lead.

So, I repeat, these claims "three professional historians" (at least 4 in reality) and "not recognized among professionals" (recognized in the best possible way - academic degrees, awards incl. international, institutional positions) are faulty, and also are defamatory to historical science in Russia in its entirety. Giving this opinion piece so prominent place and ignoring so obvious faults fails WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV, in addition to factual fallacy. GreyHood ^Talk 19:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Unlike others, Medvedev is an internationally recognized historian. He said: "А состав нашей комиссии поверг меня в шок. Там всего лишь три историка, да и то не имеющих авторитета среди профессионалов. Одно дело директор института и другое — независимый историк, руководствующийся фактами, а не указаниями начальства.". He tells that these people are governmental bureaucrats (although some of them have degrees). Main point: this is a censorship organization that has nothing to do with science. This can be quoted of course. Biophys (talk) 01:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Roy Medvedev seems to be very widely cited by other scholars (Google Scholar, Books - note that both are 2011 only and his name in quotation marks, meaning Roy Aleksandrovich Medvedev, RA Medvedev and other variants are not included in the results). As for the respected - I have heard modern Western historians still speak respectfully of him, unlike, say, Dyukov. But of course, I am not a professional historian myself and have to rely on opinions of those who are.

I still think the best course would be to include the opinion from Medvedev (clarify it a bit though, perhaps include the next sentence as well, ie. "Одно дело директор института и другое — независимый историк, руководствующийся фактами, а не указаниями начальства."), but include the refutation, should one exist. That way both opinions are presented in the article.

By the way, it's been a more than two years since the commission was created, are there any news about its work? It would be nice to have some examples of commission's work in the article - or even a general direction that they're taking. It seems weird that there was an explosion of news when the commission was created and nothing since.

--Sander Säde 08:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Medvedev citation is unacceptable on a pure factual basis, as I've explained above. When somebody presents an extraordinary evidence that there are less than 4 professionals and all those attributes of highest possible professional recognition are unreal, then we'll have something to discuss. Otherwise it is clear that the Medvedev citation should be removed from the intro in order not to misinform the readers and not to give undue weight to such a poor statements. If ever it is used in the text of the article's body at all, it should be provided with all due notes on its factual faults.

>Main point: this is a censorship organization that has nothing to do with science

>By the way, it's been a more than two years since the commission was created, are there any news about its work?

One of the real and serious criticisms of the commission, unlike the baseless allegations in censorship, is that it hasn't done anything significant so far, and since the time of its creation there were almost no any news about its activities. In this light, all that fuss at the time of the commission installation turns to be a joke, a clear case of a storm in a tea-kettle. GreyHood ^Talk 15:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The comment by Medvedev was made mostly about the commission rather than about specific people and as such is not an "extraordinary claim". Almost all independent sources (including Medvedev) describe it as a politically-motivated organization appointed from the "above" to censor historical research, rather than a scientific research organization. If they actually censor anything is another question. Biophys (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the commission would not exist if it were merely a joke, nor is concern a misplaced joke as the commisison's various members proselytize their conservative-nationalist-patriotic Soviet versions of history над всем (if I've got the Russian equivalent of über alles correct) rhetoric. At the moment, the only hope for the future for Russia appears to be its paradoxical self-contrarian self, and so there might be something more useful which comes out of the Council for the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights, for example, perhaps recording the names of all the victims of Soviet totalitarianism, although that might be more difficult now that Russian archives once open are closed again (I believe) contrary to Russian law. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry, Greyhood, as Medvedev is a respected historian whose opinion is properly attributed, per WP:ATTRIBUTE, "Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged [that is, real or manufactured controversy-pjv], or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material." and "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true."

It is, on the contrary, your personal contentions that Medvedev is not factual which are "inadmissible" here per policy. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the secret true sense of the comment, the citation is faulty and utterly misleading in the present literal form it is inserted to the article.

@Vecrumba "превыше всего", not "над всем". And the only hope for Russia, as for any country, is the decent development of economy. The situation with this commission just shows of how little importance all those historical issues have for the present Russian government.

The citation should not just be verifiable. It should be relevant, should have due weight, should not unexplainedly enter into obvious contradiction with the other factual material in the article, and the manner of the citation placing should not fail WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTHESIS. It is not my "personal contentions", I could easily bring sources proving that facts contradict that citation. GreyHood ^Talk 18:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the proper translation. Unfortunately my past (genunine) attempts at learning Russian have always wound up having to take a back seat to something else. (I have a vested interest, I probably have 100+ Russian art books at home passed on from my father.)

With reference to sources, it would be helpful if, for the five "professional historians" you listed in your updated lead, you included a citation to a reputable source for each which describes them as a professional "historian" (i.e., academic, researcher, etc. including explicitly stating professional "historian"). A degree and/or official position does not necessarily a "professional historian" make—such contentions, while they may seem obvious, are a bit of synthesis in the absence of sources/citations. I thought it would be simpler to ask here for sources/citations than to insert a bunch of citation needed tags—which could be wrongly taken as being pointy and needless drama. There's no rush or deadline. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I would just add, gently, that contradictions are to be explained, not eliminated. And put away the "defamatory" battle axe. Such stridency only serves to polarize discussion. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as I suppose, when it doesn't come to the finer points, your Russian must be not bad at all. In the last edits I've not eliminated any contradictions. I suppose also, that providing quotes for such a basic biography information which could easily be checked in the linked articles is not a good style. Why not start providing citations for politicians in the commission or for every single elementary fact? I'll provide citations for those guys which don't have articles on en-wiki, though. GreyHood ^Talk 15:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I do think you dumbed down the Medvedev passage when you moved it (as in dumbing down Medvedev, not simplifying for the reader), but as long as you are fine with my subsequent revision, that's all settled. (As for contradictory, you did state you had sources to effectively negate Medvedev.)

Regarding the lead, I think the parenthetical "PhD..."'s should go or become part of a <ref>...</ref>, all that parenthetical text comes across a bit pointy and WP:UNDUE in the lead. Wikilinks to articles are obviously fine (and hopefully those contain suitably cited references as to professional historian, not just commentator or former researcher, etc.). Where there aren't any biographical articles, I do (editorially) believe a citation regarding credentials is warranted.

And just as another gentle note, the logic construct "if you suggest «A» (proposed as reasonable) then why not/we'd be doing «B» (totally unreasonable)" doesn't really advance one's point. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I've removed PhDs from the intro, you are right on them looking pointy. The other stuff in paranthesis is at least as relevant as characteristics of the politicians in the previous sentence, so either we leave all those attributes in the lead or leave only names (the second is not interesting nor informing the readers). As for the sources on Medvedev, I've given you one, and this article is not a place to paint him good or bad so the sources won't be used anyway. While he might have acclaim or be criticized for some of his old works, anyway he is not an absolute or highly important authority to judge the commission and his citation is factually too faulty to have some special value for this article. Can't understand why you are so preoccupied with Medvedev. Find another critical citation without factual faults which is less problematic to incorporate into the article, add it, and we'll be happy. GreyHood ^Talk 18:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that (PhDs). Leaving current positions is fine. As for Medvedev, he's reputable and attributed. If you think he's on the mental and scholarly decline and out of touch, and his glory days are behind him, that's your personal opinion. My personal opinion is that there's more than one committee member who is a historian who fails criteria for reputable and reliable historians—but whether you or I think "historians" is five, zero, or in-between isn't at issue. You've had a chance to move "but they're not serious respected historians" out of the lead, Medvedev's criticism continues to be present and attributed—I think we're already at a fair meeting in the middle. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

On Sergey Kara-Murza, his dissertation was in history related to technology. His writings on Soviet history (your links) appear, just by their table of contents, to tend toward the dogmatic. I would use "disagrees" more than "disproves." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we have discussed enough here, unless we'd move to Roy Medvedev article.. but I'm not planning to do it right now. GreyHood ^Talk 20:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. There are enough other goings on (unfortunately not all content related) to keep us busy at the moment. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Full members list

It would be helpful for someone to translate and insert all the committee members from Sostav komissij at RU:WP. I also noticed 32 members (so 4 more members since Roy Medvedev remarked about 3 historians out of 28). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Artizov was added later in 2010, but there was Kozlov instead of him as a head of the Rosarchkiv in 2009 decree, so there were 5 professional historians anyway. GreyHood ^Talk 23:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

References

Article cleanup

I cleaned up the article a bit, by removing dated future-looking statements and off-topic content. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)