Jump to content

Talk:Soviet Union/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19

RFC on Infobox

RfC closed in favour of the 15 state version of the infobox. Continuing disagreements about exactly how to count successor states notwithstanding, there is a clear consensus that the infobox is not the place to make such distinctions. Olaf Davis (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

To avoid further edit warring over the infobox, a Request for Comments will be used to obtain consensus on whether to use the 15-state infobox or the 11-1-3-state (1 continuator, 11 successors, 3 restored) infobox. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Should the 15-state infobox, or the 11-1-3-state infobox, be used? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

15 State Version

15 state format
  • Support because an infobox can simplify and does not need to go into detail that is in the text. Consistent with history. (The Baltics really were occupied for half a century.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as grouping them together in this instance is an over-simplification to the point of misleading. It is factually inaccurate and inconsistent with history (if we accept that the Baltics were independent states forcibly incorporated into the USSR for fifty years then it follows they are restored states and not successor states). While the infobox succession parameters are perfectly okay for most cases it is a constraint for the notably unusual case of the USSR. Ease of using parameters should not trump factual accuracy. FWIW, this format actually takes up more space than the alternative. --Nug (talk) 06:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: There is no need to provide the level of detail that Nug insists that there be on the succession of states within the infobox including an extensive set of footnotes. We should always apply the KISS principle on infoboxes which are not meant to be substitutes for article prose.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Seems to be the most consistent with mainstream sources and common knowledge. LokiiT (talk) 05:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. The infobox should ideally list, as simply as possible, the 15 states that emerged out of the former Soviet Union. That's the basic info most people would surely be interested in and that every real-world source would set out at this level. Any explanation of the differences and subtleties can be left for the main text, where of course they should be noted, including the special case of the Baltics. So long as the heading is the generic, broad term "Succeeded by" rather than "Successors" I don't see the need for pettifoggery about whether we are using the term in its strict legal sense and hence whether the Baltics are, legally, "successor states" or not. N-HH (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per over-simplification Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support While it is oversimplified, an infobox *should* be simplified or even oversimplified, as that is what the article is for, to fill in the more complicated factors. The only change I'd suggest is removing the footnotes for the 1990 date for the top level domain and possibly the second footnote, as that properly belongs in the article proper.Wzrd1 (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Agree that this should be kept simple. This is really just semantics.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I agree that infobox *should* be simplified.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Not only this option is simpler, I also cannot understand why only the three Baltic states were to be categorized as if they "restored" their independence. De facto Armenia, and the two other Caucasian republics restored their independence as well. The 1990 Armenian Independence Declaration makes a clear reference to the First Republic of Armenia (1918-20): "Developing the democratic traditions of the independent Republic of Armenia established on May 28, 1918"[1] --Երևանցի talk 22:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The infobox should be easy to read for the readers, and it also is to the point. Also, I'm wondering, I think that Soviet Union could be a GA soon.... WooHoo! • Talk to me! 00:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support because the Baltic issue should be dealt with in the article prose where it can be fully explained. Which is not to say the occupation was legal or a good thing, only that it happened. De facto, sovereign Baltic governments which actually controlled any territory were only reestablished when the USSR fell. 86.147.72.194 (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

1-11-3 State Version

1-11-3 state format
  • Neutral - Do not support or oppose. More complicated than would prefer, but acceptable, including to those who focus on international law rather than history. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The purpose of an infobox is to summarize key facts in the article and it is a fact that the Baltic states were independent states before 1940 and are considered restored states identical with these pre-1940 republics and Russia is considered a continuator. The inbox guide[2] clearly expresses a first preference for listing states "under international law" and a second preference for listing additional states beyond those defined under international law, if required. As the guide states, the majority of readers expect to see states listed in terms of international law, and invoking the second preference does not mean that the expectation to see the official successors suddenly disappears. The expectation remains, and appropriate annotation of the second preference with the 1-11-3 format to meet that expectation is within the spirit of the infobox guide per WP:IAR. Reliable sources show that these classifications are generally accepted by both the international community and writers of international law. Sources also show that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was a uniquely complex event, with the status of Russia as continuator and the special case of the Baltic states being highly notable given the volume written on the topic. The issue of what happened in the past with respect to occupation isn't really relevant to the infobox discussion. What is relevant is the view held today that the Baltic states were independent nations before their incorporation into the USSR. There is a distinction between the newly created "post-soviet" states that never existed before (i.e. the 11 official successors) on one hand, and states that had existed previously (i.e. the 3 restored states and the one continuator) on the other hand. Thus the 1-11-3 format justified in this case. --Nug (talk) 06:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my argument above.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose If the Soviet Union illegally occupied the Baltic states, then they do not belong in the infobox. Or if they do, then so do all the countries that the Soviet Union legally occupied at some point, which would mean including most Eastern Europe countries, such as Poland. TFD (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
    Poland wasn't incorporated into the USSR as an SSR, though. The Baltics were.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
According to Statehood and the Law of Self-determination, "The Baltic States' position is that they never de jure formed part of the Soviet Union." Instead, the Baltic states were "preserved" during the years of occupation, not transformed into SSRs. If they had become SSRs, then they would be successor states of the USSR and not a continuation of the previously existing states which would have been extinguished upon incorporation into the USSR. TFD (talk) 11:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per my above comments. Also too technical/complicated for people not already versed in Soviet history (i.e. most readers). LokiiT (talk) 05:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose if it is to include, as currently, the specific sub-headings for each group which applies terms only narrowly used in specialist fields as if they are definitive and universal. Just as we should not describe all 15 specifically as "successors" we should not describe only 11 with that term – it's best avoided altogether due to the fact that different sources use it in different ways. I wouldn't object to a split without such sub-headings but with brief footnotes if it would finally put an end to this one/two-person obsessive campaign on this issue but I don't see that it's actually necessary. As noted by most people across most of this discussion, the main body is the place to explain the complexities and nuances here, not the infobox. N-HH (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per relevant and simple distinction. Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the infobox *should* be simplified.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Something Else

I should have said do not mention in infobox. TFD (talk) 05:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

Note: The Russian Federation is the continuator state. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania were restored. Kazakhstan, Tajikstan, Uzbekistan, , Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Moldova, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, and Ukraine are successor states.

Robert, why did you set it up so people effectively vote twice such that Nug has posted his argument twice in a row?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I offered two versions so that those who support one approach had the choice of Oppose or Neutral on the other in order to provide information as to the strength of views for the closer. I did that because, unlike the two edit-warriors who made this RFC necessary, I support one solution but do not oppose the other, and thought that some other editors might have nuanced views. Maybe I was mistaken and everyone else has rigid views. However, the idea that some editors might have nuanced views is consistent with the rule to assume good faith. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Ryulong: This section is for comments, including on the !votes, so that you don't have to insert comments into the sections for !votes. (I'm leaving the comments in place now, but if the inserted comments make reading the sections difficult, I will move them.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
TFD: There is a difference between countries that were occupied by Soviet forces between 1945 and 1989 and had so-called satellite (that is, puppet) governments, such as Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary (to pick a few examples) governments, and the Baltic republics, which were occupied by Soviet forces and incorporated into the Soviet Union as "republics" (that is, subdivisions). Any map between 1945 and 1989 will show Poland as a nation and Estonia as a subdivision of the Soviet Union. Only legalists will say that Estonia was a sovereign nation during that time. One can argue over whether considering Poland to be "sovereign" is questionable, but there is a difference. If there weren't a difference, we might have consensus and not need this RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
The issue of occupation isn't relevant here. What is relevant (and is missing in the infobox) is that the Baltic states were independent nations before their incorporation into the USSR. As Asbjorn Eide writes[3]
"State restoration occurs when a previously independent state has been incorporated into a larger entity for some time but subsequently has regained its independence. The prime examples from recent time are the three Baltic states which were incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1940 and regained their independence in 1991."
Thus there is a distinction between the newly created "post-soviet" states that never existed before (i.e. the 11 successors) on one hand, and states that had existed previously (i.e. the 3 restored states and the one continuator). --Nug (talk) 03:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
The theory that the Baltic states are "restored states" means that they were never incorporated into the Soviet Union. Had they been incorporated, then they would be successor states. If Scotland for example becomes independent, it will be a successor state of the UK, not a revived Scotland, because historic Scotland was incorporated into the UK. TFD (talk) 04:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Nobody disputes that the Baltic states were incorporated into the Soviet Union, that's irrelevant. Your hypothetical example of Scotland is also irrelevant since Scotland isn't independent yet and WP:CRYSTALBALL applies. What is relevant is what these post-communist states assert themselves and whether the international community accepts that assertion of continuator/successor/restored state, which they do. --Nug (talk) 05:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

You quoted Statehood and the Law of Self-determination, "The Baltic States' position is that they never de jure formed part of the Soviet Union and that consequently, they do no consider themselves to be successors of the Soviet Union." (21:14, 26 May 2013) "Incorporated" means to become de jure a part of a country.

You also provided lengthy quotes from the UK government's paper on Scottish independence[4] "Reversion to a previous independent state such as the pre-1707 Scottish state may not be excluded. But it normally depends on conditions that are absent here, such as the unwilling subjugation of the former state." "What these statements suggest is that their formal legal identity of the Baltic states, rather than being extinguished in 1940 and then revived in 1991, was preserved throughout that period. It was significant that Russia’s control, though effective, was tainted by illegality." (12:38, 23 December 2013)

Crystal ball btw does not preclude our use of informed sources that write about possible future events.

Anyway, can you please decide whether the Baltic states were incorporated into the USSR and are therefore no different from any other SSR or were they never incorporated and were preserved during the period of occupation?

TFD (talk) 06:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Your claim that "Incorporated" means to become de jure a part of a country is synthesis and is in any case a red herring. It is immaterial whether or not all the SSRs were considered equal in the past during the Soviet period, or how Scotland could be regarded in the future. What counts is how the post-entity states are viewed today at present. As Webber writes[5]:
"The Baltic states themselves have taken the stand that they continue the identities of the states existing before 1940. Accordingly this view states cannot be regarded as new states and therefore they cannot be successor states of the ex-USSR. This view has also been accepted by both the international community and the writers of international law. …. If Russia were not seen as the continuator state of the ex-USSR, the question would be of total succession. In that case all former federations, excluding the Baltic states which deserve special treatment, are equal successor states of the USSR. …. This is not the case, however, as the opposite view that Russia is the continuator state has gained acceptance and therefore the question is of partial succession."
By partial succession the author means that only 11 states are accepted as true successors. --Nug (talk) 06:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
It is not synthesis to say that to become incorporated into something means to become part of it. That is what the word means. See for example the Insular cases article which explains how the U.S. distinguishes between incorporated territories, which are part of the U.S. and unincorporated territories, such as Puerto Rico, that are under the control of the U.S. but not part of it. But lets use your language. If the Baltic states were never part of the USSR and were merely occupied, just as Poland was, why include them at all?
TFD (talk) 07:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
It is synthesis if you attempt to apply the status of territories acquired by the United States in the Spanish–American War to the Baltic states, unless there is a source that makes such a connection. The issue isn't what occurred during the Soviet period, but how 15 post-communist states that emerged after the Soviet period are viewed now. Reliable sources say that the view of Russia as continuator, the three Baltic states as restored states and the remaining eleven as new successors is generally accepted. --Nug (talk) 08:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure who the "Webber" being cited as the author of the quote above is. The quote comes from a specialist international law book, in which the name Webber does not appear, which discusses the issues of state succession in a convoluted and technical fashion and in the specific context of international law and its interpretation. That's a level of debate way above what is needed in an infobox and in any event, the author is not quite as conclusive as you are trying to suggest – they talk for example, about differing "views" and as your own excerpt notes, about the title of continuator as simply having "gained acceptance". Nor of course is it the one and only text to analyse the issue legally; and, besides, others apply the terminology in non-legal contexts.
As for that latter point and as for Mark Webber, as pointed out previously, he in fact is on record as saying on p3 of this book that the term successor state, while having a specific meaning in international law that can be said to exclude the Baltics and Russia, is "to be preferred above others" when discussing all 15 states as it has "fallen into common usage" and is the tag "favoured in academic and diplomatic discourse". Even if the infobox went so far as to use "successor" for all 15, regardless of any arcane legal debates, we'd have justification for that right there – not an individual example of use but an explicit meta-assertion about wider usage – but of course the infobox doesn't and nor is anyone proposing that it should: it in fact relies on the broader phrase and standard infobox parameter "succeeded by".
You're framing this, as ever, as if the question is: "are all 15 states or just 11 considered Successor States under international law?" Everyone else is asking the question: "what states emerged from the collapse of the Soviet Union, and hence succeeded it in ordinary English language terms, and how do we best represent that simply and per usual WP practice in an infobox?" Of course you're getting a different answer to everyone else. The former is a complicated issue which needs to be in the text of the main body, which in turn needs to take in a variety of views rather than being reduced to simplistic and definitive labels. The latter is what is needed in the infobox. N-HH (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Nug, you have stated that the Baltic States were never part of the Soviet Union., but merely occupied. If they were not part of the Soviet Union, why do you think that they should be in the infobox? OTOH, if they were part of the Soviet Union, they have now succeeded the Soviet Union, as has Russia, and there are 15 successor states. TFD (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
@N-HH, as explained to you before Webber's assertion that the label "successor" has "fallen into common usage" because it is "favoured in academic and diplomatic discourse" is contradicted by another source also written in 1996 where Talari writes that the view of the Baltic states not being successors is "accepted by both the international community and the writers of international law", since it is through academic and diplomatic discourse that writers of international law and the international community respectively communicate. The fact that Webber evidently needed to devote an entire page in his book arguing a justification for his alternate definition shows that it is not commonly held, and in fact his usage is confined to his own study.
The inbox guide[6] clearly expresses as a first preference for listing states "under international law" and a second preference for listing additional states beyond those defined under international law, if required. As the guide states, the majority of readers expect to see official successors under international law, it is consistent with that expectation to appropriately annotate those minority of cases those states that are not official successors.
Your claim that annotating these additional states appropriately is some kind of unjustifiably narrow legalistic "pettifogery" just isn't supported by the spirit and intent of the infobox guide. --Nug (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Stop claiming that first point as the end all be all of the documentation. Clearly the USSR falls under the second preference.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Stop wiki-lawyering. Invoking the second preference does not mean that the expectation of most readers to see the official successors suddenly disappears. The expectation remains, and appropriate annotation of the second preference with the 1-11-3 format to meet that expectation is within the spirit of the infobox guide per WP:IAR. --Nug (talk) 05:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
How am I the one wikilawyering in this argument?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't see "wiki"-lawyering in this argument, that is, playing games about Wikipedia rules. Maybe I have missed something. I do see hostility and incivility. I also reliance on international lawyering. The whole argument has gotten tiresome, therefore this RFC so as to get this issue resolved for a while. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
And I see a ton of bad faith. Wikilawyering is "Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles", the underlying principle of the infobox guideline is the preference for indicating official successors under international law, annotating the infobox with the 1-11-3 format is within the spirit of that. --Nug (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
You keep twisting the wording of the template's documentation to suit your needs. That's wikilawyering.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. As has already been pointed out, by me and others, the guidance says that one option is for the infobox to note simply "the main and/or official .. successor (under international law)". When it then talks about the alternative of listing "every state that was formed", which readers might well "expect to see", it says nothing whatsoever about international law or about noting any minor differences in status under it. What the first option is clearly getting at, which it explains by referring to the example of Turkey and the Ottoman empire, is naming the one state that has, above others, broadly assumed the personality and legal responsibilities of the former entity (ie in fact, in the terminology Nug prefers, the "continuator" rather than the "successor[s]"). In this case, this would simply be Russia on its own, an option no one is calling for. There's nothing there to back up this campaign. It really is time to drop this and let this page move on to bigger things. N-HH (talk) 09:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
ps: as for a point made a few posts back by Nug in response to my observations about Webbers assessment, there is no contradiction between his comments and those you quote from another writer. Webber is not arguing that the Baltics are "successor states" under international law, as he makes explicitly clear. If you really don't understand what he is saying and, after all this debate, you still do not get the fundamental point that the term is used with different meanings in different contexts, you are either genuinely confused or are deliberately stringing this debate out. In any event this is a whole side-debate, as we are not talking about using the precise term "successor state". N-HH (talk) 09:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
pps: it's quite a stretch, which no one else commenting seems to agree with, to say that the "spirit" of the guidance is that the infobox should be an exposition of international law per se and that this means we need to differentiate, annotate and use sub-headings. It talks about the "official .. successor" and "international law" in the case of the first option for the simple reason that if you're going to choose one state out of many, you have to have criteria for making that choice. Once you take the other option of simply listing all the states, there is no such choice to make and hence the issue is redundant. N-HH (talk) 10:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@Jaan: Oversimplification is the point. Detail doesn't belong in infobox, should be in prose, ad infinitum.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Simplification is desirable, but when oversimplification impacts factual accuracy then it becomes a problem, as the aim of inboxes is to present a summary of key facts.
@N-HH: Webber is simply adapting his own particular definition for the purpose of his book and wrote a one page justification to defend that definition lest he gets smacked by his peers. He didn't write the inbox guidelines and his cherry-picked definition is doesn't apply here.
Again, it is a fallacy to insist that the info-box options are mutually exclusive. As been pointed out to you, invoking the second option to list "every state that was formed, not just the official predecessor/successor", does not suddenly deprecate the expectation of readers in seeing the official successors as defined by international law. That expectation still remains and there is nothing in the letter of the guideline prohibiting appropriate annotation that removes the confusion that arises from a reader having formed an expectation after seeing most info-boxes list only the official successors. Readers out number editors and it is unreasonable to expect them to be familiar with the info-box guidelines and to understand in some exceptional cases additional states have been listed. The aim is to improve the encyclopaedia, not damage its reputation by inconsistently presenting information across articles. --Nug (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, they are mutually exclusive. One suggests "list only the primary successor under international law" (in this case Russia) and the other says "list everything that people commonly associate with the end of the country" (the modern fifteen sovereign states). You can't combine them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
And for the umpteenth time, the infobox should not substitute for discussion in the text. The issues with continuation, succession, and independence are covered in the prose where it should be. Nowhere in the template documentation does it say "make a complex table describing the intricacies of the status of the nations under international law should there be multiple means of the new means of sovereignty".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Soviet Union referendum, 1991

In the opening it reads:

Central authorities initiated a referendum, boycotted by the Baltic republics and Georgia, which resulted in the majority of participating citizens voting in favour of preserving the Union as a renewed federation.

This makes it sound as though only by the Baltic and Georgian boycott was the result what it was. Maybe change it to "[...] initialiated a referendum which resulted in [...]. It had an 80% USSR-wide turnout despite being boycotted by [...]"? That 80% figure is from Soviet Union referendum, 1991. Fedjmike (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC) https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=589099167870927&set=a.266281000152747.59002.100003125461016&type=1&theater — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.160.174.66 (talk) 03:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2014

I would like to add more languages.

Никола́й Вави́лов (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as your request is unclear - where would you like to add "more languages" and why?
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

USSR socialist?

It is disputed by reliable sources whether USSR ever established socialism to any form or to any degree, most stating that the USSR was in fact state capitalist.

Here's just a few: 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 7

So please do not write that the USSR was a "socialist" state, much less "communist". It can only be written that it self-described as socialist or that it has commonly been described as socialist. Zozs (talk) 04:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but none of these sources - marxist.org, communistvoice.org, theanarchistlibrary.org - are reliable for the claim being made.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
According to who? You? These sources are collections of texts and they include very important authors. Zozs (talk) 06:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Stating that the USSR was a "Marxist-Leninist single-party state" is absolutely unquestionable, stating that it achieved socialism is controversial... mind-boggling just how much others want to push their own opinion when perfectly neutral terms are available. Zozs (talk) 06:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek: I would disagree that marxists.org is unreliable in terms of information; it's an archive, they don't just create their own stuff to archive. So you are just wrong there. The things that were in the archive may change up the situation a bit, though, so I will agree that the claim being made does not have enough support, in my opinion. No change should be made. Dustin (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
According to WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. Specifically, within WP:RS, these would fall under WP:SPS (self published sources). And since these are not mainstream sources they would obviously fall under WP:FRINGE.
It's possible that these could fall under WP:BIASED. Well, if they weren't self-published. Basically if you could come up with published scholarly sources which represent these opinions, then they could be used under WP:BIASED in *some* articles, with proper attribution ("according to...") and in an appropriate place (not the lede), although care would have to be taken to ensure that no WP:UNDUE WEIGHT is given.
Now, please stop edit warring against multiple editors across multiple articles in order to push your views through.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
The article only claims once - in the lead - that the USSR was socialist. The USSR "was a socialist state on the Eurasian continent that existed between 1922 and 1991." It is sourced to "Marxist Approaches in Anthropology", which is behind a paywall. While I doubt many sources would say it was capitalist, we should not say unequivocally that it was socialist. TFD (talk) 11:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
In other related news, Christian websites are now WP:FRINGE and Richard Dawkins is from now on responsible for defining what is and is not Christian.[sarcasm] →Σσς. (Sigma) 20:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Funnily enough, only the last source (No. 7) seems like it could be treated as reliable and it pretty much concludes that the Soviet Union was not capitalist: "Thus the state capitalist hypothesis is unpersuasive, in either its ‘internalist’ or ‘externalist’ form". I do not think that Soviet Union was genuinely 'socialist', but it is definitely described as socialist country by a ton of sources.129.178.88.82 (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Still gives proof of the notability of the dispute between whether it is really socialist or not. Zozs (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Soviet Union should be referred to as "Stalinist". Soviet Russia (1919-1922) should be referred to as "War Communism". 2001:4C28:4000:721:185:26:182:38 (talk) 09:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

So you think Lenin and Trotsky were Stalinists? TFD (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Lenin was Leninist and Trotsky was Trotskyist. Dustin (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, let me explain it. 1917- October revolution, Lenin instals "Military Communism" to defend Russia from the White Russians. Expects the rest of the world (Germany especially) to follow up on another revolution so that they could support each other (Marx said that a well faring capitalist nation would be the best fundament of true Communism, Russia becoming the vanguard of Communism is probably the most unforeseen event in history (Imagine the USA turning Communist tomorrow))


1922- German revolution has been dead for years and Lenin doesn't expect any other nation to start a revolution soon. Bolsheviks install "NEP" (New economic policy) a system which collectivized the means of production. There has never been an example of true democracy on such large scale in the history of humankind. (At this point, USSR is Socialist)


1926- Lenin dies, Stalin comes to power. Stalin fixes a lot of problems but to solve them he had to reduce true Democracy to a non existent level. Initiates One state party, yadda yadda, Stalinists pigs stay in power until 1991, then refuse to let go and then they split up all Capital between them. So there you have it, majority of Soviet Union was Stalinist. RomanK79 (talk) 09:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Under the NEP, some peasants had private property and market-based mechanisms were allowed. As I understand it, it was a necessary evil at the time because of WWI and a civil war, millions of deaths, and a total collapse of pretty much the entire economy. The USSR had no way to complete the revolution in the countryside at the time, and so they made this concession. Lenin commented that it was a necessary measure that would help socialism, but also emphasised caution as to prevent a return to capitalism. As for the majority of the USSR being Stalinist, I am sure that Stalinism is a word used to describe the policies and theory behind the USSR from the 1920s to 1953. In a short summary of what could be considered a useful definition: whether and how to adopt socialism in one country, the transition from the NEP to collective farms, and the purges. But despite this, I acknowledge that there are some anti-USSR socialists and anarchists who follow the earlier term, describing everything post-Lenin as Stalinism. →Σσς. (Sigma) 21:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Most of the sources are from Trotskyists, such as Tony Cliff. Your last source, which is a reliable source (the History of Economics Review''), is a paper explaining the Trotskyist view. It concludes, "the state capitalist hypothesis is unpersuasive.... It is more appropriate to see the Soviet Union as a challenger to all forms of capitalism. Not a genuine socialist challenge, certainly...."
There is also a paper by Emma Goldman, but she does not say the USSR was "state capitalist", just mentions that it has been called that.
There are different ways of viewing the Soviet Union, and there may never be agreement. My favorite is that its system was a method for developing countries to industrialize without capital, which makes it a transition stage from pre-capitalist to capitalist society. It explains why revolution would come to Russia but not Germany, why repression was used and how and why the system ended.
TFD (talk) 12:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

This phenomenon in my opinion reminds of another "classic" Wikipedia hullabaloo. Namely, making edits that "the Nazis were not really right-wing". Recently a POV similar to this was pushed with regards to the Khmer Rouge, that "they weren't really socialists". It would seem that there is a POV motive to distance movements with a bad reputation (Nazis, the USSR, Khmer Rouge) from their respective political axis. Socialism and communism, especially, have so many variants and currents that claims about "not being true socialism" seems like an endless swamp with indeed Trotskyists for example disagreeing with Marxist-Leninists. Of course Trotskyist opinions from RS should be added to relevant articles, but not remove the mainstream definitions. --Pudeo' 04:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not the same thing. No one (including Trotskyists) claims that the Soviet leadership were not communists, they argue about whether their system could be described as socialism. The debate is whether or not working people in the Soviet Union owned and controlled the means of production. According to the Soviet leadership they did, but other observers claim that effective control was held by the Communist Party leadership, which allowed them to obtain personal ownership of factories, businesses and agricultural land when Communism ended. No reliable sources claim Nazism was left-wing, that view is only expressed in fringe websites, while most academic sources do not accept that the Soviet Union achieved socialism. Furthermore, while under Marxist theory socialism is a transitional stage to communism, it turned out that whatever system Communist countries had was a transitional phase to capitalism. TFD (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Stalin wasn't a Marxist-Leninist. He "introduced" his own brand of pseudo-communism. It can rightfully be called Stalinism.99.54.188.176 (talk) 23:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Successor States

I think the list of successor states in the infobox needs to be reordered. Russia, as the continuer state, should be listed first, followed by the others in order of size or other importance. This is how it is done on the pages of almost all other former states. For example, look at Ottoman Empire.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.71.207.142 (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Fix the intro description

The intro as it currently stands describes the Soviet Union in the first sentence as a "Marxist-Leninist state". It does not say that it was a political-economic union of constituent member states, that it was socialist, that it was a federal structure, that it was multi-national - just that it was a "Marxist-Leninist state". No where in any union constitution does it say that the state was "Marxist-Leninist", so this description itself is false. Not to mention vague. What is "Marxist-Leninist" as pertaining to a state? Do Marx and Lenin run the state? To describe a state, it's a subjective and empty term that has no content. This is unencyclopedic and should be removed, which is why I sought to have it replaced with:

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Russian: Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Респу́блик, romanized: Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik) abbreviated to USSR (Russian: СССР, romanized: SSSR) or shortened to the Soviet Union (Russian: Сове́тский Сою́з, romanized: Sovetskij Soyuz), was a multinational federal union of socialist republics on the Eurasian continent that existed between 1922 and 1991. It was governed as a single-party state by the Communist Party with Moscow as its capital.[1] The largest sovereign state on earth, covering up to one sixth of the planet's land area, its government and economy were highly centralized.

Simple, concise, an accurate description, and also a brief geographical description which is standard with country articles yet is currently lacking. --Mundopopular (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Bridget O'Laughlin (1975) Marxist Approaches in Anthropology Annual Review of Anthropology Vol. 4: pp. 341–70 (October 1975) doi:10.1146/annurev.an.04.100175.002013.
    William Roseberry (1997) Marx and Anthropology Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 26: pp. 25–46 (October 1997) doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.26.1.25
  • The intro as it currently stands describes the Soviet Union in the first sentence as a "Marxist-Leninist state".
Several reliable sources describe it as so and it isn't Wikipedia's mission to speculate based on existing information.
  • It does not say that it was a political-economic union of constituent member states
It does: "A union of multiple subnational Soviet republics, its government and economy were highly centralized.".
  • [It does not say that it was] socialist
In only the lead itself it states that the economy was highly centralized, that industry was state-owned, that the name was "Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics", that it was governed as a single-party state, and that it was ruled by the Communist Party. Additionally, the way the economy functions is well-explained in the body of the article, and some of it even in the intro. This is enough to let the readers know the information and understand. It's not Wikipedia's job to have to judge whether this is "socialism" or not and replacing all the information by a trigger-word in the intro "it was socialist" (saying that it is an unquestioned truth). This is an attempt to give an air of "officialness" to that information. Wikipedia is not here to serve points of view in a fast-food manner.
  • [It does not say that it was] a federal structure
Then add the word "federal".
  • [It does not say that it was] multi-national
It does: "A union of multiple subnational Soviet republics"
  • [It just says] that it was a "Marxist-Leninist state"
A well-established concept which means exactly one form of state, with a well defined structure as defined by several sources, and multiple reliable sources backing that the Soviet Union was this. It does not describe the ideology, it is a well-defined explanation of what the specific form of organization of the state is.
  • No where in any union constitution does it say that the state was "Marxist-Leninist" so this description itself is false
Here in Wikipedia we don't describe things by what they claim of themselves ("primary sources", which are to be avoided); we describe them by what reliable sources said. Additionally, the Soviet Union explained well that its ideology is Marxism-Leninism.
So it's false just because they didn't claim they were that? Again, we go by reliable sources, not by primary sources. Additionally, they DID claim they follow Marxism-Leninism.
  • Not to mention vague
Not to me. It means exactly something, and exactly what it means and the form of state organization it entails is well-defined by several sources. "Socialist" would be vague as that term can mean a thousand things.
  • What is "Marxist-Leninist" as pertaining to a state?
Please read all the research available from reliable sources on what a "Marxist-Leninist state" and its specific form of organization entailing most details is, as well as how Marxism-Leninism itself claims a state should be organized.
  • Do Marx and Lenin run the state?
Obviously not and no reader will think that.
  • To describe a state, it's a subjective and empty term that has no content
This has been already explained. EXACTLY what it means with the specific details of its organization which are common across all Marxist-Leninist states are well described. It's not subjective; it's stated by several reliable sources. It means exactly one thing and is MUCH more specific than the alternative descriptions.
  • This is unencyclopedic and should be removed
No. Reliable sourced information is encyclopedic and should not be removed.
  • Simple, concise, an accurate description
"Simple"? I'd say that your proposed description could imply a thousand things, and does not explain what the form of organization is, which can be described in a single term, but rather substitutes for fast-food form of information. Concise? I'd say the current one is more so concise. Accurate? The current description is exactly what the reliable sources say, no more and no less, and absolutely no deviations.
  • also a brief geographical description which is standard with country articles yet is currently lacking
What, in that the capital is "Moscow"? The current article already says that, but you can add more geographical information if you want.
However, thank you for your contribution, but I'm afraid the current reliably sourced, objective & perfectly accurate (as it does not deviate at all from the reliable sources; no more, and no less), and unquestionable (it cannot be controversial) description should not be replaced for a controversial, speculative and subjective one. Zozs (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
"Marxist-Leninist state" is an odd term. Both Marx and Lenin's stated aim was the abolition of the state, and each recognized that the capitalist state was in some circumstances preferable to the socialist state. But it appears to be a widely used term. Maybe for clarity we should say it was "a Marxist_Leninist state, that is a state according to Marxist-Leninist principles." TFD (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Marxism-Leninism is not Marxism and Leninism. Marxism-Leninism is Stalinism; i.e. the socioeconomic ideology created and installed in several countries by Stalin, even though the term "Stalinism" itself most often refers to Stalin's style of governance itself (for instance, political repression). The connection with original Marxism and Leninism, is, at best, remote, and they were just used as a means of pretending ideological adherence. However, how close or not this ideology is to what its name suggests, or what its principles are, are not things for Wikipedia to judge. The point is that "Marxist-Leninist state" is a well-established concept which entails a very specific form of state organization.
and each recognized that the capitalist state was in some circumstances preferable to the socialist state
They did not say so. What Marxism said, though, is that states like the Soviet Union are state capitalism rather than socialism. If terms were used accurately, "socialist state" would instead refer to the dictatorship of the proletariat (something which did not exist in the Soviet Union), which is indeed the transition stage between capitalism and communism (which are modes of production) according to Marxism, and thus preferable. Zozs (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
They thought that the establishment of capitalism was necessary before a socialist revolution should occur. So Marx praised "liberal revolutions", Lenin did not think Russia was ready for socialism, until he discovered the law of unequal development, and Stalin encouraged Mao to support a bourgeois state in China. Ho Chi Minh and Castro both initially hoped to follow a liberal model. Stalinism is often used as a term of abuse, but strictly speaking it was the ideology of Stalin - the last Stalinist state was Albania. It's pretty apparent that the method of governance of Khrushcev marked a break with Stalin. TFD (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, what Marxism says is that the communists should support the liberal/bourgeois revolution and the advance of capitalism, which is a progress in comparison to the previous stage as understood by historical materialism. There are two things which can be referred with by Stalinism: a) Marxism-Leninism; a political ideology created and entirely developed by Stalin which formed the basis for all the so-called "socialist states" of the 20th century, and entailed many details of organization. b) Stalin's style of governance: political repression, gulags, show trials, i.e. not part of a political ideology. Stalinism (Marxism-Leninism) is a scientific definition of a political ideology; Stalinism the "style of governance" is not. According to "anti-revisionist Stalinists", Stalinism ended in the Soviet Union in 1953, whereas according to regular Stalinists, Stalinism ended in the Soviet Union in 1991. Kruschev marked a break with Stalinism the style of governance, but not Stalinism the ideology. i.e. society was liberalized, maybe there was more freedom, but the political ideology, social and economic system, organization model of the state is unchanged. Zozs (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Can you provide sources for these "regular Stalinists" who claimed to be Stalinists and how they distinguish Stalinist ideology from Stalinist "style of governanace?" TFD (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
By "regular Stalinists" I mean the ones who describe themselves as Marxist-Leninists, and by "anti-revisionist Stalinists" I mean the ones who describe themselves as "anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninists" (such as Hoxha and Mao). What I mean is that in a general context Stalinism refers to Stalin's style of governance - political repression, specific policies, etc. - whereas, in a Marxist context, Stalinism refers to Marxism-Leninism; the political ideology he created. Marxists distinguish Stalinism the style of governance from Stalinism the ideology, Marxist-Leninists do but call it "Marxism-Leninism" rather than Stalinism (which, according to Marxists, ought to be its actual names), and anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninists do not. Zozs (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm supposed to take this seriously. I don't know why we are supposed to pretend that because several sources use the word "Marxist-Leninist state" to describe the USSR that therefore this is an acceptable label to use to summarize the USSR in the lead sentence. This is written as though by sectarian ideologues who are pushing an extremely political agenda through this article rather than an open academic analysis. This talk section that I opened up has devolved into talking about Stalinism and anti-revionism. Seriously???? I still assert that the changes I proposed ought to be put into the lead instead of the current unencyclopedic and utterly terrible writing that the article's intro presently contains.

Your response is also quite terrible. First of all, if you're trying to convince me that it is academically agreed upon that the USSR can concisely be labeled as a Marxist-Leninist state, it might surprise you that I'm not that stupid. It doesn't matter how many articles you may find which label it as such, it does not mean that this is a concise label that is agreed upon among historians. Also, to say that a Marxist-Leninist state means one kind of state is fundamentally absurd and bafflingly ignorant. Are you trying to tell me that the German Democratic Republic, USSR, and People's Republic of China are all an identical form of state? Also, if the constitution of the USSR does not describe the state as being Marxist-Leninist, then it cannot be labelled as being Marxist-Leninist without such a label being noted that it is a secondary speculation. The USSR was a state, the CPSU was Marxist-Leninist constitutionally, and the two are separate and distinct. "Marxist-Leninist state" is not a proper label and should not be used on Wikipedia.--Mundopopular (talk) 08:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why we are supposed to pretend that because several sources use the word "Marxist-Leninist state" to describe the USSR that therefore this is an acceptable label to use to summarize the USSR in the lead sentence.
Wikipedia is based on reliable sources.
instead of the current unencyclopedic and utterly terrible writing
So writing based on reliable sources is unencyclopedic, but the opposite is not?
it does not mean that this is a concise label that is agreed upon among historians.
Actually, it does. Wikipedia is written based on reliable sources.
Are you trying to tell me that the German Democratic Republic, USSR, and People's Republic of China are all an identical form of state?
All these states had a model of state and specific policies in common; that form of organization is what is known as "Marxist-Leninist state".
Also, if the constitution of the USSR does not describe the state as being Marxist-Leninist, then it cannot be labelled as being Marxist-Leninist without such a label being noted that it is a secondary speculation.
Defining a state by what its own constitution says is making use of a primary source; here on Wikipedia we don't go by what someone or something says of itself, but on what reliable sources say about it.
The USSR was a state, the CPSU was Marxist-Leninist constitutionally, and the two are separate and distinct.
Correct. The USSR was also a Marxist-Leninist state according to reliable sources. Zozs (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
None of this addresses what I actually have said, merely quoting me then inserting a passive response. The fact remains that the USSR was 'not' a Marxist-Leninist state for the entirety of its history, nor does the term itself have a concise definition. And please don't try to say again "but there are several links I can provide which call it that". Yeah, I don't care, that doesn't change the fact that this is a lousy way to describe the USSR. The CPSU was a Marxist-Leninist party for most of its history, the USSR was never a self-described Marxist-Leninist state. Nowhere in the constitution of the union or in any union law is the union defined as being "Marxist-Leninist", fundamentally because it the state does not have its own ideology. It was governed by a party which did have its own ideology, which anyone with an education in the Soviet Union can tell you that the Communist Party was the governing force of the state which did so using Marxism-Leninism -- the 'state' did not use Marxism-Leninism. This doesn't make any sense from an academic standpoint nor is it suitable for an encyclopedia. --Mundopopular (talk) 04:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but Wikipedia is based on writing on reliable sources - so yes, it does matter that sources say it, even if you don't care. Again, it is irrelevant what any individual or entity says about itself - Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, what sources say about it. The Soviet Union was a Marxist-Leninist state for almost the full time it existed. "Marxist-Leninist state" describes the form of state organization, not party ideology. Zozs (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Let me approach this in a different way. The reason it's called "Marxist-Leninist single-party state" is because a single party state tends to be described with the leading ideology of the ruling party. The legally ruling party in USSR was the Communist Party, and its ideology was Marxism-Leninism. Abstractematics (talk) 02:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2014

REPLACE: * Comrie, Bernard (1981). The Languages of the Soviet Union. Cambridge University Press (CUP) Archive. ISBN 978-0-521-29877-3.

WITH: * Comrie, Bernard (1981). The Languages of the Soviet Union. Cambridge University Press Archive. ISBN 978-0-521-29877-3.66.74.176.59 (talk) 06:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Why would we want to change it to a redlink? Stickee (talk) 07:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 Not done Like Stikee, I don't see any reason to change the link into a red one. --Biblioworm 15:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Map of Soviet influence

In the "Khrushchev Era" section there is a map that shows the West Bank as separate from Jordan in 1961 when in fact it was a part of Jordan from 1948 to 1967 and has never been an independent state. However, fixing the map is well beyond my capabilities so I'd like to draw attention to this (minor) inaccuracy. Blocky1OOO (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Someone clean that first paragraph

It looks so damn dirty and messy. You know, sometimes it is better to sacrifice some information in order to have more readability. Someone make sense out of that. Tetra quark (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Revolutionary Russia 1891 - 1991 by Orlando Figes

Wikimedia UK is delighted to announce that we have been given some copies of E-books from Pelican Books to give to Wikipedia editors, of which Revolutionary Russia 1891 - 1991 by Orlando Figes may be of particular interest to editors who contribute to this article. More details including application details are at Wikipedia:Pelican Books. Sorry, but for commercial reasons this offer is not available for editors in the USA. Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 11:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

State emblem

@Zacwill16: Per 1980 decree of the Supreme Council of the USSR, which seems to reaffirm previous colors, "the continents are light brown" ("материки светло-коричневые", as in File:Coat of arms of the Soviet Union.svg), while in File:Emblem USSR 1.svg they are red. Check out the emblem on the 1977 Soviet Constitution, for instance, and State Emblem of the Soviet Union#Gallery. Brandmeistertalk 14:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

CCCP Dominance.

In the intro, it is claimed industrialization and collectivization was a) a consequence of Stalin's governance and b) lead to soviet dominance post-wwII.

It is more fair to say that in spite of Stalin's authoritarian behavior, the Russian people were able to collectivize, industrialize, and dominate the Eastern European continent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.113.94.46 (talk) 01:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Holodomor

Sub article on holodomor? 8 million genocide man made famine created by USSR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xelophate (talk • contribs) 00:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Soviet Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The first archive is a dead link, so I removed it from the article. Other two are OK. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Soviet Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Tatarstan and Chechnya (Ichkeria)

Tatar Autonomous Republic and Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic of the RSFSR made changes to their constitutions just prior to dissolution of the Soviet Union stating that their respective constitutions has precedence over both constitution of the Soviet Union and the Constitution of RSFSR. That might be interpreted as getting independence. Nobody took that seriously at the time. Certainly nobody recognized the sovereignty of those republics, it was the time of strange laws then a district of Moscow city made a similar change in their local laws. For Tatarstan the story remained as a judicial curiosity, for Chechnya/Ichkeria in a couple of years time, it became a claim to legality of separation during the First Chechen War.

The story desreves to be included as a section, but putting Ichkeria and Tatarstan to the infobox without providing any references as direct descendants of the Soviet Union is highly misleading. Alex Bakharev (talk)

Agreed. XavierGreen had attempted this edit originally and reverted himself, but only because the infobox syntax had defeated him. I re-introduced and fixed his edit in a purely gnomish way so that it could be considered. His original comment in the edit summary was: "Tartarstan and Ichkeria also separated from Russia, and left the soviet union prior to its dissolution, they were both later reintegrated into Russia". As you say, it is probably overstating the case. The Chechen-Ingush story made the Western news at the time, but was overtaken by events to become little more than a footnote in history. It would still be nice if we could include the information somewhere in the article. Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I think the information should be included in the article, and in the "decendent" countries portion of the infobox. In regards to Tartarstan, it was more than a judicial curiosity, the government in the early 1990's there attempted to assert there sovereignty, issued there own currency, ect, however given that none of the surrounding republics attempted to secede and that Tartarstan was completely surrounded by Russia, the Tartarstan government gradually ceded back there self proclaimed sovereignty to Russia.XavierGreen (talk) 14:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Soviet Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2016

That begin makes no sense, why is that there? HijoDelCid (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Suggest removal

This edit. Yes, it is sourced, but I see two problems with this. First, this is not about Soviet Union (subject of this page). Second, the study is ridiculous. Yes, there were increased death rate, increased disease, increased unemployment, increased prices, increased murders, increased suicides, etc. during this time. Was it all caused by privatization, economic hardship, crime or something else? The study does not show what was the cause, it only show correlations. My very best wishes (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The correct response is to expand upon the edit - not to remove it. There is no question that the collapse of the USSR and the two subsequent economic shocks (initial privatization and the 1998 crisis) were closely correlated with increased mortality. But as in all cases of mass death, the causes were more complex than "failed economic policy". The collapse of the USSR was followed by impoverishment, stress, collapse of services, increased alcohol abuse, lag-effects of earlier alcohol abuse, crime, as well as ethnic conflicts spearheaded by by the successor states (Russia's total war in Chechnya being the most prominent example). The very same report from Lancet goes into all this complexity at great length, giving particular attention to alcoholism. I also suspect that the 1 million figure is an understatement. maybe it only pertains to the first few years, in order to zero in on the effects of initial collapse. I remember seeing crude excess-death figures that were much higher that this figure - not surprising, since life expectancy plummeted and stayed depressed for two decades. The correct response is to flesh out these issues, not to sweep them under the rug. Using the same callous approach one could deny outright the role of the Soviet regime in the famine of the 1930's, citing peasant sabotage (i.e. blaming the victim), crop blight etc. In the social sciences, there is always a great deal of ambiguity and debate about cause and effect, especially when major social changes are being discussed. You can never pin the single "cause" down precisely, like you can in the hard sciences. The description of the Lancet study as "ridiculous" is completely uncalled for. It's not "ridculous" to examine the mortality spike in the Post-Soviet space - which is a serious problem for anyone who cares about what life was was like after the collapse of the USSR. Guccisamsclub (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Anything about mortality rates in the SU in 1930 does belong to this page, because it was in the Soviet Union. However, anything that had happened after dissolution of the Soviet Union belongs to page Post-Soviet states. You are very welcome to place this info in Post-Soviet states. Then the only remaining issue will be reliability of this study. There is nothing "ideological" about it. My very best wishes (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
That's an argument for removing the whole section, not just the passage. As for "reliability", was this your objection: " Was it all caused by privatization, economic hardship, crime or something else? The study does not show what was the cause, it only show correlations." Yet the very edit you removed and the Lancet study do not assert that "privatization was the cause". The headline was that the collapse was "associated" with the mortality crisis - precisely the "correlation" you talk about, not a blanket assertion of causation. I think, with due respect, that you are wrong here. I think that the consensus is to keep the passage you removed.Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
the study is ridiculous--goodness we have editors arguing demography with the leading medical journal in Britain???? The impact of the collapse of the final decades of the Soviet Union on its people is a very important topic. Rjensen (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Correlation does not imply causation. This paper tells: "Mass privatisation programmes were associated with an increase in short-term adult male mortality rates". Hence they conclude the privatization was the cause. Yes, this is laughable, something that became a target of numerous jokes. For example, "Cucumbers will kill you! All people who died from cancer did eat cucumbers. All people who were born in 1850 and eat cucumbers are already dead.", and so on. My very best wishes (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
They conclude that economic collapse (partly caused by privatization) was a factor behind the increased mortality, along with factors like alcoholism and violence. Their argument is based on comparative statistics and, in a separate paper, and on the fact that there is a residual increase in mortality after bad health choices are accounted for (you have to read the entire thing to get what they are talking about). While the link between mortality and cucumbers is absurd, the link between mortality and socio-economic collapse is certainly not. Are you seriously comparing a situation where economic output is halved, social services and jobs are eliminated, and inequality skyrockets, all in one go, to eating a cucumber? Does anyone deny all these things had a negative effect on living standards, at least for the first decade? I doubt that even someone like Chubais would deny the obvious these days. Anyhow, this is not the place to debate an eminently reliable source, especially with unsourced nonsense about cucumbers. Your cucumber argument could be applied to virtually any mortality crisis where there are multiple factors involved, and in every case it would be considered bonkers. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
BTW:if you actually did a study you would find little correlation between cucumber consumption and cancer. Well, maybe you would might find a weak correlation suggesting the two are inversely related. If cucumber consumption is positively correlated with vegetable consumption, you might even find a somewhat stronger relationship. Point is that you should probably do a cucumber study and get it published. It would will be a sensation in Russia, where people love cucumbers.Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree. FWIW, the phrasing here could be improved: "According to British medical researchers, the economic shocks associated with wholesale privatization was associated with a sharp increase in the death rate". This is A) awkward B) needlessly attributed. The fact that the death rate skyrocketed in the early 90-s is uncontroversial (we have hard numbers on this - not "estimates"). Neither is the "association"/"correlation" between economic collapse and death rates. It is only statements about causation that would be potentially controversial. I say change it to: The economic shocks associated with wholesale privatization were accompanied by sharp increases in mortality. Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
No, this is NOT about "the final decades of the Soviet Union". Here is latest source, and it tells about "post-communist countries". My very best wishes (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
As I've already pointed out, your "irrelevance" argument would be more persuasive if: a) you deleted the whole section; b) you did not start off with an entirely different argument about the study being "highly questionable" and a straight-up strawman about "correlation not implying causation". Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
So, you do agree this is not about Soviet Union? My very best wishes (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, like the rest of the section. But it is relevant to the article, as the very phrase "Post-Soviet States" implies. If "irrelevance" had really been the crux of your argument, you would have deleted the whole section. I've probably said all this a dozen times already. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
yes it is about the Soviet Union, which controlled the economies of its satellites and those economies collapsed too for much the same reasons. The Demographic disaster in eastern Europe have been well covered by leading experts and it's only our cucumber man who is unaware of that. Rjensen (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
So, the actual reason for the increased death rate was the economic collapse, not privatization. That sounds more logical. But the paper in Lancet does not tells about economic collapse in the Soviet Union (it did happened under Gorbachev because of falling oil prices). It tells about economic collapse in post-Soviet Russia and other countries that are not Soviet Union. Saying that, I am leaving this page to you, guys. Do whatever you want. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 00:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the exchange. The economic collapse we are talking about happened after the USSR ceased to exist. There was no economic collapse under Gorbachev until 1990, when the administrative controls broke down entirely, and even then it was dwarfed but what came later. And the oil-price hypothesis is far from being a theory, despite it's popularity in some quarters. The Soviet economy was far less dependant on oil than Russia's economy is today. This is not to say there was no continuity between the USSR and Post-Soviet gangster capitalism. There certainly was: the transition was spearheaded or supported by a major section of the Soviet apparat.Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

This Image The graph contradicts population statistics provided by this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimIsPabu (talk • contribs) 03:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The total population frome the page that you are referring to is 292,600,000. It contradicts the projected population only slightly, and does not contradict any historical data. Of course the projection for after 2020 may turn out to be completely wrong, but it's too early to tell.Guccisamsclub (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

RSFSR as the world's largest administrative division by area

Should it be mentioned that, during the late Soviet period at least, the Russian SFSR was the largest administrative division in the entire world? In addition to being the largest division of the world's largest sovereign state, the RSFSR was itself larger than any sovereign state in the world (other than the state containing it, obviously). After all, Canada -- the second largest sovereign country -- is only about half the size of the RSFSR. Can any administrative division today claim the distinction of being larger than any sovereign state except its own? I cannot see how this would be possible unless the modern Russian Federation establishes an administrative division that will be larger than all of Canada. --75.119.247.20 (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Communism in Russia

It seems to me that the underlying economic principles of a country could be in the same article as said country. ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 12:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose Communist ideology has existed as a major political force in Russia both before and after the Soviet period. Charles Essie (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose for the same reason as Charles Essie. Zaslav (talk) 07:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

christian persecution

were christian persecuted all the way up until the very end of the USSR? Was this even the case in the Gorbachev era of the Soviet Union? Samusclone (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2016


178.120.210.172 (talk) 04:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC) Poland and China were not in the USSR

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Topher385 (talk) 09:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Well the question is, the article does not mention areas ceded to Poland or disputed by China. Before closing a request for change with a template reply one should have the decency to address the issue. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Could we get some better maps please?

The maps attached to his article are not particularly helpful. They all show only geographic extent of the USSR without any other landmarks. There are no cities, or internal boundaries, either current or historic. Making them even more difficult to decipher they are odd polar projections, which change the outlines of areas quite drastically.

Having one of these maps (say the first one) is useful to show the extant of the USSR on the planet, it was impressive. But having all the maps have the same limitations is weak. Was Warsaw in or out of the USSR? How about Kiev? Where are Moscow and St. Petersberg in relation to the boundaries of the USSR? All basic questions that can't be answered by looking at this article's illustrations. ZeroXero (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Totalitarian rule?

The idea that the Soviet Union was totalitarian has been widely criticized, as pointed out in the article for totalitarianism itself, so why is it that the Soviet Union is declared to be totalitarian so bluntly in this article? Gilded-cage-fighter (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

human development index

I added the Soviet Human Development Index in 1990 to the economy section, but would that be more suitable under demographics?Holden3172 (talk) 02:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Holden3172

Denonym in infobox

The population of the Soviet Union were all Soviets, NOT Russian. Russians only referred to ethnic Russians or peole in the RSFSR, not the whole USSR. It is like calling everyone on the UK English. This is very offensive to people from the other republics in the USSR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C3:5580:1A00:84C6:4743:440:B7BC (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

With 15 republics and 100 recognised nations, pretty much anything is an oversimplification. On the other hand, I agree: we can't just call them "Russian". The term "Soviets" doesn't really work either because that is just a word meaning "councils", not people. The trouble is that we have no word in English to adequately describe them. Flanker235 (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Soviet people was a thing: it described the people who lived in the USSR, just like "Americans" applies to people who live in the USA. Guccisamsclub (talk)
The only rider on that is that the citizens of the United States generally call themselves "Americans". Do we know - for interest's sake - what citizens of the Soviet Union called themselves (if anything)? Flanker235 (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's what they called themselves, in addition to Russians, Georgians, Uzbeks etc. As always, there are differences in how strongly people identify with the country as a whole as opposed to a particular ethnic group within that country. Soviet was certainly a less cohesive category than American. But anyway, it's use in the ibox is relatively unproblematic. Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Moy adress Sovetskiy Soyuz was a hit.Xx236 (talk) 06:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
At Moscow State University (where I was a professor in 1986) they called themselves "Soviets" and complained when western academics called them "Russians." Rjensen (talk) 06:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Soviet_Union/Archive_16&oldid=1151018384"