Talk:Soviet Union
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Soviet Union article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 91 days ![]() |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Soviet Union. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Soviet Union at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Soviet Union was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 8, 2004, and December 26, 2006. | ||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() |
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened: |
Did you know nomination
[edit]- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Schwede66 talk 17:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- ... that Source: Boris Yeltsin came into power on July 10, 1991?
- Reviewed:
Created by 342rfawrfarefarwf (talk). Self-nominated at 18:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Soviet Union; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
Unfortunately the article is not eligible for DYK as it is not newly-created, it was not expanded at least five times, and it wasn't promoted to Good Article status within the last seven days. In addition, no hook has actually been proposed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 18:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Invasion of Poland
[edit]need to mention why the SU made a pact with nazi Germany. It was in order to split Poland and get revenge for the last Polish Russian conflict in early 1920. Blaki974 (talk) 11:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- That's debatable.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- I know that this talk is old and that I don’t have the full context of the conversation, but how is it debatable? Isn’t it an objective fact that the USSR made a pact with Nazi Germany to divide and get revenge on Poland after the USSR lost territory to the Polish at the Peace of Riga? LordOfWalruses (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- This is post hoc ergo propter hoc. If you're saying that some event in 1920 directly caused some event in 1939, the burden of proof is on you. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- this is not debatable.
- Occupation of Poland (1939–1945)#:~:text=In September 1939, Poland was,of the former Polish territory. AlasdarVan (talk) 05:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- I know that this talk is old and that I don’t have the full context of the conversation, but how is it debatable? Isn’t it an objective fact that the USSR made a pact with Nazi Germany to divide and get revenge on Poland after the USSR lost territory to the Polish at the Peace of Riga? LordOfWalruses (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Successor?
[edit]Was the Soviet Union legal successor to the Russian Empire? Marquis05 (talk) 05:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- The Soviet Union was not the legal successor to the Russian Empire in a straightforward legal sense, but it was its de facto successor AlasdarVan (talk) 05:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Can you explain? Marquis05 (talk) 06:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe they could, but Wikipedia talk pages are not forums. Ask the question on a forum like Reddit instead. Yue🌙 06:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- So we should add two words "de facto" at the beginning of the article to avoid misunderstanding. Marquis05 (talk) 06:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Internationally, it was indeed recognized that the SU was the legal successor to the RE, due to the acquisition of all RE assets, and it did assume many of the Empire's responsibilities and positions both domestically and internationally. But, the Soviet Union implemented a new legal and political framework, distinct from that of the Russian Empire, which could be an argument for the succession not being LEGAL. While the SU itself did not recognize (did not claim) the legality of their succession, it was de-facto.
- It is also hard to say if int.community officially recognized the SU as the LEGAL successor of the RE. They did recognize the legality of establishment of the SU, though not succession. An example would be a mention from the US History Governmental website on USSR, where it states:
- "With the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, the United States considered the Russian Federation as the successor state of the USSR"
- No mention of neither de jure nor de facto. AlasdarVan (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Forget about the example. I did not notice it was about the Russian Federation and USSR, not USSR and the RE. Sorry AlasdarVan (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Can you explain? Marquis05 (talk) 06:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Russian Republic succeeded Russian Empire. Mellk (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Cities spelling correction
[edit]According to Wikipedia's Manual of Style of Ukrainian related articles should be written according to the current accepted English spelling. For Ukraine-related articles, the guideline specifically recommends "Kyiv". e.g. "Kyiv" is the current internationally recognized spelling, reflecting the Ukrainian government's preference and the city's official name in English.
Important to include the past name within the historical context. So all mentions of Ukrainian cities such as Kyiv, Dnipropetrovsk, Odesa, Lviv, Kharkiv should be written in Ukrainian spelling, and not Russian, which is the current spelling: Kiev, Dniepropetrovsk, Odessa, Lvov, Kharkiv.
The inclusion of the historical (past) name of those cities should only be mentioned once as follows, e.g. ... Kyiv (known as Kiev during the Soviet period) AlasdarVan (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm curious. WP:KYIV states "for unambiguously historical topics (e.g. Principality of Kiev), do not change existing content." A rule of thumb given is pre-1995 or pre-1991, therefore a "historical" label applies to this article. How can your changes be justified in that context, then? AbsoluteWissen (talk) 06:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with AbsoluteWissen's reading of the policy. Kyiv is the accepted name today, but as AlasdarVan said, not during the Soviet period. The supermajority of English-language primary and source secondary sources discussing the Soviet Union use the old Russian spellings for city names, particularly those written before the late 2010s. Thus, it is preferrable to have the historical spelling, which is why the exception AbsoluteWissen mentioned exists. Yue🌙 06:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Agree. Though partially, according to the same WP:KYIV,
- "
- The following rule of thumb for determining what is current or historical was also established:
- From October 1995 (Resolution of the Ukrainian Commission for Legal Terminology No. 5), Kyiv is presumptively appropriate subject to specifics of the article.
- From 24 August 1991 (Ukrainian independence), Kyiv is likely to be appropriate, but proceed with caution.
- "
- So I suggest to keep all mentions of Ukraine's cities in Russian spelling, though every mentioned of those cities in the context of historical period starting 24 August 1991, change to the Ukrainian spelling. AlasdarVan (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Short description
[edit]Please take seriously the short description. Do not frivolously discard a perfectly good short description because it "sounds odd". Feel free to use this section of the talk page to start a discussion of possible improvement to the short description. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
1986 Study should be removed
[edit]Someone is trying to push personal agendas when linking the debunked 1986 study about quality of life. The study is not peer reviewed, incorrectly lists multiple capitalist countries with decentralized economies socialists and vice versa. The sample size is also only 33 countries which suggests even more sampling bias. Regardless of your opinions the source is not reliable and has many detractors. Davionwiki (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Successor list should include de facto successors
[edit]The Gagauz Republic was a de facto successor to the Soviet Union and should be listed as such. It declared independence from the Moldavian SSR and never formally seceded from the union. Whether or not it was internationally recognized is irrelevant because it was functionally independent and not part of overall Moldova at the time of the USSR's official dissolution. SavagePanda845 (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- In the documentation for Template:infobox country, I don't see any guidelines about deciding what entities should be included in the "Succeeded by" column. Am I missing something, or, alternatively, has this issue been resolved, or even discussed, in the talk page for that template or in any other talk page anywhere?
- Looking at German Empire, I see that the "Succeeded by" column includes Memel territory, Territory of the Saar Basin, and Danzig. But for some reason, it doesn't include various other pieces of territory that were carved out of Germany after the first world war. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I had added the Gagauz Republic as one of the Soviet Union’s successors. It was removed, I re-added it with a summary, and it was removed again. It took it to talk to not start an edit war. SavagePanda845 (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think we should create a uniform standard for each successor states. I don’t know if the Gagauz Republic should be here at all. YDMC192 (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Another question about a piece of the old Soviet Union being a successor is Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, which has caused at least one edit war. Also Transnistria.
- Since this is Wikipedia, perhaps we should be using notability as a criterion, rather than diplomatic recognition by other nations, or "functional independence" (whatever that is). With that as the criterion, all three of these states should be on the list. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think that they should only put sovereign states recognized by the United Nations. That’s just my opinion. Because that’s the only format. YDMC192 (talk) 07:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't say "functional independence" as if that's a widely recognized status countries seek to achieve. I meant that if a break-away nation holds territory and functions independently from the nation they broke away from, then it should be included. Like, that is literally what a country is and diplomatic relations shouldn't matter. Case in point, North Korea is very much considered its own country, despite not being recognized by their southern neighbors. Of course that doesn't mean you have to support them or believe they should exist. Personally, the idea of "recognizing" countries is just silly to me, because they're there whether you like them or not. SavagePanda845 (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Usually it is said that 15 republics emerged from the USSR. The infobox should summarize key details, the information about breakaway states should be mentioned elsewhere. It is not possible to adequately communicate the nuances in the infobox. This all depends on the sources. Mellk (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Include only the sovereign states recognized by the United Nations organization or something. YDMC192 (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Notes are often used in infoboxes though for unclear things or for clarification. They may not give every bit of information as like you said, infoboxes summarize key details, but they do condense it and leave it readable. SavagePanda845 (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- How many breakaway states and self-proclaimed states were there? Should we include a footnote for every single one? Mellk (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that the infobox should be a summary of key details, a point that I had forgotten. From MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, this is a statement of the basic paradox: "The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance."
- At present, a summary of the breakaway and self-proclaimed states is given in the last paragraph of the "Post-Soviet states" section. This is little more than a bunch of links, but I think that is adequate for the purposes of this article. I also think that the infobox should list only the 15 republics (plus perhaps the CIS). However, future editors will be tempted to re-add the breakaways to this list, and if a single footnote mentioning them would help to discourage that, it might be useful. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps it can be done in a similar as in ru:Союз Советских Социалистических Республик, where it states UN member states only, and the footnote mentions the Russian Federation as the continuator state and other details, if necessary, Mellk (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe that as you described but only the states recognized by the United Nations only. YDMC192 (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps it can be done in a similar as in ru:Союз Советских Социалистических Республик, where it states UN member states only, and the footnote mentions the Russian Federation as the continuator state and other details, if necessary, Mellk (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- How many breakaway states and self-proclaimed states were there? Should we include a footnote for every single one? Mellk (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Usually it is said that 15 republics emerged from the USSR. The infobox should summarize key details, the information about breakaway states should be mentioned elsewhere. It is not possible to adequately communicate the nuances in the infobox. This all depends on the sources. Mellk (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think we should create a uniform standard for each successor states. I don’t know if the Gagauz Republic should be here at all. YDMC192 (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I had added the Gagauz Republic as one of the Soviet Union’s successors. It was removed, I re-added it with a summary, and it was removed again. It took it to talk to not start an edit war. SavagePanda845 (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were NEVER part of the Soviet Union
[edit]Why does the article insist on naming these three sovereign states as having preceded the USSR and succeeded it when they were never legally a part of it, but rather illegally occupied by it? Basically only criminal Russia today claims that they were legitimately part of it. At the very least, the infobox should make it VERY clear that these three are considered to have been illegally occupied by the USSR and don't consider themselves as neither predecessors, nor successors of the USSR.
Also, the sentence "In August 1991, Latvia and Estonia immediately declared the restoration of their full independence (following Lithuania's 1990 example)." is rather simplistic history and makes it look as if Estonia and Latvia truly followed Lithuania's example when getting rid of the Soviet rule. The real timeline of events was far more complicated and all three had declared Soviet rule to have been legally null and void from the start in early 1990, in a rather short timeframe. Estonia had even been the first to declare sovereignty from the occupying USSR. I suggest this sentence be revised - the word "example" should be changed to "declaration". 146.255.183.23 (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Independent confusion between Estonia, Latvia and Armenia
[edit]Well since both got their independence restored possibly on the same year and month (Like Latvia: Either 5/4/1990 (Declared/Partial Independent) or 8/21/1991 (Fully Independent), and Estonia: Either 5/8/1990 (Declared/Partial Independent) or 8/20/1991 (Fully Independent)). It's pretty confused for people to think what the actual date is that they restored their independent. Let's hope someone can make this less confused. Don’t forget about the Armenia’s independence (despite it gained in 8/23/1990 as declared/partial and 9/21/1991 and fully). As of according to the actual history or government, 4 countries left the Soviet Union not just 1— Preceding unsigned comment added by STB363 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- Wikipedia articles that use Oxford spelling
- Wikipedia articles that use British English
- Delisted good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- B-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-3 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in History
- B-Class level-3 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-3 vital articles in History
- B-Class vital articles in History
- B-Class Soviet Union articles
- Top-importance Soviet Union articles
- WikiProject Soviet Union articles
- B-Class socialism articles
- Top-importance socialism articles
- WikiProject Socialism articles
- B-Class Atheism articles
- Mid-importance Atheism articles
- B-Class Russia articles
- Top-importance Russia articles
- Top-importance B-Class Russia articles
- B-Class Russia (history) articles
- History of Russia task force articles
- B-Class Russia (human geography) articles
- Human geography of Russia task force articles
- WikiProject Russia articles
- B-Class former country articles
- WikiProject Former countries articles
- B-Class history articles
- Mid-importance history articles
- WikiProject History articles
- Pages in the Wikipedia Top 25 Report