Talk:Dissolution of the Soviet Union

Is the new lead photo a perfect illustration?

I think the current top image, is great for this article, but the Russian flag doesn't really illustrate the union as a whole coming apart, rather than simply the Russian SSR reorganizing. It also implies a single event marked by the flag-lowering, rather than several years of separatism culminating in the flag-lowering. Perhaps a collage of key events would be more suitable? Would love to hear thoughts on this. Wodgester (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

A collage including the flag-lowering, as well as other key events in the collapse of the Soviet Union, might be an interesting idea. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 18:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

This might be more urgent, however, for the Revolutions of 1989 article, which is about a broader topic yet still only includes one infobox image. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 13:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Nazarbayev Portrait.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Contradictory statement

Could anyone help me understand the following statement? Or confirm that the paragraph is indeed contradictory and should therefore be revised:

Consequences

Economic decline, hunger, and excess mortality

In the decades following the end of the Cold War, only five or six of the post-Soviet states are on a path to joining the wealthy capitalist states of the West, and most are falling behind, some to such an extent that over 50 years will be needed before they catch up to how they were before the end of communism. However, virtually all the former Soviet republics were able to turn their economies around and increase GDP to multiple times what it was under the USSR.

Am I missing something? If most are "falling behind"... how can "virtually all" have multiplied their GDPs??? Ninito159 (talk) 03:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 4 April 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Malerisch (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

---

Dissolution of the Soviet Union → Collapse of the Soviet Union –

• "collapse of the Soviet Union" is about four times as common as "dissolution of the Soviet Union" (and the other alternatives of "fall" and "breakup") according to Ngrams: [1].
• There are many more results in Google Scholar: 156,000 for "collapse" [2], 37,700 for "fall" [3], 30,700 for "dissolution" [4], and 18,900 for "breakup" [5].
• Dissolution of the Soviet Union § Further reading lists 12 sources with "collapse" in the title (including what I'd consider the most comprehensive source for this topic, the 2021 book Collapse: The Fall of the Soviet Union) versus just one source with "dissolution".
• Britannica's equivalent article is titled "collapse of the Soviet Union": [6].
• Both The Cambridge History of the Cold War [7] and The Cambridge History of Communism [8] use "collapse" in their chapters about this topic.

Based on this evidence, "Collapse of the Soviet Union" is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME for this article. Malerisch (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose This article is about the dissolution specifically, and not the broader events that led to it. 128.193.54.168 (talk) 10:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the collapse specifically, and not the broader events that led to it. DrakerBaker (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not, read the first sentence 128.193.54.168 (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Existing main title header is analogous to other headers, such as Dissolution of Austria-Hungary, Dissolution of Czechoslovakia, Dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire, Dissolution of the monasteries in Portugal, Dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles, Dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, Dissolution of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, Dissolution of the Russian Empire, Dissolution of Serbia and Montenegro or Dissolution of the union between Norway and Sweden, to name but ten. On the other hand, "Collapse of..." seems to bring up entries such as Collapse of Jiujiang Bridge, Collapse of the Royal Plaza Hotel or Collapse of the World Trade Center. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Roman Spinner If the concern is about WP:CONSISTENT titling, I'll note that "Dissolution of X" is hardly the only way that articles about the endings of civilizations/countries/empires are titled: see Late Bronze Age collapse, Classic Maya collapse, Collapse of the Georgian realm, Division of the Mongol Empire, End of the Han dynasty, Fall of the Western Roman Empire, Fall of Constantinople, Fall of the Serbian Empire, Transition from Sui to Tang, Transition from Ming to Qing, Breakup of Yugoslavia, etc. Some articles have "dissolution" in their name due to WP:COMMONNAME, and others don't because it's not. In fact, some of the "Dissolution of X" articles could actually be titled with "collapse" per WP:COMMONNAME:

• Dissolution of Austria-Hungary: "Collapse" is more common according to Ngrams [9], has more Google Scholar hits (1000 vs 700), and is what Britannica calls it: [10].
• Dissolution of the Ottoman Empire: "Collapse" is more common according to Ngrams [11] and has more Google Scholar hits (10400 vs 3700).
• Dissolution of the Russian Empire: This is a stub and probably just titled after this article, but "collapse" is more common according to Ngrams [12] and has more Google Scholar hits (2400 vs 300).
• Dissolution of Czechoslovakia, Dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire, and Dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles are correctly titled just because they're the WP:COMMONNAME according to Ngrams, not because of consistency: [13] [14] [15].
• Dissolution of the monasteries in Portugal and Dissolution of the Parliament of the United Kingdom are not about civilizations or countries.
• Dissolution of Serbia and Montenegro is a redirect, not an article.

Malerisch (talk) 03:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose The dictionary definitions of the words dissolution and collapse are quite clear. Pyeongchang (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, which is why it's relevant that a clear majority of reliable sources choose to describe the end of the Soviet Union as a "collapse" rather than a "dissolution". Malerisch (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Much too vague. Not sure what it is referring to. Collapse of Soviet Union as a great power? Collapse of the Soviet Union's economy? Collapse of the Soviet Union's prestige? Collapse of the Soviet Union in Olympic medal counts? "Dissolution" seems clearer. Walrasiad (talk) 09:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

You won't find a single source referring to the USSR's prestige or Olympic medal counts when using the phrase "collapse of the Soviet Union". By this standard, isn't "dissolution of the Soviet Union" vague as well since it could refer to the dissolution of, say, Soviet gulags or Cominform? Malerisch (talk) 09:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

"Dissolution" of a union - any union - makes sense in English. And it necessarily implies an end to that entity. Collapse means anything falling down from a certain height. It doesn't necessarily imply any sort of end. Just that something fell from a certain height it was at before - be they geographic size, global influence, GDP numbers, population, literacy rates, football rankings, etc. "Collapse of Soviet Union" does not necessarily imply an end to anything. It simply means the Soviet Union fell in some ranking. And I don't know which ranking you're referring to. Dissolution is clearer. The dissolution of a confederation of sailors' & workers' councils implies that entity is no more. Walrasiad (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

In the proposed title, "collapse" is referring to a state collapse, which is a well-defined concept and isn't vague at all. No reliable source uses the phrase "collapse of the Soviet Union" to refer to anything other than the topic of this article. Malerisch (talk) 11:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

That's not only not clear, it is also an incorrect description. "State collapse" has an entirely different meaning than here. Anarchy did not prevail. However tricky the post-Soviet order may have been, characterizing it as "state collapse" is a rather stretched POV. If that's what you mean (or if it might be confused with that), that's all the more reason to reject the proposed title. Walrasiad (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

This is confusing a failed state with a state collapse. A state collapse refers to a situation where the structure, authority (legitimate power), law, and political order have fallen apart and must be reconstituted in some form, old or new. On the other hand, it is not necessarily anarchy. [16] It doesn't refer to anything "post-collapse" and doesn't imply anarchy. Even the Wikipedia article makes this clear: the first sentence just says a state collapse is a sudden dissolution of a sovereign state. Malerisch (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, per accuracy. Collapse seems to indicate an instantaneous event, the Soviet Union's dissolution took a bit longer than something in the state of 'collapse'. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2024 (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.

Why gorbachiv responsible for disintegration of ussr

gorbachiv responsible for disintegration of ussr 49.14.109.157 (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Papers are being deleted for no reason. (Brian D Taylor, Mark Kramer, John B Dunlop, Adrian Karatnycky, Peter J. Potichnyj, Taras Kuzio, Laura Blaj)

There are claims that Yeltsin forcibly dismantled the Soviet Union, but many experts deny this. Experts point out that the most immediate event that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union was the 1991 Ukrainian independence referendum.

According to Brian D Taylor, the 1991 Soviet coup attempt that failed, most of the republics adopted declarations of independence, the most important of which was that of Ukraine on 24 August. By the end of September, eight republics had declared independence: Belarus, Moldova, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Tajikistan and Armenia. These declarations of independence were largely symbolic and did not mean withdrawal from the Union. Negotiations on the union continued for several months, but in the end, in the 1991 Ukrainian independence referendum, more than 90 per cent of Ukrainians voted for independence. Almost all observers agreed that serious federal discussions were impossible without Ukraine's participation. On 6 December, shortly after Ukraine's independence referendum, the Supreme Soviet of Ukraine adopted a new military oath pledging loyalty to Ukraine. On 13 December, Leonid Kravchuk proclaimed himself Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and declared that the Ukrainian Armed Forces would be formed from Soviet troops stationed in Ukraine.

According to Mark Kramer, Boris Yeltsin often expressed his willingness to accept the independence of the Baltic states and Georgia and Moldova. But he wanted to preserve the Union. What deprived Boris Yeltsin of this option was the surge of independence sentiment in Ukraine after the 1991 Soviet coup attempt. The Ukrainian referendum on independence in 1991 resulted in an overwhelming vote for independence. For Yeltsin, the only way to preserve the Soviet Union was to use massive force against Ukraine.  However, Yeltsin chose not to do this and instead recognised the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

According to John B Dunlop, Boris Yeltsin had agreed with Gorbachev to stay in the Union, but the condition of staying in the Union was that Ukraine should not secede from the Union. Yeltsin tried to maintain the Union, but gave up when 90% voted for independence in the 1991 Ukrainian independence referendum.

According to Adrian Karatnycky, It may have been Russia and Boris Yeltsin who thwarted a coup and brought down the Soviet Communist Party, but it was Leonid Kravchuk and Ukraine that ultimately brought down the Soviet empire. Ukraine's rejection of Mikhail Gorbachev's Union Treaty led to the immediate collapse of the Soviet Union.

According to Peter J. Potichnyj, Boris Yeltsin and Mikhail Gorbachev consistently sabotaged Ukraine's independence. On December 1, 1991, the results of the Ukrainian referendum showed that more than 90 percent of the electorate voted for independence. Because the referendum was conducted in an open and democratic manner, it convinced Russia and world leaders that the Soviet system was no longer viable or sustainable.

According to Taras Kuzio, in the period between the declaration of independence in August 1991 and the independence referendum in December 1991, Boris Yeltsin and Mikhail Gorbachev tried to keep Ukraine within the Soviet Union. Yeltsin's intention was to keep Ukraine within the Soviet Union, but when the 1991 Ukrainian independence referendum resulted in an overwhelming 90 per cent vote in favour, Yeltsin was unable to implement his plan to keep the country within the Soviet Union.

According to Mark Kramer (2022), even after the failed coup of August 1991, Boris Yeltsin hoped to preserve the union linking Russia and Ukraine with Belarus, Kazakhstan and other Central Asian republics. By the autumn of 1991, however, it was clear that the majority of Ukrainians would vote for full independence on 1 December. Yeltsin realised that it would be impossible to maintain the Soviet Union after the 1991 Ukrainian independence referendum, and eventually joined the Belovezha agreements and the Alma-Ata protocol.

According to Laura Blaj, the Ukrainian Communist Party rejected the Soviet reforms of Gorbachev and Yeltsin. This was a decisive factor in Ukraine's overwhelmingly positive vote. The Communist conservatives were allied with Ukrainian nationalists, and the result of the Ukrainian referendum on December 1, 1991, led directly to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Why delete these papers? Anti-Soviet1991 (talk) 10:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC) Anti-Soviet1991 (talk) 10:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

You changed this so nearly all of this paragraph is about one viewpoint for the immediate cause. One sentence is enough per WP:DUE. If you disagree, then we can restore the stable version (remove all of your changes), then discuss. Mellk (talk) 11:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I request that you provide evidence that I have ignored WP:DUE. Anti-Soviet1991 (talk) 11:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

You are including eight/nine paragraphs about the immediate reason, this is not due weight, when the section should not just be mostly about this one viewpoint for the immediate collapse. Since you created your account a few days ago, you are clearly not familiar with all the policies. Mellk (talk) 11:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Please demonstrate how the paper by Brian D Taylor, Mark Kramer, John B Dunlop, Adrian Karatnycky, Peter J. Potichnyj, Taras Kuzio, and Laura Blaj violates WP:DUE. Anti-Soviet1991 (talk) 11:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. You are adding far too much detail into this viewpoint about the immediate collapse when the section should cover much more than this. Mellk (talk) 11:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Citing an article by Brian D Taylor, Mark Kramer, John B Dunlop, Adrian Karatnycky, Peter J. Potichnyj, Taras Kuzio, Laura Blaj does not violate Wikipedia's rules. Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources

Why don't you mention these rules? Anti-Soviet1991 (talk) 11:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Just because you can cite something, does not mean it belongs here. See WP:ONUS. Mellk (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The rule you propose could be a basis for deleting a sentence, but not for deleting Reliable sources. Why would you delete Reliable sources when you can just fix the sentence? Anti-Soviet1991 (talk) 11:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Initially I did not delete the sources, I simply deleted the excess text and moved the references to the sentence about the viewpoint that the independence referendum is seen as the immediate cause. Is that not sufficient? Mellk (talk) 11:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Explain why it is inappropriate to cite the articles by Brian D Taylor, Mark Kramer, John B Dunlop, Adrian Karatnycky, Peter J. Potichnyj, Taras Kuzio, and Laura Blaj. I have used Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources as evidence. Anti-Soviet1991 (talk) 11:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

What the article says should be based on consensus. I disagreed with the edit, so the next logical step would be to discuss the edit, as advised by WP:BRD. I did not remove the references initially but your edit added too much detail and some of the paragraphs were repeating the same information. As mentioned in WP:DUE, undue weight can include depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements etc. Mellk (talk) 11:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

In the ‘Historiographic explanations’, Edward Walker and Vladimir Putin are mentioned by name as authors. But why can't Brian D Taylor, Mark Kramer, John B Dunlop, Adrian Karatnycky, Peter J. Potichnyj, Taras Kuzio, Laura Blaj be mentioned? Also, isn't Vladimir Putin one of the ‘Biased or opinionated sources’ and ‘Questionable sources’? Wikipedia:Reliable sources Anti-Soviet1991 (talk) 11:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

If you think that the other text does not belong in the article, that is fine, you can start a new discussion saying why you think it does not belong in this article. But I have simply restored the WP:STABLE version. Mellk (talk) 11:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

You object to the citation of a journal article, yet you do not object to Vladimir Putin's claims being published as an author in ‘Historiographic explanations’. Anti-Soviet1991 (talk) 11:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

No, I restored the WP:STABLE version. If you wish to delete the text by Putin, then this belongs to a new discussion. This discussion is about the text you added about the immediate reasons for collapse. Mellk (talk) 11:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The exclusion of articles by Brian D Taylor, Mark Kramer, John B Dunlop, Adrian Karatnycky, Peter J. Potichnyj, Taras Kuzio, and Laura Blaj from ‘Historiographic explanations’ and the weighty mention of Vladimir Putin's claims violates both WP:DUE and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Anti-Soviet1991 (talk) 11:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, we can delete the text by Putin and include one paragraph about the viewpoint on the immediate collapse with references to those authors, is that fair? Mellk (talk) 11:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

If my sentence was inappropriate and you can write a more appropriate one, feel free to do so. For now, I'm going to refrain from editing for 24 hours, in case I get banned. Anti-Soviet1991 (talk) 11:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, was there a problem with this edit? I did not remove the references, but they are used to support the sentence that some believe that the independence referendum was the immediate cause for collapse. I also included some more detail from one paper since this is roughly similar to what the others said. If you are not satisfied with this, what would you change? Mellk (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

"Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as the flat Earth). Giving undue weight to the view of a significant minority or including that of a tiny minority might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This rule applies not only to article text but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, templates, and all other material as well." WP:DUE Did the articles you deleted fall into this category? Anti-Soviet1991 (talk) 11:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:DUE does not cover just fringe viewpoints. My point here is that there is a section about the explanations for the collapse and it is undue to have most of this section about what those authors think was the immediate cause for the collapse. I also do not think that all scholars believe the same thing here. I did not say we should completely remove it, but it is better to cut this down to a reasonable size, rather than eight or more paragraphs, and some of this was repeated anyway. Mellk (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)