Talk:Soviet Union/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Other issues for which consensus is sought

Are there any other issues besides the Baltic republics and the infobox for which consensus is being sought, or is that the only area of disagreement? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm perplexed by you query on my talk page, if you accept the Baltic states were occupied between 1940-1991 as you appear to do, then it follows that they restored their independence and thus are not considered secessor states of the USSR, that is essentially the "Baltic thesis" accepted by EU members, USA and others. So I am scratching my head over what you are actually disputing. --Nug (talk) 13:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Other Issues Besides Infobox Baltic Republic Issue?

Are there any other issues that do not involve whether to include the Baltic republics in the infobox that require discussion to get agreement before this article can be removed from page protection? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The article was fine until the "part of the USSR" argument first boiled over (this iteration, one of many, often periodic repeat instigations) some weeks ago over as a dispute over a hockey article and what someone's place of birth was, if it was a Baltic state during the Soviet era. Since that issue has migrated here, the temporary but stable solution of the existing footnotes which imply there is a legitimacy to considering the Baltic states newly sovereign successors is no longer sufficient and needs to be addressed. History cannot be held hostage to square peg in round hole template considerations. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Baltic Republics Question

If I understand correctly, there are two issues about the Baltic republics and the article. The first is what the text of the article should say. The second is what should be in the infobox. The annexation of the Baltic republics by the Soviet Union was not recognized by the Western powers as de jure, and they left the Soviet Union three months before its final breakup, but they were de facto part of the Soviet Union after World War Two. The text of the article should describe those subtleties. I don't see any reason to omit them from the infobox. They were, lawfully or unlawfully, part of the Soviet Union for five decades. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree (although it is arguably yet another example of where infoboxes force oversimplification). The key point I can see from much of the above is that, when it comes to the list of successor states in the infobox, those arguing for removing the Baltic states seem to be relying on both a very legalistic and technical interpretation of what constitutes a "successor state" and on one interpretation of what that means in this context. There may well be several sources that asserts they are not, technically, successor states – whether due to the "illegality" of the original annexation or the timing of the eventual extraction – but I can find plenty of reputable sources that quite happily include them in that category, as well as others that directly address the more specific legal question and suggest it is more complicated than simply saying, "No, they're not".

The point is that WP is not an international law manual anyway. It is a general use encyclopedia and what readers would presumably be looking for here is not a list of which countries have inherited treaty etc obligations or where Estonia et al stand, or stood, in terms of Latin legalese, but an answer to a simple question: which countries/states emerged out of the break up of the USSR? That includes the Baltic republics by any standard and by all standard reliable sources. As ever, a relatively simple question is getting mangled with politics. N-HH talk/edits 17:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to challenge your claim that "all standard reliable sources" state what you claim. No scholarly source claims the Baltic states seceded, but all the sources agree that their independence was restored three months prior to the dissolution of the USSR. They restored their independence not following the fall of the Soviet Union but prior to it. There was every expectation that the USSR would continue on in some form when the Baltic states left, except that three months later the remaining 12 republics decided to dissolve the union. Those 12 are regarded in reliable sources as successor states, not the Baltic states.--Nug (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Although I unintentionally entered this dispute (having never edited this article prior to this weekend), what you two have said most definitely hits the nail on the head here. There should be no reason to omit them from the article in any fashion, particularly if it's just an extremely close reading of the legality of the actions or the short period of time during which they were not part of the Soviet Union before the Soviet Union was no more.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry guys, but you are missing the mark entirely. Sources directly and explicitly state that the Baltic states were not successor states, the sources also directly and explicitly state that this is an uncontroverted fact, to argue otherwise is engaging in OR. For example Patrick Dumberry's monograph State Succession to International Responsibility published in 2007 summarises the current mainstream view on page 151:

"The question whether the break-up of the U.S.S.R. should be regarded as a case of State dissolution or rather a series of secessions is also controversial. The only non-controversial point is that the three Baltic States are regarded not as new States (and not as successor States of the U.S.S.R.) but as identical to the three Baltic States that existed before their 1940 illegal annexation by the U.S.S.R."

i.e. it is an uncontroverted fact. Note that only four republics are listed as predecessors, we do not list all 15, and the sources state that 12 ended up being successor states, so we only list 12. --Nug (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I've seen this quote now about 100 times; there's no need to keep reposting it. The rather more obvious and more fundamental mark you are missing is that one statement of opinion in one source does not and cannot decide this kind of question, or establish an objective fact, as if it were some trump card that overrules everything that suggests anything different. It is very much not an "uncontroverted fact". As noted, and as you have pointedly failed to acknowledge, there are different uses of the term "successor state" and even where sources are relying on the same, more technical definition, different authorities will come to different conclusions about where the line falls. I have seen analysis for example that concludes that Russia is, technically speaking, the sole "successor state" (eg it retained the UN seat – Ukraine etc didn't get a share of it). I agree though that there's probably an inconsistency with the "predecessors" column. N-HH talk/edits 21:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Relying on your own interpretation of "successor state"? Are you not engaging in OR? Uncontroverted means no other source presents an alternate viewpoint, so instead all we appear to be left with are Wikipedians chiming in with their own viewpoint devoid of any supporting source that directly and explicitly supports their viewpoint. Patrick Dumberry's monograph has an extensive bibliography which he references so we can conclude that what he writes is a reliable summary of reliable sources on the topic, when he writes "the only non-controversial point" then he has not found any alternate view in the literature. --Nug (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

You're still missing the point I'm making by a wide margin. I'm not trying to prove or promote any particular viewpoint, or disprove yours or even that of the bloke you keep quoting. I'm just saying that there are different viewpoints and interpretations out there, including alternative summaries of what the overall position is. There are. And if you really don't understand the point that quoting one person's opinion or interpretation (even if it magically happens to agree directly with what you happen to think) does not establish that opinion as fact – or don't understand that someone pointing that out is just elaborating a rather obvious point of principle rather than engaging in WP:OR of any sort – then you're not going to suddenly now, I suspect. N-HH talk/edits 21:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

What "different viewpoints and interpretations out there, including alternative summaries" are you referring to? Stop pretending such material exists, otherwise you would have posted it. --Nug (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

As the article on Succession of states explains, determining what state or states are the successors to a state is often complicated. That article states that there is one successor state, the Russian Federation, to the Soviet Union, not 12 or 15. We certainly don't want to list the Russian Federation as the single successor in the infobox. Also, different treaties have had different successor states to the Soviet Union. For instance, with respect to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), there were four successor states, the Russian Federation, the Republic of Belarus, Ukraine, and the Republic of Kazakhstan. As was noted above, there are different uses of the term "successor state" both in international law and in common sense. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Right, so we are using Wikipedia articles like Succession of states as RS now? As Patrick Dumberry writes, there is some controversy as to whether the USSR dissolved or was a series of successions, so your contentions regarding whether there were one or four successor states has absolutely no bearing upon the Baltic states. --Nug (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the issue is that you (Nug) are taking a way too strict reading of that one quote you keep posting. Before 1991, the Soviet Union consisted of the territories now occupied by the modern states of the Russian Federation, the Ukraine, Belarus, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Moldova, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Armenia, Turkmenistan, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Regardless of how the internal affairs of the Baltics played out in their initial annexation to and later seccession from the Soviet Union, they existed again as independent states following the dissolution of the USSR. There is no denying that fact. And there is no amount of quoting a single source that defines what is and is not a succession state of the USSR that can change that.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources please. --Nug (talk) 06:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

What are you asking to be sourced? That the Estonian SSR, Latvian SSR, and Lithuanian SSR existed at some point in history?—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Effort at consensus on Baltic Republic question

Can we try to establish a consensus on whether the Baltic republics should be listed in the infobox (which need not be based on international law, which anyway is complex)? Also, can someone provide a widget that will provide counts for the 15 and the 12 positions?Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

How about you first cite reliable sources that state the Baltics succeeded from the USSR rather than had their independence restored? --Nug (talk) 04:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Why are you so against the inclusion of the Baltics as states that succeeded the existence of the USSR?—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Because it is factually incorrect. What next, I know, let's see if we can get concensus to say the moon is made from cheese, just for kicks, in the article infobox (which need not be based on science, which anyway is complex)? Duh. --Nug (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It's only factually incorrect based on that one source you keep touting as the alpha and omega. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are three modern nations that were previously part of the Soviet Union. Just because they left 3 months before it fell apart does not mean they should not be acknowledged as ever being a part of the whole.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Well you have yet to provide any other alternative source that supports your contention, which thus far seems wholly based upon what you WP:KNOW. The issue of whether they should or should not be acknowledged as ever being a part of the whole is an entirely irrelevant to whether or not they are considered as seceded or restored states. The mainstream view is that they are restored states, not seceded states. Of course you are invited to search the literature for this alternate viewpoint you claim exists. --Nug (talk) 06:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You keep asking for a source when it is general knowledge that they were previously a part of the Soviet Union. I fail to see why they should not be considered as states that came out of the dissolution of the USSR just because they declared their independence before its total fall. You have yet to explain your position on this fact. You simply keep stating "give me a source" or "that's unsourced" or your other various strict readings here. The fact that there is a dispute over their exclusion shows that there is an issue with the choices that had been made by yourself and Vercrumba. If the world at large acknowledges the fact that the Baltics were previously a part of the Soviet Union (whether a peaceful incorporation or a forceful invasion), there should be no reason to omit them from the list of other modern nations that were established during the dissolution of the USSR and the formation of the CIS and RF.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Despite the insinuations above that it is because there aren't any, the reason I have not posted any sources to contradict the one quote provided by Nug is because I do not see why that is needed. Anyone with the vaguest understanding of the issue and the existing literature, or even anyone who has genuinely looked into the issue more recently by the magic of Google, would know that plenty of sources do take the Baltic states as "successor states" to the USSR, whether in an arcane technical legal sense or not. As noted, we know they were part of the USSR without needing a source for that, surely. And the point about what exactly we mean by "successor state" and that it doesn't necessarily have to be used in its formal legal sense anyway still has not been responded to at all, other than through flippant remarks suggesting that we may as well ignore science. Why should I or anyone else spend 50 minutes digging up and posting sources that either happily use the term, or those that go into the technical/legal aspects in more detail but with more nuance than and a different analysis from the one quote provided, just because Nug isn't already aware of them or can't be bothered to find them? Or when, as is quite likely, we'll just the response I see every time in cases like this, which is, "Well, those sources are wrong"? Anyway, here goes.

• Here, here and here are books which clearly take for granted the designation/categorisation of Estonia as a successor state. Here's a report compiled by the US General Accounting Office
• Here's a book that asserts that, by contrast, the Russian Federation is the sole successor state
• This book addresses the formal international law issue more directly and asserts that their status, in a technical legal sense, is "debatable – not "uncontroversial" – as well as pointing out that other countries do take them to be seceded, successor states in that technical, legal sense. This book makes a similar point about the lack of unanimity. As does this book, which includes a lengthy analysis, from p122 onwards, of the pro and con arguments about continuity – indicating of course that there is a debate to be had

N-HH talk/edits 08:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I've reviewed your sources. This source discusses the obligations of successor states in granting citizenship to citizens of predecessor states in general, and only mentions Estonia in context that it denied citizenship to certain people, so I don't think you can draw any conclusion without committing some form or synthesis.

This source refers to the numerous "successor states" in wake of collapse of the Russian empire in 1917! But I see that you have subsequently struck it.

This source was originally published in 1996 and uses the term "succession" extensively.

This source does not assert that the Russian Federation is the sole successor state, it asserts that the Russian Federation has declared itself to be the successor state of the USSR. Whether Russia asserts itself as the sole successor state is irrelevant since the Baltic states assert themselves not to be successor states.

This source writes that the Baltic states must be seen as restored states and that only "some states have treated the restoration in the context of secession". It makes no such claim that "that their status, in a technical legal sense, is 'debatable'". What is debatable is whether the Baltic states should be treated as "newly independent states" according to international law with respect to treaties, debt and State property that the Baltic states have refused to be bound by or take on, given that they do not consider themselves as seceded states.

Likewise this source discusses the secession to existing Soviet treaties, which the Baltic states explicitly rejected. It then goes on to describe that some states treated the Soviet treaties as invalid and other states declared a "clean slate" thus avoiding the question of invalidity. But it does not mention any country declaring the Soviet treaties remained valid as it would if that country was considered a successor state.

And again the other source discusses the issue of pre-1940 treaties in the light of state restoration after fifty years of Soviet rule. It writes some countries viewed the Baltic States as newly independent states and thus preferred to apply the rebus sic stantibus principle, other countries recognised the pre-1940's treaties continue to be in force, while the majority of countries have proposed revising these pre-1940's treaties on the basis that circumstances have have changed in the fifty years that have elapsed. Thus only a minority of states considered the Baltic states were newly independent successor states.

It seems that many of the sources don't actually claim what you think they claim. And you haven't really provided an alternative summary of what the overall position is beyond the issue of pre and post 1940 treaties. Note that the claim that the Baltics "seceded" is documented as Russian minority POV, see the source State Continuity And Nationality which summarises on Page 92: "It appears that today Russia, by holding the opposite opinion on the Baltic claims, is isolated on this issue."[1]--Nug (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll acknowledge the error re one source and it what context it was referring to "successor states" (I'd already struck that before you pointed it out) and that the source discussing Russia as the sole successor was, to be more precise, noting Russia's assertion in the regard rather than asserting it directly itself. Other than that, all the links I provided support the exact points that I said they did when posting them as well as the two broader points I have been making from the outset – that there are different meanings of the term depending on context and that the analysis of the categorisation in the more technical, legal sense varies more than your one purported trump quote appears to suggest. Hundreds of others are available beyond the sample I happened to link to; just as there are no doubt many others that will come down more closely in line with the "not successor states" argument. You still seem to be thinking that I am trying to prove such sources wrong or claim that they don't exist. I'm not. N-HH talk/edits 11:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

ps: I'd happily (as noted below) include a qualification – if necessary with details in a footnote – in respect of the Baltic states; or support changing the "successor states" to "post-Soviet states" or something in order to sidestep the legal arcana here. As said previously, surely what readers would be looking for here is the names of the states that emerged from the dissolution of the USSR, not a partial or variable list based on the precise legal relationships that obtain in respect of different former Soviet republics as interpreted by some authorities, or a whole treatise on that point, at least in the infobox. Yet again nationalist and political pettifogging takes over a talk page and the object of imparting basic, useful information gets lost in the murk. N-HH talk/edits 08:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You mean like in this pre-existing article?—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that might be better terminology here too (although I note that page is probably over-definitive in its intro about state continuity). Arguably it might make even more sense and be more relevant, if we are to have lists of this sort in the infobox, to simply list the actual constituent republics of the USSR, not what came before and after, but that's another debate which will only further complicate the discussion; we're starting from where we are, and this is about how best to populate and possibly name that list. N-HH talk/edits 10:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm heartened that you are prepared to seek some other solution as a compromise. The Template guide for Infobox_former_country states "For most cases, the main and/or official predecessor/successor (under international law) is sufficient, since that is what most readers would expect to see." and goes on to state "If the predecessor and successor are the same, and this predecessor/successor continued to exist during this period, do not list either. Instead, make it clear what this state was somewhere in the events section (if necessary)." which applies in the case of the Baltic states (if you believe the Baltic states were official predecessor/successor) given that the majority of states recognise the Baltic continuity thesis and the Baltic states achieved universial recognition in 1921 before the USSR was created in 1922. On that basis I would agree to listing the restoration of the Baltic states in the events section of the infobox. It you want to list Russia as the sole successor or the remaining 12 as successors that is your call. --Nug (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

As the Infobox Template notes also say: "There are no strict rules so please exercise caution and common sense when using this feature ... In some cases, most readers would expect to see every state that was formed, not just the official predecessor/successor" (however we define the latter anyway). In any event, I am not sure your proposal, if I understand it correctly, isn't still stuck in technical legalese which is going to leave a format that confuses as much as it enlightens and which also suggests a cast-iron certainty about status and continuous existence that is not there in the real world as a whole or even within the more rarefied world of legal analysis. N-HH talk/edits 12:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It is unclear why you reject Dumberry's summary as "technical legalese", he states it plainly enough. As you correctly point out there are probably hundreds of sources, however Dumberry cites an extensive bibliography likely covering a good proportion of these sources. As to your "cast-iron certainty about status and continuous existence", well the EU, US, Australia and many other countries have accepted the Baltic thesis, Russia is the lone dissenting voice, and if you want real world consequences then consider the return of assets like gold and real estate and the acquiescence of the EU and others of large stateless population which is a direct consequence of state restoration. If you list the Baltics as successor states then that just introduces a disconnect between this article and the reality on the ground. --Nug (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

My point about technical legalese isn't a specific reference to Dumberry's viewpoint but to the constant talk about state continuity, the use of Latin terms and an insistence that when we use the term "successor state" we must be using it in a very narrow, legalistic sense relating to treaty obligations, debt burdens et cetera, which is not the way it is used in the real world much of the time and which are details that most readers probably don't give a toss about. The point is also if that you don't list them, you create a separate and different disconnect. Hence why discussion has moved on to looking at maybe using a different heading than "Successor States" or adding a very brief qualification to explain that these three are often seen as not being successor states in a strict legal sense (and, btw, I'm not sure it's only Russia that asserts they are in that legal sense). However, you seem to have swatted those options away out of hand. Battleground indeed. N-HH talk/edits 13:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I hadn't swatted anything away, I offered another alternative of using the events field, the act of you claiming I did swat it away is more eligible for "Battleground indeed". And I don't know who you have been debating with, reviewing our conversation I don't see "constant talk about state continuity, the use of Latin terms", you must be referring to some other discussion elsewhere else which is irrelevant to this present conversation. Nor is there an "insistence that when we use the term 'successor state' we must be using it in a very narrow, legalistic sense relating to treaty obligations". You seem to be holding the wrong end of the stick. The fact is that the Baltic states asserted their independence as restored states not as seceded states, EU members, USA and many countries agreed with the Baltic assertion (I've provided a RS saying Russia is isolated as the lone dissenter, but you apparently don't believe that either), then what followed are the consequences of the application of the "restored state" thesis to issues such as treaty obligations and human rights, and a number of books you cite discuss the necessarily more narrow aspects of those topics. You appear to be focusing on literature that discusses narrow legalistic aspects of treaties then extrapolate that to the wider issue of restoration/secession, thinking that because that debate about the applicability of some international law convention on the applicability of some treaty is all legalistic, then that somehow means the wider acceptance of Baltic restoration among countries is also somehow legalistic, thus your offer "adding a very brief qualification to explain that these three are often seen as not being successor states in a strict legal sense" is OR because the concept that the view of not being successor states is "only valid in a strict legal sense" has not sourced, that is just your synthesis.

We could either trawl through hundreds of sources and attempt to arrive at our own summary, or we could use a reliable source that has done that for us. The risk of the former approach is that you risk synthesising position that is not found in the sources as I have demonstrated above. You have not adequately addressed why Dumberry is unacceptable, he backs his assertion with half of a page of references[2], showing how he arrived at his conclusion.

Note that Lithuania actually restored independence over a year and a half before the dissolution of the USSR, Estonia and Latvia did likewise but suspended it until three months from the end. I've offered the solution of listing the Baltics states in the events field, as suggested by Infobox Template guide. The Baltic states were incorporated and disincorporated well within the lifespan of the USSR, they properly do not belong in either the predecessor or successor fields, but ought to be mentioned as events within the life of the USSR. Ofcourse if you want to place a footnote mentioning that Russia views them as successor states, that is okay with me, we ought to represent minority POVs also. --Nug (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

On the side point of Russia v The Rest of the World, sources I linked to above as well as others I saw while looking around – which I am not going to try to dig up again now – explicitly referred, to differing extents, to "states" and international organisations that did not and do not simply accept the Baltic states' contentions about illegal annexation/restoration/continuity/non-succession etc. Some explicitly asserted that it was mainly western states that have taken the Baltic line. One source, however impressive looking, is not enough for us to say definitively that everyone in the world takes this view when other sources appear to contradict that. Again, it's nothing to do with me disputing this particular claim but to do with avoiding the one-source-as-trump fallacy.

On the main point, aside from the fact that there appears to be less unanimity on the legal aspects that you keep insisting, you still seem to not get what I am saying. Many serious sources, as demonstrated and regardless of other aspects of the legal debate, simply do not use the term "successor state" on the basis of the strict international law definition anyway. They use it, quite reasonably, in its basic English sense to mean "states that emerged out of the collapse of the previous state". Making that point is not indulging in OR, it is merely stating the obvious. That, I suspect, is the sense in which most WP readers will be seeing this issue. You have still not demonstrated why we should diverge from that. As I said at the outset: we don't want to oversimplify this issue, but we shouldn't overcomplicate it either. N-HH talk/edits 08:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

ps: and, to address one further specific point in the above post in more detail, of course debate about whether the republics seceded or had their prior independence restored is a legalistic point in itself (as well as a political one). I don't have to extrapolate to or from anything to note that. It is also, however, not relevant to whether the republics are regularly described as "successor states" in a non-legalistic sense, which is a separate point. N-HH talk/edits 09:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Succession generally refers to the transfer of rights, obligations, and/or property from one entity to another. This is not some kind of "strict international law definition", succession happens every day, just recently Willem-Alexander succeeded Beatrix to the throne in the Netherlands, assuming all assets, debt, rights and obligations of the Dutch Crown. The Baltic states explicitly repudiated all Soviet assets, debts, rights and obligations, while the 12 remaining former Soviet republics apportioned SU debts and assets amongst themselves via treaty. Your view that most readers would prefer the looser definition of "successor state" is contradicted by the Template guide: "For most cases, the main and/or official predecessor/successor (under international law) is sufficient, since that is what most readers would expect to see. In the case of any potential confusion, list only this." The confusion lays in the fact that readers expect successor states to be newly created states, yet the Baltic states are identical with pre-war republics, and readers would be confused by the contradiction between this article's infobox and articles like 90th anniversary of the Latvian Republic. If the Baltic states are to be considered both predecessor and successor as Robert suggests, then the Template guide recommends moving the state to the event field of the infobox. I've mentioned this option several times now but you seem to be studiously avoiding it. As far as Russia v The Rest of the World in terms of accepting the Baltic thesis, I've also read sources that mention "states", but none have explicitly mentioned any other states beyond Russia, and I found one scholarly source that claims Russia is isolated on the issue. Certainly if you can identify these other states (good luck, I have tried), they would still represent a minority. --Nug (talk) 11:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Succession, at its most basic, simply means following on from. And I have not "studiously" avoided your suggestion of hiving off the Baltic states into the separate "events" section. I responded directly and immediately with this comment – which added quotes from the Template guide that you conveniently elide – and have consistently argued that there is a problem with keeping them separate to that extent (indeed, that was the starting point of the discussion). By contrast, you have not addressed the option, which was raised first, of listing them together but with a qualifying note (other than to reject a perfectly valid presentational choice, oddly, as "OR") or while using a different heading for them. In spite of the point being constantly queried, you have also yet to offer any substantive, unrebutted reason for us to stick with a specific technical meaning of "successor state" and to mark a division in the infobox on that basis. You have also been batting off any reasonable discussion of such underlying points, or any attempt to weigh the sources at all, as being "OR", which it just isn't.
However, since you insist on third-party sources to back up even the most basic elements of common-sense discussion on a talk page, here is one to add the myriad examples of use already cited or elsewhere available, which addresses the issue of terminology directly. It makes many of the points about technical and common use etc that I've been making but which you have dismissed, oddly again, as OR. Page 3 of The International Politics of Russia and the Successor States, by a professor of international politics at the University of Birmingham and published by Manchester University Press, says:

• "What terminology does one use when referring to the new states that have emerged from the USSR? A variety of labels have been employed; 'former republics', 'post-Soviet republics', 'Eurasian states', and 'successor states' among others. In the main, we shall adopt the last of these. The term successor state does, it is true, have a specific meaning in international law, and as we shall discover in Chapter 3, the Baltic states have shunned the label, as has Russia. In fact, the latter has claimed the title of the USSR's 'continuing' state, a position which carries certain obligations and rights ... Nonetheless, there are a number of reasons why the label of 'successor state' is to be preferred above others. The first is a practical consideration: it has already fallen into common usage. If one tag above others tends to be favoured in academic and diplomatic discourse it is this one. Second, it has a descriptive utility, suggestive of the shared past and common, recently acquired status of the new states. Third, notwithstanding the legalistic point noted above, there is one important respect in which all the new states are, in fact, the USSR's successors – their current frontiers".

No, we don't have to follow that or accept the conclusions 100%. But it gives some academic backing to the position three of the four current contributors here are taking about the common-sense way to approach this issue, as opposed to the way that seizes on some convenient technicality and relies on pettifoggery to overstress what seems to be, ultimately, a political point. N-HH talk/edits 14:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Many writers begin their books by defining and justifying their own usage of terms in their introductory chapters so as to better frame their arguments, as their usage may not align with the accepted understanding of such terms at the time. Webber justifies his usage as essentially a matter of descriptive convenience. A source published in the same year as Webber's book writes this about the Baltic state with respect to succession:

"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."[3]

I see that you have not refuted the suggestion from the Template guide that in most cases most reader expect to see successor states as defined by international law. In seems somewhat incongruous to argue that my proposal is "still stuck in technical legalese" when in most cases most people expect to see the legal successor. You concede that Dumberry's summary isn't legalese yet on the other hand prefer Webber's convenient definition as a better fit to your POV. What you are actually contending is an exception be taken to that general case, arguing that this article most readers would prefer a broader definition so as to include all fifteen republics. That is a different argument, it is one of convenience over precision, so if the Baltic states are to be kept in the secession field a more accurate footnote would be: "Placement of the Baltic states as successor states is a matter of descriptive convenience, both the international community and the writers of international law do not view the Baltic states as successor states." --Nug (talk) 04:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Look, I've said far too much here but will respond briefly to most of the points you make above.

• The two sources we are each quoting do not contradict each other; this is the fundamental point, that we are talking about different uses of the term (and also Webber does not simply rely on descriptive convenience, he explicitly asserts – rightly or wrongly – that he is following common, standard usage; including in an academic context)
• I have not denied or refuted your (selective) quote from the Template guide. That's not possible. However, I and I think others have quoted the further detail from it, as follows: "There are no strict rules so please exercise caution and common sense when using this feature ... In some cases, most readers would expect to see every state that was formed, not just the official predecessor/successor"
• I did not concede that the Dumberry summary is not legalese. I said my comments about legalese were not "a specific reference" to him. Either way, as I keep pointing out, he is talking about the technical legal definition of "successor state". That, again, is the fundamental issue here: is this the meaning we should be focused on to the exclusion of any other?
• I don't have a POV on the Soviet-Baltic dispute
• The suggestion that readers would prefer a broader definition is indeed a different argument, albeit I would have thought rather uncontroversial as well as being exactly the same one I have been making from the outset here
• There is no "secession" field, which anyone is trying to force the Baltic states into. There is a "successor state" field (and it has already been suggested that we could change that title, or include a footnote)
• On the latter point of a footnote/qualification, it should not be limited to the suggestion that the use of "successor state" is mere "descriptive convenience" and that they are not really viewed as such [at all]. As noted, they are, depending on what we mean by the phrase. It needs to suggest "successor state" is common usage, while noting nonetheless that that usage does not necessarily follow the technical use of the term in the specialised field of international law

N-HH talk/edits 10:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree with the notion that it merely is a "technical", "overly strict" or "narrow legal definition" only used in "the specialised field of international law", as some of your colleges are now running with. The Baltic thesis had and continues to have real world consequences in financial, social and political terms: millions of dollars in gold and assets returned by international governments, property restituted to the original inhabitants, large number of people with undefined citizenship and world leaders congratulating the Baltic states on their 90th anniversary of statehood.

The oft quoted "There are no strict rules so please exercise caution and common sense when using this feature" is not an effective rebuttal to the notion that most readers expect the legal successor in most articles, that expectation does not evaporate at the invocation of "There are no strict rules". But rather, there is no strict rule that this feature be applied, as in the case with Nazi Germany where it isn't used at all. So it is clear that "successor state" has a specific connotation beyond mere meaning "states that emerged out of the collapse of the previous state" as the Nazi Germany article suggests. I suggested using event field, you suggested renaming or a footnote, the Nazi Germany article uses something else again, so there must be a better way to present this than as it currently stands. --Nug (talk) 23:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Fifteen states listed

1. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
2. —Ryulong (琉竜) 04:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
3. With brief but appropriate qualification as to the complexity of the formal, legal aspect of the issue if thought necessary. N-HH talk/edits 08:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
4. It doesn't matter whether they are said to have "seceded" or not, since they are commonly referred to be successor states, and as Nug's Manchester University Press source points out, the 15-successor-state paradigm is "favoured in academic and diplomatic discourse" as well. Shrigley (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

   That wasn't me, that was N-HH's source. My source, the peer reviewed Finnish Yearbook of International Law, points out not designating the Baltic states as successor states is favoured by "both the international community and the writers of international law". --Nug (talk) 04:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

   You need to stop clinging onto these technicalities. The Baltics are members of the former Soviet Union so they need to be mentioned in some capacity on this page among the other former Soviet states.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

   Yes of course they need to be mentioned in some capacity, but not as successor states. Why should we need to bash the round peg of historical fact into the square hole of a Wikipedia template? --Nug (talk) 06:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

   You're the only one turning the hole square with your ultra strict definition of whether or not the Baltics are considered successors to the Soviet Union.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

   Are you kidding? This is suppose to be an Encyclopaedia where people may actually learn something, we don't go obsfucating details because it doesn't conveniently fit some template. --Nug (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

   Then why are you against recognizing the Baltics as having been part of the USSR?—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

   Your loaded question presupposes that I am in denial that the Baltic states were in the USSR, that I never have done nor am I doing so now. Why are you against recognising the view of the international community? At issue here is how to represent the mainstream view given the constraint of a template. --Nug (talk) 10:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

   I'm against recognizing a narrow definition of what is and is not a successor state to the USSR because the Baltics deny their inclusion was ever amicable.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

   I do not agree with the notion that it merely is a "narrow definition". The Baltic thesis had and continues to have real world consequences in financial, social and political terms: millions of dollars in gold and assets returned by international governments, property restituted to the original inhabitants, hundreds of thousands of people with undefined citizenship and world leaders congratulating the Baltic states on their 90th anniversary of statehood. Putting your fingers in you ears while rocking back and forth and chanting "it just a narrow definition" won't make the reality that the international community accepts the Baltic countries are not successor states of the USSR go away. --Nug (talk) 23:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Twelve states listed

1. Per WP:RS and WP:V, it is what reliable published sources tell us. --Nug (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Any other issues for which consensus is sought.

User:Lectonar has placed the article under full page protection. Are there any other issues besides the Baltic Republics question on which we are seeking consensus? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, how about the issue of adhering to WP:NOR, WP:RS and WP:V with respect to the Baltic Republics? Do we have WP:consensus for that? --Nug (talk) 06:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Extended content
Adhere to what we WP:KNOW - Adhere to WP:NOR, WP:RS and WP:V --Nug (talk) 06:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Nug this act here is disruptive. Robert is asking if there are issues other than the dispute over the mention of the Baltics. It is not a venue for you to complain about the dispute at hand.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Nug, do you have a reliable source that states that Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were de facto independent of the Soviet Union between 1945 and 1991? Some of us are more concerned about the actual boundaries of the Soviet Union than the technical point of international law that you make, namely, that in international law, each of the Baltic Republics has continuous succession. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

If you are concerned about the actual boundaries of the Soviet Union, then I don't think they were ever formally recognised beyond Nazi Germany's recognition via the German–Soviet Border and Commercial Agreement. The Helsinki Accords only recognised frontiers, not the actual border and in any case most signatories issued disclaimers after the Accords were signed that it has no impact on Western non-recognition of the Soviet seizure of the Baltics. So I don't know how sources stating that Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were de facto independent of the Soviet Union between 1945 and 1991 would help you. Countries often exert defacto control over the territories of others, departing occupation forces doesn't necessarily imply secession. I have access to JSTOR and most other journals, if you can be more specific then perhaps I can point you to something more relevant. --Nug (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The instructions for the Former Country Infobox state: "In some cases, most readers would expect to see every state that was formed, not just the official predecessor/successor. If so, list all states." I think that this is such a case, and that the readers would expect to see the 15 constituent republics. Also, as other comments have noted, for some purposes the Russian Federation is considered the single successor state to the Soviet Union in terms of international law. If we want to tell our readers what present-day countries were de facto parts of the Soviet Union, which I think is what most readers would expect, then there are 15 countries, the window of a few months not being significant. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You appear to be refuting an argument I am not making. I never said the Baltic states were never in the USSR. This issue is the infobox misleadingly indicating that the Baltic states are new states that seceded from the USSR when it dissolved. Lithuania actually restored independence over a year and a half before the dissolution of the USSR, Estonia and Latvia did likewise but suspended it until three months from the end. Fixing the infobox so that it make is clear that the Baltic states emerged from the USSR as restored states (as opposed to succeeded states) will not change the fact that the Baltic state were in the USSR at some point in time. --Nug (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The Former Country template is quite complicated. At present it can only list predecessor states and succeeding states, the last not necessarily being based on international law. If Nug is saying that the template should be refined to distinguish successor states and restored states, I would not object, except that it seems to create more work for the template developers than is necessary for a fine distinction that can and should be adequately addressed in the text. If the choice involves the current template and is between listing 12 states and listing 15 states, then it is, in my opinion, mandatory to list 15 states, because it would be even more wrong to list 12 states and leave out 3 than to base the listing on international law rather than history. Are you saying that the template should be modified? If it isn't feasible to modify the template, does that justify giving the appearance that the Baltic Republics never were SSRs? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I have another question. Would Nug be satisfied with listing 15 successor states if the three Baltic Republics were also listed as predecessor states, reflecting the fact that they were sovereign between the World Wars, and were then occupied (without regard to legality, and legality is written after the fact by the victors) by the Soviet Union? Would that satisfy him that it would show that they were restored? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It is not a choice between international law or history. Peter Van Elsewege writes an entire chapter on the period 1985 to 1991 concerning the historical events that occurred in the Soviet Union called "1985-1991: National Reawakening and the Restoration of Independence", describing the events in terms of state restoration, not secession. In fact the term "secession" is mentioned a handful of times only in context of the Baltic states refusing to be bound by the Soviet law on secession. The Former Country template, while complex, does offer solutions like using the events section of the template in certain cases: "If the predecessor and successor are the same, and this predecessor/successor continued to exist during this period, do not list either. Instead, make it clear what this state was somewhere in the events section", therefore we can add the incorporation and restoration of the Baltic states within the events section of the infobox while the successor section would mention the remaining twelve. That would satisfy both the template guidelines and your desire to have all fifteen mentioned in the inbox in some form. For example we could add something this to the infobox:

|event1 = Lithuania incorporated

|date_event1 = 3 August 1940

|event2 = Latvia incorporated

|date_event2 = 5 August 1940

|event3 = Estonia incorporated

|date_event3 = 9 August 1940

|event4 = Lithuanian independence restored

|date_event4 = 11 March 1990

|event5 = Latvian independence restored

|date_event5 = 22 August 1991

|event6 = Estonian independence restored

|date_event6 = 22 August 1991

--Nug (talk) 04:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The statement about the predecessor/successor being the same and continuing to exist during the period is not, except in an obstinate international law sense, applicable. That statement is really intended for situations like the Confederate States of America and the United States, where the United States continued to exist in both a de facto sense (minus the seceded states) and a de jure sense. I do not think that it should apply to cases where the predecessor/successor states were de facto absorbed into the former country. the Soviet Union. Is Nug willing to accept my suggestion to list Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania both as predecessor states and successor states? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

If you do not think it should apply to cases where the predecessor/successor states were de facto absorbed into the former country, then then you are saying that Poland, Czechoslovakia and Austria are seceded from Nazi Germany, which of course is nonsense. Instead the article Nazi Germany doesn't use the secession field at all but an entirely different scheme. --Nug (talk) 04:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

So, I see really good progress here, and I think a consensus is at least in sight....the full-protection will expire tomorrow morning (I will just reimplement the semi-protection again), and for the moment I see no need to prolong the full protection....I just ask the participating parties to continue keeping their calm, and, when the protection falls, continue to use the talk page before editing decisively again. If this fails, and edit warring will occur, the next step should be an RfC. Thank you everybody. Lectonar (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a consensus to list 15 succeeding states. What about adding the 3 Baltic republics as predecessor states? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, actually I am waiting for Nug to answer your query, above. Lectonar (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the Baltics are not successor states of the USSR either in terms of their own sovereignty violated by the USSR or the concluding agreements which disbanded the USSR, defining the successor states. It certainly makes sense to indicate that territorial sovereignty was restored to the Baltic states, however, the word "successor" cannot be used. Being a predecessor and successor state means, by definition, that the Baltic states legally entered and surrendered their sovereignty to the USSR, and then were new successor states at dissolution, a solution which is the total opposite of the situation. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't stop them from being part of the former USSR. You and Nug need to stop clinging to these technicalities of international law and the Baltics' insistence that they were never legally a part of the USSR.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Only Russia contends the Baltics were legally a part of the Soviet Union, the international community agrees they were not. So you need to stop clinging to Russian nationalist POV. --Nug (talk) 06:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't even know it was "Russian nationalist POV".—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, consider this discussion an education. No one denies that there were 15 (sometimes more/sometimes less over time) administrative SSRs regardless of legal status. You can't conflate illegitimate Soviet administrative entities (militarily occupied regardless of civilian administration) with sovereign Baltic states. That's all that's being requested, that such inappropriate conflation not be created as encyclopedic content. This isn't about consensus among editors who never cared less about the Baltic states and knew even less. If anyone wants to ask questions and have an informed conversation, I'm happy to do so. But WP:CONSENSUS can't dictate what happened in the eyes of international law. There's no "technicality" that the Baltic STATES (not SSRS) never surrendered their sovereignty and were therefore never "part" of the USSR. Whatever the Baltic SSRs were, they were not any incarnation of the Baltic states that could comprise prececessors or successors with regard to sovereign piece parts of the Soviet Union. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that you and Nug are arguing for a Baltic nationalist/ethnowhatever point of view to the article and clinging to this technical definition of what is and is not a successor state, particularly in regards to the Baltics rather than providing a more general set of information to the reader who may be ultimately confused, just as I was, as to why Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were not listed in the infobox when they feel that they were a part of the USSR and came about once more after the USSR dissolved.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I am saying you seem to be slapping a label on a position you don't care to investigate thoroughly. The latest scholarship, not Baltic scholarship, not enthocentricstickyourcrappylabelonit POV, on the Baltic states specifically treats them separately and not as successors. Nug has already indicated that all that has to be done is to reflect circumstances appropriately: administered (under occupation) as SSRs, never legally "part of" and therefore neither predecessors or successors. Sovereign continuity was maintained in exile. (You might try reading Anatols Dinbergs regarding Latvia.) I completely agree it would be confusing not to mention the Baltic states. They were occupied, administratively incorporated as SSRs (with special conditions), and territorial sovereignty restored prior to the dissolution of the "remainder" of the USSR, which dissolution does not list the Baltic states as successors, either. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Shouting by the use of an oversized font on a talk page will not accomplish anything other than to make the other readers aware that you are shouting. It will not advance a minority position. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Why does the legality and technicality of the matter have to prevent us from presenting this information in full to the reader? Why do we have to keep within this strict definition of a "successor state to the USSR" when we damn well know that the Baltics are formerly a part of the Soviet Union? No one's answered this. You all just keep quoting the handful of sources that say "THE BALTICS ARE NOT A SUCCESSOR STATE TO THE SOVIET UNION".—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hardly a technicality when other countries have repaid millions of dollars in gold and assets to the Baltic states. How is obfuscating the differing status of the Baltic states "presenting this information in full"? Why don't you want to inform readers of the fact that the international community regard the Baltic states as not successor states by as restored states identical with the pre-war republics? --Nug (talk) 08:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a technicality when it comes to covering them on Wikipedia. And we can inform the readers of that information in prose. It seems unnecessary to exclude them from the list of every other nation that came about after the dissolution of the USSR just because they entered and left differently.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

As noted in great detail in previous subsections of discussion, plenty of serious sources describe them, semi-formally, as "successor states", because they are relying on the common-sense English use of the term, which is perfectly correct in most contexts, rather than its technical meaning in the specialist realms of international law. One cited source suggests, explicitly, that the former is the standard and more usual option, even in "academic and diplomatic discourse". No one's given a real justification for why WP, a general-use encyclopedia, should ignore that claim and instead present the information on the basis of a rarefied minority definition and use. That's the key point. Insistence through technical and legal argument, whether backed up or not by sources, that they are not seen as successor states in that one specific sense of the term is all a bit of a sideshow and takes for granted that that is the definition we are going to use. As suggested, that distinction/dispute can be noted in a footnote/qualification to a list that includes all the states that emerged from the collapse of the Soviet Union, which is how the information is usually presented elsewhere and which is surely what readers would expect to see rather three out of the 15 being hived off somewhere, simply on the basis of a legal technicality that even most non-legal academic sources don't get too excited about (and which, for all its legal probity, is as much about politics as it is about international law). N-HH talk/edits 09:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

As noted previously, the Template guide states "There are no strict rules so please exercise caution and common sense when using this feature", so there is no requirement that they must necessarily be listed in the "successor state" field (the article on Nazi Germany doesn't even use that field), there are other ways to list them in the infobox. One cited source suggests that the view is accepted by both the international community in addition to the writers of international law. Certainly it is odd to chararactise that view as "rarefied minority definition" when that definition has broad real world consequences in financial, social and political terms: millions of dollars in gold and assets returned by international governments, property restituted to the original inhabitants, hundreds of thousands of people with undefined citizenship and world leaders congratulating the Baltic states on their 90th anniversary of statehood. --Nug (talk) 09:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll catch up in a bit, but I did apologize in advance for my shouting (see edit summary). At this point in time, on the issue of Baltic sovereignty during and after the Soviet era, talking about "Baltic POV" regarding circumstances and portrayal (aside from also having always been the western non-Soviet/non-post-Soviet current Russia but not always), is anachronistic at best. I expect better from editors here than trucking out nationalist/ethnic pigeon-holes. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Your apology is accepted for the shouting, but I don't intend to apologize for the trout slap. It was disruptive but creative, because I decided to be bold and add an explicit rule against changing the font size in talk pages to the talk page guidelines. If you do that again, I will be less gentle, and I wasn't gentle. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Can we work on the article?

The article has been taken out of full page protection. (I think that it is semi-protected against edits by non-signed-in IP addresses.) Instead of arguing about international law, why don't we edit the article to reflect the subtleties of the different circumstances of how the 3 Baltic states, the 11 states, and the Russian Federation exited from the Soviet Union? (Yes, there are differences between the status of the Russian Federation and the other successor states. For instance, only the Russian Federation is a successor to the Soviet Union's permanent membership on the United Nations Security Council.) Rather than continuing to argue a technical issue, can we try to improve the article, and possibly the articles about the 15 nations? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest we remove the predecessor/successor field from the info-box. It is for straightforward, simple, non-controversial information such as head of state, population or area. It is not even clear if a state can have more than one predecessor/successor states. The situation is best explained in the body of the article. TFD (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Removing the predecessor/successor fields from the Infobox does seem like a reasonable approach in this controversial case. However, it is clear enough that a state can have multiple predecessor states and multiple successor states. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Not to nit-pick, but Russia is generally recognised as being a continuator state of the USSR (which Ukraine alone objects, claiming Russia is a successor state), hence Russia's membership to UNSC. But I do agree on removing the predecessor/successor fields is a good idea. --Nug (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

As I recall, Russia rather claimed the USSR's security council seat as a fait accompli. Also, at the dissolution of the USSR, the other republics did recognize Russia as continuous with the USSR as to sovereign continuity. The others are newly independent states.

Unfortunately the predecessor and successor headings are hard-coded in the template. What might be useful:

1. column 1 lists administrative SSRs
2. column 2 lists:
   1. Continuous: Russia
   2. Newly independent: ...
   3. Restored: Baltic states

VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the one thing that all of us who contributed to the voluminous discussions above can agree on is that removing the parameter altogether (or rather not populating it) might be the best idea. Not only would it save us all this debate but there is a genuine wider problem with using infoboxes to convey complex information and doing so under a one-size-fits-all definition. As an overall solution for the infobox, as floated previously, and in part per the above, I'd support the option of simply listing the constituent SSRs that existed for the majority of its existence. As noted, the detail about the dissolution and succession (or otherwise) can be – indeed needs to be – added to the main body. N-HH talk/edits 10:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

We can't change the headings that the infobox displays when there are predecessor and successor states, but we can delete the states. I think that consensus is emerging that we should delete the predecessor and successor states from the infobox and let the complexities of succession be addressed in the text of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I was bold and deleted the states. If anyone disagrees, they can restore and discuss. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Successor States

The article states that the Russian Federation is the (sole) successor to the Soviet Union. If there is an alternate analysis that the 12 states are successors, can someone please a sourced reference to that analysis? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, is there an analysis as to why Ukraine objects to the status of the Russian Federation as the continuing state? I assume that the actual basis for that objection is that they consider themselves to be the oldest predecessor to the Soviet Union and Imperial Russia as Kievan Rus. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It appears that Ukraine's objection was related to a dispute about apportionment of Soviet property abroad, it wanted Russia to be viewed as a successor with equal standing as other successor states, presumably to get a bigger share of that property. Austria also objected, but later dropped it. This is described in the source here. This same source states that the Russian Federation is the continuator to the Soviet Union, the Baltic states were not successors but restored states and thus were treated as special cases with regard to membership to international organisations, while "the nine other Soviet Republics" were considered "genuine" successor states of the USSR when admitted to the UN (presumably both Ukraine and Belarus assumed the their respective SSR UN memberships). --Nug (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Can that analysis be inserted into the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Where it states that the Russian Federation is the (sole) successor to the Soviet Union, that could change that to "continuator", and something brief coulid be written in the part it talks about the dissolution. --Nug (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I've created a new sub-section on post-Soviet states without sources, but starting with the statement that the analysis of the succession of states is complex. Those of you, such as Nug who have references are requested to insert them, and, if necessary, reword the sub-section. I've stated that the Baltic Republics have de jure continuity with their pre-World-War-Two states and their governments in exile. Any changes to wording, please make as needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've added some references and tweaked the text. Continuity wasn't derived from their governments-in-exile (Latvia and Lithuania didn't have one}, but from the illegality of the Soviet conquest, the initial occupation breached bi-lateral non-aggression treaties and the subsequent incorporation breached the constitutions of Baltic states as it was never put to a plebiscite, thus the international community withheld recognition and therefore sovereignty was never transferred to the Soviet Union. Thanks for your efforts in resolving this. --Nug (talk) 06:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The U.K. government has published a legal opinion on the possible independence of Scotland that covers state succession.[4] Part III explains the concepts of succession and continuity. It says in Section 57 of Part IV that Russia can be seen either as a successor to the Soviet Union, which had ceased to exist, or as a continuator. The U.N. accepted it as a continuator because Russia and the other former states agreed. The relevance was that Russia took the security council seat of the USSR, and kept its overseas embassies. The Baltic states are discussed in 101-103. They are generally recognized as continuators of the former states, rather than successors to the USSR, but it has few consequences. TFD (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It was necessary for some state to be the continuator state to the Security Council seat of the USSR. Can this analysis be included in the main article and cited? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll get to that in the next couple of days, there are some excellent sources which Russia taking the ISSR's seat in detail. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Another Infobox Revert

I thought that there had been a consensus that we could remove the predecessor and successor states from the infobox, rather than argue about them, so I went ahead and did that, but that edit has been reverted. Rather than have an edit war, I have tagged this talk page to have a article content Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

What was the Soviet Union?

Was it a deformed Worker's State, State Capitalism or something else? Is there any consensus on this? (Forgive me but I have not wades thru ten archives to see if this question has already been asked and answered and thanks in advance.) SmokeyTheCat 18:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

As the lead paragraph to the main article states, it was a communist state. See that article for the analysis. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

And it says there: "Technically, "communist state" is a contradictio in terminis as a communist society as defined by both Marxists and anarcho-communists is in principle stateless.[1] From this perspective, the term Marxist-Leninist state is more appropriate.". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpov (talk • contribs) 13:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

As with all such questions, that depends on who you ask of course. I agree that there are problems with the phrase "communist state" – due both to the point highlighted immediately above and due to the fact that there are plenty of different, often contrasting, descriptions in use – but at the same time it's probably the most common basic description that will be found. N-HH talk/edits 15:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The terms "deformed Worker's State" and "State capitalism" are criticism applied by Trotskyist to the Soviet Union to describe its totalitarian, non-democratic features... If that analysis is right, is however an entire different question... However, the most correct term is a "socialist state", however, some people would misunderstand that.. --TIAYN (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I would avoid the term and instead just explain the role of the Communist Party and Marxist-Leninist ideology in the governance of the state. Obviously the USSR was one of a distinct type of state, whatever one calls it. TFD (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The article uses the term communist state, because that was the term by which the Marxist-Leninist leadership characterized it. It is true, as noted above and as noted in the linked article, that that characterization is a contradiction. I see no need to change the article lead. It was the term used by the leaders, and the contradiction is noted in the linked article. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

No, the leadership never characterized them as "communist states." TFD (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

In that case perhaps the lead should be changed to Marxist-Leninist state. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Such change would be logical and I support it. Also, I would like to point out, that if we based description of USSR on the characterization by its ruling class, we would even have to call it "democratic". Mpov (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Alternatively, the lead to communist state could be revised to define a communist state as a state with a one-party system with a Communist Party, which the Soviet Union was. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I've removed communist state and left in single-party state and Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which are uncontested. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

@ Mpov, "ruling class" would mean Communist (capital c, party) autocracy. I think you have your principles of representation mixed up. And it is your WP:SYNTHESIS that autocracy is, within itself, democratic. So, autocratic principles mixed up as well. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

To whom are you, VєсrumЬа, replying? To me or to Mpov? I don't think that either of us said what you are claiming we said. Mpov said that "if we based description of the USSR on the characterization by its ruling class", we could call it "democratic". Mpov didn't say that autocracy is democracy, only that autocrats often claim to be democrats. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Alas, this is what happens when you don't have enough caffeine and are worried about your doggie in the vet's for surgery... Yes, I believe I completely misread Mpov's response, many thanks for that. From that standpoint, Stalin was quite proud of his constitution (1936) and it making the USSR a democratic state. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Could it be said that initially it was a Marxist–Leninist state that was transformed into a Stalinist state? --Nug (talk) 03:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that what we've ended up with currently – "a socialist state which espoused Marxist–Leninist ideology that existed between 1922 and 1991, ruled as a single-party state by the Communist Party" – is an improvement, at least in terms of clarity or concise writing. The sentence literally stumbles over itself in a bid to include every descriptive option it can. N-HH talk/edits 09:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Reminds me of the metaphor about horses, camels and committees. Britannica describes it as a "Eurasian empire". --Nug (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Is it time for Archive 12?

This talk page is becoming larger than is recommended. Is it time for its content prior to the Baltic Republic question to be archived? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, let's focus on the infobox since we also need to fix the special relationship between the USSR and post-Soviet Russia. Work we know which needs to be done on content, e.g., Russia takes USSR seat @ U.N., should also inform our conversation on the infobox. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

you just saying that to obscure consensus in which amloust all users agreed exept nug and you Peterzor (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, TFD and N-HH also agreed not to use the "successor state" parameter in the infobox because of the complexity. --Nug (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

"moderate policies"

How can Mikhail Gorbachev's policies be described as moderate??? He introduced freedom of speech in one of the most repressive countries in history... Seriously??? There are more arguements, but this should be enough... Yes, Gorbachev was, and still is a communist, but that doesn't make his reforms any less radical.... Its like calling the economic reforms introduced in China moderate since their main goal was stabilize Communist Party rule, and strengthen socialism... --TIAYN (talk) 08:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, in fairness, it wasn't free enough to not send OMON to shoot freedom demonstrators. We should simply stick with what reputable scholars state regarding Gorbachev's reforms. Please feel free to propose several sources which describe specific reforms as radical in policy and societal effect. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 13:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

And reputable sources do refer to them as radical, major but not moderate! Secondly, there is a difference between freedom demonstrators, and demonstrators who want independence ..--TIAYN (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, as long as you properly cite for radical and major, please feel free to freshen the content. As for the other, I'm not sure what nuance are you attempting to communicate regarding a population demonstrating for freedom from an occupying state. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

I am planning to remove the predecessor states and successor states from the Infobox again, as there is no consensus either as to what to list or whether they are needed. If anyone strongly objects, please provide a reason why it is mandatory that the Infobox include predecessor and successor states. The complexities can be and are addressed in article text. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

As acknowledged, having them there does slightly oversimplify the situation and losing them is probably for the best, given the fuss it's created (although I'm not sure it would really be necessary were it not for that fuss). At the risk of starting the whole debate up again, albeit on a slightly shifted criteria, is it worth looking at the alternative that was suggested of simply listing the constituent republics? That would seem to be the kind of detail that an infobox on federal-type states usually includes and would be useful to readers, while being less potentially contentious. N-HH talk/edits 22:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

First, please, if one has an opinion that listing the republics is mandatory and omitting them is inconsistent with the purpose of the infobox, can one please state that on this page, rather than simply reverting their deletion? Robert McClenon (talk) 11:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Second, does anyone have an idea for how to list the constituent republics without commentary on the legality of their annexation, other than in the article text? Robert McClenon (talk) 11:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Third, can we please avoid having an edit-revert war that will require another period of full page-protect? Robert McClenon (talk) 11:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

is not the soviet union a socialist state?

someone thinks am reverting just because i restored the "socialist state" paragraph, how could this be disputed Peterzor (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Is the shift key broken on your keyboard? --Nug (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Peterzor, not only was it a socialist state, but the first according to several RS including the USSR constitution. perhaps the most frustrating aspect of this debate was those opposed could not name which was the first socialist state, yet were positive it was not the USSR [5] and [6]. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The Soviet Union claimed that they had established socialism and called themselves a "socialist state", and some writers, especially those sympathetic to Communism, use that term. But many scholars reject the view that socialism was achieved and instead see it as an undemocratic country where political and economic power was held by the Communist Party. TFD (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

meybe it was discussable if they archive socialism in the marxist sense but still socialist in the normal sense Peterzor (talk) 07:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, socialist state is what Stalin called it and he himself said the USSR had not achieved a communist state, but, then, Stalin said many things. Sweden is generally described as a socialist state in scholarship on socio-political systems. Not the former USSR. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 13:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, it's important to include both self-described and scholarly-described accounts of aspects of the Soviet state, and it's equally important that those distinctions be clear in the article. TFD's characterization is accurate. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

P.S., @Darkstar1st, as you indicate, the USSR being the first "proclaimed to be" socialist state would be accurate. Which was the first "practicing" socialist state is rather an unrelated conversation. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

USSR's kind of "socialism" was a socialism only according to Lenin and Stalin, that is why such a term as "marxism-leninism" exists, to describe "socialism" as defined by Lenin, Stalin and co. There are literally no other communist movements, but marxist-leninist associated ones, which would describe USSR as a socialist state (furthermore, marxism-leninism is considered anti-marxist and anti-socialist by most socialists). I accept the phrase "a socialist state which espoused Marxist–Leninist ideology" as some kind of compromise, but really it is just a POV of leninists. And of course those, who want to portray socialism only as the state repressions. "Marxist-Leninist state" would be simple and accurate, "a socialist state according to Marxist–Leninist ideology" would be accurate too, if you really need to put "socialism" there for some reason. Mpov (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, "communist" state is perfectly fine. Self-purportedly "socialist" is for further down in the discussion, say, regarding what the Soviet constitution says. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, actually "communist" would be even worse, since even the leninists didn't distorted it's meaning much and don't call their states "communist". They distorted the meaning of "socialism" to mean what they want, but left "communism" more less the same as in marxism. Leninist version of Marx's theory of history is that you need "socialist state" to reach communism, which itself would be stateless, moneyless, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpov (talk • contribs) 18:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Isn't this covering the same ground as the section above? As I pointed out there, what we currently have in the lead is in inordinately unwieldy construction that tries to cram in every possibility. Also, it's surely a bit futile to spend too long analysing on the talk page what the USSR really was as if there is some Platonic reality or objectively ideal description out there waiting to be worked out between everyone here. Every option or combination is going to be open to criticism as not accurate or POV or whatever from some angle or other. We just need the clearest, simplest and most common and least POV description. I'd simply trim this:

• "a socialist state which espoused Marxist–Leninist ideology that existed between 1922 and 1991, ruled as a single-party state by the Communist Party with Moscow as its capital" to something closer to this;
• "a Eurasian state that existed between 1922 and 1991, ruled by the Communist Party, with Moscow as its capital"

That cuts the repetition of "party" and "state". The "socialist" bit is covered in the name, you'd have thought. And did the state itself really espouse Marxist-Leninist ideology as such? Adding Eurasian helps with location. If we really want Marxist-Leninist in there, just add it as a simple adjective before either "state" or "Communist Party". N-HH talk/edits 19:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't object for your proposal. I argue for "marxist-leninist" only because of current "socialist", which is very inaccurate IMHO. Of course we can omit such characterizations, we don't write "is a capitalist state" in other states' descriptions. But, on the other hand, we write "was a feodal state" in historic articles.Mpov (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The view that the USSR was not a 'real socialist' country is a marginal view mostly held by contemporary far-left agitators who wish to create a difference between 'good socialism' (in theory) and 'wrongly implemented socialism' in the case of the USSR and its bloc, since denying that Soviet socialism was a failure is impossible. This is clearly not a mainstream view.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 10:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

sources claiming the USSR was not Socialist

For the Leninist, the masses must be strictly disciplined, while the socialist will struggle to achieve a social order in which discipline "will become superfluous" as the freely associated producers "work for their own accord" (Marx). N. Chomsky [7]

I'm quite sure there are lots of sources that describe it as socialist and plenty that do not (often to make a point). I'm not sure however, what listing, or starting to list, all of them on both sides of the debate is going to achieve. Nor, in fact, does the quote above talk directly about the USSR or how it should be described anyway. As noted above, there is no "correct" answer, and what we need is the clearest, most common and least glaringly POV option. N-HH talk/edits 11:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

And the most correct answer is to state that they espouse Marxism-Leninism, which no one disputes. --TIAYN (talk) 11:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)