Jump to content

Talk:Soviet Union/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 19

RFC

How shall the infobox look and what shall it mention? Kalix94 (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment The purpose of infoboxes is to provide clear, concise and non-controversial information. Listing all the successor states of the Soviet Union and providing details about disputes over whether the Baltic States were successors or restored states is too much information and belongs in the body of the article. So I suggest not using the successor state field. TFD (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
What disputes are you imagining? Patrick Dumberry's monograph State Succession to International Responsibility published in 2007 summarises the current mainstream view on page 151:
"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."
So I do agree with you about not using the successor state field in this case.--Nug (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
We discussed this a long time ago. The Baltic States have attributes of both revived and successor states. For example, Russians born there are citizens. Oddly, your latest source says that it is not absolutely clear that Russia is the continuator of the Soviet Union, so again the list is ambiguous. And per a comment below, the Baltic States are a very minor aspect of the Soviet Union, and whether they are revived or successor states has almost no significance to this article or for the vast majority of people reading this article. TFD (talk) 09:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:V, content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Your belief that Russians born there during the soviet period are citizens is factually incorrect, as the article Non-citizens (Latvia) indicates, thus your view that Baltic States have attributes of both revived and successor states is synthesis and certainly not supported by any reliable source, otherwise you would have posted a cite by now. --Nug (talk) 09:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC).
Your link says two thirds of Russians in Lativa are Lativian citizens. Estonia allowed Russians to chose citizenship, while Lithuania considers Russians born in Estonia to be citizens. Anyway, you provided the source that said the annexation was recognized de facto by many states, including the UK, and de jure by others, and that they have elements of both successor and continuator, while I provided you with a source from the UK government explaining the status of these states. I assume you read those sources, so no need to link them over and over and over again.
Incidentally, the Soviet Union occupied many states during WWII, such as Poland, why should we include these specific states? Under the UK article, we do not include in the infobox the approx 50 foreign states which were once dependencies.
TFD (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
"Lithuania considers Russians born in Estonia to be citizens", that is just plain confused. Your contention that post-1991 naturalisation process of immigrants is somehow relevant is just synthesis, as sources show that the naturalisation policy was driven by humanitarian concerns rather than any obligation a real succession would entail. No, your UK source, which discusses the potential succession of Scotland from the UK in light of the experience of other countries including the Baltic states, makes no mention of "elements of both successor and continuator" anywhere, for example:
"Cases of annexation that other states have treated as being illegal are even less apposite to Scotland. The Baltic states may seem atypical in that they apparently reappeared after a period – forty years – that lasted much longer than, say, Iraq’s more fleeting occupation of Kuwait. But if that is indeed what happened, the principle nonetheless rests on the preservation of their identity throughout a period of illegal annexation. It is not applicable to a voluntary union.""
--Nug (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC).
That is one aspect in which the Baltic states can be seen as restored states. OTOH, as pointed out, it had little significance. There was no government in exile to return. The president of the Latvian SSR remained president after independence. It may be that the Baltic states were humanitarian in allowing Russians to remain, but that is not a feature of restored states. The main difference between the Baltic states and the other "successor" states is that the West had recognized them as part of the Soviet Union.
Also, if the Baltic states are not successor states, why list them at all? We do not list Poland, although it was also occupied by the Soviet Union.
TFD (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
You are not making sense. So now other "successor" states were not recognised by by the West as part of the Soviet Union? Sigh, you really ought to read WP:Synthesis. --Nug (talk) 10:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
It is not mere semantics, the template documentation expresses a preference for listing successors as defined "under international law". This is an encyclopaedia and WP:Accuracy is policy, and sources tell us there is agreement by "writers of international law" that the Baltic states are not secessor states of the USSR. But no one is insisting on removing the Baltic states from the info-box, but rather indicate the generally accepted view in international law scholarship with some simple annotation as was originally used in a version stable since June[1], until recent edit warring and initiation of this RFC by a suspected sock puppet. --Nug (talk) 08:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Your proposal seems emminently sensible then, Nug, and is one that I would support.
this is not only the baltics it also that the infobox uses an orignial construction on Predecessor/Successor syntax, see Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia how Predecessor/Successor syntax shall be used Kalix94 (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
click on the png to see what i mean
Urrr what do you mean exactly? I had a look at the SFRY infobox, what exactly are you proposing for the USSR infobox? Sorry I'm struggling to follow the meat of your proposal. Thom2002 (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

see the png, the current version wrong according to Template:Infobox_former_country/doc under the "Preceding and succeeding entities" section Kalix94 (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Kalix94, you have been reported as a suspected sock puppet. --Nug (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Nug, the SPI has not over yet, and whatever the spi rules i still make a good point about the soviet union infobox Kalix94 (talk) 08:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soviet_Union&diff=591574083&oldid=591428362 changes there to see what i meant Kalix94 (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
We have discussed this before on talk before you were banned, and a majority of editors deemed the default template parameters inadequate to handle the complex case of the Soviet Union. --Nug (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually, this issue seems to surround you and just you, Nug, as you seem to not be able to allow the Baltics to be considered successor states or succeeding.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Incapable of focusing on the ball and not the player? No, the issue is WP:V, reliable sources tell us that the Baltics are not considered successor states in international law, the infobox guide tells us that the preference is to list successors in international law, and annotating the infobox guide in a succinct way to indicate which countries are considered continuous/restored/successors in international law seems the best solution, as you previously seemed to support with these edits[2], [3]. No one advocating removing the Baltic states all together. --Nug (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
International law is not the issue here. The template only says "succeeded". Nothing about labeling them "successor states" anywhere on Wikipedia, and even in the template documentation it's only a suggested guideline and not a hardline rule, so clearly we can treat the USSR as a unique case. And I only fixed that ugly ass formatting half a year ago. Don't say those edits somehow support your side of the argument. You are twisting things into what you think is best and this only shows that you need to be prevented from disrupting this page anymore.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
It is implausible to suggest that you edited the form of the infobox June last year without understanding the content, you were part of the discussion in May about removing the Baltic states altogether. Your edits (at that point the infobox was to a compromise version including the Baltics) came directly after my edits, you could have easily hit the revert button but instead you choose to refine it further. The only disruption I see is your revert before the closure of this RFC and your somewhat belligerent tone. it is not helpful. Yes, I agree with you that the Soviet Union is a unique case, hence the need for annotation, while your treatment is identical to any other country article which is in contradiction to your claim of uniqueness. --Nug (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

  • RFC Comment Hi, in case sources describe the successor-state issue as controversial, then the infobox is probably not the right place to approach it and it should be handled in the body of the article. If only editors say the issue is controversial, then as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it isn't controversial and the states can be listed in the infobox, IMO. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • This whole debate seems to surround the fact that Nug will not allow the Baltic States to be considered "successors" to the Soviet Union due to their declarations of independence. Removing him from the equation should solve this unnecessarily WP:LAME dispute. The template doesn't even say "successors". It says "preceded by" and "succeeded by" which is as neutral as possible. Nug's persistence in this (I recall gaining his ire previously because of this perennial dispute) is problematic. I've instituted the version which apparently is in use on other Soviet era articles that was apparently promoted by a sockpuppet and instituted the use of the template's "today" parameter to contain everything about the footnotes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
But apparently not sufficiently WP:LAME for you to jump in and revert to a banned sock puppet's preferred version[4], a version that most people agree is inadequate, before this sock puppet initiated RFC is even concluded. Many observers would perceive your revert as somewhat at odds with your earlier edits[5], [6] in support of the version most people accept. --Nug (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Regardless of that being a sockpuppet of a banned editor, it is in fact a better way to treat his page because it does not need a whole lot of unnecessary formatting just because you keep insisting that the Baltics have to be mentioned separately when the template does not insist what you think it does. Template:Infobox former country#Preceding and succeeding entities may say "For most cases, the main and/or official predecessor/successor (under international law) is sufficient" but clearly the Soviet Union is a unique case which means we don't need to abide by those rules. People going to this page do not need to see such an extensive coverage of the politics of the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the infobox. They just need to know what came before (the Russian SFSR, et al.) and what came after (the RF, the Baltics, the -stans, etc.), and we may as well also say what exists today (including the 4 limited recognition regions). And no. Only you perceive that point of view based on my edits from June 2013. Throughout this debate you have been putting words in my mouth without even having the common decency to notify me that this discussion has been on going. I left last year it because you are so bothersome to deal with. The fact that you have been using me to your advantage disgusts me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
?? Why would I notify you of an RFC started by somebody else, the last time you edited this article was last June, you are hardly on my radar and in any case that would be canvasing. No less bizarre is your claim I have been using you to my advantage or have been "putting words" into your mouth "throughout this debate", all I did was present evidence of your apparent previous editorial support. These kinds of wild accusations hardly exhibits the collegiate behaviour expected here. Since where you an authority on what people "need to know"? Template:Infobox former country#Preceding and succeeding entities saying "For most cases, the main and/or official predecessor/successor (under international law) is sufficient" implies that this is the general expectation of readers is to see successors under international law. Yes, the Soviet Union is a unique case, thus the annotation indicates the uniqueness. Your version takes up way more space making the infobox a mile long and double listing states using both the "successor" and "today" parameter. --Nug (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to continue to respond to you in two separate threads. It's just getting annoying. So this covers your post in the main thread as well as this subthread.
You should not have been misconstruing my fixing of your formatting of the infobox in June 2013 as an implicit agreement with you on how things should be treated. I was simply tired of arguing with you, as will soon happen again. I looked in the archives and found multiple instances of you referring to the edits that I had made as me agreeing with you on this matter and you never bothered to contact me during that time.
The Soviet Union is a unique case in that we do not need to stick with the "international legality" that you have been pushing for. Any and all nations that were formed from what was once the Soviet Union should be considered as "succeeding" the Soviet Union, whether or not they are considered "successor states" by international law. This means that I agree with the 15 member model and the much simpler treatment that I had implimented in the past few days, as well the use of the today parameter, which is what is used elsewhere on the project for these former countries and is being used to show any current nations (and their flags) that claim self autonomy, whether recognized or not and ot host the footnotes. We should be presenting this information as simply as possible to the reader who will look at the infobox to see what countries came into existence with the dissolution of the USSR. They do not care about the technicalities in the matter and omitting anything or separating them is not useful to the lay reader. To be honest, the infobox could lose the footnotes.
There.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Are you kidding: "I looked in the archives and found multiple instances of you referring to the edits that I had made as me agreeing with you", that's just BS, I only referred to you once previously in drawing a conclusion any other reasonable person would with respect to your edits. Your claim that any and all nations that were formed from what was once the Soviet Union should be considered as "succeeding" the Soviet Union has one big flaw, the Baltic states were already formed before the USSR was even created. A reader who will look at the infobox to see what countries came into existence with the dissolution of the USSR will be misled because the the Baltic states already existed since 1920. In fact, the notion that the Baltic states only came into existence with the dissolution of the USSR is considered Russian nationalist POV. And again, how do you know readers "do not care about the technicalities in the matter and omitting anything or separating them is not useful to the lay reader", it is obvious that you do not care but don't project this onto the reader. This is an encyclopaedia after all, readers come here to be educated and informed. --Nug (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Well you drew the wrong conclusion.
And the lay reader coming to this page will be confused by the omission or special treatment of anything in the infobox. Your insistence that the occupation of the Baltics by the USSR and their declaration of independence before the dissolution affords them special treatment in an infobox makes no sense. Infoboxes should be as simple as possible. If you claim readers will be misled by the inclusion of three nations and their flags, then that should be covered in the prose.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Ryūlóng, of course the Baltics are in no manner "successor states" to the Soviet Union. Don't argue with editors and accuse them of being obstinate when you don't have your facts straight. Nor does one create inaccurate infoboxes only to correct misconceptions in article text. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 07:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania became independent nations towards the end of the USSR and are Post-Soviet states. I do not see how that means they cannot be described as "succeeding" (not as "successor states") and not listed in a simple list with the others, instead of all of the footnote stuff.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
They were occupied territories under international law, therefore they are in no manner succeeding, legally or otherwise, and only colloquially "post-Soviet". The current infobox of mismatched before/after and now also current is a misleading and unencyclopedic mishmosh. I'm sorry to be so blunt. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
They still succeeded the Soviet Union in the common sense of that word. The infobox does not need to be the place to give a detailed account of the legality of the 15 sovereign nations that now exist in what was previously the territory of the USSR.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Template:Infobox former country#Preceding and succeeding entities#To_which_entries_should_I_link? states "Do not list entities that were formed/dissolved outside the life-span of the discussed state", it also states "If the predecessor and successor are the same, and this predecessor/successor continued to exist during this period, do not list either" the Baltic states were formed in 1920, before the Soviet Union which was formed in 1922, and continues to exist after the end of the Soviet Union, therefore the Baltic states shouldn't even be listed. --Nug (talk) 08:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
There is no sensible reason to omit the Baltic states. They are Post-Soviet. Stop pulling these technicalities out of nowhere to suit your desires. You and Vercrumba have consistently been in the minority on this issue but your presences have stagnated any movement forward. And WP:IAR can be applied here to include them because the documentation of a template is not a hardline rule to be followed anyway. Do not remove the Baltics from the page, again, as you have been wont to do for over a year.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
As discussed and referenced ad nauseam above, there isn't a source in the world that would contradict the general description of all 15 as "Post-Soviet states". Many reputable sources, relying on the general use of the term, would also describe all 15 as "succeeding" or being "successor states" to the Soviet Union (one source even describes the latter as the most common terminology used in broader academic discourse). Yes, there are legal technicalities here but as noted most people are surely not interested in that when it comes to an infobox. All they want to know is the relatively simple (not oversimplistic) answer to the simple question: "what states came before and after?" The idea that we should exclude the Baltics altogether or give them a special discrete title or description that is not universally used in the literature is rather clearly being driven by an agenda. Can we, finally, just forget the politics for once? Short footnotes to clarify the situation very briefly do make sense I think, but not any overextended or confusingly written discussion. N-HH (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
There is no politics or agenda, just what sources tell us is the mainstream view in the international community. You ask "what states came before and after?" the simple answer is the Baltic states comes both before and after, yet this infobox only lists them as "successors". This "discrete title that is not universally used in the literature" is a red herring, a similar argument used unsuccessfully in Mass killings under Communist regimes to argue that "mass killing" cannot be used because sources use different terms like genocide, democide, politicide, etc. The reality is the situation and status of the Baltics is different, so it can be said that pretending that they were no different to the other 12 seems to be driven by politics too. --Nug (talk) 10:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this edit of yours Nug is completely out of line. You need to stop pushing this idea of yours that the intricacies of international law demand that three nations not be listed on this page's infobox. Your edit here is also problematic.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
The template guide is both sensible and clear. Your recent arrival as set back any progress, you are advocating a position that has no support at all apart from evident Russian nationalist sock puppets. You don't even seem to understand what the issues are, and resort to falsehoods, I don't advocate removal of the Baltics, but you advocate removal of all footnotes and reversion to the original state from a year ago, something that no one supports, even N-HH. --Nug (talk) 10:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The template documentation is not a hardline rule that must be followed at all times. And we don't need four footnotes detailing who did what with the dissolution in the infobox. The rest of the article is for that. I've even made a footnote going "For more details, see the section below". And frankly it sems you do want to remove the Baltics, that's what you did here just today and multiple times in the past. This isn't Russian nationalism. It's common sense to think that the Baltics are one of the many nations that came about after the Soviet Union was dissolved. You need to drop this insistence that their "illegal" occupation during WWII and their independence a year before the dissolution of the whole makes them so special that they cannot be considered succeeding (not successor states).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

We don't write articles based upon common sense but what reliable sources tell us. While the template documentation is not a hardline rule, its usage has set an expectation and your unsupported treatment is contrary to that expectation and is thus misleading to readers. Sources tell us that indeed the Baltic states are a notably special case, and sources also tell us that the view that occupation was "legal" is minority Russian nationalist POV within Russian scholarship, let alone the rest of the world. You may have noticed that this article is protected from IP edits, this is because of disruptive IPs coming out of Russia. Your revert before this RFC was concluded demonstrates your combative temperament, your support of sock puppet edits: "I am taking on responsibility for that sockpuppet's edits" just displays the seemingly rank level of hypocrisy given your own alleged issues with sock puppets. So please stop disrupting the attempt at consensus building here, as others have claimed you are prone to do. --Nug (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Nug, I just looked at the last 10 unique IP's that edited this page before it was protected, and not a single one originated from Russia. Why would you make something like that up? LokiiT (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes we do. And it's called cognitive dissonance. I will prevent banned editors from being a pain in my side on this project but frankly, this one had a point that I agree with. The same way you agreed that Tommy Oliver should be deleted.
And the issue has nothing to do with the legality or illegality of the occupation of the Baltics in 1940. That's what you're making it out to be. This is over using an accurate infobox that shows what nations were formed from the territory of the former Soviet Union that most people know were previously part of the Soviet Union.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, this is nothing to do with the underlying debate about the historical annexation or about denying its presumed illegality. Quit trying to frame the debate that way and also thereby smear everyone disagreeing with you as some kind of Russian nationalist stooge. It's about how to present information in an infobox – clearly and comprehensively yet relatively simply – while avoiding terms that have disputed meanings and uses. If you don't understand any of my points about the use of sources, about presenting distinctions in the infobox and about the use of the term "successor state", which you appear not to, you can re(?)-read what I've already written and think about it a bit harder rather than pushing me to write it out yet again, here or on my own talk page. N-HH (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
You don't need to repeat what you said, I understand the point you are making perfectly well, you have stated the term "restored states" is "misleading" and the claim that it aligns with RS is "flat-out fraudulent" because you assert "not every source uses the terminology in that way" and that we must follow "real world usage as found in a multitude of reliable sources", citing a single writer's opinion written back in 1995 this usage "is the most common in academic and other discourse". Is that a fair summary? The fallacy in your argument is notion that because some sources use the term "successor" that it therefore invalidates the applicability of the term "restored state" and thus that later term is "misleading". Now there are many problems with this argument, calling it "misleading" you are implying that these terms are mutually exclusive or at least compete with each other in usage, however that contradicts with your other argument that "restored state" is a narrow legalistic term. But as narrow as it may or may not be, it never the less remains applicable and thus cannot be construed as "misleading" in any way. As Asbjorn Eide writes[7]
"State restoration occurs when a previously independent state has been incorporated into a larger entity for some time but subsequently has regained its independence. The prime examples from recent time are the three Baltic states which were incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1940 and regained their independence in 1991"
Nothing misleading about that.
The second issue with your argument is the claim that only terms in "real world usage" that "is most common" (as opposed to allegedly "narrow legalistic" terms) should be used. Not withstanding the fact that the specific guide on "common usage" applies only to article titles, problem is that determining common usage would be an exercise in original research, unless you can find a source that states what the usage is. You have found one source published in 1996 that asserts the use of "successor" is the most common "in academic and diplomatic discourse". However Webber also writes in 1996[8]:
"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."
These two sources contradict each other because it is through academic and diplomatic discourse that writers of international law and the international community respectively communicate. Indeed these two conflicting contemporaneous sources point to a controversy that must of existed in 1996. But ten years later in 2006 later the matter appears to be settled, as Dumberry writes[9]:
"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."
You misunderstand the intent of WP:IAR. The gist of WP:IAR is that when it comes to a choice between the spirit and letter of some rule when improving the encyclopaedia, ignore the letter. Now maintaining that status quo by insisting on the letter of template guide's "successor" term isn't improving the encyclopaedia, where as succinctly annotating the infobox with relevant information that removes any ambiguity is an improvement that is in spirit of the template guide's preference of listing successors under international law.
It is really unfortunate that you seemed to have brought your baggage of bad faith to this discussion. You really must attempt to put your mistrust aside and work in good faith for the good of this encyclopaedia. --Nug (talk) 11:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
You accuse us of repeating our arguments when you do the same thing. There is no need to give special treatment to anything in the infobox that requires an essay worth of footnotes to explain. Discussion of the legal status of any and all nations that were formed between 1989 and 1992 from Soviet territory should be in the article. Just a simple list of names and flags are fine for the infobox.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Your chronic exaggerations don't make for a helpful contribution. This inbox version[10] that you improved has succinct footnotes. --Nug (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
It's succinct but not concise. All that was said in the footnotes can be said in prose.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Nug, considering I have never said that the term "restored states" is "misleading", yet you claim several times over in your latest essay that I have, you clearly have not understood what I am saying or what my point is. Nor, btw, despite what you go on to say, have I ever said that we should use the most common terms or relied on the Webber source as definitive proof of what those might be. N-HH (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
ps: by contrast, we do very much get the points about annexation, restoration and state succession etc. As I think has been pointed out to you about four times now, there's no need to keep posting lengthy quote-filled essays about them or to turn the actual and relatively simple presentational issue here into a debate about any underlying issues of international law. N-HH (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Well in fact you did say it was misleading back in May last year: "plonking them definitively and exclusively under the term "restored states" is as misleading as simply including them as successor states would be". So it now it appears you are even backing away from seeing "successors" as misleading too. I thought this was settled back in June last year[11], I even got a barnstar over it[12]. The only thing continuing to drive this discussion is your lack of support when confirmed sock puppets recently reverted, and Ryulong's unhelpful involvement. This opposition driven seemingly by your distrust and bad faith of my motives. I said before, if anyone else other than Vecrumba came up with the idea you would probably be fine with it, which you denied ofcourse. But this bad faith was confirmed by your recent personal attack on your talk page "Well, that's not wholly inaccurate and at least it acknowledges that they were Soviet republics. If another editor had made that change, I'd be less sceptical about it. The problem is, as noted above, is that Nug is virtually an SPA." You really need to think hard about your own motivation here and whether bad faith is clouding your otherwise good judgement. --Nug (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
You have spent a lot of time these past weeks solely focusing your editing to denote the Baltic states as different within meta areas of the project rather than improving the prose.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Nug you betray your lack of comprehension, as I have been suggesting. The point of the first sentence you quote is that it is misleading to exclude them from the list of "successor states" and instead put them under another, separate and specific sub-label (whatever that might happen to be), because in some cases and under some criteria they are described as "successor states" – possibly even in the majority of academic and other serious sources, many of which are not using the term in a technical legal sense. You have noted, surely, that precisely because of this dual real-world use, I have been against not only excluding them from being listed under a specific heading or sub-heading "successor states" but also including them under it, and instead have preferred to avoid the phrase altogether? All my change to Vecrumba's version did – which btw, as already noted, did not "settle" the issue but just happened to be the winner in an edit war and the last unilateral imposition before everybody got bored – was take out the definitive sub-headings, including "successor states". It happily and deliberately left the Baltics grouped separately, together with a footnote referring to their independence being "restored". Without bothering to explain how that change of mine was a problem, you then chose to edit war over it and have since repeatedly removed the Baltics outright from any version of the list. As for my "personal attack", that was a statement in respect of an observable pattern of editing. Your latest one on me, by contrast, is pure speculation about my motives based on misconceived inference from a single statement in another context; even though I repeatedly explained at some length, including again now, exactly what the problem was with your and Vecrumba's preferred formulation. And do you really think your barnstar or showing off about it proves anything? N-HH (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
The barnstar shows that your characterisation of the past resolution as "did not "settle" the issue but just happened to be the winner in an edit war and the last unilateral imposition before everybody got bored" is egregiously misleading. Yes, you have repeated your objection over and over that "in some cases and under some criteria they are described as "successor states"", but you seem not to comprehend that the intent or spirit of the template guide is to show them under one specific criteria - that of successor under international law. No educative purpose is served by applying this infobox data inconsistently across articles, it just adds confusion. --Nug (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
We do not have to follow the template's documentation if it gets in the way of us presenting information that everyone is aware of because of this fucking technicality you keep bringing up. Besides, that point in the template documentation you keep praising does not fit here. What we need is the part that goes

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.

People are expecting all 15 nations, regardless of the legal status of the Baltics during the Cold War.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
And this[13] indeed does show all fifteen, not just showing the eleven official successors but also the four that aren't official successors, annotating one as official continuator and three as official restored states to ensure there is no ambiguity or confusion so as to be consistent with the spirit of the guide.

Perhaps the issue is merely having dividing lines, so I've tweaked the infobox[14], removing dividing lines between "Continuous with", "Successors" and "Restored" and grouped the lot under N-HH's "Post-Soviet states" category. --Nug (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted this bold move of yours to restore the overly complex version. We do not need to provide these dividing lines in the infobox. We do not need to follow the "official successor" part of the template documentation. Instead we can use the "list everything everyone considers to have been formed" part of the documentation, and that does not say anything about grouping them together as "restored", "continuous", and "successor states" when the template should only be used to say "this is what came before, and these are what came after", without any excessive footnotes or superfluous formatting.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Nug, that's just your long-preferred version, with sub-headings and all, but with the de minimis addition of "Post-Soviet" as a main super-heading (my suggestion of using that as the list header is precisely because it is a bland description that carries minimal baggage or potential confusion, not because its use is crucial). It's not a compromise or a solution that meets any of the objections that have been raised, by me or anyone else. N-HH (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you have said many times "in some cases and under some criteria they are described as "successor states"", I hate say this yet again but you seem always to dodge this, under the criteria of international law there is no ambiguity, they are described as "restored states" and the template guide has a preference for indicating the status "under international law". What is your objection to adopting this single criteria as defined in the guide and thus annotating the infobox with the 1,11,3 format? --Nug (talk) 12:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
And many times you have ignored the point. As to what the template and the guidance actually say: first, of course, it does not use the term "successor state" but the phrase "succeeded by". Secondly, the associated guidance only refers to "international law" in terms of defining "the main and/or official .. successor", in cases where that is the only state to be listed. The guidance then says, in a separate paragraph, that in many cases "most readers would expect to see every state that was formed". In that context, the guidance says nothing whatsoever about hedging and qualifying that list on the basis of "international law" or relying on it to make explicit assertions about international law. N-HH (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
The second paragraph discusses including "new entities" that were formed, i.e. successors under international law, and goes on to illustrate that point by citing the example of the new states formed out of Austria-Hungary. As you well know, the Baltic states are not "new entities" but pre-existing entities that also preceded the USSR. --Nug (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Questions About So-Called RFC

First, the heading says RFC, but I don't see an RFC banner. Was this version of the so-called RFC ever published in the proper fashion? Should it be published, or is this issue so LAME that it should be allowed to be ignored by leaving the status quo?

Second, what are the options in this !vote? The current version of the infobox, with 1 continuator, 11 successors, and 3 restored, was the version that had the fewest objections. The only objections were from two stubborn Baltic advocates who wanted to ensure that the Baltic republics were not listed as successor states, and that has been done by enumerating them as restored. The alternatives were to list 15 states, and to list 12 states. The 12-state version is simply unacceptable in that it would ignore 50 years in which the Baltic republics were listed as SSRs on maps. What change is now being requested that is making us go all around again?

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The RFC was started by User:Kalix94, proposing this version[15]. It was published properly and a comment from one non-regular was elicited[16]. However User:Kalix94 was later confirmed to be a sock puppet[17] and this RFC has since expired[18]. --Nug (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
The RFC template was removed, yes, but this "current version of the infobox" is just the one Nug boldly reinstated. As I said above, there is no need to put these dividing lines in the infobox just because Nug is insisting that we have to follow the "international law" point in the {{infobox former country}} documentation, rather than the "list everything people assume happened" point in the documentation. This coverage of who is continuous, who is a successor according to international law, and who is restored should be covered in the article prose rather than forced onto readers in the infobox.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
And Robert McClenon, there are two arguments here:
Nug (along with Vercrumba) has been pushing for the former, as it seems he wants to push this fact that the Baltics were illegally occupied and re-obtained their independence before the fall of the Soviet Union and are not "successor states" under international law, but restored, and the Russian Federation's status as continuous with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics requires separate coverage. Other users here, including myself, have thought that the introduction of this division in the infobox is unnecessary, and should be covered by the prose (which it is). When we have inserted this version that uses just the existing parameters, Nug has removed them per the first point in {{infobox former country}}'s documentation that states in its first point

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.

as well as its third point

Do not list entities that were formed/dissolved outside the life-span of the discussed state.

Both of these are frankly wrong interpretations of the documentation. The first point would only say "list Russia". And the third point does not cover the Baltics, which did exist before the Soviet Union, but were annexed (as Nug would point out illegally), but as they declared themselves independent again before the fall, according to the third point they should still be listed. He has also ignored the second point of the documentation, which states

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. If only parts of other countries were taken to form the new entity (or if an already existing entity received some of the land from a dissolved entity), list these states only when there are not so many other states to list.

I believe that in the case of the Soviet Union, this means "list all of them in the documentation". The template most certainly does not say "and be sure to list the intracacies of international law". Just "list all of them".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I see. It is a matter of edit-warring over the 15 versus the more complex 1, 11, and 3. Nothing has changed. I didn't look at this article for a while, and maybe should have, but didn't have to do so. I preferred the simpler version of the 15, at least if the wording could be changed to avoid stupid arguments about the status of the Baltics. At the same time, I was satisfied with the more complex 1, 11, and 3. Nug and Vercrumba were obstinate and insisted on special handling for the Baltics. Nug then tweaked the infobox to split it into 1, 11, and 3, and I was satisfied, and I thought that there was satisfaction. Therefore the barnstar for Nug, and, since he is continuing to be stubborn, I regret giving it, but I don't know if I can take it back. There is not satisfaction. I have said before, and Ryulong has repeated, that the details should be in the text. At this point I would suggest that we DELETE THE INFOBOX, but that would provoke the editors who think that infoboxes are more important than article text. Do we really need another RFC? Do we really need more sockpuppetry? Do we really need more edit-warring after a stupid INFOBOX? Can't we let the article text state the issues? Isn't it finally time to have a consensus infobox, or no infobox? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't quite understand what you mean Robert, when you say "Nug then tweaked the infobox to split it into 1, 11, and 3, and I was satisfied, and I thought that there was satisfaction. Therefore the barnstar for Nug, and, since he is continuing to be stubborn, I regret giving it" Continuing to be stubborn about what? I thought there was satisfaction too with the 1, 11, and 3 format, as evidenced by six months of stability and improvements including a couple of edits by Ryulong back in June with this[19] and this[20]. Then around December a couple of editors User:Mankiw2 (an apparent throw away account with 96 edits) and User:Kalix94 (a confirmed sock puppet) started attempting to undo the 1, 11, and 3 format. User:Kalix94 then started the RFC, the only editor to respond to the RFC expressed support for the 1, 11, and 3 format after I explained it to him[21]. Then Ryulong arrives, and Ryulong being Ryulong, expressed support for the sock puppet[22] and disavowed his previous edits improving the 1, 11, and 3 format. And even before the RFC was closed he reverted it to the version preferred by the sock puppet[23]. And he continues to revert[24], If he thinks it is so lame[25] why is he persisting with this. So it seems to have become basically a pissing competition with Ryulong. Exactly what is wrong with annotating the infobox if it saves reader having to parse the main text of the article? Readers would be confused by seeing the Baltic states as successors in 1991 after reading the article 90th anniversary of the Latvian Republic. The whole raison d'etre of infoboxes is so that people do not have to read the main text. --Nug (talk) 12:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Stop fucking saying my fixing of formatting is agreeing with you god damn it man. And the content belongs in the text. There's no need for annotation. And my version has a "for more details, look below" line damn it. And it's only WP:LAME because you keep making it so.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
At this point, Ryulong, you are the one who is engaging in profanity. Please dial it down. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Never was profanity raised during this debate? It's Nug's constant accusation/assumption that I somehow approved the version he prefers that he keeps bringing up that needs to end.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Who are you kidding, you improved the 1-11-3 format not once, but twice, after you were heavily involved in the discussion in May, so you can't pretend you didn't realise what you were editing. Please stop this silly pissing contest. --Nug (talk) 16:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Even if I did agree, I'm allowed to change my mind.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
As discussed, I'm actually happy with some differentiation in the infobox: I'm not sure it's necessary, but it's not wrong to note it subtly in some way either, and it would at least hopefully settle the dispute. However, if that differentiation is to be incorporated or noted, it can't be done in the Nug/Vecrumba format which uses terminology and sub-headings that are not applied universally. Indeed, whatever we do, the explicit term "successor state" should probably be avoided altogether, whether applied to all 15 or just to 11 or whatever. It's not necessary and it just creates confusion and arguments of the sort that have been going on here for months. I guess that is a mid-point option between the two broader options highlighted above. Given that we have an infobox, I think it would removing this section altogether just to avoid pettifogging disputes driven by single-issue campaigns would be a retrograde step. But it may be the only solution. N-HH (talk) 12:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
The 1, 11, and 3 format terminology is widely accepted under international law, and the spirit of the template documentation is to reference the status "under international law", in that case there is no confusion. The suggestion of removing the section altogether will not work because sock puppets like User:Kalix94 will just revert it anyway. --Nug (talk) 12:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
We don't need the "1-11-3" format or "international law" considerations. The simple list is fine. It should not be removed. It should not be modified to the "let's throw a table in there" format.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
It is apparent that you stubbornly hold on to your position and will no doubt edit war N-HH's "Post-Soviet state" solution too. However, it is clear when referencing the infobox guide a general expectation exists that we should base it on international law considerations, in the minority of cases where we want to list additional countries that are not official successors under international law then annotating them appropriately is warranted so as not confuse readers who hold that expectation. BTW I was replying to N-HH. He asserts the terminology of continuous/successor/restored state is "not applied universally", however under the criteria of international law it is unambiguous. --Nug (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
As much as you stubbornly hold onto your position that the contents must be explained thoroughly in the infobox or not at all. And stop repeating that one point about the infobox documentation and stop repeating your international law argument. Per the second point of the documentation, all states should be listed regardless of their status under international law.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Calm down. Per the sixth point: "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". But I've modified my position back in May from excluding them altogether to including them as long as there is appropriate annotation. Nothing in the documentation prohibits annotating the infobox as required, in fact they encourage it, that's why a footnote parameter exists. --Nug (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
That is only for situations where the nation has changed names back and forth and the name before is exactly the same after, as the example they give during the US Civil War. And the annotation is "Read #Post-Soviet states for more information on succession". We don't need anything more crammed in the infobox if prose suffices.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
As indeed the case with the Baltic states, their names are exactly the same as the pre-1940 states. The whole raison d'etre of infoboxes is so that people can at a glance get the salient points without having to read the main text, so you annotation is somewhat impractical. --Nug (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
That's a stretch and you know it. And infoboxes are just a summary of the salient information. Not a substitute for reading the whole page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Don't try to weasel out of that one, it is not a stretch, it is easily verified that the pre-Soviet and post-soviet Baltics states are identical. While glancing at an infobox may well never be a substitute for reading the whole page, never the less for many time constrained people an adequately annotated infobox is important to them. --Nug (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It is indeed a stretch because it hinges on your constant argument that the Baltics must be treated differently if included or not included at all. The Baltics succeeded the Soviet Union along with the Russian Federation and the nations that made up the Commonwealth of Independent States in the literal sense of that word. It does not matter how many times you can point out the illegality of the annexation and the legal status after the dissolution. They should be mentioned and there is no need to say that they are special in the infobox when that can be thoroughly covered by this article or related ones. And pointing users to a point on the page that has the information is better than having an infobox extend farther than it needs to be.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Well I disagree, and repeating your opinion doesn't make it any more valid or give it greater weight than my opinion. It appears you are unwilling to compromise and remain stubbornly fixated to the version originally promoted by the sock puppet. The inconsistent hypocrisy of your stance with respect to annotation is evidenced by your retention of annotation for South Ossetia, Abkhazia (why are these even included?), Nagorno-Karabakh and Transnistria with a footnote regarding their status in international law "These states have limited recognition in the international community." --Nug (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Nug, if the Baltic states were never part of the USSR, but were only occupied, why include them at all? The USSR occupied many countries, including Poland, but we do not include them. Or do you think we should? Unless you think that the Baltic states were mid-way between part of the USSR/occupied. TFD (talk) 04:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
TFD, this is a red herring. The discussion is about the intent of the infobox and the utility of the 1,11,3 format in achieving that intent. --Nug (talk) 05:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
The 1-11-3 format is not necessary when the prose can cover this issue. The infobox should just the commonly accepted "Post-Soviet states" and the prose of the article can delve into the intracacies of international law. As we often repeat each other. And the inclusion of the four states that claim sovereignty but are not Post-Soviet does require a footnote because the nature of international law in that group is about now and not 20 years ago.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes we know what you think should and shouldn't be, but your opinion carries no more weight than anyone else's, probably less because your reasoning appears to be so often terribly flawed. For example just before you told us that point six of the template guide was "only for situations where the nation has changed names back and forth and the name before is exactly the same after", when I pointed out to you that the Baltic states also changed their names back and forth and their names before was exactly the same as after, you tried to weasel out of it and repeated what should and shouldn't be. And again, your justification for inclusion of footnotes for the four entities but not the others "because the nature of international law in that group is about now and not 20 years ago" is just as flawed, because Russia, the 11 new states and the Baltics are considered today as continuator, successor and restored state under international law. You insist prose can cover this issue for the 1+11+3 countries, but for the 4 insist footnotes are required, while your criteria for footnoting the 4 applies just as equally to 1+11+3 countries. This kind of flawed justification indicates that your opinion for what should or shouldn't be is totally arbitrary and inconsistent with any guidance we may have. --Nug (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
All I gather from your constant posts is that the Baltics need special consideration. We do not need to annotate the list of 15 because that can be covered in prose. And maybe you're right when it comes to the states of limited international recognition. I'm deleting the today parameter so you can stop harping at me over their inclusion. No footnotes outside of the one for .su. No special treatment for any entity. Just a list of the 15 internationally recognized Post-Soviet states.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Just brilliant, the only source that mentions "internationally recognized Post-Soviet states" says there were only twelve. --Nug (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I get it Nug. You want the Baltics either not mentioned or mentioned but with the proviso that they're treated specially. You don't have to keep tearing apart sources to get your way.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
No, I want this encyclopaedia written on the basis of verified reliable sources, not based upon what you WP:KNOW. In any case "post Soviet state" is an anachronism since it refers to the state as it was during the transitional period, known as the "post-Soviet era", in the years immediately after the fall of the SU when Soviet structures still remained in place. Certainly today all states, except for Transnistria and maybe Belarus, aren't considered "post-Soviet states" any more, certainly not Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania after their accession to the EU. --Nug (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
So you get to reject sources when they include the Baltics along with the members of the NIS/CIS as a general group of states that came into existence (either newly or again) after the dissolution of the USSR?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Nug, I hope you're not suggesting that the quote cited above is evidence that the source in question thinks there are only 12 internationally recognised post-Soviet states (whatever that would mean anyway) let alone that this is a widely held opinion? The reference to "international recognition" there is meant, of course, to exclude Transnistria et al, not the three Baltic states. Also, if you cared to read further into that book, you would see that a footnote on p.230 explains that the author has simply taken the decision to exclude the Baltics from consideration in this specific context for specific reasons. The fact that they have to explain that is, if anything, evidence that they would ordinarily be included in the category. As for "anachronism", there is of course no anachronism in using the phrase "post-Soviet" to refer to the post-Soviet period or to post-Soviet entities any more than it is an "anachronism" to refer to the "Soviet Union" in the relevant context. N-HH (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The Baltic states aren't universally considered to be "post-Soviet states", as you have shown with the footnote on page 230:"Here as elsewhere the three Baltic states are excluded, because, since joining the EU and NATO, their profiles are very different."
As Rick Fawn writes in International Organizations and Internal Conditionality: Making Norms Matter in the last paragraph on page 3[26]:
"Post-Soviet is taken to mean current countries that were part of the USSR since its formation in 1922. “Post-Soviet” therefore excludes the Baltic republics."
--Nug (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Stop pulling things out nowhere to advocate the removal of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania from the infobox unless they are treated separately from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. It's getting tiresome. All fifteen nations are considered to have come out of the Soviet Union in some form, which is all that the infobox is trying to illustrate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Stop trying to derail my discussion with N-HH. --Nug (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Nug: You told Ryulong to stop trying to derail the discussion between Nug and N-HH, but I don't see such a discussion. At least, I don't see a give-and-take discussion or a dialog. I don't see Nug responding to N-HH's careful exposition, so I don't see how Ryulong, with a more blanket dismissal of Nug's arguments, is derailing the discussion. In any case, the discussion is becoming tiresome, as is any argument about the infobox. I would be more interested in a discussion of whether to list the largely unrecognized states such as Transnistria. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
As I read it, N-HH was calling into question on whether I was suggesting "post-Soviet state" applied only to 12 rather than the 15 former Soviet republics, and I responded with a 2013 source that gave an explicit definition of post-Soviet as those countries that were part of the USSR since 1922. Other authors, for example Vinokurov, contend that the Baltics aren't considered post-Soviet states on account of their EU membership and non-involvement in any form of regional integration in the FSU. So N-HH's contention that "post-Soviet State" is a universally applied category is disproved. N-HH's wider argument with respect to the 1-11-3 format is that he claims it uses sub-headings that are not applied universally, saying that in some cases and under some criteria they are described as "successor states", citing a single source where the author has simply taken the decision to call the Baltics "successors" in the specific context of his book for specific reasons. However I have replied to him many times that using the single criteria of international law results in no ambiguity what so ever, but he never seems to address that point. But then I may have misinterpreted him, so Robert, please explain your take of N-HH's "careful exposition". --Nug (talk) 05:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Why do we have to adhere to this strict reading of sources and one point in a template's formatting? Why do you keep rejecting the grouping of the Baltics from the RF and the other 11? Why do you keep editing your comment days after you posted it? None of this is necessary.
And McClenon, what do you think is a good way to refer to the four states of limited recognition?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
WP:NOR and WP:V require us to be strict with our sourcing. You have repeatedly asked why the Baltics have to be treated specially and not grouped with the other 11. Because reliable sources tell us that the Baltics represent a special case and are treated seperately, for example:
  • The New Russian Foreign Policy by Serman Garnett, p78[27]:
"A second stabilizing factor is that Russia sees the Baltic states as a special case outside its integrationist framework for the rest of the former U.S.S.R. This status already emerged in the late Soviet period, as Boris Yeltsin sought issues on which he could differentiate himself from Gorbachev. …… Although this early honeymoon quickly deteriorated, the special status for the Baltic states in Russian foreign policy remains. They are a special case, separate from the CIS and other states of the former U.S.S.R."
  • International Law: A Dictionary by Boleslaw Adam Boczek, p130[28]:
"When analysing the problem of succession and continuity of states with regard to the Soviet Union one must first deal with the special case of the three Baltic republics, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania……their case must be treated as restoration of of independence and statehood which soon gained universal recognition including by the Soviet Union itself…"
  • Why Did the Soviet Union Collapse?: Understanding Historical Change by Robert W. Straye, p 196[29]
"The Baltic republics, always a special case, received immediate recognition of their declarations of independence."
"These three States represent a special case since their claim to be identical with the three Baltic States annexed by the Soviet Union in 1940 was accepted by the international community"
Why are you opposing something that is so widely supported by the sources? --Nug (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
My suggestion about the states of limited recognition would be to leave them out of the infobox, unless someone can provide a compelling reason why they are required. As to N-HH's exposition, unless I have misread him, he is focusing both on international law and on history, rather than only looking at international law. Looking only at international law was used by Nug and Vercrumba to argue in favor of listing only 12 states, which was historically absurd, since the Baltic republics were, legally or illegally, part of the Soviet Union from 1940 to 1989. If N-HH wants to continue to elaborate, he can, but I wouldn't blame him if he is disgusted with this non-discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Robert, you totally mis-interpreting my argument. Neither I or Vercrumba (as far as I can tell) are arguing on listing only 12 states, we are for listing all 15 using the 1+11+3 annotation of continuator/successor/restored state, categories which are universally accepted under the criteria of international law as reliable sources show. --Nug (talk) 03:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
No. I am not misinterpreting your argument, but am reporting your old argument. In August you (Nug) and Vercrumba wanted to list 12 states rather than 15, and were in a minority, before you (Nug) modified the infobox to permit the 1+11+3 approach. My point is that you would have preferred an approach favored by international law, the 12-state infobox, rather than one that was consistent with history, as the 15 or the 1+11+3 infoboxes are. You (Nug) preferred the technicality of international law over the actuality of history. It is true no one now is recommending omitting the Baltics, but you had been arguing for that. I was not misinterpreting your argument of this summer. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Why would you report an old argument when we have moved on? The original discussion was back in May not August, btw. I don't see how reporting what I may have preferred back in May last year and implying that I am continuing to argue that now, helps the discussion. Just to be clear, I agree with listing all 15 with the 1+11+3 annotation of continuator/successor/restored state that was implemented back in June and stable until January this year. It is both accurate historically and in terms of international law. As I understand it, this current discussion revolves around N-HH's objection to the 1+11+3 annotation claiming it is not universally accepted. But his claim of it not being universally accepted is simply untrue if we restrict the criteria to that of international law. --Nug (talk) 06:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

"Accuracy disputed"

In order to get his way in noting that the Baltic states are being listed in the infobox without any qualifiers, Nug is now tagging them with {{Disputed-inline}}, which is of course now breaking the formatting of the infobox. This is getting disruptive Nug. The infobox is no place to wage these wars over nationalism or semantics. It's just an easy way to list the 15 post-Soviet states and there is no reason to divide them up or note that certain members had different means of independence from the Soviet Union.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Nug

As noted below, I don't understand Anignome's formatting issue. I do understand this issue, unfortunately. Nug's edit to the infobox does appear to be disruptive by breaking the formatting of the infobox. I am willing to use the 15-state infobox as is, or the 1-11-3-state infobox, but breaking the infobox appears to be disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point. Please either leave the infobox at 15, or get consensus to go back to the 1-11-3 infobox. Another infobox on the RFC would be more reasonable than breaking the infobox. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you ought to ease up on the bad faith assumptions, I never intended to break the infobox, just flag that Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute remains with an appropriate level tag. Do you think another RFC would work given Ryulong started changing the 1-11-3-state infobox that had been in place since last May to the current 15-state infobox before the previous RFC was concluded. --Nug (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't assuming that you meant to break the infobox. I was observing that you broke the infobox formatting by your edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree that Ryulong is also edit-warring. The previous RFC had been on 15 states versus 12 states, where only you (Nug) and Vecrumba wanted 12 states, ignoring half a century of occupation. Either post an RFC on 15 versus 1-11-3 rather than edit-warring, or just stop edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
WTF? Why to do keep misrepresenting that I and Vecrumba wanted 12 states, particularly after I explained[31] to that was not the case? The previous RFC just above, at Talk:Soviet_Union#RFC, was 1-11-3 (in place since May) versus the 15-state format, the only non-involved editor to respond to the RFC expressed support for the 1-11-3 format[32]. Yet Ryulong changed it to the 15-state format before the RFC closure. --Nug (talk) 07:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
The RFC just devolved into you yelling at a sockpuppet weeks before my arrival.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Stop this bullshit Ryulong, anyone can simply scroll up and see the RFC was open and discussion was proceeding until you arrived with your ad hominem argument[33] and proceeded to disrupt the RFC by changing the inbox[34] before the RFC discussion could be completed. --Nug (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
There was no discussion for 2 weeks when I came to the page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
So? The RFC was still open at the time. The last non-involved editor expressed support for the 1-11-3 format[35] before you arrived and disrupted the RFC. --Nug (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Misrepresentation? Bullshit? Well indeed – Nug, last year you were arguing for a 12 infobox. You kept deleting the Baltics from the infobox and argued the case on the talk page. So that is indeed what you "previous[ly] ... wanted". Yes, you and Vecrumba then came up with this definitively labelled 1-11-3 split that included them, but even after that – in fact very recently – you have also still been taking them out when it suits you, as we can see from these actual edits to the page on 1 January and 18 February just this year. I know people say hiding in plain sight and brazen denial of palpable truths are often good tactics, but that's not always the case. N-HH (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
My edit of January and February was a consequence of the sock puppet Kalix94's edit retitling the entire group as successors[36] which the Baltic states verifiably aren't, and Ryulong's RFC disrupting edit replacing Kalix94's grouping as all successors with the old successor parameter[37] which doesn't change the fact the Baltic states aren't considered successors under the criteria of international law. I fully support retaining the Baltics in the 1-11-3 format but if you guys keep insisting on them grouping under "successor" without any explicit annotation then they should be removed. --Nug (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Again, the template simply labels them as "succeeded by" and not "successors" which has this international law baggage that you constantly insist must be mentioned in the infobox. You've yet to explain why the infobox must have this extensive discussion of the legality and not have these details, which make the infobox even larger and unwieldy, described fully in prose as it is meant to be. No other former nation, particularly those that emerged from the Cold War or earlier conflicts and split into many smaller soveriegn nations, has this level of detail that you are insisting must be included for the USSR. You are obsessing on this subject for reasons no one but you know and it's disruptive.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
All you seem to be able to offer is ad hominem argument, it is not disruptive to advocate an improvement, but ignoring an open RFC and enforcing your view on the article is. I've given you extensive explanation on the merits of annotating the inbox, and in fact results in a smaller footprint not larger as you claim. One has to wonder at your dogged opposition to an improvement that anyone not poisoned by bad faith would agree is reasonable. --Nug (talk) 11:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

How is this an "ad hominem argument"? Your implimentations of your opinion have been disruptive. You've removed the Baltics from here and other related articles and you've broken the template to claim that the inclusion of the Baltics is "dubious", simply because you demand that there be these annotations or footnotes. The infobox is not the place for this information. The article is.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

There you go, another ad hominem. You seem to only offer WP:ATTP and WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST type arguments right from the very beginning of your involvement. You still haven't explained your apparently obsessive opposition to an improvement that anyone not poisoned by bad faith would agree is reasonable. --Nug (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
It's not an ad hominem attack to point out that you are disrupting Wikipedia because of your obsession with the Baltics and their status in the USSR. And those two links are on an essay about XFDs and not about discussion on existant article content that should be unified across the project. There is no reason to make this article an exception and give all this exposition in the infobox when every other nation like this does not cover this in the infobox.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Consensus on the Infobox ?

The purpose of a talk page is to discuss proposed changes to the article in mainspace, not to engage in argument that goes nowhere. Is there a consensus on whether to use a 15-state infobox or the 1-11-3-state infobox? If so, stick with it, and no edits or reverts against consensus. In the WP:BRD cycle, we have already had enough boldness and enough reverts, so it is time to discuss or stop discussing. If there isn't consensus, then should another RFC on the infobox be published? The major contentious RFC was about 15 states versus 12, and everyone except Nug and Vercrumba agreed that 12 states was just wrong, that history trumped international law. At that point Vecrumba came up with the 1-11-3 form, and that was satisfactory until we had a sockpuppet and more edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Do we have consensus? If not, do we need another RFC to get consensus? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

In the previous RFC last May about 15 versus 12 states, a couple of people called for removing all of the states from the infobox altogether and there wasn't consensus for listing all 15 as successors, as you summed up here[38]. To aid the current discussion I've uploaded a couple of images to illustrate. The 1-11-3 continuator/successor/restored state version was in the article since May last year, until a sock puppet of User:Peterzor stated editwarring the 15 successor state version on the right. --Nug (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
You shouldn't edit other people's comments, Nug.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Unlock

This article needs to be unlocked so it can have a larger part of the community editing the article with reliable sources and cleaning up the article in general. Seriously, it needs some really, really hard work. 85.165.227.94 (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for being willing to help improve the article. You can do that by registering and confirming an account. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Measuring system?

What measuring system did the Soviets use, and when? I was trying to compare auto industries, I couldn't find it here, in "Auto industry", or in China, either. That should be here, shouldn't it? Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Using metric system became mandatory on the whole territory of the Soviet Union in 1925, and it had been mandatory on the territory of the Russian SFSR since 1917. Is this what you are asking?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 2, 2014; 16:22 (UTC)
Wow, that was fast. And sort of answers me, but not in detail. That should be in the article, maybe the infobox?
While I have you, specific question? In 1945-47 ZiS/ZiL made a knock off of US 2 1/2ton trucks. I was wondering how close they were. Were they metric or SAE? If they were SAE, were the Chinese license-builts SAE also?
Thank you for your time. Sammy D III (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe country infoboxes include measuring system information. With the US and a couple of other countries being the only holdouts on the metric system, including this information probably wouldn't be terribly informative anyway? As for your ZiS/ZiL question, I'm sorry, but this is way out of my area of expertise. Perhaps someone else can chime in?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 2, 2014; 18:28 (UTC)
You are probably right about assuming metric, I was being USish. I have a strange example, the truck stuff doesn't belong here. I know more than when I got here, thank you so much. Sammy D III (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a terrible article...

While I don't intend to sound arrogant, I can't understand that you guys have spent how many months discussing how the infobox should be formatted when there are other pressing issues in the article. Seriously, this article is terrible, and you guys seem to be discussing if Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were or were not successor state.. This is minor stuff compared with the problems... --TIAYN (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Because it's all Nug cares about and threw this page into a lockdown until he got his way.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
What a load of malicious bullshit. The reason the article was locked down was due to incessant IP vandalism, nothing to do with the current issue. The article was stable with the 1-11-3 format since May last year until Ryulong (talk · contribs) disrupted a previous RFC started by a blocked sock in January by edit warring the infobox before that RFC had been completed. The reason the discussion has gone on so long for such a minor improvement is that Ryulong continues to make these lurid bullshit assertions and personal attacks, he just doesn't quit. --Nug (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
No, it only goes on because you cling to this idea that you are infallible when it comes to coverage of the Baltics in the Soviet era.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
More egregious bullshit, Q.E.D. You are basically admitting that your toxic WP:Bad faith is driving your involvement here. --Nug (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
No. I disagreed with the ways things were formatted and preferred the simpler method of presenting the information. It is the constant arguing with you over this matter that has made me feel this way about you.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
And I disagreed with the ways things were formatted and preferred the more accurate method of presenting the information. Nobody is forcing you to continue to argue with anyone. You appear to be singularly unable to understand that people may have a different opinion to yourself and disagree with your POV, as evidenced by your consistent resort to personal attacks as a substitute for "argument". --Nug (talk) 09:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
This is what I was talking about... --TIAYN (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Well at least the community has spoken and decided the simple list of 15 is how it should be parsed, so now everyone can work on the other issues the article has.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Are you also incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time? Everyone who wanted to work on the article continued to do so during the discussion, claiming that the discussion somehow held that up is perverse. It is on your own head that in thinking the improvement is lame from the very beginning you ended up spending so much time opposing it. --Nug (talk) 09:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
It's TIAYN's complaint.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Nug, maybe the article should begin "the Soviet Union was a country that occupied the Baltic states for 50 years." That way, it begins with the most important aspect of the Soviet Union. TFD (talk) 05:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with your suggestion per WP:LEADSENTENCE. --Nug (talk) 08:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Soviet_Union/Archive_15&oldid=1074684948"