Jump to content

Talk:Soviet Union/Archive 19

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

Mostly Unsourced Lead

Entire paragraphs of the lead are completely unsourced, and my adding of citation needed tags to make clear the problem was entirely removed, and controversial unsourced statements sometimes contradicted by linked articles were left included without any source, i have since removed some of these but the lead requires a serious increase in sources.

Also, please have some regard for unrelated changes, some of them, such as simple grammar changes I made where undone seemingly simply due to the editor who removed my citation needed tags not bothering to keep them. Corinal (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Also note, many controversial unsourced statements remain, but as i do not wish to remove the entire lead i have kept them, hopefully they can either be properly sourced or found not to be supported by sources and removed. Corinal (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The link you provided "WP:WHENNOTCITE" notably says this "although quotations and controversial statements, particularly if about living persons, should be supported by citations even in the lead." the lead contains many controversial statements that should be cited, perhaps read the things you link first.
Also note, these controversial statements are not made with any note of how they are controversial but simply stated as fact, one of them even links another article which does very much, with many sources, show how its controversial.
Also, what do you mean "Retored", what? Corinal (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
What we are looking for is effort in building the article. As per WP:BRD pls seek the advice of others before any more reverts.Moxy- 00:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Removing things from the lead paragraphs is not necessarily a bad idea. The lead section of this article is very long, much longer than recommended in MOS:LEADLENGTH, and forbidding to a reader who is trying to get acquainted with the subject.

However, at this point in the long and difficult history of this article, removing even a single sentence is like pulling a tooth. Perhaps we should start by preceding each removal by starting a discussion of it on the talk page? Sounds heavy-handed, but if it gets something done, that would set a good precedent.

I was at first struck by the removal of the sentence mentioning "Soviet Empire". Seems like we wouldn't need this in the lead paragraphs, would we? But that phrase is used later in the article (search for it and you'll see). So if we remove it from the lead, we have to re-introduce the definition in some other way, or something. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I generally agree with what Bruce has said, the lead is too long and has unnecessary content such as the random mention of "Soviet Empire" but if this content is later mentioned in the article it may need to be rephrased there, and again stress the importance of citing controversial claims which are in the lead, and making clear that they are controversial rather than simply stating them as fact.

It seems moxy still opposes at least adding the citations (unsure their position on fixing the POV) however am i unsure why as the reason they provided, the link to the guideline, actually says that controversial claims should be cited even in the lead.

I have attempted to remove the controversial claims while they are uncited and stated as fact as they are not strictly necessary in the lead and currently do not provide a NPOV, remember moxy, they can always be re-added later when handled properly. Corinal (talk) 04:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

It's sourced. .....each and every sentence removed is sourced in the article and has its own stand alone article. Moxy- 04:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
As stated repeatedly, even the guideline you provided says controversial statements should have inline citations even in the lead, it is not "sourced" simply because there are other articles about the topic or other mentions of it in this article, those other articles also do not support the non controversial presentation of the statements and so presumably neither do their sources. Also note, when dealing with controversial topics, it is not a good idea to rely on a single or small number of sources but rather to take into account the various views through a wide array of sources, as is done in the other articles, of course the lead here cannot go into anywhere near the level of detail as those articles but it still should make clear the controversial nature of the claims, and provide an NPOV summary. Corinal (talk) 05:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I will pick another example to illustrate the questions we are discussing. One edit removed this phrase: "... but also led to a [[Soviet famine of 1932–33|man-made famine in 1932–1933]]". There are some sentences about the famine later in the article, and there is a stand-alone article about the famine of 1932-33 (which has recently been renamed to reflect the fact that in Kazakhstan the famine started in 1930). The article states that the famine was man-made, and cites research supporting this. There is ongoing controversy, regarding whether or not the famine should be classified as "genocide". But it is not especially controversial that the famine was largely man-made. In the 1930's it was controversial in many places to state that there was even a famine, but by now, that is uncontroversial. If a proposal were posted to this talk page to remove that statement, or to provide a citation for it in the leading paragraphs, I would have argued that neither was necessary. Bruce leverett (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the example, indeed that is one such example, However I am confused on why you think the article states the famine was man-made when it actually describes the numerous possible factors and the controversy over which of them are indeed the factors, including non man made ones, such as "several severe droughts", the article title reflects this and follows NPOV by simply being titled "famine" and not "man-made famine" as the linked provided here uses. Also note, the phrase "man-made" is unclear as the famine being primarily caused by industrialization (one of the many views) would in some sense be "man-made" but would not be intentional and therefore using the term "man-made" could be misleading. Corinal (talk) 07:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Well, we can haggle over the suitability of the term "man-made". I have read the article, and I do not think it is an unreasonable summary; there is no serious dispute any more that the "man-made" factors, such as forced collectivization, were of primary importance. But if the choice of words bothers you, you can suggest something else.
Your original change was to remove all mention of the famine; but that's quite different from arguing over wording. The famine is universally regarded as notable, and it would be startling indeed if it were not mentioned in the lead paragraphs of an article about the Soviet Union. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree the famine is notable, the removal was simply a temporary measure due to the lack of sourcing. Perhaps outright removing it was not the best idea but it is still very important for it to be sourced, simply calling it a famine (as the other article does) is a simple means of fixing any dispute there in my view and has no real downside. Corinal (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Section 'References in the lead?' not found

Moxy- 14:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree the body should also be changed somewhat in order to account for the lead changes but again, the lead should have controversial claims cited as the guideline you previously provided stated. We can always change the lead later to better follow these tips but please remember that is not a policy but simply a collection of useful tips and ideas. Furthermore, unlike what you have provided, NPOV is a policy and should be followed and although i agree the body should be changed too, changes in the lead should not just be undone or prevented simply because of this, instead, change the body as well. Corinal (talk) 07:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I also agree that the lede needs to be revamped....it seems biased and unnecessarily wordy.....when I tried to work in the vast contradictions of the USSR (like investing heavily in a space program; while the Trans-Siberian Highway remained unpaved), it go deleted. RomanGrandpa (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

The USSR is well known for its space missions and is why there is much written about it in the body (Space Race is one of the biggest topics of the Cold War); you are suggesting that the Trans-Siberian Highway is within a million miles of the same ballpark? It is not mentioned once in the body. Not to mention OR in that edit. That's why it was reverted (and by someone else). See what WP:LEAD is. The USSR was also known for Gulag, terror, famines etc which is why those are mentioned and written about extensively in the body. Mellk (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Reference edit required

Could anyone correct reference L regarding “Union dissolved 26 December 1991”? Current link is incorrect and should link to https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/Декларация_Совета_Республик_ВС_СССР_от_26.12.1991_№_142-Н Darz Mol (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Density solution

.. there are some lovely wikipedia pages.

And some unlovely.

Like this one.

As it is?

Huge phalanxes of text going down three screens (!)

.. before (!) readers get to the index.

Huge text 'density' problem.

Unreadable for average encyclopedia audiences.

Solution: everyone takes a deep breath and drafts a three para intro for the index, one that fits on one screen.

Happy to help.

Yes, real name. Jasonbrown1965 (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Soviet Union is a comprehensive topic that doesn't fit in three short paragraphs. It doesn't look like it has "density" problems to me. Simple English Wikipedia exists if you're looking for a lighter version of the article. -Vipz (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2022

We should link the Luna 9 moon landing Wikipedia page mentioned in De-Stalinization and Khrushchev Thaw (1953–1964) section.

Luna 9 Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_9 Taylorcmcintire (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2022

I would like "A flagship communist state," in the first paragraph to be changed into "A flagship Marxist-Leninist state," for the fact that a lot of people will think communism is something similar to or completely like the Soviet Union. Imherebecauseimanerd (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Add Chechen Republic of Ichkeria to succeeded

It declared independence on November 30th, 1991, so it should count as having succeeded the USSR, especially since it lasted all the way until 2000, and had control over the territory it claimed, as well as being recognized by a UN member state (Afghanistan) Loganp23 (talk) 08:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Change "Kiev" to "Kyiv"

Please change the used name for the Ukrainian capital city from "Kiev" (derived from the Russian language name Киев) to Kyiv (derived from the Ukrainian language name Київ), reflecting the the fact that it is in Ukraine, not Russia. 31.164.93.56 (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

See Talk:Kyiv/Archive 9#RfC: Kyiv/Kiev in other articles. Mellk (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The official name of the city was Kiev until 1995, so it should remain Kiev. Loganp23 (talk) 08:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
In contemporary maps (i.e. maps from when the Soviet Union existed), what is now Kyiv appeared as Kiev; what is now Almaty appeared as Alma-Ata; and what is now St. Petersburg appeared as Leningrad. See File:1936 map of The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.jpg for example. Likewise sources that we cite that are contemporary would use the old names. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Introduction

Goszei do you think the introduction is short enough now? Jack Upland (talk) 07:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it is a significant improvement, and just about justifies removal of the tag. Good work. — Goszei (talk) 07:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Collapse?

Why is there no section in this article about the collapse of the Soviet Union?

See this: https://www.britannica.com/event/the-collapse-of-the-Soviet-Union

Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 14:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

We have this, which is linked from the article. Lectonar (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Infobox map

The map should be changed to highlight only the Soviet Union. The current map, include its satellite states - Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary & (in light green) Albania. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Biased selection of images

Not a single image or photo is shown in this article until the reader reaches the section on the Stalin era, where suddenly there is a dense cluster of photographs of the famine, forced labor, and Great Purge. How can this article pretend to present a "neutral point of view" if it doesn't even bother depicting anything about the Soviet Union before this?

If you compare it to the French, German, and Russian articles, the imagery looks nothing alike. Those articles feature maps and photographs of Lenin, Trotsky, the Revolution, etc., first—all of which are of major importance to the topic, it should go without saying. They suffice with a single image of atrocity under Stalin when they reach that point.

As it stands, the English article is quite clearly trying to give the reader a particular "first impression" and heavily emphasize Stalin's atrocities rather than simply document the Soviet Union in a neutral and balanced fashion. — Uiscefada (talk) 01:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The first couple images (starting in history) are from 1919 and 1921, respectively. Although I do not see such an issue, this era is known for millions of deaths from the war and famines. Maybe it is possible to have a better selection but I don't see some kind of biased emphasis on Stalin's atrocities (only a handful of images from this time). What specifically should be replaced then and with what? Mellk (talk) 02:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
While you're technically correct about the dates for the first couple images, they are still placed under the sub-section of "Stalin era (1927-1953)" for some reason. They should be relocated to their respective sub-sections for the time period.
As for what images should get added, I would repeat the examples I mentioned from the French and German articles I cited as a comparison: The geography section should have a map, and the "Revolution and Foundation" section should depict some key figures and events from the Revolution (there are several options to pick from, which could just be copied from those other language articles).
I think the photo of the famine should remain, but the other two photos do little to contribute to the article (the road workers in Kolyama and "Five Marshals of the Soviet Union"). Those photos would be more useful for sub-articles that are more specific than The Soviet Union overall. — Uiscefada (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
I think both those photos (Kolyma and Five Marshals) you mentioned is about repressions including forced labor under Gulag and Great Purge which are key events. But you can try to replace them if you want if you think there's something better. Mellk (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Lead too long

Jack Upland, Brandmeister In July when I added the lead too long warning you guys got it shortened down to a good length in regards to MOS, now it has been expanded again. I believe the lead needs to be shortened again in compliance with MOS. Aaron106 (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Just get rid of what's been added.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Comparing with the current version, I see no substantial changes. In any case feel free to keep it trimmed and/or place a hidden comment in the lead against its expansion. Brandmeistertalk 08:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2022

The soviet anthem do not have the Chinese sub so I want to add one pls Unknow00000 (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: This is an article about a Russian speaking nation on the English Wikipedia, why should there be a Chinese subtitle to the Soviet Anthem? Cannolis (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Environment

An edit I made removing the Environment section was reverted. I believe it isn't necessary to include such a topic as the topic generally falls under the Geography section and other country articles on wikipedia seem to lack an environment section.The section currently lacks any content worth merging with the geography section due to being poorly written and lacking relevance/notability so I felt that removing it did not need an explanation; I had not realised that this was a contentious topic. Originalcola (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I think this is an uncontroversial opinion and doesn't require much debate or the establishment of a consensus to make this change. Removing content usually only requires debate if there's prior consensus or objections, of which there seem to be none to me based on the reason given for the initial edit revert. Originalcola (talk) 04:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
The entire section was about environmental concerns anyway. Environment should be mentioned under geography, not its own section. See Geography of the Soviet Union. Mellk (talk) 07:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard § Soviet Rbl

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard § Soviet Rbl. NotReallySoroka (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Kazakhstan

In the info box, the flag of Kazakhstan is the Soviet one. Why is this? 165.234.101.99 (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

They didn’t have the flag adopted until 1992z. Also, it was the Soviet Union itself for a few days. 174.89.100.11 (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Soviet Union

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Soviet Union's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "sander":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

1936 map

please add map of soviet union in 1936. Thank you. Make it alongside the cold war map. Soviet (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Map and republics of the USSR

At the beginning of the article a map of "The Soviet Union during the Cold War", it is a map of the entire Eastern Bloc, not just the USSR. At the beginning of the article, the largest cities of the USSR are listed, there are cities: Sofia, Budapest, Bratislava, Krakow. These cities never belonged to the Soviet Union. How can you make such mistakes?!--109.87.11.238 (talk) 13:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

It also references SSRs that never existed IE "Polish SSR", "Czechoslovakian SSR" EpicBoy1848 (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that too. 109.87.11.238 (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
This was a case of vandalism. –Vipz (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Ethnic groups

The ethnic groups section on the top infobox has no source and seems to be entirely incorrect (The USSR was not even close to 23.7% Kazakh in 1989). It should be replaced with properly sourced statistics on the same topic. Sam97368 (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

There are two "Geography" sections

Wouldn't it be better to merge them? 178.120.61.200 (talk) 03:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, merge.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
See also Talk:Soviet_Union/Archive_19#Environment. Mellk (talk) 04:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
I can't though, it's semi-protected lol. 178.120.61.200 (talk) 03:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

TyrantstalinAssassinatedOnKatynMassacres13thAnniversary/TyrantStalinLosesKatynMassacreTrial56YearsAfterAssassination!

wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Soviet_Union_(disambiguation)&diff=prev&oldid=1168558883

wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polish_Operation_of_the_NKVD&diff=prev&oldid=1169319568 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.188.227.193 (talk) 03:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

extended confirm request

it should be extended confirm protection due to it being part of russian history, Russia is an extended confirm article 174.66.101.236 (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Protection is considered separately for every individual article. –Vipz (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

RF is not successor but continuation of USSR.

In letter of President of RF to UNSG dated 24th December 1991 you can read i.a.: "I have the honour to inform you that the membership of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the United Nations, including the Security Council and all other organs and organizations of the United Nations system, is being continued by the Russian Federation (RSFSR) with the support of the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States."

According to Public International Law succession does not include taking the membership in international organizations by successor state. In addition according to Article 23 of the UN Charter "Soviet Union" is a member of UNSC, not "Russian Federation". Mistepien (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Legacy

Seems like legacy should be the last category in the article, after thee USSR's legacy is discussed it goes on to sports, seems out of order RomanGrandpa (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

How was the Soviet Union a dictatorship between 1924 to 1927?

Stalin was nowhere near close to consolidating power in the party or the country in 1924 or 1925. It's only until 1926 that he began to properly consolidate power. Nearly every source would point to the fact that from 1924 to somewhere around 1928-1930 (at the most) the Soviet Union was collectively ruled and not governed by any specific person or group. Who's the dictator from 1924-1928/30? We don't consider Lenin's rule as a 'dictatorship' in this article despite him objectively having better qualifications to be classified as such. We aren't considering the period after Stalin as being a dictatorship so it's not the party that's forming the dictatorship. The section for the 1924-1927 government form does not have any sources provided. I will be revising it as such. If there is any objections please do raise them. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Lenin could order any number of innocent people murdered for any reason or no reason at all, and so could Stalin. They were dictators, QED. Nitpicking this obvious fact by pointing to their Potemkin legislatures and committies is silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:667F:2797:451:3077:F89E:7BE5 (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
The consensus reached both by scholars, and by this very article, is that even at the height of Lenin's power he could not have been considered a dictator. The scholarly consensus, again, is that Stalin's consolidation of power only began by 1926, and he could only have been considered the unchallenged ruler of the Soviet Union by 1930. A real and powerful, rather than imaginary, legal and party opposition to Stalin and a lack of the dictatorial powers he possessed after 1930 is proof of this.

Kalivyah (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

intro should highlight downfall of the soviet union

like for real; gorbachev sought to implement economic reforms. ok. but why? why is it not mentioned that the soviet economy at that point was in the gutter? And in the alinea after that it is stated that the soviet union was until its dissolution one of the scientifc advanced countries in the world? While they were a snail racing behind the horse that is science in the usa? That should be mentioned too in my opinion, an article about imperial germany should not read 'the imperial rulers always enjoyed support from the populance' cuz they did not, why does the intro highlight the economy and the science in the SU as something good while it stagnated during brezhnev or before that? 2001:1C01:35C4:6900:B4A2:8C5E:9B76:6847 (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia content is based on what reliable sources say, not your personal perspective. Can you provide some such sources for your views? HiLo48 (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

On the infobox's symbols.

You know how the RSFSR's Wikipedia page has both the 1st and last symbols from the RSFSR? Why not do that for the USSR? I mean, it had 5 flag changes, which is beyond too much, why not have both the 1922-1923 flag/coat of arms, and the 1955-1991 flag/coat of arms? 342rfawrfarefarwf (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Not a bad idea.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Why are the leaders called "main leader"

Aren't they supposed to be called "Premier" of "Chairman" W1k1Us3r.0924 (talk) 09:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Because the main leaders had various titles. Lenin was Premier, Stalin was General Secretary, etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2024

Second-to-last paragraph of lead section:

"In the mid-1980s, the last Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, sought to reform the country through his policies of glasnost and perestroika."

If people disagree that's fine, but I suggest the change of "In the mid-1980s" to "From 1985", as that was when Gorbachev became the leader of the USSR. Thank you! 2A02:C7E:3188:4C00:5410:DC5F:EA4B:FD94 (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Done.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2024

I want to add a section of the pros and cons of the soviet union. Longlivethesovietunion (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
There is already a section titled "Legacy". Do you have material that would be suitable to add to it? Bruce leverett (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Statistics should be from the pre-Gorbachev eras (if possible)

When Gorbachev ran the country in the late 80s to early 90s, his reforms dramatically changed the country to a state that was totally unrecognizable from the rest of Soviet history; the USSR was a dirt-poor country throughout most of its history, and only including figures from the (at least humanitarian) peak of its history gives readers a very skewed perspective of what the Soviet Union was like during most of its existence. I know that this is probably because we don’t have many (if any) reliable statistics of the USSR, but we should try to find information that’s more accurate to Soviet history as a whole (or at least make a footnote denoting the improved state of the USSR at the time of the data collection). LordOfWalruses (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I have not read your source (the article "Poverty and wealth"), but your claim that the state of the USSR was "improved" at the time of the data collection contradicts the claim in the source's Abstract that "Gorbachev's attempts at economic reform led to implosion and food shortages."
But in any case, whatever sources you find, don't hesitate to cite them in the article, if they are reliable. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2024

I want to make some changes to allow a more positive outlook for people visiting the page. Coolperson45 (talk) 10:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 11:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Invasion of Poland

need to mention why the SU made a pact with nazi Germany. It was in order to split Poland and get revenge for the last Polish Russian conflict in early 1920. Blaki974 (talk) 11:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

That's debatable.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
I know that this talk is old and that I don’t have the full context of the conversation, but how is it debatable? Isn’t it an objective fact that the USSR made a pact with Nazi Germany to divide and get revenge on Poland after the USSR lost territory to the Polish at the Peace of Riga? LordOfWalruses (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
This is post hoc ergo propter hoc. If you're saying that some event in 1920 directly caused some event in 1939, the burden of proof is on you. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
this is not debatable.
Occupation of Poland (1939–1945)#:~:text=In September 1939, Poland was,of the former Polish territory. AlasdarVan (talk) 05:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Cities spelling correction

According to Wikipedia's Manual of Style of Ukrainian related articles should be written according to the current accepted English spelling. For Ukraine-related articles, the guideline specifically recommends "Kyiv". e.g. "Kyiv" is the current internationally recognized spelling, reflecting the Ukrainian government's preference and the city's official name in English.

Important to include the past name within the historical context. So all mentions of Ukrainian cities such as Kyiv, Dnipropetrovsk, Odesa, Lviv, Kharkiv should be written in Ukrainian spelling, and not Russian, which is the current spelling: Kiev, Dniepropetrovsk, Odessa, Lvov, Kharkiv.

The inclusion of the historical (past) name of those cities should only be mentioned once as follows, e.g. ... Kyiv (known as Kiev during the Soviet period) AlasdarVan (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm curious. WP:KYIV states "for unambiguously historical topics (e.g. Principality of Kiev), do not change existing content." A rule of thumb given is pre-1995 or pre-1991, therefore a "historical" label applies to this article. How can your changes be justified in that context, then? AbsoluteWissen (talk) 06:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree with AbsoluteWissen's reading of the policy. Kyiv is the accepted name today, but as AlasdarVan said, not during the Soviet period. The supermajority of English-language primary and source secondary sources discussing the Soviet Union use the old Russian spellings for city names, particularly those written before the late 2010s. Thus, it is preferrable to have the historical spelling, which is why the exception AbsoluteWissen mentioned exists. Yue🌙 06:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Agree. Though partially, according to the same WP:KYIV,
"
The following rule of thumb for determining what is current or historical was also established:
From October 1995 (Resolution of the Ukrainian Commission for Legal Terminology No. 5), Kyiv is presumptively appropriate subject to specifics of the article.
From 24 August 1991 (Ukrainian independence), Kyiv is likely to be appropriate, but proceed with caution.
"
So I suggest to keep all mentions of Ukraine's cities in Russian spelling, though every mentioned of those cities in the context of historical period starting 24 August 1991, change to the Ukrainian spelling. AlasdarVan (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Short description

Please take seriously the short description. Do not frivolously discard a perfectly good short description because it "sounds odd". Feel free to use this section of the talk page to start a discussion of possible improvement to the short description. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

1986 Study should be removed

Someone is trying to push personal agendas when linking the debunked 1986 study about quality of life. The study is not peer reviewed, incorrectly lists multiple capitalist countries with decentralized economies socialists and vice versa. The sample size is also only 33 countries which suggests even more sampling bias. Regardless of your opinions the source is not reliable and has many detractors. Davionwiki (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Successor list should include de facto successors

The Gagauz Republic was a de facto successor to the Soviet Union and should be listed as such. It declared independence from the Moldavian SSR and never formally seceded from the union. Whether or not it was internationally recognized is irrelevant because it was functionally independent and not part of overall Moldova at the time of the USSR's official dissolution. SavagePanda845 (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

In the documentation for Template:infobox country, I don't see any guidelines about deciding what entities should be included in the "Succeeded by" column. Am I missing something, or, alternatively, has this issue been resolved, or even discussed, in the talk page for that template or in any other talk page anywhere?
Looking at German Empire, I see that the "Succeeded by" column includes Memel territory, Territory of the Saar Basin, and Danzig. But for some reason, it doesn't include various other pieces of territory that were carved out of Germany after the first world war. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I had added the Gagauz Republic as one of the Soviet Union’s successors. It was removed, I re-added it with a summary, and it was removed again. It took it to talk to not start an edit war. SavagePanda845 (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I think we should create a uniform standard for each successor states. I don’t know if the Gagauz Republic should be here at all. YDMC192 (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Another question about a piece of the old Soviet Union being a successor is Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, which has caused at least one edit war. Also Transnistria.
Since this is Wikipedia, perhaps we should be using notability as a criterion, rather than diplomatic recognition by other nations, or "functional independence" (whatever that is). With that as the criterion, all three of these states should be on the list. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I think that they should only put sovereign states recognized by the United Nations. That’s just my opinion. Because that’s the only format. YDMC192 (talk) 07:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I didn't say "functional independence" as if that's a widely recognized status countries seek to achieve. I meant that if a break-away nation holds territory and functions independently from the nation they broke away from, then it should be included. Like, that is literally what a country is and diplomatic relations shouldn't matter. Case in point, North Korea is very much considered its own country, despite not being recognized by their southern neighbors. Of course that doesn't mean you have to support them or believe they should exist. Personally, the idea of "recognizing" countries is just silly to me, because they're there whether you like them or not. SavagePanda845 (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Usually it is said that 15 republics emerged from the USSR. The infobox should summarize key details, the information about breakaway states should be mentioned elsewhere. It is not possible to adequately communicate the nuances in the infobox. This all depends on the sources. Mellk (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Include only the sovereign states recognized by the United Nations organization or something. YDMC192 (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Notes are often used in infoboxes though for unclear things or for clarification. They may not give every bit of information as like you said, infoboxes summarize key details, but they do condense it and leave it readable. SavagePanda845 (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
How many breakaway states and self-proclaimed states were there? Should we include a footnote for every single one? Mellk (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree that the infobox should be a summary of key details, a point that I had forgotten. From MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, this is a statement of the basic paradox: "The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance."
At present, a summary of the breakaway and self-proclaimed states is given in the last paragraph of the "Post-Soviet states" section. This is little more than a bunch of links, but I think that is adequate for the purposes of this article. I also think that the infobox should list only the 15 republics (plus perhaps the CIS). However, future editors will be tempted to re-add the breakaways to this list, and if a single footnote mentioning them would help to discourage that, it might be useful. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps it can be done in a similar as in ru:Союз Советских Социалистических Республик, where it states UN member states only, and the footnote mentions the Russian Federation as the continuator state and other details, if necessary, Mellk (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Maybe that as you described but only the states recognized by the United Nations only. YDMC192 (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Independent confusion between Estonia, Latvia and Armenia

Well since both got their independence restored possibly on the same year and month (Like Latvia: Either 5/4/1990 (Declared/Partial Independent) or 8/21/1991 (Fully Independent), and Estonia: Either 5/8/1990 (Declared/Partial Independent) or 8/20/1991 (Fully Independent)). It's pretty confused for people to think what the actual date is that they restored their independent. Let's hope someone can make this less confused. Don’t forget about the Armenia’s independence (despite it gained in 8/23/1990 as declared/partial and 9/21/1991 and fully). As of according to the actual history or government, 4 countries left the Soviet Union not just 1— Preceding unsigned comment added by STB363 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Soviet_Union/Archive_19&oldid=1258385702"