Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of leaders of the Soviet Union/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 19:38, 3 June 2010 [1].

List of leaders of the Soviet Union

[edit]

List of leaders of the Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): --TIAYN (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complete list of the leaders of the Soviet Union which i have nominated. ;P --TIAYN (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Oppose Comment. I worry that the question of who was the leader of SU at any particular historical time may be entirely subjective. For instance, why Trotsky is not included? He may be considered the leader in 1923-1924. Ruslik_Zero 16:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trotsky never had enough support in the Communist Party to became leader of the republic or even the party machine, thats why Joseph Stalin became leader. If Trotsky had enough support and strength between 1923-1924 Stalin would probably not become leader, and the mass murders would probably not have happened. To conclude, while you may be right, your view is hold by a minority, and is therefor a WP:FRINGE theory. --TIAYN (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please, do not attribute to me opinions that I have never stated. I have never said that Trotsky should be included. I just asked a question. I, however, do not understand the criteria used to choose particular leaders for inclusion in this list. Why Malenkov is included? He was never especially influential within Soviet leadership at that time. Is 'troika' a leader? (Anyway, this is incomplete list of troikas.) Ruslik_Zero 19:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you are saying does not make sense, George Malenkov was First Secretary and controlled the Soviet Union before the rise of Khrushchev, and this is not an incomplete list of Troikas. Tell me missing troikas? Your statements and opinions are wrong on this matter. You are right, they may have been other troikas, but none of those other troikas ruled the Soviet Union. The inclusion is easy, those who ruled the Soviet Union!`--TIAYN (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He never was the First Secretary. He was a secretary and resigned form the secretariat on 13 March. The position of First (or General) Secretary did not even exist in 1953. Ruslik_Zero 10:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is again both inaccuratte and absurd. The post of the Genereal Secretary was established in 1922 and was re-named right after Stalin's to First Secretary. Malenkov was elected to the secretariat in 1952, not 1953, and seeing as i'm right, the post existed in the 1950s. Just remove your absurd oppose, its ridicules and, you are basing your claims on inaccurate information. --TIAYN (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The post of the General Secretary was formally abolished in 1934 during the 17-th Party Congress (see here, p. 158). Stalin was just the first secretary meaning that his name was first in the list of secretaries. Formally all secretaries were equal. Malenkov was elected a secretary (together with Stalin and others) in 1952 and I never claimed otherwise. No General Secretary was elected. On 6 March 1953, just after Stalin's death, Malenkov's name was moved to the first position in the list of secretaries (see here, p. 123). In other words he became the first secretary, literally. On March 14 Malenkov resigned from the secretariat. The post of General Secretary was reinstated only in 1965. You should be very accurate when composing such lists as this one. Ruslik_Zero 19:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know, see table, Malenkov ruled the Soviet Union not as a secretary but as a premier. --TIAYN (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not strike out against reviewers; Ruslik has been civil, whereas you have now twice attacked him. --Golbez (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, i'm not trying to attack him or act like a jurk, but what he is saying is inaccurate. --TIAYN (talk) 05:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Ruslik_Zero 07:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Specific problems as you asked:
  1. However, after Joseph Stalin's consolidation of power in the 1920s[3] the post of General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, later re-named First Secretary and re-verted back to General Secretary The post 'General Secretary' was not renamed it was abolished in 1934 and reinstated in 1965. The First Secretary was an informal name for the secretary who was first on the list of formally equal secretaries.
  2. As chief of the executive branch There was no separation of powers in the Soviet Union.
    • Done
  3. Lenin was forced into semi-retirement. He was not forced into semi-retirement. He was seriously ill (suffered several strokes). This is inaccurate.
    • Done
  4. On March 6, Malenkov left his office in the Central Committee to become Chairman of the Council of Ministers. He did not. He quited the secretariat on 14 March a week after he was appointed the Chairman of the Council of Ministers. (See the second ref I gave above.)
  5. The table contains two columns called Took office and Left office, but it is not clear what office? 'The leader' was not an official post.
    • Done
  6. The 'party' column is superfluous and should be removed—they all were members of one party.
    • Done
  7. The table says that Malenkov took office on 5 March 1953 and left office in 1955. However the timeline above the table says otherwise. In it he was in power since the end of 1940s.
    • Done
  8. You changed the composition of the first troika replacing Khrushchev with Molotov. What was the reason for this change?
  9. The second troika is rather strange—it is made of four people!
    • Mikoyan was later replaced as Chairman of the Presidium, it sais to in the note
  10. In the first note General Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks until the party was re-named to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1952. This has the same problem as in item 1 above.
  11. Served as First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and Premier from March 6, 1953 to February 8, 1955 This sentence wrongly implies that he was the first secretary for two years!
  12. The first Troika consisted of Georgy Malenkov, Lavrentiy Beria, and Vyacheslav Molotov and lasted until Khrushchev was able to consolidate power. Well, Beria was arrested in June 1953, so I do not understand how this troika could last until the September as the table implies?
  13. Served as First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party[59] and later Chairman of the Presidium Breznev served as the First Secretary in 1964-1965 and as the General Secretary after the 23-th Congress.
    • Done
  14. What do you think about this troika?

This is not a complete list of problems in the article.

  1. Done
    Why did you decide to include it? Before you claimed that the list of troikas was complete. Ruslik_Zero 08:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    First, that Troika never seemed to be a ruling Troika, from what i read, but seeing that i don't know much about the subject of of pre-Khrushchev Soviet Union, i'm letting this one slip. --TIAYN (talk) 09:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What is a ruling troika? Remember that those leader did not know that they were members of a troika. They were assigned to it later by historians. Ruslik_Zero 12:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslik_Zero 19:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I know, but it seems that this troika didn't rule the country, but simply blocked all resolutions made by Trotsky, I'm not saying they had power, but they didn't controll the Soviet Union together, and seeing that Lenin (1922-24) and Trotsky held key positions in Soviet politics at that time, it would have been hard for them to actually rule the country. What other troika's have in common is that three top officials, who all share important posts, share power. This Troika seemed to be build on the foundation to stop Trotsky, and nothing more. --TIAYN (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 09:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments
  • 'Soviet government' should be capitalized in this instance, because it is referring to it as a proper noun.
    • Done
  • According to the MOS, titles such as "General Secretary" should only be capitalized either when before the name or in its full version, such as "General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union".
    • Done
  • Why do you use "Central Executive Committee of the USSR", while the article is located at "Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union"?
    • Done
  • As far as I can see, there is no link to "Soviet Union" in the lead.
    • Done
  • Could the lead be split into two paragraphs? It is long and tedious, as it deals with a lot of heavy terminology.
    • Done
  • Perhaps a little short lead, too. More could be said about the actual people, even name them all.
    • Done
  • First mention of Khrushchev and Brezhnev need full names and links in the lead.
    • Done
  • As "threesome" is the term being translated to, it should be in quotation marks.
    • Done
  • Should not the synonymous o"Soviet Union" and "USSR" somehow be established, such as Soviet Union (USSR) or similar? I am sure there are people out there who do not know that Soviet Union = USSR (it's been gone 20 years now).
    • Done
  • There is a timeline, which seems to have to bars, but the difference is not explained.
    • What do you mean with "two bars"?
      • The timeline consists of two horizontal lines (or bars) on top of each other. They contain color-coded information about the various leaders. What does the top line represent, and what does the bottom one represent? Arsenikk (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done
  • The caption for Gorbachev in the infobox shouldn't be in bold.
  • All the time "Russian Communist Party (bolsheviks)" redirect to "Communist Party of the Soviet Union", is it really necessary to have the party entry? It isn't as if the list is describing a multi-party system.
    • I know, but that was the party's name under Lenin and Stalin until 1952.
      • It it is a mere name change, still don't see why it should be included.
        • Done
  • If you're gonna link one entry in the table, you've gotta link the whole column.
    • Again, what are you talking about? Should i link all CPSU links in the article in thet table?
      • Each row of the table needs to stand on its own merit. I see no need to include the party, or even link to it if it is included, but if it is linked in one row, it should be linked in all. The same goes for troika. The party linking looks good now. Arsenikk (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done
  • Is the red, vertical bar really necessary in the table? It's the USSR, I think we all understand they were communist.
    • Done
  • File:Konstantin Chernenko.jpg and File:Andropov1.jpg are fair use images, and can't be used on this list.
  • All the bibliography entries contain page numbers, yet are typically referred to with several pages in the references.
    • I really don't understand what you are trying to say.
  • The external link should have an endahs instead of a hyphen in it, see WP:DASH.
    • Done

All in all looks pretty good, although there is always the picky details. Arsenikk (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply, but there are so many things to do on Wikipedia and in real life right now. As a lot of the prose is rewritten, so I have some more comments:

  • The sentence starting with "However, after Joseph Stalin's ..." is very long and should be split into two or even three.
    • Done
  • In "As head of the union government as a whole,[5] general secretary", need a 'the' in front of 'general secretary'; similarly 'premier'
    • Done
  • According to the MOS, 'general secretary' should only be capitalized in long for (General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union) or in front of the name as a title. Similar for 'vice president'.
    • Done
  • "fifty-three-year-old" should be "53-year-old".
    • Done
  • 'General secretary' does not need to be re-linked in the summary section, similarly 'troika' and 'politburo'
    • Done
  • In "Stalin, as head of the Politburo consolidated", there should be a comma after Politburo.
    • Done
  • In "which would prove to be a strategic mistake because the party would later prove to", try to avoid using the word 'prove' twice in the same sentence. This is not wrong as such, but featured lists require excellent prose.
    • Done
  • 'Underestimation' links to cost underestimation which discusses an aspect of accounting, not strategy or politics.
    • Done
  • In "both in 1956 and later in 1962", the word 'later' is redundant and breaks the flow of the sentence.
    • Done
  • If you're going to use an abbreviation such as 'CPSU', you've got to explain it by put it in parenthesis behind the full version at first mention.
    • Done
  • Instead of "The Anti-Party Group, were however a minority", say "The Anti-Party Group was a minority..."
    • Done
  • Could you break up that sentence in two, please.
    • Done
  • 'domineering' sounds awfully Norwegian, although it does exist in the English dictionary. Perhaps 'dominant' is a better word?
    • Done
  • Comma after 'Constantine Chernenko'.
    • Done
  • "11th of March 1985" isn't allowed per MOS. Instead, use March 11, 1985.
    • Done
  • Comma after "By the mid-to-late 1980s".
    • Done
  • Rephrase "The years of 1988-89" to for instance "In 1988 and 1989" to avoid using a dash in-line.
    • Done

Arsenikk (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comment I am confused by the date. Based on my understanding, from April 3, 1922 to January 21, 1924, Lenin and Stalin both were the country's "leader".—Chris!c/t 1:28 pm, Today (UTC−7)

Done
  • Comment I am confused by the timeline. According to the table, Stalin replaced Lenin on Jan 21, 1924. However, the timeline shows them overlapping for '22-'24, with no explanation as to what that means. Similarly, the table has Malenkov as ruling for a week before being supplanted by the troika, but the timeline has him overlapping Stalin and Krushchev for '48-'55. I understand that Soviet politics is not a straight-forward affair, but there's no textual explanation in the list to explain this discrepancy. On a different note, I think you should say who the members of the troikas are in the table- this is not such a long list that you need to conserve space. --PresN 14:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - some quick notes
  • reverted isn't hyphenated.
    • Done
  • gecretary?
    • Done
  • "however is underestimation of the party machine" reads like a newspaper.
    • Done
  • "close-knite" knit.
    • Done
  • "Because political offices varied in strength in different period, such as the General Secretaryship under Stalin and Gorbachnev, there has been much discussion on who the leader of the Soviet Union 'really' is. However, this list follows the majority view and not the minority view." this is a real problem. This indicates that there's some kind of original research going on as to who's included in the list. As this is fundamental in the list,

I'll oppose right now, and review again should this issue be resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I stuck my oppose, however, the lack of well defined inclusion criteria makes me to stay neutral. Ruslik_Zero 07:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Repetition: "The office of the People's Commissars was the equivalent of the office of prime minister," instead how about 'was equivalent to the office of' [in that way the repetitive of is removed]
    • Done
  • Same thing here: "while the office of the Central Executive Committee was the equivalent of president."
    • Done
  • "though the Soviet Union collapsed before this was tried out." -- 'tried out' -> 'before it could have been tried.'
    • Done
  • "Lenin was elected Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars on 8 November 1917 by the Russian Congress of Soviets, as such, he declared; "Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the entire country" in modernising Russia into a twentieth-century country" - no need for the semi colon
    • Done
More later..--Truco 503 20:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Continued
  • "After a failed assination attempt, Lenin's popularity was on the rise,[15] but his health, as a 53-year-old man, declined from the effects of two bullet wounds, later aggravated by three strokes which culminated to his death in 1924." -- so many commas and pauses, it would just be best to split these two sentences; also a typo on assassination.
  • To be quite honest, this list should have been peer reviewed before it came to FLC. There are a lot of poor sentence structures in the summary portion. This is not a place for PR, so I have to stand with an Oppose until either the prose is revised. --Truco 503 01:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_leaders_of_the_Soviet_Union/archive1&oldid=1207851672"