Talk:Republics of the Soviet Union

message: Wasnt there briefly a Slovak and/or Czechoslovak Soviet Socialist Repbulic?
:Yes there was (called CSSR), but it had nothing to do with USSR and so it doesn't belong to this article.—Kami888
::CSSR stands for Czechoslovak Socialist Republic; there never was a "Soviet" Czechoslovakia. Kpalion 16:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slovakia 

message: wasn't Mongolia a part of de U.S.S.R???—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.212.121.204 (talk • contribs) .
:No, it was not.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 18:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mongolia 

message: I came here in hopes of reading about the Bolshevik Revolution, Lenin's new economy, Trotsky, Stalin acsent to power, the Gulag, the farming collectives etc... I was deeply disappointed This article is far from complete. I realise that there allready is an article about the bolshevic revolution and one on russian history. There should atleast be a see also reference to these two. I will be working on this article in the next few weeks to make it complete.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaanatakan (talk • contribs) .
:You are more than welcome to make whatever additions you feel will improve this article.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 00:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History, See Also 

message: Wasn't Abkhazia a seperate Soviet republic until 1931? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.157.44.34 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 2 June 2006  (UTC)
:Not really.  There was an ostensibly independent Abkhazian SSR from 31 March 1921 until 16 December 1921, which was not part of the USSR.  In December 1921 it was incorporated into Georgia under a "special union-treaty", which was ratified in February 1922.  Officially, this established Abkhazia and Georgia as equal partners in a Soviet Republic, and lasted until the creation of the TSFSR and USSR later that year.  In 1931, Abkhazia was demoted to an autonomous republic within the Georgian SSR, but wasn't itself a Union Republic before. -David Schaich Talk/Contrib 22:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abkhazia 

message: Sorry, just a personal trivia (maybe you should add it on the article, if you think): people born in Soviet Republics had their names written (I mean, on the passports or ID cards) in Russian cyrillic or native languages (like Azerbaijani, Ukrainian...)? or maybe both? or maybe...it depends from republic to republic?
Russian, it was all done in Russian, the native languages where strongly not encouraged.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.154.19.180 (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a naming trivia 

message: there is a conflicting perspective regarding the Baltic states, the alternative POV says the states were occupied by USSR until 1991, the status of the Soviet Republics was never recognized de jure by the Western democracies. Therefore the title is a POV by itself. Any suggestions welcome to make the article in compliance with WP:NPOV policies. Thanks!--Termer 00:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Had their own communist parties is patently erraneous: Russi had no special section of KPSS 88.196.10.209 10:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't get it. In what way is Republics of the Soviet Union not a descriptive title? sephia karta 15:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Taken as descriptive, it would imply these administrative units were Republics.  This is non-factual; therefore it's not descriptive. ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 16:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For Wikipedia purposes, "factual" means "backed up by sources".  The thread you yourself are backing says that the "republic existed only on paper", hence the sources exist, ergo the statement is factual and the title is descriptive.  Furthermore, the map's caption ("Soviet Union administrative divisions") is factually incorrect as the republics were constituent members of the Union, and not its administrative divisions (oblasts, krais, autonomous okrugs, and ASSRs were top-level administrative divisions of the Soviet Republics).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: constituent members? The constitution of the USSR was a fictional literature that had nothing to do with the facts of life. And not to worry, the article is going to be rewritten according to sources that can be taken seriously to end up this fantasy piece on WP --Termer 21:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That the Constitution of the USSR defined the entities as "Soviet Republics" is a sourceable fact.  That numerous academic sources referred to the entities as "Republics" is a sourceable fact.  That the Constitution of the USSR was filled with lies and (pardon the pun) constituted a piece of "fictional literature" is an opinion, and a rather biased at that.  Before attempting any re-write, I strongly urge you to review (and apply in practice) the WP:SOURCES, WP:RS, and, above all, the WP:NPOV policies of Wikipedia.  There is room in the article for any opinions that can be backed up with good sources, but one must make sure not to give any of those opinions any undue prominence.  If opinions can't be sourced, stick with the facts, and remember that Wikipedia is not about truth, it's about verifiability.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your suggestions Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?). I consider this article very low priority that's why I take my time until the current fairy tale is going to be rewritten according to the facts. And I'm sorry to point out that I really can't take seriously opinions like the soviet constitution was anything more than a fiction on paper. If it's biased? no, its a fact! It was a fictional constitution that in the reality was a totalitarian regime ruled not by law. --Termer 01:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Termer!  I still think you should thoroughly read the policies and guidelines mentioned above.  I, in turn, should point out that for the purposes of writing a Wikipedia article, it matters very little what you, me, or any other editor personally thinks about the topic at hand.  What matters is facts, facts, and more facts.  That the Constitution of the USSR was a "fictional" document is an opinion (and so, of course, would be the opposite statement that this Constitution was, say, "true to life").  Facts would include the assertion that the Soviet Constitution proclaimed the Republics to be socialist entities, each having certain rights.  A statement that, for example, such and such source described the Constitution as a fictional document full of lies, and that this statement is supported by such and such organizations based on such and such evidence would also be a fact.  In other words, when in describing the subject one ventures outside the realm of facts into the realm of opinions, one must convert said opinions to facts by extensively sourcing them, remembering that exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and never basing the articles on personal experience or viewpoints (which is exactly what makes articles biased).  To achieve NPOV, one should make an effort to shed light on all existing opinions that can be sourced in accordance with WP:SOURCE and WP:RS, without giving any of those opinions undue prominence by presenting them in a more favorable light.  We are not here to promote opinions or raise awareness, we are here to describe and reference facts.  I hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly my point Ëzhiki, the article should be factual based on sources not like the current fairy tale that doesn't ref to any source and is based on someones opinion. The socialist republic being the statement that is the most misleading--Termer 13:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's one statement that's easily sourced by the Constitution (yes, I know, currently it is not sourced at all, which will need to be fixed).  Any alternate viewpoints should equally be sourced.  Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything is cool other than, I'm sorry to point out: the Soviet Constitution can't be looked at as a reliable source by itself.--Termer 14:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am no big fan of the Soviet Constitution myself, but as per WP:RS, it is a reliable source and hence should be treated as such.  It is, of course, by no means the only reliable source that can be used for this article.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorry Ëzhiki that's exactly what I meant, per WP:RS the Soviet Constitution can't be considered a reliable source by itself because it's not factual or trustworthy. It should be common knowledge that the Soviet Constitution had very little to do with the facts of reality.--Termer 15:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Termer, for Wikipedia puproses a "reliable" source is not one that contains truth (whether it does or not is itself a matter of opinion, which you are free to express privately, but not base whole articles on it), it is the one that is verifiable.  A reliable source is one "that can be regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" (as per WP:RS).  Whatever your personal view of the matter is, you can't deny that the Soviet Constitution did deal with the subject at hand and that it is a trustworthy and an authoritative source as far as the Soviet viewpoint is concerned.  You may not like that viewpoint or you may want to challenge it, but you cannot challenge the fact that the Constitution is a good source suitable to illustrate this particular opinion.  If you are planning to add alternative opinions (which is the right thing to do in order to achieve the NPOV), you will need to find other reliable sources supporting that alternative point of view.  I hope I am not confusing you to death with all this, but understanding how NPOV works is vital if we are to produce balanced articles instead of propaganda sheets where cliques of editors revert-war between two poorly-sourced pieces of prose reflecting opposite opinions.  This article very much needs improvement, but replacing one POV with another would not be an improvement at all.  What's more, an opinion (in this case your statement that the Soviet Constitution is not factual or trustworthy) can never be declared "common knowledge", only facts can.  No opinion can ever be a fact, only a sourced statement of an opinion can be (i.e., that someone holds a particular opinion is a fact, providing that this statement can be sourced, but the opinion itself is not a fact).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Great then :)  All of them were socialist republics, however, is not at all misleading as long as one adds according to the Constitution of the USSR.  Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What if one would also mention the occupations?  Would you agree that "... all of them, including the occupied territories, were SSRs according to the Constitution" is NPOV? ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 19:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "According to Constitution" is not NPOV by itself, nor does it make the statement it references NPOV; it is merely an attribution for/verification of one of the viewpoints.  NPOV can only be achieved when all prominent viewpoints on the subject are presented and sourced.  The statement you supplied above is incredibly biased in that it does not attribute the term "occupied territories" to anything but merely voices an opinion of the author (you).  That "the Republics were SSRs according to the Constitution" is a well-referenced statement; that the "Republics included occupied territories" is not.  NPOV would be saying that the "Republics were SSRs <according to the Soviet Constitution>; however, according to <reliable source> some of them were considered occupied territories<where? by whom?>".  This way both viewpoints would be fairly presented and well-sourced; as for the final conclusion, it would be drawn by readers, not imposed by Wikipedia editors.  Our job is to present and describe facts and existing points of view, not to push opinions on readers or to present opinions as facts.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds good once after according to the Constitution of the USSR comes a sourced and refd citation that explains what the Constitution of the USSR was all about in reality.--Termer 17:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, that kind of explanation would belong in the Constitution of the Soviet Union article, not here.  This is an article about the Republics, not about the Constitution.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats your opinion I don't share.--Termer 20:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not just my opinion, that's a good practice which keeps focus on the subject being discussed, not jumps from one related topic to another, thus confusing readers.  Facts and sourced opinions about republics should be in the article about the republics, facts and sourced opinions about the Constitution should be in the article about the Constitution, and facts and sourced opinions about the Soviet Union itself should be in the article about the Soviet Union.  If you need to cross-reference topics, that's what they invented hyperlinks for :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Within a topic—my point exactly!  "Constitution of the USSR" is not within the topic of "Republics of the USSR"; it is a related subject that has its own article.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you want to put it that way, I have no problem with for example - the Baltic Socialist Republics were Republics of the Soviet Union according to the Constitution of the USSR. At the same time: according to the European court of human rights, the USA, the EU, the Soviet Baltic Republics were just occupied countries/states by the USSR. And of course it should not be forgotten that according to the Soviet Constitution article 15 the sovereignty of each Union republic was limited and that the USSR safeguarded the sovereign rights of the Union republics that during the era of Stalin were virtually non-existent. (The Government and Politics of the Soviet Union By Leonard Bertram Schapiro)--Termer 22:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: PS."Constitution of the USSR" is not within the topic of "Republics of the USSR" is still just an opinion. Of course I'm not saying that the article here needs an in depth coverage of the constitution like the main article could...--Termer 23:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find the structure and spirit of your example above perfectly acceptable and NPOV-compliant.  As for the Constitution, I also see nothing wrong in providing a brief (one or two sentences) overview of its aspects directly related with the topic at hand.  A more in-depth criticism of the Constitution, occupation, and Soviet Union in general should go to the corresponding articles; otherwise the flow and the logic of the article would be compromised.  Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: So...in what sense is the title POV, or in other words, what would you propose? Regards, Bogdan 02:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: noticed another thing in the article. The table in the article claims that Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania were successors of the ESSR, LSSR. This is factually incorrect. Please see for example 'Estonia By David James Smith, p. 20': ...longer established states simply restored pre-war diplomatic links rather than recognising a new, post soviet 'Thirrd Republic' as a successor to the ESSR founded in 1940. So either Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania should be removed from  the Successor lists or  "Successor" section should be renamed to something that is in sync with sources out there. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 04:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Successor? 

message: Can anybody please rework and clarify the following statement found beneath the Soviet republics table:
:due to the international justice an independent state, not belonged to the Soviet Union, which however had a status of the Soviet republic formally during the Soviet occupation
Thank you. Pristino (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing statement

message: The republics are numbered 1 to 15 on the table that includes population.  What does the number refer to?  Bevo74 (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Republic Numbers 

message: Should it be included as a successor to the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic alongside Moldova? It is a de facto sovereign state.  [Soffredo] 08:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of Transnistria 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Republics of the Soviet Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070929120952/http://newsfromrussia.com/cis/2005/05/03/59549.html to http://newsfromrussia.com/cis/2005/05/03/59549.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Please add legend to equate numbers to the republics  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.81.20 (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers in topmost map 

message: 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 . —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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 . —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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 . —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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 . —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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 . —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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 . —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: SFSR redirects here, but this page doesn't even say what SFSR stands for.
The advice in [] is 'Normally, we try to make sure that all "inbound redirects" other than misspellings or other obvious close variants of the article title are mentioned in the first couple of paragraphs of the article or section to which the redirect goes. It will often be appropriate to bold the redirected term, though insignificant or minor redirects can skip this'.  Since SFSR is used repeatedly on this page, I assume it is not considered a minor redirect.
Could someone please explain what SFSR stands for in this article?
(I assume "F" is "federal", "R" is "republic" and one of the "S"s is "Soviet" or "socialist", and perhaps the other "S" is the other of those two...) LachlanA (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. The only republics of the USSR that had such a name was Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and the shorter-lived Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic (with "socialist" and "soviet" switched until 1930s in general). Mellk (talk) 02:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

text: SFSR should be redirected to the Russian Federation. SFSR is an acronym for official naming of certain soviet republics. During the Soviet period the Russian SFSR was also known as today's Russian Federation or Russia (informally, Rossiya to be precise). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  SFSR 

message: The section Temporary Union Republics of the Soviet Union gives the years of membership of the Bukharan People's Soviet Republic and Khorezm People's Soviet Republic as 1920–1924. That cannot be correct: the USSR was only formed on 30 December 1922. I think the date of accession for the Khorezm PSR was 20 October 1923 and for the Bukharan PSR 19 September 1924, followed by a reorganization in which they ceased to exist on 27 October 1924. Are there sources to which this can be cited?  --Lambiam 13:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Years of membership of Bukhara and Khorezm