Talk:History of Russia/Archive 1

message: the U.S. Dept of State has some info on the history of Russia which is in the public domain and so freely available for reuse.  To say that I'm not qualified to integrate it with the existing articles is an understatement.  Koyaanis Qatsi
----
Why is Warsaw Pact part of the series? It was just an alliance, not an historical era. It also lacks a series table. --Jiang 09:45, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a neutrality dispute. --Jiang 11:03, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

message: I made a change to this section, replacing Vladimir with Vladimir-Suzdal, however I am not altogether certain that this change is correct. I do find this portion of the article very confusing though, and if what I put was not right, could someone possibly make a distinction, or just be more clear about it? I find it particularly confusing because at the end of the section on Kievan Rus it states that:
:the Mongol-dominated Vladimir-Suzdal and independent Novgorod Republic would establish the basis for the modern Russian nation.
and then no other mention of the principality is made for the rest of the article. --Ottovonguericke 03:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change in "Mongol Invasion" Section

message: In the section on Peter the Great, this article currently states that:
:His attack on the northern seaport at Archangel on the White Sea led to the Great Northern War (1700-1721) against Sweden.
Not only does the article on the Great Northern War say nothing about Archangel, it's my understanding (seemingly confirmed by the article on Arkhangelsk) that Archangel was and had been long in Russian hands at the time. Why would Peter attack his own, sole seaport, and why would that be a strike against Sweden? I was under the impression that Russia's participation in the GNW started with a campaign toward the Baltic Sea that culminated in the Battle of Narva. Could someone clarify and/or fix this peculiar statement in the article? — Jeff Q 23:10, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Founded in 1584 it was indeed Russia's leading port until the Great Northern War. The above was a typo. I'll expand that section in a moment. 172 01:01, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start of Great Northern War 

message: I doubt the 2nd paragraph should have this comment.
"Robin Balin was born in Russia, she has a sweet rack."
I'm kinda worried to edit a featured article myself.
:It can stay so long as a photo is added. 172 01:08, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in 2nd paragraph 

message: 1. IN SOVIET RUSSIA, HISTORY WRITES YOU!
2. ? 
3. AAH!!!! MOTHERLAND!!!
Project2501a 10:11, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obligatory 

message: Mikhail Bakunin did not "join forces" with Karl Marx.  He and his followers were involved in the Intermational Working Man's Association, and thus was a contemporary of Marx's, but Marx was adamantly opposed to Bakunin's tactics.--Eric 12:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: True. The note was in reference to his work in the Intermational Working Man's Association, but I see now how one could infer from that that they did not have significant differences. 172 12:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Note 

message: I suggest to remove the whole section. There are hundreds of books about Russia. They are readily available in any library. It is not some obscure subject that readers must be pointed to scholarly sources for further reading. The section shows sign of growth, and experience suggests that very soon everyone will be squeezing their favourites here and kicking out what is against their likes, in all possible languages. Mikkalai 01:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If it can stay as it is, it'll be alright, becuase it contains the works that can actually back up the text in the article, and as a reading list, it looks like those of most courses offering a survey on Russian history in the United States (containing only academic sources, not popular polemics). 172 04:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am just placing a warning, to keep an eye on it, since there are traces of tug-of-wars in this list already. Mikkalai 06:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You make a good point. We both should keep an eye on it and remove it when it becomes more of a burden than a help. Thanks. 172 07:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: : The resulting repression that ended the last of the mid-century crises entailed the deaths of perhaps hundreds of thousands of peasants.
Isn't this number a bit overboard? To kill huge numbers of workforce wouldn't be very smart idea. Let's not forget that at these times russia didn't count hundreds of millions of population. By the way, are there any estimates of population of Russia throughout the history? Mikkalai 06:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a source for 100,000; but I'll remove the estimate if there are no objections, given that all of these estimates in the end are guesswork, no matter how educated the guesses are. 172 18:40, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Peasant uprisings

message: 172, care to explan the reverts in this edit? My reasons for the changes were given in edit summaries. Paranoid 09:31, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't a complte reversion-- just restoring some accurate wordings in order to maintain the same style throughout the text. 172 18:03, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it wasn't, but I disagree about accuracy. For example, it is incorrect to say that people on fixed incomes were forced into prostitution and crime. This is simply not true. Many other statements you restored in that edit are similarly incorrect. Please explain briefly your arguments. Mine can be seen in the history (I can list them here if you need). Paranoid 19:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, how is it incorrect? Those on fixed incomes also includes those who aren't getting paid, given underemployment and wage arrears. Should the wording be clarified to make it clear that we are dealing mostly with the newly impoverished/unemployed? 172 19:37, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is incorrect in that only a very insignificant fraction of people "on fixed incomes" (i.e. state employees) was forced into crime and prostitution. People who turned to prostitution and crime were mostly young lumpens without good job, without good education and without good prospects. And furthermore, I don't think increased crime and prostitution are important enough problems to be mentioned in that sentence. I don't have any stats handy, but I hope, once you see what I am complaining about, you will not need references to prove it. Paranoid 12:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI the wording has been changed. 172 12:18, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation for 172's reverts? 

message: I intentionally avoided illustrating the article with pictures of leaders (note that there are no pictures of Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, Nicholas II, Brezhnev, Khrushchev, etc.) in order to show that we are not personalizing Russian history. There are a few exceptions. There is a portrait of Ivan the Terrible; but aside from filling space, it serves the purpose of offering a visual example of sixteenth century iconic art (same with Nevsky, but for an earlier period). There is one of Alexander III (unfortunately). I wanted to find a good photo illustrating the peasant life of the era, but could not find one to download; so, Alexander III had to fill the space at the time. (Please help me find a better pic for that section!) Lenin appears in the article. But that photo is quite famous; and I cannot think of another one that is more readily associated with the Russian Revolution. (Perhaps the one in which a crowd is fired upon-- the one that appears on the cover of Pipes' Russian Revolution may be better.  Replace it if you that that that's the case.) Yeltsin and Gorbachev appear; but the pic is included in order to show a notable confrontation between the two following the August coup of direct relevance to the section on the emergence of the Russian SFSR as a rival power base to the USSR. However, the addition of the Stalin pic does not add much, and clutters up a part of the article already loaded with pics). Unlike all the others (expect that of Alexander III, which isn't the best possible photo to insert in that particular section), the picture of Stalin is just a random pic that tells us nothing else about the era or does not illustrate a particularly notable event. 172 19:34, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Stalin and Putin are extremly important personnages in the Russian history, being likely the 2 most known Russians worldwide, thus including their pics in this article is almost essential to me. I'd also like to see pics of more famous tsars (Peter the Great and Catherine, especially). And I think more pictures the better, visual medium is a big strenght of Wiki, can you point me to the agreed rule 'one pic per section'? Still, unless I receive some support here from other readers, I am willing to drop it - I have other articles to work on. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course Stalin and Putin are extremely important leaders in Russian history. But an even better supplement than a gallery of political leaders would be images also telling us something about the social and economic life of each era... I'm not sure if there is a rule of 'one pic per section,' but two pics in a single section make things appear cluttered, irrespective of whether or not there's a rule. 172 11:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a great collection of color(!) photographs of Tsarist Russia available on Wikimedia Commons  . Balcer 16:00, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Stalin pic

message: Two things obviously come to mind. Something more than a caption to the picture has to be said about the success of the Soviet space program. It had a huge international effect and it is, perhaps, the first thing that came to minds in the West, when talking and writing about Soviet Union at the time. For example, it had a major effect on the US investment in Science and Engineering in early sixties. Another thing the article needs is some discussion on the situation with political freedoms. Simply saying that police terror was replaced with judicial system (which was a joke when dealt with political cases)is not enough. Things have to be said that on one hand, the regime was clearly softening if compared with Stalinist terror, on the other hand, there were obvious restrictions on political freedoms not limited to foreign travel and emigration. Things could be said about changes between periods of relative tolerance followed by relative tightening of the regime. I might try to write something on this, but perhaps some more accomplished authors of this article could do a better job. Rather than seeing myself reverted without explanation by persistent watchdogs after spending hours on my version, I just want to bring this suggestion forward at this stage.Irpen 00:00, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
:Something can be added to any section, and this article is already 70K. Your suggestions would make this article go into a greater level of detail on these topics than politics of the Soviet Union and history of the Soviet Union (1953-1985), which are components of the history of Russia series. Of course, if the summary is longer than all the components it is summarizing, we do not have a good summary in our hands. 172 12:15, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, I hadn't realized the 1953-1985 article existed, that is a better place for more detail.  However the politics article is little more than a series of undetail stubs wikilinking elsewhere.  This article can be more summary oriented, given its broader scope, however it is still POV with its unbalanced references to glowing reforms.  Even in the 1953-1985, one can see that many of the "reforms" were actually oppressive.  The failed mergings into larger collective farms were probably not voluntary.--Silverback 02:55, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested changes to Khrushchev-Brezhnev Era chapter

message: There should be a mention of the Chernobyl accident in a couple of places.  I am surprised that glowing notice of reforms is made, without mentioning problems with the political economy, during Breshnev's time that opted to build nuclear reactors to lower than western standards.  And there should be a mention later when the accident itself occurred.  Of course details should be saved for the apropo pages, but there should at least be mention, considering the international and intellectual importance of the accident and decisions.--Silverback 21:32, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  the Chernobyl accident 

message: There is no mention to Bakunin's support of terrorism in the Wiki page about him. I didn't know this either. What I do know is he had some correspondence with Nechaiev, a known terrorist, but realised he was way misguided, and ended that relationship. So I'm changing it until someone comes up with some historical reference. Mr.Rocks 00:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bakunin 

message: I have just changed the example of linking to a section of an article given in Help:Editing (in the Links, URLs section) as the previous example no longer works. The example now used is History of Russia#Imperial Russia. If this section is removed or the title of it is changed, please update the help page. Thryduulf 12:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Imperial Russia section used as an example on the Help page

message: On the brower I'm currently using, along with a handful of others on which I have also viewed this article, I'm noticing that the audio boxes cover the text. I don't know how to fix this problem, so I removed them. Early thanks to the editor who figures out how to reinsert them without this problem. 172 | Talk 02:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had the same problem, both in IE and Firefox browsers.  I moved the "spoken" boxes down below in the article, next to the box with the link to Wikimedia.   Hoping this looks satisfactory for now - media to media :) - and then may be someone finds the way to clear the formatting issue and these boxes could be moved back on top, if necessary  - Introvert talk 02:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Listen to this article" box blocking the text

message: Dear authors of the "stable version", you state in the article the dark moments of Russian history only, a history of prosecutions and reprisals only. Why you in the same way do not state a history of England, France and Germany? Please do not privatize the article. Allow to improve this article according to books of famous Russian liberal historians of 19 century such as Vasily_Klyuchevsky and Sergey Solovyov. They are not nationalists, they are the scientists investigating huge amount of archeologic and annalistic material. Russia struggled against Golden Horde and nomads, mastered the North, tundra, Siberia, helped many countries, liberated Germany in 1813, very military supported France in 1914, rescued the Balkan and Caucasian Christians from a turkish genocide in 18-19 centuries, carried the basic burden of war against nazi Germany. Why that stuff you throw out it and filter? Russian relations with Poland are not unequivocal too. At 14-17 centuries Poland was an aggressor on Russian territories.
Ben-Velvel 03:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Further detail can be added in the main article on Mongol invasion of Rus. The history of Russia article, however, is already one of Wikipedia's longest. 172 19:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Of course the soil was better in southern Russia. I think that the setence meant that the soil was better compared to some other parts of the north; but I'll clarify it. 172 19:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Again, each section is linked to a main article (such as Mongol invasion of Rus) offering further details. The information you for which you are looking may be found in those articles. 172 19:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The sentence did not state that Russian serfdom was worse than conditions on 12th century manors, but rather that sometimes conditions were particularly bad, which can be confirmed by many sources. 172 19:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: "Autocracy, Orthodoxy, and Nationalism" is the most common traslation that appears in Western sources. I was aware that it was rendered in many different ways, with there being no exact English translation for narodnost. Western writers have typically preferred "nationalism" knowing full well that they were constructing a parallel between Russia under Nicholas I and the rise of the different nationalisms in Western Europe contemporaneous. While comparative historians often feel somewhat more comfortable about using Western concepts to describe other parts of the world, I am am aware that some cultural historians specializing in 19th century Russia have their reservations. If you don't like the translation to "nationalism," I suggest changing it to "national spirt." 172 01:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: It was a period of relative peace and stablity, but the text in the article is making reference to consolidating control over territory absorbed earlier into the empire. 172 01:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I understand that the word has a much different set of connotations in the West. In English language word such as "national" and "nationalism" are going to refer to community and ideology, not necessarily state structures or legal entities. 172 01:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The article is already one of Wikipedia's longest covering more than a 1,000 years of Russian history. Every section will be lacking a lot Inevitably. I recommend working on the main article on Russia's role in the war. 172 01:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: You're quite correct above. However, most Wikipedia articles on Russia's role in World War II are going to be written from the perspective of Reaganite Cold Warriors who regard the Soviet Union as the "evil empire," Ukrainian nationalists, and other Eastern European nationalists; and nothing is going to change this perspective on the English Wikipedia. Many articles go as far as to imply that the Soviet Union was an even worse aggressor in the war than Nazi Germany. This article, actually, ofters one of the more balanced general surveys of the war to be found on Wikipedia. 172 01:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I know that he was not. I don't think that the article is not describing him as a nationalist, but referring to the period when he was presenting himself as asserting the interests of Russia vis-a-vis the center and the other republics before independence from the Soviet Union. 172 01:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The initial version of article is a history of "Empire of evil", anti Russian lampoon 

message: I just made this sweeping revert of Ben-Velvel's edits here I'm going to restore nearly all of them by the end of the day. In the meantime, however, I'll have to correct the English... I can't get around to doing so at the moment because in a few minutes I'll be leaving my computer. I'll restore the edits as soon as I return. 172 02:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert

message: I removed http://russian-history-blog.blogspot.com (Russian History Blog) from external links, as I'm guessing there could be 1000's of potential links and WP is not a link farm?
:You are correct. --Ghirlandajo 18:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Noticed something potentially ambiguous:  in the section on Ivan III, in the first paragraph it mentions that he "more than doubled his territories", while later on in the third paragraph it is stated that "Muscovy tripled in size under his rule".  It looks like the same thing is stated twice, and in a somewhat confusing manner too.  Would it make sense to remove one of these two?  I'd do it myself, but I am not sure which one is more accurate. Ikh (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion durign reign of Ivan III 

message: I don't understand why this article is a featured one since :Image:1533-1896.jpg.gif has one very big flaw: it excludes Finland, which was conquered by Russia in 1809. Can anyone do anything about it (=modify the map, if it's possible, which I think not) or should we just either take it down or have someone make a new, correct map? --TonyM ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!! 10:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FInland was part of the Russian Empire, but unlike the Baltic States and Poland, it was never part of Russia. -- Petri Krohn 12:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image:1533-1896.jpg.gif

message: Sadly it seems that for some strange reasons information that besides territories of modern Ukraine and Belarus Russia also annexed territories of modern Lithuania and Poland is removed. A quick look at map of Partitions is enough to know that is neither Wilno nor Białowieża are part of Belarus or Ukraine.
--Molobo 00:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing info that is historically correct 

message: external peer review
| date = 3 August 2006
| org = a self-identified Russian history expert.
| comment =  This article and the series was mentioned on the NPR radio show On Point.  A caller claiming to be an expert in the field commented that the history here contains factual errors, such as confusing Poland and Ukraine, a flavor of propaganda, and a lack of references, especially in the Russian Revolution era. http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2006/08/20060802_b_main.asp 
This might be reason to de-feature this article. -- Beland 04:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears, from the links, that the concerns raised were about the series, particularly, the Russian Revolution article. The series itself is not featured, but the main article. 172 | Talk 19:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External review 

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.
*The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs.  Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
*The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.See footnote
*Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.See footnote
*Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.See footnote
*Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
*Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL. 
*Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.See footnote
*Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.See footnote
* article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail. 
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
**Temporal terms like “over the years”, “currently”, “now”, and “from time to time” often are too vague to be useful, but occasionally may be helpful. “I am now using a semi-bot to generate your peer review.”
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. See footnote
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Bwhack 07:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: Some total jackass has destroyed the Early History section, basically invoking a lot of 7th grade homo-bashing blather. I would edit it on my own, but I'm afraid there's quite a few more people around here who are far more knowledgable than me on this subject. Just thought I'd bring it to the group's attention.
SurfinAG 165.91.46.6 01:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disturbing Defamation of Early History Section 

message: Wouldn't it be nice if there was a short timeline at the end of this article? I think there should be. What do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.41.46.11 (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time Line