Talk:Soviet Union/Archive 4

message: Include totalitarian dictatorship and a small reference to Soviet colonial power in the first para and you have a deal.
How about adding this in the intro:
Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, general secretary of the ruling Communist Party from 1922 to his death in 1953 molded the features that characterized the new Soviet regime. Under Stalin the Soviet Union became a major industrial power but was characterized as a totalitarian regime by outside observers with effective political opposition eliminated. World War II laid the groundwork for Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and the creation of the Warsaw Pact. 
172 04:48, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. Would you mind if I unprotect the article and replace Soviet Union with Soviet Union/temp? 172 05:39, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Done. 172 06:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deal?

message: :World War II laid the groundwork for Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and the creation of the Warsaw Pact.
: It was not WWII that led to creation the WP, but NATO. Please check the dates.Mikkalai 09:17, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Both were necessary, the WP was a reaction to NATO, but I don't see how the WP would have been possible without WW2. --CJWilly 13:05, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: The troops were there before the WPact. The whole history is the chain of events stemming from each other. Just the same, one could say that WPact wouldn't be there but for WWI: if Germany didn't lose it miserably, there would be no WWII. So there is a natural sense in listing only immediate dependencies, otherwise our articles would have resembled the chaining rhymes "The House that Jack Built" or "But for the Nail the Battle was Lost" (or wat's their proper names). Mikkalai 16:47, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Yugoslavia was as Communist as the USSR and even though wasn't unser Soviet influence nor was a WP member. Albania retired from it (as France from NATO) withouth any Red Army invassion. NATO countries had/have NATO troops and U.S. military bases, WP had WP troops and Soviet military bases.
I made a few changes in order to integreate the important Decembrist Revolt, kulak, Great Patriotic War, Soviet Union and the United Nations, Détente, SALT I, SALT II, Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and Non-Aligned Movement links into the article. 172 21:32, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro: Warsaw pact

message: Look, I think that after all the discussion, the article is now clearly POVed. As a little thing to NPOV it, the sentence "Under Stalin the Soviet Union became a major industrial power but was characterized as a totalitarian regime by outside observers" can be changed to, "Under Stalin the Soviet Union became a major industrial power but was characterized as a totalitarian regime by some/many outside observers". Agree?
:I don't object. Make any changes you deem necessary. Anyone can edit Wikipedia at any time. 172 16:41, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: A new article called "Post-Soviet States" is up for vote in "Collaboration of the Week."  That means we Soviet Union buffs would, in Soviet Communist tradition, pool our resources to develop a new article detailing the contrasts and similarities the various republics faced on their respective roads to democracy.  Anyway, we need 4 more votes by March 15, 2005 and your vote would be appreciated.  Use this url:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Collaboration_of_the_week#Post-Soviet_states_.28March_15.29
Juppiter 20:04, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-Soviet States 

message: Wouldnt it be located at Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ie the official name rather than here? Super Saiyan Plough 04:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we always use the common name as the title (unless it's ambiguous, like Congo). Zundark 20:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Am I the only one that sees the motto translations are switched in the info box , or something? “(Russian: Workers of the world, unite!)”
:I agree, it looks confusing, even though this same style is used on the infoboxes for other countries (England, France, Germany for example).  Following the style which is used on the List of state mottos page, I edited the Soviet Union infobox to read, "Russian, <the motto in English>" (was: Russian: <the motto in English).  (It could also be, Russian for: <motto in English>, but I thought that'd be a tad too long.)  Hope this makes better sense?  - Introvert talk 21:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I makes since to me now, but the whole thing (on other nation’s infoboxes also) seems confusing to people that may not know. --Bky1701 07:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It’s perfect now. If no one minds, I will do the same to other country’s  infoboxes. --Bky1701 06:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox? 

message: I've removed the final few lines of this section, which read: "[...] however once the USSR collapsed a huge resurgence of religion and it's institutions (Orthodox churches and Mosques)occured, so one can assume that this non-religiousness was just a facade."
Aside from the awkward writing and typos, the piece isn't included in the more comprehensive Religion in the Soviet Union article, which makes me question its legitimacy.
Furthermore, the assertion that we can assume the non-religiousness was a facade doesn't seem grounded. It's a sociological POV. Returning to Christianity following the collapse of the Soviet Union doesn't necessarily imply that the newly converted were being intentionally deceitful beforehand, as there could be a number of other explanations; it's common for people to adhere faithfully to the espoused religion of their state because it is the espoused religion of their state. That doesn't mean it's a facade.
The CIA world fact book doesn't contain any estimations in regards to religious adherents in Russia. The article on the Russian orthodox church states that, "over 90% of ethnic Russians identify themselves as Russian Orthodox", which is a large resurgence, though it doesn't speak for the entire Soviet Union.
Keeping in mind that the article is about the S.U., not the post-Soviet nations, I'm not sure if any mention of religious revival is important. I've edited the piece back to how it appears in Religion in the Soviet Union. A line about about the resurgence would definitely put things in perspective, but unless there's a direct indication that this was brewing under the Godless front of the state, it's not exactly relevant to the topic. --Small Profit 12:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious Groups 

message: I didn't know where to place this, but the page should mention that Karelia was, albeit briefly, a constituent republic of the Union: The Karelian-Finnish SSR lasted between 1940 and 1956.
There are articles on other short lived SSRs, and they arent included in this --ThrashedParanoid 00:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karelia 

message: I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that calling the USSR a 'socialist' state is NPOV. Communism, and particularly Soviet communism, when compared with many socialist systems is completely different. It is insulting to many socialists to compare them to a tyrannical empire that actually was closer to statist capitalism. Just because something calls itself socialist, doesn't make it socialist. Look at Nazi Germany.
And also, isn't this a bit NPOV?
"The foreign wing of the KGB was used to influence politics in countries around the globe, including the peace movement in the United States."
Who wrote this article, a Republican?
:From the references section: This article incorporates public domain text from the Library of Congress Country Studies. - Soviet Union, so maybe :) Please feel free to NPOV it by expanding/clarifying, or if you can't find a source for the allegations remove it. - FrancisTyers 01:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I've added the verify tag, as it seems that there are not nearly enough sources for the article to be peer-reviewed yet. I intend to add references so we can get it peer reviewed. Please feel free to assist :) - FrancisTyers 00:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This comment of mine has nothing to do with the article; I am merely curious if there is a fail/safe mechanism against subtle vandalism—it seems all too easy to add the  tag to statements one merely wants to see as such.  How is this kind of behavior tracked?—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 19:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Ok, thanks for the reply :) The slight "Cold Warrior" bias is most of what I was asking citation for. I'm interested in bringing this article up to FA standard, and after consultations on irc with people, they suggested that before peer-review more sources should be given. From your explanation I think it might be possible to just peer-review this as it is? Would you agree? - FrancisTyers 21:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Verify and FAC

message: I've gone ahead and added  to the pieces I think need sources citing. Some of it appears to be opinion. When I have more time I will try and find sources, or remove the pieces if I can't. If people disagree, please note on the talk page and not revert. - FrancisTyers 02:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This comment of mine has nothing to do with the article; I am merely curious if there is a fail/safe mechanism against subtle vandalism—it seems all too easy to add the  tag to statements one merely wants to see as such.  How is this kind of behavior tracked?—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 19:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Ok, thanks for the reply :) The slight "Cold Warrior" bias is most of what I was asking citation for. I'm interested in bringing this article up to FA standard, and after consultations on irc with people, they suggested that before peer-review more sources should be given. From your explanation I think it might be possible to just peer-review this as it is? Would you agree? - FrancisTyers 21:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite sources 

message: History section seem POVed: The article states: [after 1945] The Soviet Union aided postwar reconstruction in Eastern Europe. I'd very much like to learn how? SU forbade them to join the Marshall Plan, took (part of?) their part of repatriations from Germany and gave what in return? The communist economy? The history section also makes no reference to the Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939, and I see no mention of how it gained control of Eastern Europe, killed of or forced into exile any opposition, and ruled over its satellite states for the next four and a half decades (if you haven't read it, I recommend History of Poland (1945-1989), a Featured Article). Besides the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, such events as the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, Prague Spring, Cuban Missile Crisis and the Sino-Soviet split should be mentioned as well. Then there is not a single word of those satellites slipping the SU grip (Solidarność) and how that contributed to the eventual fall of the SU.  --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's U.S. Library of Congress Text, so I doubt that POV is much of a problem one way or another. A lot of information is excluded here, which is to be exepected in a very general article on the Soviet Union. Some of the information excluded here is going to be unfavorable, such as what you are pointing out above. Other examples of information excluded in this article are going to be favorable, such as the mountains of evidence that highest levels of public health and welfare in Russian hisotry were recorded in the 1970s. I agree, though, that this article falls short of FA standards. 172 03:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think that those ilinks should be present in text. What about the first part of my question - Soviet aid to EE? Do you have any sources on that?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aided Eastern Europe? 

message: Soviet citizens of the 1980s had economic parity to the West - what?? source please. I wouldn't call the shortage economy parity. Besides, what is economic parity? This needs to be changed - did the author mean purchasing power parity? And one of the few bright sides of the Soviet economy, its independence of the business cycles and thus depressions (including the Great one and the Oil Depression of the 70's) are glaring omission from this section. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. I hadn't noticed the addition of that line. (That was not LOC text! Instead, it was a Wikipedia editor's insertion that should have been reverted right upon its posting.) The assertion is flat wrong in many cases, so I went ahead and removed it. 172 03:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economics