Talk:Era of Stagnation

message: I added some references to the Russian version.
It would eb good, to add also English references for teh English version. dima 06:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is that much of a problem to use Russian references in the English version - better than nothing.--Konstable 07:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: History should be personalized.
I add some pics, but I see, they should be arranged better. dima 01:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: pics

message: This term appears in the article.  Is it supposed to be "Terminology"? mdkarazim (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminogy

message: In the last Social Life paragraph, the wording of the section doesnt seem to fit a wikipedia description about the behavior used by people to avoid governmental punishments during the stagnatory period.  It seems like a how to, or some type of biased commentary -- not an NPOV description of the censureship (assuming thats the case).  The last sentence makes a normative judgement on ther freedom experienced.  I'm not sure that the wikipedia is an appropriate place for: "Surely, it was a not free life".  Thekappen (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the attempts were to keep everything balanced. I am removing the social life because maybe really there are not enough references on a web. It is that I have seen but likely I should publish somewhere else. The rest seems more or less neutral, I think. Audriusa (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV in Social Life 

message: Well, it is not possible to say that the country of that USA has been afraid for half a century was worth nothing or that just drinking is enough to build the station "Mir". Do not over try with this kind of "neutrality". Or, of course, you can but it is very unlikely to lead a NPOV article that would be worth reading. Audriusa (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The top image must demonstrate the essence of the topic. Clearly "Mir" satellite is not demonstrating the notion of "stagnation". I would suggest you to find a photo of people standing in long line to buy meat or shoes or underwear or toilet paper or butter, or...  - Altenmann >t 21:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Two images are needed to demonstrate the essence of stagnation, one being something like "Mir" and another something like long queue or Berlin wall. This would reflect not proportional distribution of available resources and some tirany well, yet present, without false assuming that everything was a nonsense without any threat to the world. Just queue for the meat would show the overall pure, economically weak country that Soviet Union (same as fascist German who also had a good level of rocket science - and that?) actually was not. In the past I have placed both wall and queue as pictures but people remove queue images that are from different place and time, and there is no image of the original Soviet queue in Commons (while all queues look the same). I will put the wall back together with comment saying that it is needed to balance the POV next to Mir. Audriusa (talk) 07:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree the article lacks neutrality. In fact, the title itself is non-neutral. Clearly, a picture of "Mir" would not be appropriate, but that is because this article is not appropriate. It is designed in such a way as to exclude information that doesn't fit a particular point of view.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  About criticism 

message: The examples of poor planning and consumer good shortages was poorly illustrated by the battery example.  One, the batteries were not similar -- one was 4.5 volt and the other was 1.5 volt (the 1.5 being a typical flashlight battery). Two, the 1.5 volt picture was not even a Russian battery.  Three, there is no documentation or reference for the illustration.  So I deleted the lines.--S. Rich 21:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: battery example deletion 

message: --Blackmane (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for copyediting the article :) --TIAYN (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

text: I've copy edited the vast majority of the article, but some of the end sections are not suitable at the moment for copy editing as they're not completed and have tags on them. Feel free to request another copy edit when editing of those sections is complete. Blackmane (talk) 11:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: [[GOCE]] Request

message: First sentence of second paragraph in lede:
:Historians, scholars, and specialists are uncertain what caused the stagnation, 
Pardon, but the subclause that I marked with red, is about as much explanation as:
:God decided to smite it
i.e. it doesn't belong to the species of explanations at all. An explanation is something like:
:X caused Y, which exaggerated X, making a vicious circle
or some such providing causes. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 19:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Useless statement

message: Does it make any sense to quote information from this source? Data was falsified both during collection - by local authorities who would be judged by the central authorities based on whether their figures reflected the central economy prescriptions - and by propaganda, with its goal to portray the Soviet state in most positive light. It's very hard to make accurate estimates of the Soviet economy but its GDP per capita was probably four times lower that in the USA in 1980. Although in the USSR a higher percentage of the workforce was made to work in industry than in the USA, the claim that USSR's industrial output was 80% that of America is highly unreliable. I'm removing this as unreliable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.3.13 (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  RIA Novosti is a reliable source, you can't just remove sources because you consider them reliable. --TIAYN (talk) 09:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Read this. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

text: It doesn't make says, it only says that RIA Novosti's successor Rossiya Segodnya may be used for propaganda purposes.. Secondly, why would Putin's Government write good things about Soviet economic performance? They are pursuing economic liberalism so why in gods name would they want to support Soviet planned economic performance? --TIAYN (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The part I removed started with "In 1980, RIA Novosti reported that". In 1980 RIA Novosti was surely a tool of Soviet propaganda. Furthermore I'm not removing this source from the article but only one claim based on this source. I explained above why.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.3.13 (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  RIA Novosti is not a reliable history source. Please stop trolling and use only scholarly sources. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Honestly, if New York Times had written this you wouldn't have cared.. But that isn't a good argument... Give me one WP policy/guideline which explicitly states that news agencies are  not reliable.. If you're so against it, what about a compromise, what about writing that those figures are Soviet figures.. Secondly, read the "Notes" section. --TIAYN (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Please acquaint yourself with WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:NEWSORG. "Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context." "News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

text: How is RIA Novosti "less-established"? These are Soviet figures, there is no reason why they should not be included in an article about the Soviet Union. It should however not be the sole figures used in an article, because of their unreliability, but as Note 1 shows you, the majority of statistics for Soviet growth are unreliable. --TIAYN (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you answered your own question. Soviet figures are unreliable and should only be published as reviewed by a scholarly meta-analysis. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

text: They are first-of-all unreliable because the Soviet used Net material product (NMP) and GNP/GDP, translating the data to GNP/GDP is often difficult because GNP/GDP is much wider than NMP. --TIAYN (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: My point remains the same. A wealth of scholarly sources exist on the subject and they should be preferred. Also, reading WP:INTEXT may help you. Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The RIA Novosti paragraph is certainly controversial. The claim that the productivity of the Soviet Union had reached 80% of that of the U.S.A. seems to fly in the face of all other expert assessments. I find it interesting that they were still making such claims in 2010, based on what they must have known was unreliable data collection and analysis. It may still be difficult for official agencies to acknowledge the extent to which the Soviet system failed economically. In any event, it ought not be placed in a section titled "Summary" because it does not summarise what went before. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: RIA Novosti

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Era of Stagnation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311040614/http://www.yale.edu/annals/sakharov/sakharov_english_txt/e014.txt to http://www.yale.edu/annals/sakharov/sakharov_english_txt/e014.txt
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Era of Stagnation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100605073450/http://media.ucsc.edu/classes/thompson/history30c/23_stagnation.html to http://media.ucsc.edu/classes/thompson/history30c/23_stagnation.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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) 22:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Вдоль берегов одного Океана до берегов другого пойдут вертикальные скоростные дороги. До той "Царской" которая была до "Манчжурии". Слоны попрутца на рисовые поля .. Обещаю ! ))) 85.140.118.153 (talk) 05:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Застой"-jar - ne dojdyotesy ..