Talk:Soviet empire

message: With that entails is a biased nature. To truly explain the "Soviet Empire" the article must revolve around the central NPOV theme titled "Theory for the Soviet Empire". Change the article now.
-G
I don't generally interact on Wikipedia articles, but this entire article is rightwing propaganda and should be flagged for removal. 
------  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea is good, but you are correct in your doubts; it is inherently faulty. There are so many different reasons various countries sought alliance with Soviet Union (or why USA was afraid them to fall under the influence of the Soviet Union). The most striking example is cannibal Bocassa. In any case, the list alone will not do. Every entry must be explained: time period, facts to support the claim, etc. Mikkalai 18:00, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: I've seen the talk page. The Tudoreanu arguments fail to convince me. Quotation marks are a good thing. Countries are usually not friendly. As I stated before, régimes and governments may be, like segments of a public opinion. A list of friendly countries could be open-ended, and prone to disputes. --Johan Magnus 10:51, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid you'll have to come up with a better counter-argument than "I'm not convinced". Also, notice that I've removed the term "friendly", and replaced it with the more clear-cut term "pro-Soviet". -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:41, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternatively could you come up with more convincing arguments. --Johan Magnus 13:53, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The nature of the article is propaganda 

message: The term "allies" is bad because USA, GB were allies of USSR suring WWII. Iagree that "developed socialism" could be a poor term, but the section clearly says it is Soviet classification, which is fact, not POV of the authors of the article. You are welcome to add a section, kind of "pro-Soviet states" (and IMO it will be useful), with the  explanation who used the term and when.
:How about "Cold War Allies of the Soviet Union"? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:21, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Usage of the term "allies" must be based on the existence of alliance pacts. Soviet Union had plenty of them; some short-living; e.g., with Egypt under Naser. We still need to segregate "allies" somehow. Mikkalai 16:28, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Very well, then how about "Members of Comecon"? That is what those countries had in common, after all. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:39, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: To explain one of the points where I don't understand you too well, you could consider how many non-native English speakers may get confused by the way native English speakers use the term allies. The idea that "allies" constitute an empire is also somewhat illogical, to me. Basically, I don't understand your sensitiveness against using a term that by itself is clearly located in Soviet lingo and thoughts. To me, it seems very appropriate in this context, in this article, and as headline it gives the best logical structure to this article I've seen so far. --Johan Magnus 16:39, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I have already agreed that the term "allies" is inaccurate. That's why I proposed "Members of Comecon" instead. And by the way, if you don't understand how allies can be part of an "empire", keep in mind that "Soviet Empire" is a pejorative term used by the opponents of the Soviet Union. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 17:55, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "Can be parts of" is not the same as "constitutes" an empire. Regarding you "having already agreed", I'm sure you are sufficiently clever to read the time stamps above. --Johan Magnus 23:14, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Developed socialism" 

message: This section is important, since it lists not only actual allies of USSR, but those who were considered potential threat to the "wistern world". Chile: you may claim tha Alliende didn't like USSR, but it did not prevent him to accept economic help. What is more Alliende sided with Cuba, which was enough for USA to go berserk. Again, I ceated the section with paricular meaning. You are welcome to create another one to reflect your category of countries. Please remember, unlike fauna and flora, with all genuses and families, there is no 100% absolute classificaion in politics. Mikkalai 15:47, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the thing is that you are implying that the Soviet definition of "Marxist-type Socialism" is the correct definition - an idea which is highly POV, and hotly disputed by anti-Soviet Marxists (such as, for example, myself). There has to be some better title we can find. What's wrong with "Countries that had pro-Soviet governments for short periods"? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:28, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  This heading rightfully excludes Chile. Please keep in mind that the term "Soviet Empire" itself is a certain Point of View. The article attempts to describe it. Please don't confuse the notions of POV of the wikipedia authors (bad thing) and POV of some political entities (which is necessary to know and a fair game for an encyclopedia article). Chile was percieved as threat, a potential candidate into Soviet Empire. Mikkalai 16:32, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see why excluding Chile would be a bad thing. After all, I thought it had already been settled that we should only include countries with real ties to the Soviet Union, not countries that were feared by the West to be covertly pro-Soviet, because that would launch us into pure speculation (and we'd have to include countless short-lived African governments). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:36, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  You convinced me on this item. But a section about such fears definitely makes sense, especially to mention fears that were well-documented. Mikkalai 16:45, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed; however, that would require some serious research into obscure Cold War politics and events, and especially into various Third World governments. Chile is the best known example of American fears, but there were also many others. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 17:08, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socialism of Marxist-type 

message: This user adds all possible former states here. They are irrelevant to this article. For example, there was no Soviet Empire in 1918. Other entries require exact description of particular Soviet involvement, not just a bunch of books at the bottom. `'mikkanarxi 20:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am responding to the RFC on this subject. I fully agree with you, the list that the user keeps adding are completely irrelevant to this article. Nevertheless, I have to say that I am confused as to what the scope of this article is. I mean the term that serves as the title for the page was mostly used in a political context and usually in a negative sense, rather than in academic discourse. So it  is difficult to define what time periods and what areas this article should encompass. TSO1D 21:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The lists appear to be well outside the scope of this article. - Francis Tyers · 22:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It is not relevant. Asteriontalk 01:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by Protos99 

message: The map needs some kind of academic reference. The UN considers much of Western Europe to be socialist states, so it's suprising that the Soviet Union did not consider them "moving towards socialism"! The term enclosed in quotes - what does it quote? I've added a "citation needed" to the map. This page needs a lot of work though. Deipnosopher 12:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  map 

message: The external link to soviet-empire forums has nothing to do with this topic. the only similarity is the websites name. Opetyan 07:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  soviet-empire.com? 

message: I wouldn't even be bringing this up, if it weren't for a discussion over at American Empire and the consequent moving of a similar map to a lower point in that article. The story in a nutshell: the map at American Empire shows countries with American military bases, and it was moved from the top of the article for the concern that a brief reading of the article title accompanied by the map glaring from the top of the article might bring about the false impression that the countries on the map were somehow members of a phantom "American Empire". As the concern is the same here (not all communist countries were directly influenced by the Soviet Union, i.e. were not members of the counterpart phantom "Soviet Empire", although a brief glance at the article title and the map might suggest so), I'm changing the position of the two maps in the article. TomorrowTime 20:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The map on the top of the article 

message: Shouldn't the Soviet Empire have a history index, along with the details of its happenings during its regain, like the articals of the more formal empires?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.0.177 (talk) 09:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Section 

message: Judging from the leftover post-Cold War Communist States, the Soviet Empire still exists to an extent, basically as some sort of Soviet "Imperial Remnant". 74.78.89.243 (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern 

message: I've redirected it for the following reasons:
# There is no empire. The USSR was a socialist state.
# The Soviet Union article covers it, and much more.
Anyone who disagrees is free to revert. →Στc. 07:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirected 

message: A section on member states of the union has been a part of this article for years (seen below), has been deleted and reinserted by multiple users over a period of 2 days, Most of these users, myself included are in favor of keeping the segment as part of the article, the only person against it is a continuously changing ip address, last edited as 90.235.112.153. – Phoenix B 1of3  (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  what "multiple users" are you referring to other than Mewulwe and yourself ?! and where are the sources for your pov personal opinions ?! 95.199.0.38 (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of Member Republics? 

message: Over time the number of the constituent republics of the Soviet Union varied. After 1956 the Soviet Union included the following 15 republics.
* (which in turn included several autonomous republics)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
– Phoenix B 1of3  (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  what "multiple users" are you referring to other than Mewulwe and yourself ?! and where are the sources for your pov personal opinions ?! 95.199.0.38 (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{flagicon|Soviet Union}} Member states of the Soviet Union 

message: We have documents to when Russia and other countries became and ceased to be communist which includes the fall of the empire but what was the exact date to when communism was considered to be an empire?   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.247.133 (talk) 04:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "Soviet Empire" is an informal term of criticism. It is not a precise term, it is not meant to refer to a specific period in Soviet history with a clear beginning and end. It refers to Soviet actions during the Cold War in general. User1961914 (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Russia was an empire before the Bolshevik Revolution. None of the nations conquered by the Czars became free, and the Soviets had expansion plans of their own, ---------User:DanTD (talk)  22:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  When did it become an empire? 

message: Afghanistan was invaded by the USSR back in 1980 at which time they set up a communist government I believe.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.124.30 (talk) 07:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your question? - Altenmann >t 20:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the anonymous IP wanted to know why the former Democratic Republic of Afghanistan wasn't included in the list of countries under Soviet imperialism. ---------User:DanTD (talk)  19:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Afghanistan? 

message: I propose the creation of a broader article about the history of Russian imperialism (not just Soviet imperialism). After all, Russia has been involved in empire building throughout most of it's history (including today). Charles Essie (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian imperialism 

message: Portugal is yellow in the map but it never was a socialist country!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Califate123 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhh yeah, quite objectively it was never a socialist state, OPAZL.  Fasscass (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  map 

message: I noticed that last November, an IP tried to change the scope of this article which is about the term "Soviet Empire" to also include today's Russia for some reason and also include apparent "allies" of Russia. Quite clearly by the article name, this is about the Soviet Union specifically, not Russian imperialism in general, so I have no idea why this was still included in the article, especially when the first sentence specifically states pre-1989, when there are other articles that make much more sense to include this kind of information. I have removed this part but if someone wants to keep this, please tell me why it should be in this article called "Soviet Empire" which should be about the Soviet Union. Mellk (talk) 07:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of the article 

message: This section seems to talk about decommunization in general and the legacy of the Soviet Union in a few countries, rather than being about the term Soviet Empire specifically, so to me, it seems like this is out of the scope of the article. Perhaps these belong in a more relevant article if there is any? Mellk (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't appear off topic to me. Many of the news and academic articles about decommunization have included the phrase "Soviet empire" to describe the role/perception of said symbols, in the context of past Soviet military presence. When you search for both "decommunisation" and "decommunization" spellings with "Soviet empire" it's an obvious include for article scope. Rauisuchian (talk) 04:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is about the legacy of the Soviet Union, would it not make more sense to include it in Soviet Union#Legacy instead? Or at least it could be written in a way that relates to the term more. Mentioning a diplomatic dispute in 2020 about the removal of a statue of Ivan Konev and nothing else looks odd here in my view. Mellk (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I could see it being on the Soviet Union#Legacy subsection but that doesn't mean it isn't also relevant in Soviet empire, which specifically addresses the legacy in countries that were formerly Warsaw Pact members or formerly Soviet republics which is more in the area referred to as "Soviet empire". In that sense I am not seeing the off-topic part of it. Though, I can agree with "Or at least it could be written in a way that relates to the term more". The decommunization subsection could potentially include more 1980's and 1990's developments and focus on those. Rauisuchian (talk) 06:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

text: Yes, that was obviously off topic. I moved it to page Decommunization. My very best wishes (talk) 04:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-Soviet reactions section 

message: Israel is listed as a Soviet ally during the years 1948–1953, and 1991. While I agree that Israel could be considered a Soviet ally from 1948-1953, I don't know what is meant by the year 1991, other than that Israel restored diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union in that year. By that logic, the USA was a Soviet ally.
There is also a problem with the source: it was published in the 1970s. How can a source from the 1970s be used as evidence as an event from the 1990s? Harry Sibelius (talk) 06:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel as a Soviet Ally 

message: Can we please get the citation added for this or have it removed from the page? Never in my years of study have I heard the term "Pax Sovietica" used interchangeably with "Soviet Empire." Wateredplant (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pax Sovietica? 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) SkyWarrior 16:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Soviet Empire →  – Whereas "Soviet Empire" is a concept, Soviet imperialism was a real thing. WP:COMMONNAME of today does not go in favor of 'Soviet imperialism', but it was prevalent during nearly entirety of its lifespan. It is comparable to American imperialism, which is nowadays struggling to keep its prevalence to the concept of 'American Empire', as well as modern-day Russian imperialism. We're talking about actual imperialism in these articles, hence WP:PRECISE needing to apply. –Vipz (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

text: I don’t understand the point about American imperialism, but the chart used to demonstrate something is wrong because lettercase counts. Turn on “case-insensitive” to compare apples to apples.  —Michael Z. 14:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

text: Oppose. I don’t really understand the rationale to move. The only relation to the guidelines refers to the common name, which is clearly Soviet empire today and in the last four decades, accounting for over 90% usage. Why would we talk about a subject today by an archaic name from the 1950s?  —Michael Z. 14:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, empire should be lowercased.  —Michael Z. 14:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Mzajac: what's not clear about the rationale? Which of these two existed: Soviet imperialism or Soviet empire? –Vipz (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Soviet empire is a very common name for the USSR, because of its imperialism. They both did, obviously.  —Michael Z. 15:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

text: Relisting comment: Relisted to get a clearer consensus. – MaterialWorks 16:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Soviet Union has been notified of this discussion. – MaterialWorks 16:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Socialism has been notified of this discussion. – MaterialWorks 16:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Russia has been notified of this discussion. – MaterialWorks 16:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 26 April 2023 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover)  Jerium (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Soviet Empire →  – Lowercase “empire,” because this is not a formal title but a description or nickname. This is supported by WP:COMMONNAME, according to recorded usage in reliable sources.  —Michael Z. 19:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

text: Support - per nom. Probably could've been moved WP:BOLDly or at least listed at WP:RM/TR estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 10 May 2023 

message: I see my edits are being reverted, and rather than warring I am going to create a section here specifically for it rather than the article as a whole (which has many many problems). There are two major problems with the lead at the moment:
* opinion pieces are presented as scholarly consensus, in violation of WP:RSOPINION
* the Duda article is a form of Holocaust denialism, or "Holocaust distortion" as Jan Grabowski calls it
At the very least the RSOPINION needs to be fixed. KetchupSalt (talk) 09:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I again ask you to remove every profanity and incivility from this t/p Marcelus (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot remove what isn't there, especially not when you don't explicitly point it out. Moreover it has nothing to do with the topic of this section. KetchupSalt (talk) 11:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

text: Again, see this for what Holocaust denialism is. You also complain about an opinion piece being used in this page, while using an opinion piece to support what you consider to be "holocaust denial". Betelgeuse X (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the lead