Talk:Propiska in the Soviet Union

message: Removed:
 and to be allowed into tertiary educational institutions, such as universities. 
False statement. Students could come from anywhere. Upon enlisting they received temporary propiska for the term of the study. Mikkalai 06:20, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, Mikkalai. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:20, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I live in russia,  the whole article not truth and conjectures, funny read.--80.254.101.130 13:45, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Write true now. Mikkalai 16:15, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

message: Was propiska constitutional? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 02:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In all of the former Soviet Constitutions the right for freedom of movement was not proclaimed. Now it is. 81.211.9.186 09:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not right. But propiska does limit the right of movement nothing more than property cost does.--MathFacts (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

text: It is constitutional although this system is an odd movement boundary. SkyBonTalk\Contributions 12:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constitutional?  

message: I just added the NPOV and "unsourced statements" things to the article. The unsourcedness of the article should be fairly obvious. The NPOV is perhaps not as obvious, but I feel that the whole article gives the impression that it was written to underline how "awfully bad" the USSR was, instead of giving a fair view of the subject matter. I encourage anyone who has the knowledge to improve the article so as to better reflect actual facts instead of subjective values. 85.224.198.207 (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The POV claim is mildly ridiculous. Propiska was not exactly fun, and the article describes this "fun", rather tersely. If you have to say something positive about the benefits of "propiska", you are very welcome. The unsourcedness is a yes. The reason is not because it is an esoteric or outlandish topic, but simply because no one really seem to care. `'Míkka>t 02:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality and sources 

message: What about similar regulations in other countries? AFAIK this was standard in the entire soviet bloc, and remains to this day in many post-communist countries.  - Anonymous 11:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other countries? 

message: What is "propiska renewal"? First time hear of it.--MathFacts (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It means that you have after a certain period of time go to police station and renew registration. SkyBonTalk\Contributions 12:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Permanent registration does not need renewal.--MathFacts (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renewal? 

message: People do you have official/legal address etc?--MathFacts (talk) 04:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not Do Not? Americans do have fears/concerns about Propiska-like restrictions, but we can express our concerns, not just in the NYTimes (https://www.nytimes.com/1994/08/19/opinion/l-don-t-expect-congress-to-protect-your-privacy-006068.html) but at the voting booth (and yes, even by writing to our representatives). Nuts240 (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

text: My "legal address" is an address at which, if someone sends a notice, I am presumed to receive it.  If I register to vote, I must declare my residence address.  I do not need permission from the State to reside where I do, nor am I otherwise required to notify the State.  (Unless I am convicted of a felony.) —Tamfang (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  I do not believe that there is no such thing in the West 

message: I added a [citation needed] to this paragraph:
All employers were strictly forbidden to give jobs to anybody without a local "propiska". To hire additional employees, the largest enterprises had to build housing for their staff beforehand. While some built dormitories, others made conventional apartment blocks for individual resettlement. Registration in these apartments was called a "work-related" residency permit (Russian: "ве́домственная" or "служе́бная" пропи́ска, romanized: "vedomstvennaya" or "sluzhebnaya" propiska). The lack of free movement resulted in poor housing allocation. Adding an additional layer of bureaucracy stopped efficient movement of labor, because people could not move in with family in areas where work was in demand and extra housing lay dormant in towns where people with work related residency permits were moving from.
because its supposed source:
https://www.nytimes.com/1995/11/05/nyregion/holding-out-a-hand-to-russian-women.html
does not mention 'propiska' or even Russian history except in passing. I think the first half might be salvageable but the second half just seems like conjecture. I will look for some sources. Aririos (talk) 04:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that the terms "vedomstvennaya" or "sluzhebnaya" propiska are informal references for "propiska in work-related housing", i.e., there was no special type of propiska itself. At least I didnt find in Russian language sources.  . Therefore I removed the paragraph - Altenmann >talk 22:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Also the statement "All employers were strictly forbidden to give jobs to anybody without a local propiska" is provably wrong or at least sloppily phrased in several respects. The major confusion is that a person had no right to live in a town without propiska there, but can easily work there. Many people lived in suburbs, but worked in a city. Moreover, major enterprizes had a right to arrange a temporary propiska for their hires. And so on. employment/propiska relations is a special subject, not to say that it is associated with time frames and locations. For example, Moscow and other major cities had their own peculiarities. - Altenmann >talk 22:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced claim