Talk:Soviet Union

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Schwede66 talk 17:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Vertical flag of the USSR.

• ... that Source: Boris Yeltsin came into power on July 10, 1991?
  • Reviewed:

Created by 342rfawrfarefarwf (talk). Self-nominated at 18:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Soviet Union; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Unfortunately the article is not eligible for DYK as it is not newly-created, it was not expanded at least five times, and it wasn't promoted to Good Article status within the last seven days. In addition, no hook has actually been proposed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 18:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Why are the leaders called "main leader"

Aren't they supposed to be called "Premier" of "Chairman" W1k1Us3r.0924 (talk) 09:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Because the main leaders had various titles. Lenin was Premier, Stalin was General Secretary, etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

intro should highlight downfall of the soviet union

like for real; gorbachev sought to implement economic reforms. ok. but why? why is it not mentioned that the soviet economy at that point was in the gutter? And in the alinea after that it is stated that the soviet union was until its dissolution one of the scientifc advanced countries in the world? While they were a snail racing behind the horse that is science in the usa? That should be mentioned too in my opinion, an article about imperial germany should not read 'the imperial rulers always enjoyed support from the populance' cuz they did not, why does the intro highlight the economy and the science in the SU as something good while it stagnated during brezhnev or before that? 2001:1C01:35C4:6900:B4A2:8C5E:9B76:6847 (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia content is based on what reliable sources say, not your personal perspective. Can you provide some such sources for your views? HiLo48 (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

On the infobox's symbols.

You know how the RSFSR's Wikipedia page has both the 1st and last symbols from the RSFSR? Why not do that for the USSR? I mean, it had 5 flag changes, which is beyond too much, why not have both the 1922-1923 flag/coat of arms, and the 1955-1991 flag/coat of arms? 342rfawrfarefarwf (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Not a bad idea.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Invasion of Poland

need to mention why the SU made a pact with nazi Germany. It was in order to split Poland and get revenge for the last Polish Russian conflict in early 1920. Blaki974 (talk) 11:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

That's debatable.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I know that this talk is old and that I don’t have the full context of the conversation, but how is it debatable? Isn’t it an objective fact that the USSR made a pact with Nazi Germany to divide and get revenge on Poland after the USSR lost territory to the Polish at the Peace of Riga? LordOfWalruses (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

This is post hoc ergo propter hoc. If you're saying that some event in 1920 directly caused some event in 1939, the burden of proof is on you. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

this is not debatable.

Occupation of Poland (1939–1945)#:~:text=In September 1939, Poland was,of the former Polish territory. AlasdarVan (talk) 05:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2024

Second-to-last paragraph of lead section:

"In the mid-1980s, the last Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, sought to reform the country through his policies of glasnost and perestroika."

If people disagree that's fine, but I suggest the change of "In the mid-1980s" to "From 1985", as that was when Gorbachev became the leader of the USSR. Thank you! 2A02:C7E:3188:4C00:5410:DC5F:EA4B:FD94 (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Done.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2024

I want to add a section of the pros and cons of the soviet union. Longlivethesovietunion (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

There is already a section titled "Legacy". Do you have material that would be suitable to add to it? Bruce leverett (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Statistics should be from the pre-Gorbachev eras (if possible)

When Gorbachev ran the country in the late 80s to early 90s, his reforms dramatically changed the country to a state that was totally unrecognizable from the rest of Soviet history; the USSR was a dirt-poor country throughout most of its history, and only including figures from the (at least humanitarian) peak of its history gives readers a very skewed perspective of what the Soviet Union was like during most of its existence. I know that this is probably because we don’t have many (if any) reliable statistics of the USSR, but we should try to find information that’s more accurate to Soviet history as a whole (or at least make a footnote denoting the improved state of the USSR at the time of the data collection). LordOfWalruses (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I have not read your source (the article "Poverty and wealth"), but your claim that the state of the USSR was "improved" at the time of the data collection contradicts the claim in the source's Abstract that "Gorbachev's attempts at economic reform led to implosion and food shortages."

But in any case, whatever sources you find, don't hesitate to cite them in the article, if they are reliable. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2024

I want to make some changes to allow a more positive outlook for people visiting the page. Coolperson45 (talk) 10:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 11:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Successor?

Was the Soviet Union legal successor to the Russian Empire? Marquis05 (talk) 05:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The Soviet Union was not the legal successor to the Russian Empire in a straightforward legal sense, but it was its de facto successor AlasdarVan (talk) 05:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain? Marquis05 (talk) 06:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe they could, but Wikipedia talk pages are not forums. Ask the question on a forum like Reddit instead. Yue🌙 06:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

So we should add two words "de facto" at the beginning of the article to avoid misunderstanding. Marquis05 (talk) 06:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Internationally, it was indeed recognized that the SU was the legal successor to the RE, due to the acquisition of all RE assets, and it did assume many of the Empire's responsibilities and positions both domestically and internationally. But, the Soviet Union implemented a new legal and political framework, distinct from that of the Russian Empire, which could be an argument for the succession not being LEGAL. While the SU itself did not recognize (did not claim) the legality of their succession, it was de-facto.

It is also hard to say if int.community officially recognized the SU as the LEGAL successor of the RE. They did recognize the legality of establishment of the SU, though not succession. An example would be a mention from the US History Governmental website on USSR, where it states:

"With the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, the United States considered the Russian Federation as the successor state of the USSR"

No mention of neither de jure nor de facto. AlasdarVan (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Forget about the example. I did not notice it was about the Russian Federation and USSR, not USSR and the RE. Sorry AlasdarVan (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Cities spelling correction

According to Wikipedia's Manual of Style of Ukrainian related articles should be written according to the current accepted English spelling. For Ukraine-related articles, the guideline specifically recommends "Kyiv". e.g. "Kyiv" is the current internationally recognized spelling, reflecting the Ukrainian government's preference and the city's official name in English.

Important to include the past name within the historical context. So all mentions of Ukrainian cities such as Kyiv, Dnipropetrovsk, Odesa, Lviv, Kharkiv should be written in Ukrainian spelling, and not Russian, which is the current spelling: Kiev, Dniepropetrovsk, Odessa, Lvov, Kharkiv.

The inclusion of the historical (past) name of those cities should only be mentioned once as follows, e.g. ... Kyiv (known as Kiev during the Soviet period) AlasdarVan (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm curious. WP:KYIV states "for unambiguously historical topics (e.g. Principality of Kiev), do not change existing content." A rule of thumb given is pre-1995 or pre-1991, therefore a "historical" label applies to this article. How can your changes be justified in that context, then? AbsoluteWissen (talk) 06:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with AbsoluteWissen's reading of the policy. Kyiv is the accepted name today, but as AlasdarVan said, not during the Soviet period. The supermajority of English-language primary and source secondary sources discussing the Soviet Union use the old Russian spellings for city names, particularly those written before the late 2010s. Thus, it is preferrable to have the historical spelling, which is why the exception AbsoluteWissen mentioned exists. Yue🌙 06:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Though partially, according to the same WP:KYIV,

"

The following rule of thumb for determining what is current or historical was also established:

From October 1995 (Resolution of the Ukrainian Commission for Legal Terminology No. 5), Kyiv is presumptively appropriate subject to specifics of the article.

From 24 August 1991 (Ukrainian independence), Kyiv is likely to be appropriate, but proceed with caution.

"

So I suggest to keep all mentions of Ukraine's cities in Russian spelling, though every mentioned of those cities in the context of historical period starting 24 August 1991, change to the Ukrainian spelling. AlasdarVan (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)