Talk:Glasnost

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Soviet Union (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Socialism (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Russia / History / Mass media (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the mass media in Russia task force.
 

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.



Untitled[edit]

i am doing a report on glasnost in the soviet union and some more help would be greatly appriciated if you could please help me thank you which glasnost?

What's "perestroikaaa"? I don't know, but I changed it to read perestroika so that the link goes where we want it to.

There is a lot of opinion in this article.

Sections[edit]

I don't think the Objectives section needs to be separate from the Glasnost in USSR and in Russia section. There's more about the objectives in the first section. If no one objects, I will change it. -Athaler 16:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Front Image[edit]

Is the front image really that relevant? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.40.132.53 (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

If you're talking about the destroyer, I agree. There may be some relevance, but it's not obvious right now. -Athaler 16:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering about it too. It seems to better illustrate the end of the Cold War than glasnost. Anyway, the article could use at least one image. Maybe a portrait of Gorbachev from the period? None of the images on commons really seem appropriate (undated, not contemporary, or include other politicians). Perestroika has an excellent image for that article. Was glasnost ever used in slogan? --Jtir 22:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what this is about, but the cartoon is interesting — and probably under copyright. --Jtir 23:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Found some posters dated 1987 and 1988 — presumably also under copyright. --Jtir 23:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
{{Non-free poster}} claims fair use when the image is low resolution and is used to illustrate the subject at hand.
I translated "смелее, товарищ! гласность- наша сила!" as "Be Bold, Comrade! Openness- Our Strength!"
using http://babelfish.altavista.com/, http://www.multitran.ru, and some guesswork, so it could probably be improved.
--Jtir 21:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

"Neutrality" and "accuracy" tags[edit]

The article gives false impression that all political upheaval in late Soviet Union was thanks to glasnost. This is a biased, incomplete, and is some places false view.

The whole section "Effects" does not belong to this page, because these "effects" were result of the total political situation in the country, which cannot be captured by a couple of slogans invented by Gorbachev. The section "Effects" must be merged into the corresponding historical part, where each effect must be carefully (and with references) attributed to the whole spectrum of causes. `'Míkka>t 17:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, the article is completely unreferences, and I have an impression that this is someone's personal view on the events, rather than taken from opinions of reputable politologists. `'Míkka>t 17:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Example of nonsense (one of many): "Relaxation of censorship resulted in the Communist Party losing its grip on the media. " This apparently smart, but de-facto meaningless, phrase exposes complete lack of understanding of what it was about censorship/Party/media in the Soviet Union. `'Míkka>t 18:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is a good reference for this, <ref name=ScottChapter7>{{cite book|last=Shane|first=Scott|title=Dismantling Utopia: How Information Ended the Soviet Union|year=1994|publisher=Ivan R. Dee|location=Chicago|isbn=1-56663-048-7|pages=182 to 211|chapter=A Normal Country: The Pop Culture Explosion|quote=...market forces had taken over publishing...}}</ref>
Even through all of this talk, I do not see the reason why a "Neutrality" tag should be displayed on this page. Though the accuracy is a bit off course, I dont see the other tag. Correct me if I am wrong by pointing out a better reason why it should be there.--HCV= 01:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)--
The problem of this article, and particularly of the section under discussion, is that it does not keep to just facts. It should talk only of what is known to have happened, e.g. what publications were made available, who talked of what, who didn't talk of what, what talk happened in response, etc. Instead of that, we have conclusions on what cannot be checked, termed with weasel words. Not facts, but opinions. For example: 'This began to undermine the faith of the public in the Soviet system.' Any surveys? Surveys in 1980, surveys in 1988? Unavailable or suspected biased? Then we can't have any source. Boris Strugatsky, for example, reports, that, when publishing previously illegal fiction books was made lawful, the public suddenly lost any interest in what was so deliciously forbidden before (see here: «Времена переменились, и ранее запрещенное сделалось разрешенным. И -- о смех богов! -- сделавшись разрешенным, запрещенное сразу же стало всем безразлично»).
So, instead of telling live and exact facts about what censorship looked like in the late 1980s, this article promotes opinions, whose kind is, by the way, very typical for the English Wikipedia: those are historical simplifications, 'validated' by very generic premises instead of real facts, and thus lacking concreteness (this is why the 'weasel words' like 'the faith of the public (of whom exactly?)' are used in such articles). Ironically, the very methods of promoting opinions coincide in Wikipedia with the methods that were/are used by State Propogandas, including the Soviet Propoganda.
I could, for example, say that 'the public' (i.e. those few who care) had no faith in the Soviet System even back in the 1970s, and my opinion is just as unvalidated as the opinion of Scott Shane. - 92.100.182.4 (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Grammar[edit]

I just did a quick sweep on grammar and punctuation. Hope nobody minds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.149.105 (talk) 11:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality[edit]

Surely, claiming that soviet Government has killed 25-60 mln soviet people is neutral and needs only bullshit to become a fact. Only liberal point of view is neutral because liberal media informs us. We can accuse anybody in any crimes. It is not neutral to point to the opposite statements, even when they are made by official researcher. --Javalenok (talk) 11:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Effect of glasnost[edit]

It is clear to me that Gorbachev, from a peasant background, rather than a Bolshevik background, was himself relatively uninformed regarding Soviet history, most notably the occupation of the Baltic states. Thus he was blindsided by the legitimate claims of independence that they made. Not sure I can find a decent source for this. The closest is <ref name=ScottMR>{{cite book|last=Shane|first=Scott|title=Dismantling Utopia: How Information Ended the Soviet Union|year=1994|publisher=Ivan R. Dee|location=Chicago|isbn=1-56663-048-7|pages=138 to 140|chapter=The Press and the Restoration of History|quote=...the long-suppressed secret protocols to the [[Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact]]}}</ref> User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Translation[edit]

Every translation I've ever seen on Glasnost has defined the term as being 'openness' not 'publicity'. Whoever put 'publicity' down as an accurate English definition of Glasnost should justify their translation. 184.76.56.97 (talk)JSJR 10182013 —Preceding undated comment added 10:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)