Talk:Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

How large?[edit]

How many members did the committee have, and is there more information on how they were elected? Googling does not help. --Vuo (talk) 08:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Grishin and Gorbachev?[edit]

The article says that in 1985 Gorbachev had a "margin of just one vote" over Grishin in the Central Committee. The Victor Grishin article says that Grishin "did not put himself forward as a candidate" and that "Gorbachev was subsequently unanimously elected as the General Secretary". Was the unanimous vote in a body other than the Central Committee? Molinari (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

citation errors[edit]

My script shows that several of your citations are not listed in the bibliography, giving the error "Harv error: link to #CITEREFWhite1993 doesn't point to any citation."

  • Bacon & Sandle 2002, p. 10.
  • Bacon & Sandle 2002, p. 12
  • a b Dowlah Elliott, p. 147.
  • Dowlah Elliott, p. 148.
  • White 1993, p. 39
  • White 1993, p. 39–40
  • Also, a couple in the bibliography give the error "Harv error: There is no link pointing to this citation."
Dowlah, Alex; Elliott, John (1997). The Life and Times of Soviet Socialism. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 9780275956295.
Sandle, Mark; Bacon, Edwin (2002). Brezhnev Reconsidered. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 9780333794630.
  • These can be fixed by adding the missing ones to the bibliography and removing the two from the bibliography that have no footnote links.

Regards, MathewTownsend (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Piotrus (talk · contribs) 14:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Seems good. Minor nitpicks: 1) "8th Party Congress" but "Ninth Party Congress" - please standardize 2) "one Party faithful" - who? 3) "cadres and propaganda" alone" - extra "? Malenkov was called of revisionism - accused of? 4) (see Departments section) - bad style, remove. 5) Second [Deputy General] Secretary - bad style, use () instead [] --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I have no clue who "one Party faithful" is... The source refers to him as "one Party faithful"... --TIAYN (talk) 12:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Please make sure this flows with the new background, where I see for example the word "second". I found a sentence in need of rewriting: "Politicians, who had previously opposed the Stalinist leadership, could be rehabilitated as long they supported the Stalinist leadership". This is confusing - I am a guessing you want to say that they were reh. if they chose to renouce their old views and side with Stalin? Next, the quote "In essence this led to a situation where a minority of this majority within the Central Committee" is missing a final verb/conclusion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
The word "ensue" is used incorrectly twice. I couldn't change because not sure what was meant. Some spelling errors still in there. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  1. Can we make it clear in the text this is a formulation per source? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    MoS-compliant article, but for few things: 1) it could use more (Red?) links. Examples of terms that I think should be linked: Democratic Centralists, Georgian, Politburo, Orgburo, Secretariat (which should be linked on the first use, not somewhere in the middle), Party Congress (ditto), Machiavellian, Council of People's Commissars, Presidium, rehabilitated, Syrtsov–Lominandze Group, Eismont–Tolmachev Group,, Procuracy. 2) Also, run the dupe link took ([[User:Ucucha/duplinks])and remove duplicate internal links. 3) Why is Bednota in see also - does not seem relevant at all. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    References are well formatted and reliable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    While this is NOT a requirement, I'd really like to see the referencing improved from every few sentences to seeing every single sentence referenced. See for example my own recent GA, Stanisław Koniecpolski, where the reader does not need to worry about whether a given sentence has a reference or not. Please also see the essay here. As it stands, the article has numerous sentences which seem to fall under WP:V; i.e. they contain controversial claims but are not directly referenced. I will be marking them with facts, but please do not think that I am marking all if them - again, I'd like to see each and every sentence referenced.
    C. No original research:
    All content is referenced, I see no indication of surprising synthesis. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Not bad, but few issues remain. The article does not give the precise date of creation; the best a reader gets is the impression the committee was created sometime in 1917.
    Well, the Central Committee was established in 1898, but that was the Central Committee of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP).... And as I've understood it, a branch of the RSDLP established the Bolshevik Party (which became the Soviet Communist Party in 1952). I can write a short "Background 1898-1917" section, but the RSDLP Central Committee is another Central Committee than the CPSU one, even if there is a form of continuation............. I'll write a background section... --TIAYN (talk) 12:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
    Yes, this is what was needed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
    More on comprehensiveness: the article should most likely discuss Pravda.
    Reading the Polish wiki, I'd like to see a discussion of: 1) physical place where the committee met (where were the officies?),
    and it also mentions the following as part of the Central Committee - this article does not mention them at all. Why? (wrote two sections; "Control Commission" and "Party education system") Komitet Kontroli Partyjnej przy KC KPZR (Комитет Партийного Контроля при ЦК КПСС); Instytut Marksizmu-Leninizmu przy KC KPZR (Институт марксизма-ленинизма при ЦК КПСС); Instytut Nauk Społecznych przy KC KPZR (Институт общественных наук при ЦК КПСС); Wyższa Szkoła Partyjna przy KC KPZR (Высшая партийная школа при ЦК КПСС); Akademia Nauk Społecznych przy KC KPZR (Академия общественных наук при ЦК КПСС). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    B. Focused:
    On topic. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    Stable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    File:Eugenio Preobrazhenski.jpg needs a source, it may be deleted without it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Yes. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    On hold as I am finishing my reading. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
    Update. I am done up to "From Stalin to Khrushchev's fall: 1945–1964" section (which I'll read next). But first, try to address the two main issues: useful terms are not linked, and some sentences are missing cites. As I read, those two seem to be the only problems that the article has, and I am guessing my subsequent readings will just be a continuing list of what to ilink, and what to cite... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
    Due to disagreements with the nom about aspects of Wikipedia:Civility, I am stepping down as the reviewer of this article. I will ask for a replacement reviewer at WP:GAN. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    Please ping me on talk or post here when you are done addressing the issues. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    Much improvement, but three issues remain, I've cleaned the above text so it should be clear (prose, ilinking and location). Please DO NOT add the picture symbols or write done in my comments without signing them, this confuses things. If you address something, write it in a clear, signed form, preferably properly intended above (in-text) OR below (this comment). Please address them within the 48h if possible, they have been outstanding for over a week. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I am failing this, as this has been open for over two weeks, and the nominator has not addressed the final issues for four days, despite a notification here and on his talk. That said, this is a very good article, and once the nominator finds time to address the issues above I or another reviewer will likely pass it quickly when it is renominated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Mitchell's book[edit]

The "Andropov–Chernenko interregnum: 1982–1985" section relies heavily on the 1990 book Getting to the Top in the USSR: Cyclical Patterns in the Leadership Succession Process by Mitchell. This book might have been good for 1990 but nowadays, more than 20 years later, it doesn't look as an adequate source. Surely there are other, more reliable sources, written with access to some archives and memoirs which appeared later? Mitchell's asssertions, with all dues respect, sounds like the semi-idle guesses of a classical Sovetologist (a profession which no longer exists, and with good reason...).

Can someone suggest a better source? Bazuz (talk) 06:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Listings of members under Stalin[edit]

Qualifiers - shot, beaten to death, died in gulag, imprisoned during x years - would be useful.Xx234 (talk) 09:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Xx234: See the respective lists, for instance the 17th Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) . --TIAYN (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Exactly, it's the list which needs comments, the year of death helps, but isn't definitive.Xx234 (talk) 10:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
@Xx234: As you may know, I'm currently creating the missing CCs of the CPSU, if you want to do it then just check this source; (its Russian, but if you can't read Russian like me, Google translate does a good job). --TIAYN (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Link works. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Incomplete short citations[edit]

@Trust Is All You Need: who are Smith 2011 and White 1993? Short citations to these were added by you in 2012, I believe, but they both lack corresponding full bibliographical details. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 21:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)