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.
Dear tag-warriors, not that your amazing activity here is unexpected, but what are your problems? Here is decommunisation. You have never seen "decommuniz/sation of/in Russia" specifically, right? Ever heard of descriptive titles? Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it is about phenomena and theories, not about words. Care to explain here what is POVish about the title (which doesn't assert anything, BTW) before tag-warring? I don't care much about the tags and can live with them, but the article clearly deals with an Eastern Europe-related topic. Colchicum 23:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Please avoid name-calling then. Now, to the issue. Descriptive titles are OK to have but to write an article on a certain topic, one needs to have it based primarily on the sources for which this topic is the main subject. You cannot base the article on decommunization of Russia on a random selection of 6 sources 4 of which are primary (presidential decrees) one is only about archives and the last one is someone's Ph D thesis devoted to another topic. --Irpen 23:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
All the information is sourceable even if not sourced, and I am lazy. Feel free to expand wherever needed. But some Wikipedians seem to be more interested in tagging, as usual. One may even wish to AfD this. Let's have fun! Colchicum 00:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you did not have sources, you should not have started the article in the first place like you did here and presented your personal essay as the encyclopedic article. You say you are lazy? I can understand that. But I am not to do your own homework here. I would have expadned the article myself. Gladly. The problem is the topic lacks dedicated sources. Even you failed to find any. If you do please bring them and others would be expanding the article until you overcome your laziness. For now, however, there are no sources and no evidence that they exist. --Irpen 00:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Dedicated sources on the topic abound (unless you understand "dedicated" in a very peculiar way). I am quite surprised that you are unaware of this. I am just too lazy to cite them properly. Colchicum 00:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
There are literally hundreds of scholarly articles and books about Decommunization as anyone can find out using Google searches. I included one such reference as an example. This term is widely applied to Russia and Eastern European countries. How a widely used scientific term can be POV?Biophys 03:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
A large part of the archives of the Communist Party (preserved now in state archives such as Archive of the President of the Russian Federation, Russian State Archive of Contemporary History, Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History and State Archive of the Russian Federation), including almost all documents of its Central Committee, remains classified.
^ For a 1993 view on the problem, see Khubova, Dar'ia & Vitaly Chernetsky (1993). The Case of the Russian Archives: An Interview with Iurii N. Afanas'ev. Slavic Review 52 (2), 338-352. For an example of preserved documents, see the Soviet Archive compiled by Vladimir Bukovsky in 1992.
How can sources published in 1992-1993 be used to confirm that A large part of the archives of the Communist Party ... remains classified? Alæxis¿question? 08:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Where in the article did you seen sources used to confirm this? References and notes, clear enough? Sort of "see also". It is a common knowledge, though, a lot of stuff has been written on Russian archives. Yes, it can be easily sourced. You might try to follow the links you omitted as ... Colchicum 11:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
While Colchicum's text may seem insulting to modern Russia, in fact politologists noticed that decommunization sizzled almost everywhere. I started the decommunization article merely to bring an attention to this fact only. I am not sure I am willing to add more meat there and I apologize that my stub looks heavily tilted. There is plenty of material to fill the general article, but I would ask you to keep the general article general and not turn it into a collection of trivia. `'Míkka 19:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
How KGB-ization of Russia (coming siloviks to power as described in Chekism) should be treated? Is it a part of "de-communization" (since Communsts are now much less important), or is it a part of "re-communization" since most chekists were members of Communist Party in the Soviet times, so they are basically the same people? If this is a part of Decommunization, should it be described here?Biophys 00:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Another point: August putch was organized by Kruchkov, who was a KGB leader, not by Communists.Biophys 00:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. There is no consensus that I can find to support the redirection (IE soft deletion) of the article. Firstly, the article is not about a "foreign language term", the article is about the phenomenon. At best you can say it is about a "concept in a foreign country", and there is no reason we should not have this in our encyclopedia. Even as a term it is not one that has gone without comment in the English language press, as this gooogle news archive search demonstrates. See also 178 references to decolonisation in reference to Russia in printed books.
Kindly either stop blanking the page (and redirecting) or nominate the article for AfD with a recommendation to delete and redirect. Lobojo (talk) 11:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you are absolutely right. I restored it.Biophys (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there is no reasonable rationale behind redirecting this article on a quite notable topic. And it is a topic discussed in hundreds of books:  --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)