Talk:Soviet Union

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good articleSoviet Union was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 2, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
August 13, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 8, 2004, and December 26, 2006.
Current status: Delisted good article


Sovietism[edit]

Please add a section about sovietism - movement for the restoration of the Soviet Union. Sovietist is a member of this movement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:700C:EB00:1CB9:D5BD:1905:35EF (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia article, Neo-Sovietism, about that topic. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Homosexuality[edit]

There are (at least) three important things wrong with the new subsection:

  1. There are now two places in the article at which the legal treatment of homosexuality starting in the 1930's is described. Two is not better than one.
  2. The new subsection is part of the section, "Women and Fertility". Recall that the 1931 law did not make female homosexuality a crime, or even mention it. And homosexuality is not directly connected with fertility. So this is the last place to put a discussion of this topic -- no one would look for it there.
  3. The new subsection is copied word-for-word from another Wikipedia article, LGBT_history_in_Russia#LGBT_history_under_Stalin:_1933–1953, without attribution. I will ask you again to read the strictures about copying here: WP:COPYWITHIN. As editors, we cannot blithely ignore the Wikipedia licensing terms.

If you think you can improve on the treatment of this topic, I still encourage you. But it is necessary to use some common sense.

I was also taken aback by your edit summary, in which you characterized the readership as including "pro-Russian idiots" and "many dumb people". Wikipedia is not some wild online forum, in which we do battle with "dumb pro-Russian idiots". May I recommend that you read what's at this link: WP:BATTLEGROUND. Wikipedia is a place to which people come to learn, and sometimes, to teach. Both learning and teaching require an atmosphere of mutual respect. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Bruce leverett I was going to get to this was at work they were a Sock to a Banned user pre BMB https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Bans_apply_to_all_editing,_good_or_bad


A number of banned editors have used "good editing" (such as anti-vandalism edits) tactically, to try and game the banning system, "prove" they cannot be banned, or force editors into the paradox of either allowing banned editing or removing good content. Even if such editors only make good edits, they will be rebanned for evasion
I'll be darned. I could have saved myself a lot of hemming and hawing. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Bruce leverett it happens now we know what to watch out for.Jack90s15 (talk) 03:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Personal blogs are not reliable sources[edit]

This sentence: "Compared to countries with similar per-capita GDP in 1928, the Soviet Union experienced significant growth."

Is supported only by an archive of a now-deleted personal blog published in 2013. There's no indication of any editorial process, and the blog's writing is nakedly activist in tone and word choice. I'm not even sure the blogger's real name is available. This is not a reliable source by standard Wiki policy and this sentence should be removed, along with the source. 70.36.51.121 (talk) 03:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of moving this section to the end of the talk page, which is the customary place to add new sections to talk pages.
Your objections are noted. But the author claims to be roughly summarizing a book: Robert C. Allen’s Farm to Factory: A Reinterpretation of the Soviet Industrial Revolution. It would be reasonable to look through this book and try to make one's own summary, before removing the one that is there. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Congress of Soviets[edit]

Do Congress of Soviets and Congress of Soviets of the Soviet Union refer to the same body? If so, shouldn't these articles be merged? Bruce leverett (talk) 11:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Malenkov?[edit]

User:Age20035, User:Akshay888777: It would be very useful and helpful if you would explain, on this talk page, your reasons for including Malenkov in the list of leaders, or your reasons for not including Malenkov. Also, don't be shy about discussing any other principles or rules you use for deciding what names and dates appear in this list, and in other lists. As you may be aware, this list has been modified several times, just in the last few months. It would be good to bring some order to this chaos. Thank you! Bruce leverett (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, the reason I added Gregory Malenkov to the “Leaders” section in the infobox is because, in case you didn’t know, he did count as a leader of the nation despite serving a short term. However, I accidentally didn’t put: “Gregory Malenkov: (de facto)”. Malenkov spent most of his term fighting for power with Nikita Khrushchev. Akshay888777 (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)Akshay888777