Talk:Soviet Union

Earlier talk moved to Talk:Soviet Union/Archive 1, Talk:Soviet Union/Archive 2

File:Revmoongorby.gif

Moongorby

I would propose this photograph be added to the article, showing UPI's owner Reverend Moon meeting the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev.

Did you get permission from UPI? See Wikipedia:Copyrights. BTW, the upi article don't say it is owned by moon. Mikkalai 04:12, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Evil Empire

The following piece removed as misplaced in a general-purpose article

In 1983, attempting to draw a clear moral divide in the Cold War, former President Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an "evil empire," a statement that drew the ire of some but was championed by his conservative supporters in the U.S.

You may wish to reinsert it into specialized articles dealing with politics or history of the Soviet Union. Mikkalai 18:54, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

interesting trivia, Rage Against The Machine named their second album as evil empire. now, I... MUST... resist... CAN'T.. RESTRAIN... ARGH! I lost the fight with my fingers...

IN SOVIET RUSSIA, WIKI EDITS YOU! *phew* had to get that off my chest :)

Project2501a 15:45, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

anyone know of any resources?

I'm doing a research paper on Russian-American Cold War Relations at the Chess Table. Any help on finding good resources would be greatly appreciated. The resources I currently have our as follows: 1. Bobby Fischer: The $5,000,000 Comeback 2. Bobby Fischer biography by Frank Brady 3. Soviet Chess: 1917-1991 4. Chess is My Life (Korchnoi) 5. Chess is My Life (Karpov) 6. The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal 7. Bobby Fischer Goes to War

Thanks.

NEP and civil war

I am relying on memory, but I recall that the NEP was introduced before the Civil war ended. Ruy Lopez 23:57, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is it me or them?

I am amazed that this article stands without criticism. It whitewashes a very sinister regime. I am not saying it should do anything but present the facts but even minor changes have been rejected. How does this work? I am not sufficiently expert to rework it totally but how can a page on the USSR not record the tens of millions who died at Stalin's hands or the political prisoners or those who died fleeing there. Ask Russians about this, they wouldn't have written this. Libertas

This article is linked to scores of articles that accomplish this, and characterize myriad other facets of the Soviet regime, as it is supposed to. The function of this page, based on encyclopedic hierarchy, is to give very brief overviews on the Soviet polity, economy, and demography, as it is for articles on every other existing or defunct nation. That is why each section is linked to a main article, such as History of the Soviet Union , Economy of the Soviet Union, and Republics of the Soviet Union. (Incidentally, we still have to complete a number of important articles, such as Politics of the Soviet Union and Foreign relations of the Soviet Union; notice that their links appear in red in this article, meaning that they have not been even started.) In this article, constructive additions to the general overviews will mention specifics that link to other Soviet-related topics, such as collectivisation in the USSR, and Communist Party of the Soviet Union. But adding emotive, POV terms like "murder," "totalitarian," or "dictatorship" (though I personally agree with your sentiment) does not help make this article a better guide to the other articles on Soviet topics in Wikipedia. On that note, helpful sources for picking up the kind of language appropriate for this article can be found in the U.S. Library of Congress studies of the Soviet Union [1] and the CIA Factbook entries on the Soviet Union published before 1991. (Adding POV language is not the proper way of making sure that information on the crimes of the Soviet regime are more readily acceptable to Wikipedia readers. Notice that this is not even the approach of U.S. federal government publications written as the Cold War was still unfolding.) Please, by all means, add important key words linked to specific articles where you can find them. 172 10:36, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am Russian and your additions are very wrong and biased (not to mention the "Ministerial Lanes" that you apparently invented). Some of Stalin's actions are horrible, but his legacy also includes building one of the greatest countries on Earth that became leader in science, education, culture and social security. It's not a job for you or for this article to decide what outweight what. Soviet history was also very complex and should not be oversimplified. And the USSR was not totalitarian for most of its history. And Soviet people were much happier before their country collapsed than they are now, according to almost any reasonable metric, from economic output, to food consumption, to life expectancy, to number of hospital beds, to average income, to subjective happiness, to the damn number of smiles in the streets. Check out any economic study, check out any public opinion survey, the obvious result is that most people don't like their life now and liked the old life better.

The articles about Soviet Union are in a pretty sad state, but as the work required to fix them is so monumental, I can't contribute much in the immediate future. Still, before you spit our your misconceptions about this great country that you were told by propaganda in your American school, please have a modicum of respect to people who attempted to build the first ever society based on the principles of Communism. Paranoid 13:26, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I too am of Russian descent. I was one of the fortunate ones. My family left. And yes we came to America and built a better life. Defending Stalin's legacy is a joke. Russian achievements in science, education and culture long preceded his murderous reign of terror. Shall I annoy you by citing a hundred composers, authors, etc? It is indeed a job for encyclopedia articles to state facts and not whitewash them: the USSR was a totalitarian country from start to finish with millions of dead its victim. As to the crap about smiling Soviet cherubs compared with today, Russia is on the verge (if Putin can restrain himself a little) of a natural resources led boom. Russia has more natural resources than any other nation and its best days are coming, under freedom. It is a joke and an insult to Russians to say they better off under any measure under that evil system of state fascism:

Freedom has many difficulties and democracy is not perfect, but we have never had to put a wall up to keep our people in. President John F. Kennedy

Ask me to have to respect for the wall-builders and gulag-operators and politburo special lane drivers and I spit in your eye (figuratively at least!), you get the same treatment in history as Nazi Germany, a similarly evil regime.

I also note Paranoid's interest in the Vagina article where his main contribution has been excitedly noting the existence of Thai pingpong ball tricks. If possible, his defense of Stalin lowers his credibility further.

Libertas

I am not just of Russian descent, I live in Russia now. I am very well off personally, I also happen to have an excellent general education and a very good business education. But what you say about Putin and "natural resources led boom" is idiocy, which is partly explained by the fact that you live outside of Russia. There is no "boom", except the possible "boom" of crashing even lower than Russia currently is.

Soviet Union was not a totalitarian state for most of its history. It's a fact. Check out the definition of "totalitarian". The legacy of the Russian empire was further developed by the Soviet Union. While Russia was a major player on the world arena before, it wasn't until the Soviet Union that it became one of the two world leaders. The achievements during that time were much greater than already great deeds done before the 1917.

"As to the crap about smiling Soviet cherubs", only 3 percent of Russians expect their economic conditions to improve in 2005. The majority thinks that current system is bad for the country. A significant fraction (don't have figures hand, check out fom.ru and romir.ru) believes that Soviet system was better for the country. By any reasonable quantitative measure life in USSR was better than today. I challenge you, take any metric and chances are it was better 20 years ago.

The excellent Soviet systems of education, science, medicine, culture, defence were either already completely destroyed or are being destroyed as we speak.

Argumentum ad hominem

An ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument by addressing the person presenting it rather than the argument itself.

A traditional ad hominem argument was identified by Aristotle in his On Sophistical Refutations and has the basic form:

1. A makes claim B;
2. there is something objectionable about A,
3. therefore claim B is false.

Paranoid 19:12, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't feel like debating this, because 'you are obviously a communism-hater and left USSR early enough in your life to be successfully brainwashed by your parents and the American propaganda machine.' But you can't fight facts. And the facts (according to ongoing polls by major independent pollsters in Russia) are that Russian citizens generally aren't happy with how things are (and have been for the last 15 years). 20% said in a recent poll that life has become unbearable for them. Meanwhile the Soviet times are remembered positively. Another facet of facts is that (I repeat it again) by any reasonable measure, life in the Soviet Union was better than life is today in Russia, which, in turn, is many times better than life in other "independent states". You can argue that people in Moscow live better than they lived 20 years ago (it's not true, but at least it's not as blatantly false), but it should be clear to anyone but the blindest communism-hater that people in Far East, people in Adygeya, people in Udmurtia, people in Armenia, people everywhere, but in the very center of Moscow are much worse off today than they ever were during the Soviet times. Paranoid 16:14, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is great, we have a Stalinist sentry guarding Mother Russia's page. A Stalinist who writes hatefully about women, but in all other respects believes in socialist equality and who claims great wealth but is unwilling to implement his own distribution of wealth. Anyway, Stalin also didn't like debating and favored more drastic persuasion methods so I feel honored you indulge me.

1) You seem to place great stock in Russian opinion polls. I don't trust Russian or Ukrainian election results, let alone opinion polls. I regard your statistics as damn lies. I measure whether people are willing to die to leave Russia, this no longer happens. The evil empire no longer needs walls to imprison its people.

Libertas, It is always healthy to be skeptical of polling data. However, when it comes to Russian opinion polling, you are painting a picture with an excessively large brush. For example, VCIOM and later VTsIOM-A have earned quite a good reputation for their reliable and independent opinion polling among Western Russia specialists. 172 19:36, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Did you read the wikipedia entry on those organizations. Read it and agree with me there probably hasn't been an unrigged opinion poll or election in Russia ever. Libertas

I wrote that entry for the most part... VCIOM and later VTsIOM-A following the breakup of VCIOM by the Kremlin earned a good reputation in the West. Do some searches online. You will find respected Western academics and media outlets using their data. 172 20:07, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2) Denying totalitarianism governed the USSR is like denying it governed Nazi Germany. Not worth discussing.

3) Russia's commodity wealth will inevitably transfer to liquid wealth. And God willing, the thieves and bullies in the Kremlin and oligarchy will invest in Russia and not hide the profits offshore. That investment will give all the capital Russia needs to achieve great prosperity, not just for avaricious insiders like you but for all the people. A true democracy needs equality of opportunity, and Russia is lacking that. I believe it will come.

On that note, the Democratic Republic of Congo is one of the richest countries in the world, right? Commodity wealth does not inevitably yield liquid wealth. 172 19:38, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I did not say it would in all cases, in Russia's case I believe it is inevitable. Russia has its problems but Congo has bigger ones, which it too might overcome, I certainly hope Africa improves using its own resources not relying on handouts which never seem to solve anything. Libertas

4) Russia can be great, but won't be with those of dubious intellect defending an evil empire. Every Russian I know celebrates its collapse (without necessarily being overjoyed about everything that replaced it of course) and to pretend otherwise with fake opinion polls is an insult to my intelligence although a credit to your Soviet style intelligence service.

5) 20% find life unbearable, I think is probably true of all of us at one time or another and to blame it on the demise of Stalinism or Sovietism is really enough to induce hysterical laughter. You can do stand up comedy in my gulag anyday, comrade.

Libertas

Libertas, I'm sure that you will be relieved to find out that Wikipedia is not governed by the Kremlin but by its own policies. On that note, please take note of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Calling someone a "freak" is not going to win you support on Wikipedia. 172 19:41, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC) 172 19:27, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Quite right, just returning fire, I hope you similarly advise Paranoid although I note you haven't Libertas

I will now. The same goes for Paranoid and myself. Paranoid should avoid using terms like "brainwashed." I also should make a self-criticism. Over the past couple of years I admit to breaking this rule many times myself, although I don't think that I have done so in this particular conversation. At any rate, let's hope that the conversation will proceed with a more civil tone. 172 19:44, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sure. I won't use the term "brainwashed" anymore. Let me just say that I consider Libertas to "hold strong ideas that I consider to be implausible and that seem resistant to evidence, common sense, experience and logic". Furthermore, I believe that he developed these ideas under external influence. Hope it's better now.Paranoid 20:32, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Paranoid in response to a very gentle prompt about personal attacks launches another, and even worse uses Stalinist/Soviet terms like "external influence" to make the attack. Given the failure to deal with the inherent bias in this article I have decided to escalate this issue because it's not just of a sufficient standard for wikipedia. Libertas

Summary

I really don't see the need to debate anything, because instead of responding to my arguments and factual claims Libertas simply choses to attack me personally (for example, by wrongly implying that my edits to Vagina made me a woman-hater, which is nonsense) and repeat his groundless claim. I find it quite obvious that he is very poorly informed about the real situation in Russia, which is quite normal for an emigrant, but must be taken into account. I could just restate my points, but that would be useless. Libertas, if you want to argue, please respond in a rational and calm manner to my posts first. What you've just written is mostly false and doesn't make much sense. Paranoid 20:32, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You entered in an encyclopedia article on Vagina comments about Thailand pingpongs. Forgive me for being fussy but that to my mind means you hold "misogynist views that I consider resistent to evidence, common sense, experience and logic." And in your case no external influence was responsible, it clearly comes from within. Libertas

Would you please stop lying. Here is the diff and it doesn't have either the word "Thailand" or "pingpong". It adds value-neutral factual information. I did not express any views (much less misogynist), I just mentioned several facts, which are supported by evidence. I fail to see what "common sense, experience and logic" have to do with it. So would you please stop your personal attacks that contradict facts and have nothing to do with this article. If you want to discuss my views, do it at User talk:Paranoid. Thank you in advance. Paranoid 11:34, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Don't thank me too soon because some other of your contributions are even more offensive, that imply children are capable of consenting to sexual intercourse. Shame on you. Libertas

Explanations of changes

Poor and middle - removed. As opposed to what, rich peasants, who benefited immediately? Nonsense.

forced collectivisation - removed. Everything was forced in a sense. Electrification was forced, five year plans were forced. The NEP was an economic regime, just as 5-year plans and collective farming were an economic regime. Forced collectivisation was a form of achieving such regime and is not relevant in that particular sentence. Additionally, enough is probably written in the linked article.

privileges - removed the false propaganda and replaced it with a better reflection of reality. It may be too long for this summary article, but it's better than unsubstantiated lies inserted by people who blindly follow "capitalist propaganda".

growth rates - please don't revert such changes without explanation. This addition by Libertas was correct and also improved the style by connecting two sentences. Don't just revert all changes wholesale. Paranoid 13:49, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, that was my addition to try to NPOV Libertas' one. I thought it was particularly important to note that there Russia followed a global trend.

Eviction is forced by default, so to say "forced eviction" is NPOV. And to call the deaths of landowners during the revolution, murders, is moralistic. If you wanna criticize the USSR, learn to do it properly.--Che y Marijuana 00:45, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, everything is forced in a sense. Landowners often resisted expropriation of their lands in Soviet times, yet recently many peasants resisted de-collectivization and were deeply reluctant to accept markets, given their difficulties in adjusting to the structural changes of the 1990s. [2] 172 02:20, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's fair enough. I think all I changed from Libertas' version there was to make "property owners" into "land-owners", with an appropriate link, and explain who did it (the previous version implied that it was the state evicting and killing people, whereas it was really the state that was under attack at that point).

As I explained above, additions ought to add links to specific articles. For further descriptions, users can click on links to war communism, History of the Soviet Union, or NEP. 172 02:20, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why this article on the USSR is a corrupt whitewash

1) References to mass murder are consistently deleted

2) References to totalitarianism deleted

3) References to oppression deleted

with no excuses and no decent rationale. It requires a radical overhaul.

Libertas

No, the article deals with these two matters appropriately. It links to specific entries on forced labor camps, internal exile, political prisoners and executions, e.g., Gulag and Great Purges. It links to Collectivisation in the USSR and Agriculture of the Soviet Union, articles with which I am sure that you will be satisfied. This article is no more of a whitewash than those two publications by none other than the U.S. federal government about its own Cold War rival that I mentioned earlier on this talk page. Like this article, they mention the necessary specifics while avoiding the emotive and polemical tone that you seem interested in advancing. 172 07:25, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cannot agree with this. And you ought not remove the disputed tag until it is resolved. Libertas

The tag will not go back up until you pont out a single example of factual inaccuracy. If you know of any specific topics that this article fails to mention, please let us know. But picking fights with people isn't going to help. BTW, read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. You will need to learn to write in a neutral manner and try not to be so confrontational; otherwise, you'll be on the road of getting yourself blocked. 172 23:38, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Republics

Can anyone confirm if this paragraph from the Republics section is accurate? (I was not aware of these criteria.)

The criteria for establishing new republics were as follows:

1. to be located on the periphery of the Soviet Union so as to be able to exercise their alleged right to secession,
2. be economically strong enough to survive on their own upon secession and
3. be named after the dominant ethnic group which should consist of at least one million people.

Andris 14:30, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

I think there have been no criteria at all; new republics were created on an ad hoc basis. — Monedula 15:07, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article protected

Please state the disputed issues with reasons you think that there is a problem.

Please keep also in mind that this article cannot contain all possible details about the state of the Soviet Union. Please consider discussion of some issues in other articles about the Soviet Union. Mikkalai 00:21, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Libertas points

I am not an expert on this subject and I certainly have a view about the Soviet era in Russia.

I compare this article on the USSR with the one on Nazi Germany and am amazed at the differences. When I attempted to place the word 'totalitarian' in the former it was rejected. And yet it rightly appears in the latter.

The Nazi Germany article is a component in the History of Germany series. The counterpart to that article for the Soviet Union is History of the Soviet Union (1927-1953). This comparision does not hold up. 172 03:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(to Lib:)You are making wrong comparison. Nazi Germany is a period in the history of Germany. There are periods in the history of the Soviet Union that do deserve all bad words you want to add. And these words and even more do present in the corresponding artices. Mikkalai 03:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I understand this articles draws in the content of subsidiary articles. But that shouldn't justify an accurate and brief summary of what the USSR really was.

(to Lib:)If you meant to write "shouldn't prevent", then you are right. However there is a difference between "brief summary" and "buzzwords". Mikkalai 03:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I will look at other Encyclopedia for some inspiration but in my view (and it's just one view) this article must explain (in more neutral terms than I'm putting them here):

1

1) That the USSR was a totalitarian one-party state

Totalitarian is a POV term and will be kept out of this article. Single-party state is NPOV; and the article states clearly that the Soviet Union was a single party regime. 172 03:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(to Lib:) "one-party": the "Politics" section speaks about this very strongly. "Totalitarian" is a political slang better to avoid. Mikkalai 03:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So it's OK for the Nazi Germany article but not for the USSR article. Double standard Libertas

The same standards do not apply. They are different kinds of articles. One is a component of a national history series; the other is not. (As an aside, I would prefer keeping the term "totalitarian" out of the intro of the Nazi Germany article. The nature of the regime could be expressed in clearer, more concrete, and specific way in a concise way with better writing... I just don't have time to start working on that article myself. I wrote two articles in the History of Germany series, but not that one. After being here a couple of years, I've piled up a watchlist including over 1,200 articles; and I don't have time to add that one at the moment.) 172 05:26, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good luck removing that word from that article. It is a perfect description of both regimes. WHat is the difference? They are both regimes that governed nations for a time. They are exactly the same and they should have exactly the same article structure. Libertas

Though it is sometimes used as pejorative political slang, totalitarianism has a real meaning and is the subject of significant scholarship. As the article makes clear, Stalinism is, for many, a classic instance of it. As such, the article should probably make some reference to the USSR under Stalin being widely considered totalitarian. However, that should not be presented as absolute truth, nor applied to the entire history of the USSR. RadicalSubversiv E 07:04, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You make some good points. This discussion can be found in Stalinism. This article really isn't the place for a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of looking at Russia in the framework of the totalitarian model used by some scholars; but we definitely do need to work in a link for Stalinism so that this discussion can be found from this article. 172 07:17, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RS, yes, totalitarianism is a term which is the subject of significant scholarship. At the same time, it is a term which many scholars would suggest is inappropriate to ever use (our historian of the Nazis at U-Penn, Thomas Childers, doesn't like the concept, for instance), so we can't simply say that either Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union was totalitarian with no qualification. Some sort of link would certainly be useful, and probably not only to Stalinism (after all, Jeanne Kirkpatrick used the term to refer to the Brezhnev period), but we need to be really careful how we work it in. john k 21:56, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2

2) That millions died at Stalin's hand, and that Stalin used starvation as a weapon against the people

Other articles estimate the death tool. They are easily found in this article, which brings up the Gulag system, the Great Purges, and Stalinist collectivization. 172 03:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(to Lib:)(1)Yes, millions wil be added in the Histoy section. (2)No, "starvation as a weapon" is speculations, although convincing. Mikkalai 03:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

172 seems to want a "neutral" story (and I use the word advisedly) about the USSR. The main point of the Soviet system was the gulags, the mass murders, it's like saying you cannot mention WWII in the Nazi Germany article. Libertas

It doesn't matter that I want a "neutral story." What matters is that Wikipedia requires a "neutral story." See Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. BTW, the Gulag systmem is mentioned in this article; I myself added it. 172 05:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not require a whitewash or Soviet spin to remove key facts about the Soviet regime. There is a huge difference between neutrality and inconvenient fact cleansing. Libertas

Remove facts like Great Purges and Gulag? Oh wait, they are already in the article... 172 05:44, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Mikkalai. Millions should be added in the History section and "starvation as a weapon" should not be added, since it is a speculation. Andris 09:03, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

"Starvation as a weapon" is a speculation, but the article should mention that there was a starvation in 1930s. At the present, it only mentions "catastrophic consequences in agricultural sector" which is very vague. Andris 09:12, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

We certainly shouldn't talk about starvation as a weapon. As to the death toll, I think it's fine to mention it in the history section, although we need to be careful, again, how it is put. john k 21:59, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It may be relevant to consult historical references -- there seem to be a number of people who feel that the starvation was a result of mismanagement and political contests with the boyars rather than an actual intended result. --Improv 00:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

3

3) That hundreds of thousands of political prisoners were detained without trial or with sham trials, many in mental asylums

See the above said articles. 172 03:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(to Lib:)Political repressions are mentioned, with references, but without numbers. I would say millions. Mikkalai 03:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes Mikkalai I believe you are right, millions. But let's not mention it in the article in case we upset the Stalinists. Libertas

4

4) That the economic system was a disaster, with living standards dismal, basic consumer goods often impossible to get, with huge amounts of productivity wasted by people just looking for the basics while vast amounts were spent on weapons

Incorrect. The stagnation of the Soviet economy and the shortages of consumer goods are indeed mentioned in the section on the Soviet economy. 172 03:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(to Lib:)Not a disaster for most of the time. It worked for different purpose. In any case, this issue cannot be described in two simple words. Mikkalai 03:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It was a complete catastrophe, not a disaster then. Libertas

Argue about the scope in the subsidiary articles. This article already deals with the stagnation of the 1970s and 1980s, the shortages of consumer goods, and the calamities of Soviet agriculture appropriately. 172 05:39, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I understand your argument about the subsidiary articles and respectfully disagree. The inherent failure in central planning must be in the summary of the history of the USSR. Libertas

It would've been, but there is a section on the economy. See Soviet Union#economy. Further detail on this subject can be found in Economy of the Soviet Union and the section on economic stagnation in History of the Soviet Union (1953-1985). I know this because I actually wrote most of that material. 172 05:58, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Note also that calling it an inherent failure is neither NPOV (it's a political conclusion) nor does it belong in this article. The Societ economy is a complex topic, spanning many years, projects, and leaders. Calling the whole thing a failure is historically inaccurate. --Improv 00:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

5

5) That the occasional use by the Soviet regime of the term "democratic" is somewhat ironic in the circumstances

Relevance? This sounds like the content of an essay. 172 03:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(to Lib:)Not much more ironic than here in the US at times. Mikkalai 03:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was specifically referring to "democratic centralism" which centred power in Moscow, but not democratically. The US system of course isn't perfect but yes it is democratic and there is no irony about it. Ask Al Gore who would have been President but for a few hundred confused old people in Miami who thought they'd voted for him but actually voted for Buchanan. That's pure democracy, imperfect but true. And exactly what the Soviet was not. Libertas

The article mentions and includes a link to democratic centralism. 172 05:32, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes but the irony of the term must be pointed out. It was the opposite. Libertas

That's a topic of discussion for another article. Try democratic centralism. 172 05:59, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

172 is exactly right. Democratic centralism is a specific method for decision-making in communist parties. We can disagree over how democratic it is actually is/was (just as we could about the Democratic Party), but that's its name -- it's not "so-called" or "what they labeled". RadicalSubversiv E 07:04, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

6

6) That in fact those with power lived lives of luxury while everyone else lived in desperate circumstances

This is mentioned (privileges for party and state officials), but in the proper neutral manner. Incidentally, poverty worsened in the 1990s, but the Russia article does not have a section on it, as well it should not. 172 03:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The vast majority of Russians have enjoyed a tremendous boost in their standard of living. Yes, I don't doubt poverty has increased as some have not made the transition as well as others. It was a huge change after all. Libertas

Actually, this is incorrect; only a small minority did, mostly in the big cities. At any rate, this is an issue for History of post-Soviet Russia, not this article. 172 05:35, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Priviliges are mentioned. "Desperate circumstances" is a fairly big exaggeration. On 1990s, this is not the scope for this article. Andris 09:17, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

7

7) That while there was some pride about the role and power of the Soviet Union that for the most part people hated the dictatorship that was imposed on them and many risked their lives to leave

Again, this sounds like the topic of an essay. This is not the place for it. 172 03:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(to Lib:)Not most part. Not "many". Only those who wanted more and better and now. Here in the USA people use to grumble about the state and its politics, some even leave (without risking their lifes, though). But this means nothing. The same in USSR. An average person was happy with his piece of bread and butter. Mikkalai 03:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me? I was in Russia after 1991, they were happy about the collapse of Sovietism. In fact they were delirious with joy. Libertas

No, you excuse me. The delirium wore off pretty quickly after everyone was robbed off what little they had for sure under sovietism. Mikkalai 07:09, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was in Soviet Union througout 1980s and I did not see much of hate for regime. People seemed mostly content, caring about their everyday lives more than about the regime. Andris 09:20, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Take a look at this UPI article run in the Washingting Times Most Russians regret Soviet collapse 172 10:49, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

UPI is owned by the dangerous religious cult the Moonies and can hardly be considered a credible academic resource. Reverend Moon claims to be the Messiah. Libertas

8

8) That the USSR was a police state, where neighbors and family members were encouraged to inform on each other's political views

Repression, political prisoners, and executions are mentioned, e.g., Great Purges. 172 03:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(to Lib:)"police state"; heh; for your hatred totalitarianism is not enough? Now, let's get the full list (I recall you mentioned evil empire, dictatorship...) IMO this becomes simply silly. Mikkalai 03:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My point is you cannot write an article about the USSR without these undisputed facts. Libertas

9

9) That membership of the Communist Party was a ticket to advancement

Indeed it was. Privileges for party and state officials are mentioned. 172 03:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(to Lib:)Plain wrong cliche, "balalaika". Cause and effect mixed up. Mikkalai 03:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(to Lib:)Priviliges are indeed mentioned. If you want to expand on that, give a more concrete proposal. Andris 09:08, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

10

10) That the USSR imposed its system of dictatorship throughout Eastern Europe and elsewhere, with military force.

The article deals briefly with the role of the Soviet Union in the Warsaw Pact and Soviet interest in proping up the regimes of member states. 172 03:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(to Lib:)The "Politics" section says maintenance of hegemony over the Warsaw Pact. Do you want more thousands of deaths mentioned here as well?Mikkalai 03:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

YES, it was a murderous regime that exported its terror throughout the world. It should be mentioned. Libertas

Please try to talk clearly and carefully even in free discussions. There was no "throughout the world", fortunately. Think that you are writing a phrase into the article, rather than kicking ass of these commies. Mikkalai 07:19, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

11

I'm sure others can think of more, but the Soviet era needs a comprehensively more honest treatment that it has gotten here previously. This article is practically silent on the economic failings, the human rights abuses and the inequalities that the Soviet Union is really now known for. I don't understand why it should be. Even the smallest suggested changes have been totally rejected.

No, the article just does it in the way required by encyclopedic standards, the function of this article, and Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. Rather than making this article into a condemnation of the evil empire, it makes information quickly accessible by linking to all the other relevant Soviet-related topics. 172 03:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(to Lib:)This article is a summary of 70+ years of the huge country. It is "practically silent" about almost everything what happened it it. There is simly no space on the page. All phrases are summaries. If something is really missing, it must be added. But this must be made as summary and without polical buzzwordism. Mikkalai 03:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Those too young to remember much about the Soviets or with short memories should read the excellent article on Stalin's henchman Beria to see what really happened under Sovietism.

I'm confident that all those chiming in on this page are familiar with Beria. 172 03:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(to Lib:) And there is much more in category:Soviet political repressions. Mikkalai 03:36, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Neutral yes. Whitewash no. Totalitarian has become slang in the Orwellian world of this Talk page. Give me a break. This is a whitewash article. It is a sham. This "discussion" is not that, it has the tone of two ageing Marxist professors telling a freshman how it's going to be. Well I don't accept any of it. A summary means retaining all the crucial points. How can a summary of the USSR exclude or make a footnote of mass murder, political repression and economic chaos. This article will remain the sham and scam that it was without a comprehensive re-write. Libertas

How can a summary of the USSR exclude or make a footnote of mass murder, political repression and economic chaos? It can't. That's why the article already deals with these matters. How many times do how many different users need to point this out to you? 172 05:42, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I do not agree, they are mentioned inadequately at best. Libertas

Yes, they are. This is not the History of the Soviet Union article. 172 05:51, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've been watching this discussion and I'll chime in here since Libertas asked for more opinions. I think the article mentions all the relevant points appropriately for a summary. Calling it a "whitewash" is alarmist and propagandist (ironically). As far as I understand it NPOV prohibits all but a few changes Libertas has made to the article. (And for disclosure, I do not nor have I ever lived in or adjacent to the USSR in any of its incarnations, and am not a citizen of any country that was ever at war with it. I'm just annoyed by anti-propagandists who resort to propaganda.) — Saxifrage | ☎ 07:01, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Libertas

sigs

I went though your statements point by point. Each of the relevant issues that you bring up is addressed in the article, but in a neutral manner in which you should become acquainted in writing. 172 03:10, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(172 and I overlapped in time...) I would suggest you to read a little more articles related to Soviet Union, and you will see that they are way far from being communist conspiracy to silence the truth. Mikkalai 03:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Looking at the kinds of changes you made to the article, you seem to be committed to doing something here that it is not the proper place to do. I am an Anarchist myself, so it's not like I love the Soviet Union, but the reality is, to use words like "murder" to describe a revolution, and "forced eviction" when eviction is by definition forced, is just a little over the top. Have you ever been evicted by choice?--Che y Marijuana 05:03, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Despite my aggressive tone (talking louder and louder to brick walls is not a sign of intelligence I realize) I thank you for responding but I cannot thank you for listening. The point is the key attributes of the Soviet Union are not which republic was what but the evil it did, the story of its victims. To downplay that is intellectually dishonest and not neutral. It would not be tolerated on the Nazi Germany article and rightly so. It is not a space issue, some Wiki articles seem very long. It is a censorship issue, with some Soviet nostalgics wanting some Stalin style cleansing of its dirty, dirty past. I won't tolerate it and nor should anyone else. Try removing the totalitarian reference and calling it slang on the Nazi Germany page, I dare you. Libertas

(1) Mikkalai and I have both already explained to you that the Nazi Germany article is a component of the History of Germany page. This is not the component in the History of Russia series; it's History of the Soviet Union. This comparision that you are drawing does not make sense. This article would not be accomplishing its fucntion if it were like the Nazi Germany entry. (2) some Soviet nostalgics If you continue to attack users, you will be blocked. You are already starting to exhaust a considerable amount of patience. 172 05:49, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I totally disagree with you.

The Soviet era is directly comparable with the Nazi era.

It is clear to me that this article is a whitewash chock full of Soviet nostalgia. I am disappointed by your threat to block me for having a different view and for daring to assert it. I see your conversation with RadicalSubversiv about devising a strategy to block me permanently by falsely linking me with two other users, neither of whom have anything to do with me. I would be pleased to be investigated on such a score.

The defense of this corrupt whitewash of an article is not a defense of neutrality, rather it is seems to me no more than Orwellian inconvenient fact-cleansing. I don't like it and am entitled to say so. It is not a personal attack to say so. Read this page and you will see many personal attacks on me, which seemed of no concern to you at all until I pointed them out.

I will continue to revise the article (and encourage those familiar with Russia to do similarly) until it is neutral, factual and encyclopedic. The article is currently none of those things. It is a whitewash. Libertas

Re: The Soviet era is directly comparable with the Nazi era. I have not responded to your argument that the Soviet era is 'directly comparable with the Nazi era'. This is not a discourse on comparative politics. However, I have explained to you that this entry does not have the same function as the Nazi Germany article. (I'll state this again because you don't seem to be reading our comments-- the counterpart to the Nazi Germany article, a part of the History of Germany series, is History of the Soviet Union, which, in turn, is part of the History of Russia series. The counterpart to this article (Soviet Union) is Germany. Notice that that entry goes into even less detail than this one. If you ever grasp this, you'll calm down. Re: I will continue to revise the article (and encourage those familiar with Russia to do similarly) until it is neutral, factual and encyclopedic. The article is currently none of those things. You are hearing from users familar with Russia. I'm a professional historian; I think that at least one of the other users is also a historian. In addition, there users from the former Soviet Union (whom I'm sure are all much older and more familiar with the subject matter than you are) have already chimed in. The users familair with Russia are not joining your crusade. If you don't accept this, you will have trouble with the peer-editing process on Wikipedia... No one is going to conspire to block you, as you seem to be suggesting above, but this article can stay protected for quite a long time until you become a bit more reasonable and less vitriolic. 172 19:39, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Libertas, most Wikipedia users, who have been here slightly longer than you, are very familiar with loudmouthed prejudiced people, who take it upon themselves to fix a grave injustice commited by this encyclopedia. Supposedly, a certain article either whitewashes some evil scum or fings mud at something white and fluffy. These people usually wholeheartedly believe that they are right and everyone who disagrees with them is dead wrong. They are incapable of understanding the views of others and as such are seen as a hindrance to this project. Even though Wikipedia users are patient and forgiving, they will not yield to repeated one-sided edits that they perceive to be vandalism.

Please, Libertas, don't be like those people. If you persist you may waste some of our time, but eventually will get banned. We would all be much happier if you accepted that while your views are very dear and important to you, not everyone shares them, although we all respect your right to hold them. So let's put aside our opinions and concentrate on veryfiable facts, trying to present the subject of this article in a neutral, objective and factual manner. Paranoid 17:28, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I feel duly patronized. On the substantive issues, this article must at least record the fact that the Soviet regime was totalitarian. I have read no sensible argument against this. Libertas

Totalitarianism

Totalitarianism is any political system in which a citizen is totally subject to a governing authority in all aspects of day-to-day life. Sounds like the Soviet Union to me. Libertas

So you've read no sensible argument against that, huh? I never realised an argument was required. If you would have managed to read the Totalitarianism article beyond the first sentence that you quote here, you would realise that:

Many commentators consider the post-Stalin Soviet Union as a post-totalitarian society.

However, the concept of totalitarianism remains highly controversial. Most historians who study Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union accept it only with reservations.

Still, one can reasonably argue that all totalitarian systems do seem to necessarily require the presence of a living human absolute leader at all times and do expect a certain type of guidance for nearly every aspect of life from that leader.

there is also the question of measurement of totalitarianism with its emphasis on state control over "every aspect" of everyday life. The United States had a higher rate of imprisonment than the Soviet Union did when the Soviet Union collapsed.

the collapse of the Soviet Union overturned many established ideas about "totalitarianism".

There can be no argument about it - Soviet Union for the most time wasn't a totalitarian state. We can agree that under Stalin Soviet Union had many elements of totalitarism and could be called a totalitarian state, but most of the time it couldn't. The citizens simply weren't totally controlled by the state in all aspects of their day-to-day lives.

If we should call Soviet Union a totalitarian state, because it was one for about 20 years, then perhaps we need to call United States a nazi state or a slave-ownership state, because of the racism and slavery 200 years ago?

BTW, when did your family run away from Soviet Union? It appears to me that you have no clear idea of what a life in Soviet Union in 1960-1990 was like. Paranoid 19:32, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"There can be no argument about it", well in that case I'll just agree with you. Spare me.

I don't accept Wikipedia's definition of totalitarianism as definitive. Nor do I accept that Brezhnev was any less of an all-imposing leader than Stalin. He murdered fewer people, but there was just as much repression, it's just people had gotten used to it probably.

The proposition that the US is a 'nazi' state I think says a lot more about the perspective from which the Soviet nostalgia in the article is derived than it does about the US.

Cheap shot, and a thoughtless one at that—you missed the point so far that you've responded to the opposite of what was said. Calling the USA a nazi state was an example of reducing your argument to an absurd conclusion: that if you insist that the USSR must be called totalitarian because it was for 20 year of a much longer history, then you must also, by that logic, call the USA "nazi" because it was for a short period of its history. Since it is absurd to call the USA a nazi country for all its history for that reason, it is just as absurd to call the USSR a totalitarian country for all its history for the same reason. — Saxifrage | ☎ 07:17, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

I probably wasn't clear. The USSR was totalitarian from Day One til the day of its joyful collapse. Not for 20 years, or 10 years, or during Stalin's rule, or when the gulags were operating or at some other time, it was a fascist dictatorship with clever lefty tags from start to finish. I don't accept the US was "nazi" in any way, ever, at any time and I cannot see how anyone could say such a thing. They had slaves and there is still racism but how that constitues Nazism is beyond me. Maybe you'll turn water into wine and explain it to me. Libertas

The personal attack on my family, that it "ran away" from the USSR is offensive to me and I request an apology. Libertas

Fallujah

If anyone wants an example of what IS totalitarism, to better understand that Soviet Union WASN'T it, here is an interesting article about US plans for Fallujah that are being implemented right now.

"It is not much of a reach to see that, at least in their fantasies, US planners would like to set up what sociologists call a "total institution". Like a mental hospital or a prison, Fallujah, at least as reimagined by the Americans, will be a place where constant surveillance equals daily life and the capacity to interdict "suspicious" behavior (however defined) is the norm. But "total institution" might be too sanitized a term to describe activities that so clearly violate international law as well as fundamental morality. Those looking for a descriptor with more emotional bite might consider one of those used by correspondent Pepe Escobar of Asia Times Online: either "American gulag" for those who enjoy Stalinist imagery or "concentration camp" for those who prefer the Nazi version of the same. But maybe we should just call it a plain old police (city-)state."

Source: The failed US face of Fallujah

Marxist Website Writes About Fallujah(yawn)

Please note the above is from a website that describes itself as Marxist, down to Karl Marx appearing in Santa Claus suit. I saw a good quote recently from a British Labour MP who was once a commie. "Yes I was once a Communist. I once also believed in Santa Claus."

Iraq is another debate, but it is clear the Marxist argument that the US went in for economic reasons (Marxists seem to think everything is about money) was totally off-base. Certainly they were motivated by fear.

As to the quote, there's nothing worth responding to, it's an assertion wrapped in angry rhetoric wrapped in feral anti-Americanism. Fallujah is a mess to be sure but the people of Iraq are growing in confidence, prosperity and security. The totalitarianism of Saddam is what they are driving away from, towards a horizon of a free Iraq.

Libertas

Further consideration of Libertas' proposals

Please let's keep this discussion focused on specific proposals for modifying this article. This is the only way of working toward getting this page unlocked eventually. Around half a dozen users have responded to all of Libertas' proposals. The coalescing consensus is that most of the 11 items listed by Libertas are already included in the article. There seems to be agreement, though, that the second point should be addressed. Libertas: That millions died at Stalin's hand, and that Stalin used starvation as a weapon against the people. Andris, in response to this point, noted that we should elaborate on the following: "Crises in the agricultural sector reaped catastrophic consequences in the 1930s under Soviet leader Joseph Stalin." I'll add to that that more detail on collectivization also should be added, including a reference to causalities and famine. This could be added to the following under history: "Under Stalin, who replaced Lenin's NEP with five year plans and collective farming..." This cannot be accomplished until the article is unprotected, which requires Libertas to start working with us rather than against us.

The rest of his points have already been addressed. Just to recap, I will go through them point by point once again.

(1) Libertas: That the USSR was a totalitarian one-party state See under politics: "The government implemented decisions made by the Communist Party (see Organization of the Communist Party of the USSR). As a rule, the Communist Party did not permit any other political group to challenge its leadership, and over the decades, especially under Stalin, Soviet citizens who dissented openly with CPSU policies faced numerous forms of repression, including imprisonment and executions." See under politics: " The party, using its nomenklatura authority, placed reliable individuals in leadership posts throughout the government. CPSU bodies monitored the actions of government ministries, agencies, and legislative organs." The following is featured prominently in the introduction: "... the political organization of the country was defined by the only recognized political party, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union."

It seems 172 wants a point by point rebuttal so here goes. The word totalitarian is essential, it is used in the Nazi Germany page. I have no problem with the description in the subsidiary page but an accurate representation of the Soviet's political repression is warranted in this article. As it stands, it isn't there. To say, the CPSU is the only "recognized" party is a whitewash term that one wouldn't see on the Nazi page. Libertas

Is the handbook on the Soviet Union published by the U.S. Library of Congress Country Studies, sponsored by the U.S. Department of the Army, also using whitewash terms? They refer to the CPSU as the "only party permitted by Constitution." [3] In addition, their brief overview of on politics and government does not include the term "totalitarian." You need to learn the difference between the style appropriate for a sourcebook or an encyclopedia and a polemic. 172 05:34, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Permitted" is a much more appropriate term. I'm happy with that. The Nazi Germany article says totalitarian. It is an accurate term. It stays. I'm starting to think you should get another hobby. Libertas

"Permitted" also works. I'll change "recognized" to "permitted" after the article is unprotected. 172 06:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Again, I remind you you have no special status in changing the article. Anyone can. Libertas

(3) Libertas: That hundreds of thousands of political prisoners were detained without trial or with sham trials, many in mental asylums. See under history:" ... with effective political opposition eliminated in the 1930s through a harsh system of internal exile (see Gulag) and a severe period of repression known as the Great Purges." See also under politics: "...Soviet citizens who dissented openly with CPSU policies faced numerous forms of repression, including imprisonment and executions."

Again, the millions of victims of political repression might think they'd warrant a mention in this article not a subsidiary article. Libertas

Nor is an estimate on the number of dead in the Second World War included, although this is far greater. I already stated that an estimate of casualties would be appropriate when we are expanding the sentences on collectivization. However, keep in mind that causality estimates vary considerably in just about every important episode in Soviet history, and the level of detail necessary to explain this variation and contextualize the history may be too much for this article. This article is supposed to stay under 32 K, not much longer than it is now, so this means that just about important details on the Soviet Union will not be mentioned. Please tell us your specific proposals, staying concrete and historical, as opposed to repeating the same anti-Soviet rants over and over again. 172 05:34, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No personal attacks please. My "rants" are no more "rants" than your comments. The article needs to reflect the dimension of Soviet victims, I suggested hundreds of thousands, another user said it was millions. There are many articles greater in length than 32K. This is an excuse to exclude inconvenient truths.

This is an excuse to exclude inconvenient truths. I will not dignigfy this with a response. 172 06:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nor will I Libertas

It is not the purpose of articles to "do justice", but rather to provide information. Use of links to other pages doesn't hide information, it provides a nice way to navigate it. I don't think it's hiding inconvenient truths to cover the deaths and repression on another page. --Improv 16:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's like not mentioning the Holocaust on the Nazi page. I have no problem with subsidiary articles and all that, I just believe the article as it stood is a corrupt whitewash of the USSR's true sordid history. It's not about justice, it's about truth. Libertas

It's unique POV: citizens of the Soviet Union were constantly and massively killed. The first argument is to look at the demography of the USSR, its population increased (BTW compare to nowadays "non-repressive Russia" with the population decreasing).I think it would be worth of mentioning, how many Russians were killed by Hitlerites during WWII (Communists were massively killed, like Jews) and that Russians not only ended the war as implies from the article but actually defeated Hitlerites (turning point in the war was the Battle of Stalingrad). I think, when somebody speaks on such serious things as repressions etc. he or she first should point out source, he/she must pay attention on the sources both foreign and native for the country, about which one is speaking. In other cases it will allways be POV, not in the Wikipedia style. Cmapm

1) I am not a he, 2) Stalin murdered millions, do you really dispute this?, 3) The talk page, not the article, is an acceptable POV forum. I am honest about my view. The suggested changes in the article are very minor. Although am working on a comprehensive re-write. I also question the credibility of those who cite Rev Moon as a source for their arguments. Libertas

Sorry, I've fixed that in my comments. But you are not speaking only about Stalin. You say: Soviet Union throughout its history. Well, I should stop now, I'm not an experienced Wikipedian and it's difficult for me to continue such a discussion without deeping into POV. I hope Administrators can distinguish between POV and NPOV. Cmapm

The history of the Soviet Union did not end with Stalin. Noone after him came close to doing this. Would you judge any nation based on a single action? Should, for example, we speak about Japanese in concentration camps or the treatment of Amerindians in the main United States article? Must we speak of the excesses of the Revolution in the France article? The information is there, but you seem to be digging for the worst things done to display prominently, out of something that has a very long history, in order to meet some notion of justice. Mind you, Stalin's politics and their consequences, from the purges to the horrible mismanagement, should all be covered, but it doesn't need to be on the main Soviet Union page. --Improv 00:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

'The Soviet Union murdered, tortured, arbitrarily detained and persecuted its citizens throughout its history for "political" crimes, such as disagreeing with communism. Some estimates indicate millions suffered as political prisoners.' Something like that would be OK. Libertas

Search the Library of Congress Soviet Union handbook online. Let's see if you can find if they do this in any survey articles. Research and teaching are how I earn my living of Wiki. Let's see if you can do this yourself. 172 06:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Research and teaching are how I earn my living of Wiki." Perhaps you could research whether that sentence makes sense. Libertas

Please try to avoid personal attacks. --Improv 16:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am not making personal attacks, I was responding to 172's put-down that because he is a full-time researcher what he determines should be in the article prevails. Since then I have exposed his use of Reverend Moon (a self-proclaimed Messiah) as a source for his assertions. Is that a personal attack. It's not meant to be. He sets himself up as a font of all wisdom. So I think I'm entitled to 1) challenge his credibility based on evidence and 2) respectfully disagree with pro-Soviet writers. Libertas

It would be good if 172 would keep things calm too. It is true that one should be more careful when citing people like Moon as a source, and take their writing with more than a grain of salt. Why not just say that, rather than use the flippant suggestion that a topic of research is his grammar? Civility (you too, 172) will help keep the discussion flowing smoothly. --Improv 00:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(4) Libertas: That the economic system was a disaster, with living standards dismal, basic consumer goods often impossible to get, with huge amounts of productivity wasted by people just looking for the basics while vast amounts were spent on weapons. See under economy: "...production in the consumer and agricultural sectors was often inadequate (see Agriculture of the Soviet Union)." Under economic development: " Growth rates slowed in the 1960s and then stagnated from the mid-1970s, sometimes attributed to administrative planning or to active corruption…" Under economic characteristics: "Their [i.e. economic planners] buying decisions, however, had relatively little influence on planning and shortages of in-demand consumer goods were common." Also, touching on the last point in this comment: "Industry was long concentrated after 1928 on heavy industry rather [i.e. the military industrial complex] than the consumer or agricultural sectors."

Again, not mentioning the economic situation in the main article is bizarre. Libertas

These excerpts are all taken from the main aritcle. Read the main article.172 05:34, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Stagnation is a polite buzzword for being flushed down the toilet can there be some facts among the code words. What about growth rates (or shrinkage rates)? Libertas

What about growth rates? The article mentions that they slowed in the '60s and staggnated in the '70s and '80s. Even so, growth overall in the '60s and '70s was not negative. (It was in the '90s). 172 06:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My understanding in fact was that it was in freefall, stagnation is a polite euphemism for that. Libertas

GNP Growth was at less than 2 percent in the late 1970s [4]. It was down to 1.5 percent in 1988[5], with continuing deceleration beginning in mid-1970s. The "freefall" did not begin until the early 1990s. 172 07:09, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd have to check those numbers with Reverend Moon but yes that's right for the late 70's but there are estimates for 60's and 50's around indicating a collapse. Or so I recall.Libertas

You're dreaming this one up. 172 07:37, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The soviet economy, and attempts to make it work better, are things best covered in depth in other articles. Remember that we're an encyclopedia -- there's no sin in not using the most colourful, damaging terms here. Let the data speak for themselves. Of course, we do want a summary here, and the current text does a good job. "Flushed down the toilet" is certainly not a phrase for articles. --Improv 16:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(5) Libertas: That the occasional use by the Soviet regime of the term "democratic" is somewhat ironic in the circumstance. See under politics: "The organization of the CPSU was based on democratic centralism, the Leninist method of intraparty decision making. According to democratic centralism, lower party bodies executed the decisions of higher party bodies."

The irony need be pointed out, "democratic centralism" was no such thing. Libertas

No. As Mikkalai keeps pointing out to you over and over agian, this is POV. 172 05:34, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is not POV to acknowledge that "democratic centralism" was not democratic, just centralist. Libertas

If a reader wants to know about democratic centralism, all he has to do is click on the Wikilink in the article and read Democratic centralism. 172 06:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An article riddled with pro-Soviet bias also. Libertas

As I understand it, democratic centralism is a system whereby open discussion and debate happen on a new topic, but once a vote is taken or consensus is formed, people are expected to abide by it and not continue to campaign against it. I don't think we should be pointing out ironies in topics like this -- let the reader decide if they want to make such judgement. Often two-word terms don't have a strong resemblance to their components. This is not always irony. --Improv 16:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. Although I note some in Wikipedia enthusiastically embracing this Leninst concept. Libertas

Do you disagree with the summary, or the suggestion that we don't point out ironies? Further, I'm not certain if you mean Leninist to be an insult word or not. If so, let's try to keep it civil. --Improv 00:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(6) Libertas: That in fact those with power lived lives of luxury while everyone else lived in desperate circumstances See under economic characteristics: "Special access to certain consumer goods was a privilege of high-ranking state, Party and military personnel… This contrasted with the lower living standard of the average Soviet worker." See also response to point 4.

That's fine. Libertas

(7) Libertas: That while there was some pride about the role and power of the Soviet Union that for the most part people hated the dictatorship that was imposed on them and many risked their lives to leave. Andris, Paranoid, Mikkalai, who happen to be from the former Soviet Union, acknowledged opposition to the regime, but have pointed out that popular opinion was a more complex phenomenon. Thus, this point doesn’t pass the test of NPOV determined by Wikipedia's peer editing process.

What can I say to this? There is more evidence of the loathing of Russians for their slave-master Soviets than anything else I assert. I look forward to editing the article to reflect that evidence. Libertas

Like this UPI article Most Russians miss Soviet Union? History is more complicated than you are making it out to be. 172 05:34, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

UPI as a source? Are you kidding me? UPI is owned by the Moonies. Reverend Moon claims to be the Messiah. I take you more seriously than UPI as a credible source. Libertas

No, the Washington Times is owned by the Moonies, not UPI. The Washington Times has nothing to do with this article; they're just running it. At any rate, I am pointing out this article to show you that another user with another POV can insist on making the opposite point in the article. POV should be kept out of the aritlce. I'll keep out the fact that most Russians now regret the collapse of the Soviet Union if you keep out your statement of "loathing of Russians for their slave-master Soviets." 172 06:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's actually irrelevant who owns what, because whoever the author was, he didn't make up the story. They refer to VTsIOM, but practically every large polling house had the same answers to the same question for 14 years already. In ALL socio-economic groups the majority of people miss the Soviet Union. Here is one of FOM's studies on the same subject. It's a fact that Russians are sorry the USSR is gone, and I think it actually must be included in the article (or one of the subarticles). Paranoid 19:47, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Most of our exchange has been exchanging opinions but on this you are totally, totally wrong.[6] Try a Google search on Moonies and UPI. They bought UPI when it went broke for hundredth time. No one else wanted it. And that Helen Thomas White House reporter resigned in protest because she didn't want to be associated with them. Your willingness to quote from Moonie sources is interesting. Again I say even you have more credibility than UPI, which is owned by a religious cult the Moonies. For a researcher, your knowledge of sources is less than good. Physician, heal thyself. Libertas

Not responding to these ad hominem diversions. 07:37, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There were articles in the Moscow times on a number of people who were protesting the end of the soviet union and their policies because they had a more difficult time making ends meet under a more capitalist system. Also, the continued existence of the Communist party of Russia argues that the Soviet Union, at least in the form it had in the later days, had some support. I doubt many people want Stalin back, but Gorby? Maybe. --Improv 16:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Communists get very little support, and accept money from oligarch billionaires. They have zero credibility. They are still washing the blood off their hands. The best source 172 could find for Russians wanting a dictatorship restored was the self-proclaimed messiah Rev. Moon. I think that eloquently reveals how much credibility the argument has. Libertas

172's response which he seems to bashful to put here:

Now I do recall that the Washington Times acquired a stake in UPI, leading to the resignation of Helen Thomas... Nevertheless, this is a rightwing newspaper and was quite hawkish in the Cold War. Do you think that they have a pro-Soviet agenda… I haven't seen evidence of significant changes in editorial policies from UPI in recent years; and their articles seem to appear as frequently in papers across the country as before. I'm no fan of the Washington Times; but I see no evidence that UPI should be generally any less reliable than (say) AP or Reuters... BTW, this is a diversion from the point of posting the link to that article. 172 07:22, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Libertas"

One moment, 172 is asserting credentials as a researcher to intimidate me into silence. The next he acknowledges he quotes from the dangerous brainwashing religious cult the Moonies. And then he asserts the Moonies' UPI to be no less reliable than AP or Reuters! This is not the place to go on at length about the Moonies but they are very bad news, have a history of interference in the Washington Times and UPI, have strong anti-Putin bias (which I presume motivated the article but reading the Moonie mind is beyond me) and have less than zero status as an academic resource. No credible researcher would refer to them ever. Libertas

'172 says "(UPI's) articles seem to appear as frequently in paper across the country as before"'

This is just totally false. Do a search within Google news on UPI and you will see the only publications referrring to UPI stories are the Washington Times and something called the World Peace Herald. Libertas

(8) Libertas: That the USSR was a police state, where neighbors and family members were encouraged to inform on each other's political views See excerpts in response to points 1 and 3. This is already covered.

No it's not. This is a vital fact that reveals much of the true USSR. Libertas

The characteristics of what you are stating appear in the article; the evidence is right in front of you. "Police state" is POV. Notice that it does not appear in any of the main survey articles of the U.S. Library of Congress Soviet Union handbook (see [7]) 172 05:34, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Police state is not POV. It is highly accurate. Libertas

Do you see it in any of the main survey articles of other sourcebooks? I showed you evidence. Where's yours? 172 06:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't care whether it's in the LOC handbook. How many sources do you want that the USSR was a vicious police state. I could come up with thousands. Libertas

You may find a lot of people willing to toss just about any insult possible at the USSR. What does "police state" mean to you, exactly, and how does the USSR, over all its history, fit your definition? --Improv 00:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(9) Libertas: That membership of the Communist Party was a ticket to advancement. See the excerpts in response to #6.

Yes, true.

(10) Libertas: That the USSR imposed its system of dictatorship throughout Eastern Europe and elsewhere, with military force. See under foreign relations: "The overarching objectives of Soviet foreign policy were national security and the maintenance of hegemony over the Warsaw Pact."

Give me a break. You cannot cloak their evil with academic jargon. Libertas

No you give me a break. The word "evil" is POV. What you call "academic jargon" is NPOV. Read Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. 172 05:34, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Disagree, the article can be neutral as it describes evil, as the Nazi Germany article does. Libertas

What does have to do with the sentence anyway? If the sentence doesn't sound anti-Soviet enough for you, click on hegemony. 172 06:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Plain English is a reasonable objective. Hegemony is a BS academic term that doesn't accurately describe the evil Soviet's export of dictatorship. Libertas

Libertas, Evil is necessarily POV. If you would like a general policy that when one country calls another evil (e.g. Persia calling the United States the "great satan"), it goes on that country's Wikipage, that would be ... interesting. It seems to me that it would be better to cover the topic without even thinking of evil, to avoid POV temptations. --Improv 16:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No I don't agree. What about Nazi Germany. Most would accept it was an evil regime. (Even Rev Moon and his UPI) It's possible to write about it neutrally, while accepting the evil of its agenda. Same with Soviet Union. Libertas

When people use the term evil, they're always talking about their POV, indicating whether they approve of something or not. Hence, while a lot of people will call X evil, it's always still not NPOV to have the encyclopedia suggesting it is. --Improv 00:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(11) Libertas: This article is practically silent on the economic failings, the human rights abuses and the inequalities that the Soviet Union is really now known for. I don't understand why it should be. Even the smallest suggested changes have been totally rejected. As one can see from the excerpts from the article quoted above, there is plenty in the article about inequality, human rights problems, and economic stagnation.

I thank Libertas for going through his objections with the article systematically. I agree that he has touched upon a problem in point two. I will be willing to work with him to clarify the impact of collectivization and the famine in the Ukraine if he willing to follow Wikipedia's process of peer-editing, NPOV, and consensus. 172 07:21, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I also thank 172 for the following:

• Making false allegations about connections to discredited users
• Discussing these allegations with half a dozen users
• Failing to apologise when the claims were proven to be wrong
• Wanting me to "understand" which I think means agree
• Misunderstanding his role, which is just another contributor, I have checked and he has no special rights over the editing of this page.

Thank you indeed.

Libertas

I'll certainly keep the above in mind when making the changes I have planned. Thanks. Libertas

What changes do you have in mind? You will not be able to impose them unilaterally, so you might as well try to build consensus for your ideas here on the talk page while the page is protected. Otherwise, it will continue to be locked in its present state. 172 07:54, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry I thought anyone could edit any wikipedia article anytime, unless it was protected. I must have misunderstood. Or do you get to decide what appears in the USSR article? I will certainly be open to discussion. Are you suggesting I put up my suggestions here first for your approval? I'm not sure that's appropriate. Libertas

Please read the protection notice: "This page is protected from editing until disputes have been resolved on the discussion page." This is Wikipedia policy speaking. The page will not be unprotected until the disptue is revolved. This involves not just me but you, Andris, Paranoid, Mikkalai, and other interested users. If you want to effect any change on this article, just as any other user, you will have to build consensus for it at this stage on the talk page. Please start doing so. 172 08:07, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have started doing so. There's no great urgency, and I welcome the opportunity to review the subsidiary pages that you and others have told me form the basis of this summary whitewash. I don't know how the protection thing works but I assume if you can protect it, you will continue to do this while there is some prospect of someone daring to disagree. I was pleased you could see one of my eleven points had some merit and thank you very much for that. Libertas

There is no "whitewash." I have shown you that all of your points are already addressed, with only one needing to be expanded a bit. BTW, do you understand why this article will not go into the level of detail seen in History of the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany? 172 08:55, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This article is directly comparable to the Nazi Germany article, where no one would even think to argue about an accurate description of its repression and totalitarianism. You have asserted that the article mentions or that subsidiary articles mention the issues I have raised. I don't agree with this approach. Shunting off central aspects of the Soviet regime to subsidiary articles is not something I agree with and is logically invalid. Libertas

That's just the way encyclopedia's are organized. If you have a problem with that, Wikipedia is not the right hobby for you. 172 10:41, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have a problem with being patronized, not with how the encyclopedia is organized. The article as it stands is a whitewash and needs serious revision. I respect your right to your view and you have certainly been willing to reiterate it, so I could "understand", and I hope that this is well-intentioned. But I don't agree that the central aspects of Sovietism which are repression, privilege for elites, grotesquely inefficient central planning etc. should be excluded or their negative aspects minimized. The ideological inspiration for this seems to be that the USSR was the moral equivalent of the US. History tells us otherwise. Wikipedia should reflect that. Libertas

We're trying to write an encyclopedia, not a moral treatise. Information on the USSR, its structure, leaders, culture, economy, etc. are all things that belong, and it's possible to go into much depth over all of them. It's better to provide facts than conclusions, especially of the moral kind. There's nothing wrong with letting people come to their own conclusions, and nothing wrong with moving things to other pages when a great deal of text is needed to adequately cover a topic. --Improv 16:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes but I suggest you look at the very minor amendments I was proposing before the page was protected. Libertas

Well, Libertas, just to indicate that there are other POVs, different from yours. Please pay attention on the fact that People's Republic of China with it's Communist Party's "regime" will soon beat US in many fields including economy, sports and other. Also look at the USSR budget of mid 80-ies and compare it with US budget of that time (will see they were nearly equal), as well as with the enormous growth of US budget after the collapse of USSR and the enormous decrease of Russia's budget in the same time (that's where all money have gone, isn't it?). I understand that some people in US feel they are the winners over the Soviet Union and want to write its history themselves solely, but Wikipedia is International, so I can too edit articles and not only about USSR (where I was born)but also about other countries including US. I agree with you that The article as it stands is a whitewash and needs serious revision But I promise you that the article about USSR if unprotected will not be your personal point of view :) Cmapm 19:44, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: But I don't agree that the central aspects of Sovietism which are repression, privilege for elites, grotesquely inefficient central planning etc. should be excluded or their negative aspects minimized. I have cited one excerpt after another from the article demonstrating that this is not the case. By disregarding all this evidence, you are making yourself look unreasonable. 172 20:52, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes I think the GDP of China's per capita is about one-tenth of the US at the moment. But they are catching up. I saw a good quote the other day that China was 30% Marx, 70% Sopranos. It is certainly embracing market capitalism in a gangster format and it is working in an amazing way. I suspect a similar approach in Russia might have saved the hammer and sickle. In name anyway. China is about as socialist as Wall Street. It wears the label of Marx less convicingly than they wear Prada and Gucci. And all visitors to China know ALL the labels are fakes.

The stuff about the US and USSR being economic equals in the mid 80's is comic relief much needed in this debate. Thanks. And that the Yankees took all of Russia's wealth. I thought it was all stolen by former KGB agents and Boris Berezovksy. Someone must have it. My family got nothing.

I have no problem with the USSR article reflecting anyone's view as long as it squares with reality. I doubt it will or should reflect my point of view. Citing sources is important and I am researching dozens to give greater substance to the article in due course.

Libertas

If you have too much of a personal stake in something and don't think you can be properly NPOV while editing it, I suggest you avoid editing it. If, on the other hand, you're involved in something and can keep NPOV, you might have a lot of unique understanding/data to provide to the topic. It can be hard to tell the difference. With ideal NPOV, a pro-Soviet person and an anti-Soviet person could both read the article, and agree that they got the facts right, even if they each feel that their own perspective isn't reflected in the article. It's enough to detail that some people hold the perspective, and not kosher to have the article hold it. --Improv 16:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't have a personal stake, I have a view. It ought not disqualify me from writing. I won't be citing Rev Moon or UPI as a source, which means I already have more credibility than 172 who holds himself out as a full-time researcher and asserts some divine right to have his view prevail here. Like Rev Moon, his claim to divinity seems unsupported by the facts. Libertas

Libertas, can you try to avoid making statements that are just intended to inflame here? If you have a problem with another editor, state it as simply and nonoffensively as you can, and that way you can work out your disagreement rather than just make them angry. As I understand it, you dislike 172's claim (as you percieve it) to have more authority on this topic than other editors because of his work as a researcher. Why not just say that, rather than claiming that he has a claim to be divine? --Improv 00:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Foundation of the USSR

Why is there only the year of the foundation in the article? There are pretty many sources where the exact date and circumstances mentioned, I'll cite [8]: All-Union Congress of Soviets held in Moscow on December 30, 1922 accepted the Declaration and Treaty on the Formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Cmapm 02:10, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

talk page duplication fixed

Parts of this talk page was accidentially duplicated in this edit at 00:21, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC). I just fixed the duplication. Andris 09:48, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)