Talk:Soviet Union#rfc 24E627F

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Internationale-ru.ogg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

the edit summaries for this are snyde as well, "pointless" or "this is correct". ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 23:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:The onus is on you to justify the addition of "(1991-1994)" to Belarus specifically, when all the other countries do not include such a disambiguator. I'm pretty sure your actual intention is to link to the article you just created, and you can link it as just "Belarus", although I find that article's standalone notability to be somewhat dubious. Yue🌙 06:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::it's a linking issue with the infobox specifically - if you think I'm just adding the dates on there for no reason that's not why. the article exists so that the main article's history section isn't overflowed with stuff about 1991-1994, because there's a lot of notable stuff in Belarusian history that happened in that time period that has been missing from wikipedia for years, so it makes more sense to spin that over for another article. Also, we've made separate articles for countries under different constitutions, compare Fourth French Republic and France. ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 14:59, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::This section of the infobox was discussed in Talk:Soviet Union/Archive 19#Successor list should include de facto successors, albeit not with the particular question that you have in mind. The resolution was that the list should consist of the 15 republics, plus perhaps the CIS, and that's what it has been since approximately then.

:::Your article about 1991-4 is interesting, but there is no particular need to link to it from this infobox. These are links to articles about countries, not to articles about particular epochs of those countries. I see that there is a link to the 1991-4 article in just the right place in the Belarus article, and that looks like the right way to organize things. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:Odd how any removal of what appears in the most vital and visible parts of an article is arbitrary, but addition couldn't possibly be. Regardless of what best serves the average reader, we all want to stuff "clarification" of whatever nuances we happen to care about in there somewhere. Remsense ‥ 论 07:54, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::I really don't think linking the Tuvan People's Republic will confuse people ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 16:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I had an idea to add text in the government part of it that says "Under a totalitarian Stalinist dictatorship". Kinda like [https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1259863774140305576/1378780936388476998/image.png?ex=683dd94f&is=683c87cf&hm=880f6e8eb4317f1b98c0c70a7d4128a6fffe90325d11c474f48efc2057897025& this] LaparohMesa (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:Like on every other article, it's a bad idea, because that's not a government type, and the infobox doesn't have the capability to express adequate nuance more than better-defined structural characteristics like "monarchy" and "republic". Others agree and disagree with me about this, and I respect that, but that means there's generally not consensus to add this to articles or remove it where it's already there. There's an entire article to improve, so I wish editors would leave infoboxes to what they're actually designed to communicate and enjoy writing paragraphs of prose that don't require shoving square pegs into round holes and warping non-parameterized data into useless cruft for non-hobbyists on a given subject. Remsense ‥ 论 17:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::Then how come the Polish People's Republic have this but not the USSR? LaparohMesa (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::What kind of rhetorical question is that? (A dreadfully common one, alas.) That is a different article, where different editors made different decisions, based on different sources, and likely with different understandings of site policy that I disagree strongly with. Just a heads-up, in these discussions I refuse to get dragged into defending or criticizing articles I didn't write at any length. This is an area where that is the most exhausting and most pointless possible exercise. Remsense ‥ 论 17:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::@SavagePanda845 somehow, if we're fighting over completely distinct issues, I figure there is a point to asking you one more time to remove the egregious addition without any consensus to speak of. If not, I have no patience left for this discussion before it's even started, and we're going to ANI about it. I'm not furious right now over the predecessor or successor sections. Remsense ‥ 论 19:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Like I said, we can remove Tannu Tuva until a discussion is held. However, listing Japan is no different than listing Poland, or Finland, or Hungary, as all of them held territory that the Soviets acquired. SavagePanda845 (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I concur with you, but the best term would be communist state. TheUzbek (talk) 07:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|SavagePanda845}} in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soviet_Union&diff=prev&oldid=1293446898 this edit] you referred to a "consensus awhile months ago" - could you clarify what discussion you're referring to and why you believe it supports this edit? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:I was referring to this: Talk:Soviet Union/Archive 19#Successor list should include de facto successors. I had proposed adding de facto nations as successors, but the consensus was reached that only de jure nations could be listed. I then retroactively applied this conclusion to predecessors, so as to not have a mix of de jure and de facto information. I was wrong claiming it was only a few months ago, as I guess it was actually last July. Time flies. SavagePanda845 (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::Okay. I think we'd need to have another discussion about predecessors - editors in that discussion proposed limiting to UN-recognized states, which of course wouldn't apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Maybe so, but that can be interpreted as meaning de jure. That said, I'll pitch my case: one of the main things WWII is known for is the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, in which Poland and the Baltics were to be carved up between Germany and the USSR. The latter kept the land (which wasn't small) they took after the war. They also took land from Hungary (who had themselves taken it from Slovakia), Finland (after the Winter War), and Japan (South Sakhalin had been previously lost after the Russo-Japanese war). These territorial changes still contribute today to current Russian/post Soviet state borders, and I don't see any reason why they wouldn't be notable or relevant. SavagePanda845 (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Is there sourcing to support that the Soviet Union was a legal successor state to these? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I think modern borders (uncontested) of states currently recognized by the UN shows this. For Finland specifically, see the Moscow Peace Treaty. Due to notability, maybe some de facto borders should be included but with a note that it wasn't necessary legal or recognized at the time (such as the Baltic states having governments in exile)? SavagePanda845 (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Looks like Japan legally renounced their claim to South Sakhalin in the Treaty of San Francisco. It’s notable and that sounds like grounds for re-adding it to the infobox. SavagePanda845 (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::That discussion from Archive 19 was about the "succeeded by" category, and although it might not be clear from reading the discussion, I would say that effectively, the resolution was to include only the 15 republics in the "succeeded by" category (plus the CIS).

::The present discussion is about the "preceded by" category. I do not know of an obvious criterion for deciding who gets to be here. The history of Tuva is interesting, but perhaps the crucial time was in 1911, when it broke away from Qing China and became the Uryankhay Republic (encouraged by Russia). After that it was always closely associated with either Russia or the Soviet Union.

::I found the addition of Hungary to the "preceded by" category puzzling, but after much rummaging around, I found Carpathian Ruthenia during World War II, which details the territory that the Soviet Union acquired from Hungary. This territory had been part of Czechoslovakia before 1938 or 1939. I think that if we are going to include this item in the "preceded by" category in infobox of Soviet Union, we should have a sentence in the body of the article that explains, or links to an explanation of, that history. We are doing that for the territory that the Soviet Union got from Finland in the Winter War.

::The history of Russian vs. Japanese dominion over Sakhalin and the Kurils goes back to the 19th century, and includes the Soviet–Japanese Basic Convention of 1925, so it is not obvious to me that we are clarifying anything by stating that the Soviet Union was "preceded by" Japan in 1945, but that may be better than not mentioning it in the article at all. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:22, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

My friend and I noticed that this article's, "History," section is unusually brief for a country of this magnitude and significance. Much of the content in the, "Government and politics," section could (and in my opinion should) be moved to the History section. At the very least the History section should be expanded. FinkyOfNalanja (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2025 (UTC)