Jump to content

Talk:Soviet Union/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 19

Legacy of the Soviet Union

I think there should be a new section (or perhaps even a new article) about the legacy of the Soviet Union. Few deceased countries have had such an impact on history as the Soviet Union. There should be coverage of it's impact on the culture, society, politics, and economics of the post-Soviet states (and the former Eastern Bloc), the feelings of nostalgia and resentment of the many peoples who used to live in it, the assessment of it's positives and negatives, and it's place in history. Charles Essie (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

On the one hand, we should make sure we capture legacy in art, music, literature, science,... but on the other I'm not sure that isn't best deal with in the related sections of the article. It's probably far too early to assess "place in history." The USSR hasn't been dead long enough. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree as to a section, and am willing to be persuaded as to an article. I agree that no former country has had the impact on history of the Soviet Union, and I meant no country. The Cold War was the history of the second half of the twentieth century, nothing more, nothing less. It hasn't been dead that long, but it deserves its assessment as to legacy. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I remember my middle-school classmates saying to me that they either would see me or wouldn't see me in the morning, in 1962, in the Cuban missile crisis. That is the long shadow. The Soviet Union is still a long shadow on history, and an encyclopedia should reflect that. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

What for nonsense to divide the post soviet countries in different categories after the soviet collapse

Predecessors
Continuous with2

 Russia

Successors3
Restored4

|footnotes2 =

  • ^1 Assigned on 19 September 1990, existing onwards.
  • ^2 Russia never seceded, this was by agreement of the 12 at time of formal dissolution, Russia assumed the rights and obligations of the dissolved central Soviet authority, Duma has declared Russia continuous.
  • ^3 These states are considered newly independent after the dissolution of the USSR.
  • ^4 The Baltic states were illegally occupied in 1940 and declared their independence before the dissolution of the USSR.

First of all russia is not the soviet union anymore, saying its the biggest country after the collapse is like saying germany is nazi germany since its the country most was left over after the nazi regime. Germany even today is the legitim of nazi germany in many forms of juristics yet doesnt mean its official. Now the 3 baltic states are also pointed out as different, as occupied territories and that their status is restored after the soviet collapse. Now by that logic every country colonized by the british empire or any empire in history is occupied and should be noted as restored in every wikipedia article including russia. Its idiotic decision made by chauvanist wiki editors, there should some norms for every article once one starts making something different other articles will follow these and make exceptions everywhere.--Quandapanda (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

There's been very lengthy discussion about this in various threads above. In fact it's only two editors, I think, who have explicitly backed the version currently in place. Plenty of others who have passed by recently were opposed to making distinctions in this way and it is not of course the way the terms "successor" etc is used in ordinary English and even, probably, in most academic sources. The problem is that it's arguably technically correct in international law-speak (although there's not even unanimity there) and that those favouring it have imposed it on the page, claiming that as some kind of trump card. N-HH talk/edits 15:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

-remove russia as successor then.--Quandapanda (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

It violates neutrality to have this list, since it is disputed, and the status of the various states are better discussed in the article. TFD (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
The issue with regard to the article has to do with the infobox. An infobox, by its nature, can only present a limited amount of detail. The subtleties can be, and are, dealt with adequately in the text of the article. Two editors, as noted above, have supported the version currently in place, which does more or less summarize the view of specialists in international law. Other editors have supported the simplification of the infobox by removing the list of predecessor and successor states, which is not required for the infobox. Listing fifteen successor states is controversial, by implying that the occupation of the Baltic republics was accepted by the international community. Listing twelve successor states is controversial and misleading, implying that the Baltic republics were never occupied. My own view is that the best solution would be to leave the predecessor and successor states out of the infobox. I am willing to accept the current version. Any other version, except for the current version or the version with no predecessors and successors, is, in my opinion, pointlessly controversial. That is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
There's no lack of neutrality in observing the status in international law and practice thereof regarding the relationship of states following the breakup of the USSR to the entire former state or its sovereign or controlled territories differs amongst tbose states. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 05:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Robert McClenon has a point. If the Baltic states were never part of the USSR but merely occupied, then they should not be listed. If they are listed, then so should the other countries occupied during WWII, such as Poland. We should also change the infoboxes for the UK, France, Spain, etc. to include former colonies. TFD (talk) 06:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Rather than unconstructive "if we do this, then we have to do something stupid elsewhere" postulation, we should simply decide what to do here to be as informative as we can be. There's no need to make it more complicated than it is. I agree with Robert McClenon, infobox not at all or as is--perhaps not perfect, but clear that there is a spectrum of distinct and separate relationships of current countries to the former USSR. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
To the comment of TFD. Denying the fact that Baltic states were part of the USSR is simply an option of selective individual who believe in alternative reality (such as multiverse). The legitimacy of the Baltic soviet republics could be debated, but denying existence of their soviet states is pointless. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Table of the section. The table is too technical and completely wrong. All countries without exception were successors of the Soviet Union as every single one of them adopted their own declaration of sovereignty, even the Russian Federation. There is no point of categorizing them as the table does. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
VєсrumЬа "denies the fact" that Baltic states were part of the USSR. "The Baltic states were illegally occupied in 1940 and declared their independence before the dissolution of the USSR." Hence the question why he wants to include them in the infobox. TFD (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
meybe one can use the origninal standard infobox included in "Infobox former country" syntax 83.189.161.16 (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
@Aleksandr Grigoryev, your assertion that "All countries without exception were successors of the Soviet Union as every single one of them adopted their own declaration of sovereignty, even the Russian Federation" is factually incorrect. The Soviet Union never successfully obtained sovereign title over the Baltic states, their "declaration of sovereignty" as you describe it, were in fact declarations of restoration of independence that asserted the legal continuity of the pre-war republics. Sovereignty was already asserted in 1920 and continued de jure throughout the period of Soviet occupation. --Nug (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

So, I've been following this discussion, and I'd like to add my view. It seems to me that no matter what the status of the Baltic states during the Soviet Union, those states were fully independent after the fall of the Soviet Union. Could we say the Baltic states became fully independent, and then add a note saying that their incorporation into the Soviet Union was always in dispute? Howicus (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

In a recent edit I removed a link: there was a line saying that "Lenin was to be replaced by a troika..." [following his death] with "was to be replaced with" wikilinked to Lenin's Testament.

The reason I removed it is because Lenin's Testament in no way suggests the Zinoviev-Kamenev-Stalin troika, and in fact suggests that Stalin in particular be removed from his position, while doling out criticism to both Zinoviev and Kamenev (among others, including Bukharin). Now Lenin was a pretty critical guy in general and one might suggest that the fact that no one really made him happy means that the testament was meant to be largely constructively critical rather than damningly critical, but his suggestion that Stalin was "too rude" and needed to be replaced is explicit. He clearly did not want Stalin in power.

Having said all this, Lenin's Testament is important given how it was suppressed, particularly given how every leader after his death tried to justify his policy du jour using something Lenin wrote at one time or another. So I think we should work it back into the article somewhere, just not in a way that suggests that Lenin wanted the ZKS troika in power, because I think it's pretty clear that that's false.Eniagrom (talk) 08:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Successor states box, again

OK, so my watchlist tells me people are still edit-warring over this. As I noted a while back, although there was some debate over the simple list of 15 successor states, there was never any consensus to unilaterally replace it out of the blue recently with the split list, which suggests that only 12 of the 15 are "successors". Shall we do the maths?

The lack of consensus for the split list, which has nonetheless been doggedly and repeatedly forced onto the page, couldn't be more glaring. N-HH talk/edits 09:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Either the list of 15 states or the split list is satisfactory to me. The list of 12 states was not satisfactory to me. It implied that the invasion of the Baltic republics did not happen. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
There is a case pending with the ArbCom about infoboxes. Does anyone really want to be added as a party to the ArbCom case and topic-banned from infoboxes? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Not withstanding the fact that User:N-HH cites old opinions as immutable though they may have since changed, he neglects to mention the WP:EDITCONSENSUS that exists with the current scheme where 15 or so longstanding editors have made subsequent edits to the article without taking issue, or that a number of the most recent edits he cites as supporting his POV are by either blocked sock puppets or have very low edit counts and thus would not be familiar with past discussions since archived. It seems that User:N-HH basic rationale is basically "I don't like it", he hasn't given an adequate explanation on why we should dumb down the information provided. --Nug (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Really, there hasn't been any "warring" over the info box for some time, the separation (Russia, restored, newly sovereign) makes the requisite main points as long as the "after" states continue to be listed in the infobox, and that version has been stable. I don't see much point in stirring up conflict by alleging conflict. We've all disagreed at some time in the past. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
We are only talking about a few weeks here. This is not something that has been on the page for years and been happily passed over by 100s of people editing the page. It is clearly a contentious issue for several people who have edited and commented, the vast majority of whom have not assented to it (and, for the record Nug, I and others have explained at length in the past what the problem is, nor have we argued for "dumbing down". But you know that; you just have ignored it). To claim that there must be consensus because most of them have not carried on arguing for that entire period or have not joined Nug in edit-warring over it – or because one of them has since been IDd as a sockpuppet – is sophistry of the worst sort. But that's what I've come to expect on these topics from the pair of dedicated Baltic nationalists who range across this pages. Everything has to have huge banners everywhere declaring this or that to be "ILLEGAL!" "RESTORED INDEPENDENCE!" etc. It's very tiresome. N-HH talk/edits 09:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
"It's very tiresome." I agree. It also illustrates the point that I have made in the ArbCom case that infoboxes are often contentious because, by their nature, they often simplify, and often oversimplify, and so result in argument over what is the "right" (actually, least wrong) oversimplification. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
@N-HH, having run out of valid arguments you now hit bottom by resorting to personal attacks of "Baltic nationalists", which is somewhat comic because then Obama and the entire US Senate are Baltic nationalists too. Why are you so bugged out by this issue that you cannot let it go?. It seems to be a personal issue for you, is it? I've looked through the archives again and it appears you have disingenuously counted the votes of a question on removing the list of predecessor and successor states from the infobox entirely and mis-applied it to acceptance of this current scheme. The only argument you offer is to cite one single author who uses "successor" in a broader sense, which has been countered by the citing of dozens of authors who use "successor" only in the international law sense. It was also pointed out to you that the inbox doc recommends the official predecessor/successor under international law for most cases, with alternate guidance given for some edge cases. The current scheme is a compromise that fulfils these aims while giving additional precision which is actually more compact (some 900 less bytes of space). Why you cannot cope with this compromise and let it go remains an open question, but I agree, it is getting tiresome. --Nug (talk) 23:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
The infobox page recommends, "For most cases, the main and/or official predecessor/successor (under international law) is sufficient....In the case of any potential confusion, list only this." But if the Baltic states are not successor states, why list them at all? TFD (talk) 08:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
@Nug. I rather obviously have slightly less investment in this than you do. I left the discussion a while back and have never actually edited the infobox part of the page itself. I was only moved to comment again because of your latest knee-jerk revert to a version that manifestly has no consensus (and, btw, a "compromise" has to be actually accepted as a compromise to be such, not simply be what one side of the dispute unilaterally declares to be a "compromise"). And then you chose to claim your version is agreed while accusing me of having no argument other than simply "not liking" the infobox and of wanting to dumb down, all of which you surely know to be not true. If you don't want analysis or critique of your political position, which, as it happens, seems to be based on you and your fellow Baltic/Soviet-focused editor "liking" your preferred infobox because it highlights political points you want made in flashing lights and bold headings, don't dish it out and/or fraudulently suggest that everyone agrees with you when quite the opposite is true.
Even if I have misrepresented the stance of others – which I haven't – you can't show more than 3 people backing your pet infobox. Whatever there may be consensus for here, it's certainly not that. And as you know, my argument is not based on one author using the term one way himself. It was based on plenty of other examples and the fact that that author was commenting on overall use. You are either lying or cannot read; your choice there. And finally, no, the US senate is not full of Baltic nationalists. But are you seriously suggesting that these questions, even today, are not clouded by the politics of the cold war? N-HH talk/edits 09:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
No, it is not obvious you "have slightly less investment in this". You being "moved" to start this thread demonstrates your evident sensitivity to this issue which is further magnified by your view that a succinct clarification in an inbox (fwiw earning a barnstar) is perceived by you as "flashing lights and bold headings" and claim "Everything has to have huge banners everywhere declaring this or that to be "ILLEGAL!" "RESTORED INDEPENDENCE!" etc" and recourse to the lazy polemical invocation of the "Baltic nationalist" bogeyman (I guess User:Robert McClenon must be a Baltic nationalist too in giving me that barnstar). I've long experience in Wikipedia and your reaction certainly raises eyebrows.
Calling my position fraudulent is somewhat hypocritical, as you appear to dishonestly claim the current version has "manifestly has no consensus" linking to past archived discussion knowing full well that earlier discussion was of a different issue of whether the Baltic states should be listed at all in the inbox, for which there was no consensus.
Your attempt to mislead is exposed when you claim User:Ryulong opposes the current scheme. Yes, he opposed the earlier issue under discussion, but it is clear he editorially supports the current version by directly improving it here and here. It is odd that you should miss User:Heironymous Rowe's explicit support [1], and discount the implicit support for the current scheme through subsequent edits of the article by at least a dozen other editors. I guess User:Ryulong, User:Heironymous Rowe and everyone else you don't agree with are all "Baltic nationalists" too. --Nug (talk) 11:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I never claimed Ryulong "opposes the current scheme". You really need to read what people post properly. As for Hieronymous Rowe, we have no idea why they reverted, they could have done so simply on the housekeeping basis of Peterzor being a problematic user. Also you seem to not understand why I have raised the Baltic nationalist issue and, as so often, have the reasoning back to front. It is not because I assume anyone supporting the current format must be a Baltic nationalist, it is because the two most vocal supporters of it demonstrably are actively engaged in editing on Baltic nationalist issues and seem to have something of an anti-communist obsession.

Anyway, I'm somewhat bored of this bickering. As ever the most pushy and activist editors get to make sure contentious articles make the points they want to make, backed by spurious argument and claims of consensus. As noted, I'm not going to join in any edit war over this, so there's not much point in clogging up the talk page any more. I did though hope you might at least deign to acknowledge some of the problems here. N-HH talk/edits 12:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

What complete BS, I've hardly edited any communist related topic and just because I'm currently editing the Estonian nationalism article does not make me a "Baltic nationalist" anymore than your current involvement in the Nazism and Fascism article make you a Nazi or a fascist. --Nug (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Again you have my reasoning back to front – it's simply the most recent evidence of a wider pattern. I'm sure those familiar with your account and its previous username, including ArbCom, will have their own opinions about whether you have "hardly edited any communist related topic" or indeed whether your forays into the world of Baltic pages – especially those where nationalist issues and the relationship with the Soviet Union are involved – are more or less confined to your edits today to the Estonian nationalism page. Do you actually take me and everyone else for morons? N-HH talk/edits 18:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Now that is a pot calling the kettle black, whatever my past sins were they were never so egregious as to earn an indefinite topic ban as you have under a previous username for West Bank/Judea_and_Samaria articles. Cheers. --Nug (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Er, my point was about your denying the nature of your editing history quite so preposterously, given that there is evidence both on your contributions page and from an ArbCom case, not about the fact of any ArbCom case per se, which are often as not "block everyone we can see in front of us, whether they've made 4 edits or 100 to the pages in question". If I'd tried to claim that I had "hardly ever edited on Middle East topics" your response might have some relevance. N-HH talk/edits 10:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Clarification

I remember that there was an article content Request for Comments on twelve successor states vs. fifteen successor states. If I am mistake, please correct my recollection. I supported the 15 successor states, as did everyone except two editors. The two editors argued, correctly, that the occupation of the three Baltic republics had never been recognized by most other nations, so that the Baltic republics were restored and were never successors of the Soviet Union. I, and some other editors who supported the 15 states, found that point to be true but irrelevant, in that only listing 12 successor states would imply that the occupation of the Baltic republics had never happened. That is, the 12 successor states position reflected international law, but ignored history. The consensus was that, of the choice of showing 15 states or the choice of showing 12 states, showing 15 states was "less misleading" than showing 12. That consensus, which was the consensus of the regular editors, and the editors who responded to the RFC, wasn't satisfactory to at least two editors. Two alternatives were proposed then. The first was removing the list of predecessor and successor states from the infobox, because any list oversimplified. The alternative was the split list, 1 continuator, 11 successors, and 3 restored. Listing only 12 successor states is clearly contrary to consensus (based on the RFC), and would ignore fifty years of occupation. Do we need another article content Request for Comments on which of the three alternatives is "least wrong"? I am satisfied with the split box. I am satisfied with 15 states, as "less wrong" than omitting the Baltics. I am satisfied with no successor states, because the other options all oversimplify. If we don't need another RFC, then we should just accept that the only consensus is that listing 12 successors as such is wrong. What do we want? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, infoboxes exist to give readers the main facts in brief. It is not a good place for lengthy contested information. I suggest therefore that omit that field. TFD (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree that infoboxes exist to give the readers the main facts in brief, but would add that they exist to give the readers the undisputed facts in brief, not to provide a "least wrong" summary of complex or controversial facts. My first preference, like that of TFD, would be to omit the successor states. The complexity of succession can be dealt with in the text, as it is. However, I will be satisfied with any oversimplification that doesn't obscure the tragic reality of twentieth-century history in pursuit of the abstraction of international law. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I can't see any satisfactory solution that relies on using the term "successor states" (or indeed the terms "restored states" or "continuous" etc), given that it is not always used in a technical legal sense and that, even when it is, there are acres of quite serious academic text about how to analyse the situation and apply the term. Anyone who wants to can, as we all know, find sources that describe all 15, the 12 minus the Baltics, or just Russia as "successor states" to the Soviet Union and insist that we need to do it that way. The issue I have with the current split list is that it takes such a definitive position: although an improvement on the original bid to drop the Baltics altogether, it still formally excludes not only the Baltics but now Russia from the designation "successor states". That is no less wrong than formally including them would be. The only options that seem to be open are:
  • Outright removal of any such list from the infobox
  • Retitling the list as "Post-Soviet states" and including all 15 modern countries, with appropriate – and brief – footnotes explaining the different status in a legal sense of Russia, the Baltics and the other 11
  • Retitling the list as "Soviet Republics" and listing all 15 historic SSRs (linking to the appropriate SSR page not to the entry for the modern state)
While I would happily take option 1, it seems a shame to lose information that is probably useful to some readers and that can surely be presented without all this aggravation. Also an RfC with all those options, and including the options of the current split and that of losing the Baltics outright from any list, might be a little confusing. N-HH talk/edits 17:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I get the distinct impression that it isn't so much the split list which is the issue for N-HH, it is who proposed it. If anyone else other than Vecrumba or I proposed it probably would have been perfectly okay. It is unfortunate that it has become personal. Formally Russia is seen as continuator, Russia asserts it, the international community accepts it. While other post Soviet states had to formally accede to the UN, the UN simply replaced the text "USSR" with "Russian federation" (or whatever the formal name) in all UN documents, I don't have the source on hand but I can post a cite later. Removing it altogether will not work, people unfamiliar with the discussion will wonder why there is nothing and put it back in. That is why a split list is better, it lists all 15, succinctly indicates the differing status of each and takes up less bytes to boot. --Nug (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, your "distinct impression" is your own business, however absurd it might be and however much it shows you personalising this as much if not more than I have been. If you missed the fact that I have spent ages here explaining the problems in great detail and suggesting alternative options – even just now – I can't help you with that. As for your point about Russia as continuator, you don't even seem to have noticed the bit where I said "footnotes explaining the different status in a legal sense of Russia, the Baltics and the other 11". Nor have you seemed to grasp that the problem with the split list is that it takes one version of the terminology re status and sets it in stone as the only correct one. Do you actually have any response to what I actually wrote above? N-HH talk/edits 10:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration

For information about how controversial infobox cases can be, and also as a warning against getting dragged into the ArbCom, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes and its subpages. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, I know how arbitration cases usually pan out! And not only do they end badly for anyone named in them, the rulings rarely solve the underlying problems – indeed they often exacerbate them by scaring off those less invested in the topic, who nonetheless get caught up in them – so they're doubly pointless in terms of improving WP, especially given how much time they take. N-HH talk/edits 17:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Sad to say, then don't accuse other editors of treating you like a moron and debate the topic constructively or not at all.
While the infobox (I'm assuming it's still there) is a simplification, it is not incorrect in positioning the newly independent, Russia as successor (really, the CIS states agreed to this succession, there's no serious controversy on this topic), and restored. That there are nuances does not invalidate the summary. IMHO it would be far more confusing for the average reader to see no infobox. If you believe the infobox is a major source of confusion, you should be able to explain that lucidly without insulting anyone. If your contention is that the nuances and didactic arguments of scholars on international law are absent from the infobox, then, frankly, that's exactly as it should be. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, Nug is treating people like morons if he expects them to swallow his claim that he doesn't really edit much on topics relating to communism and eastern European nationalism. Meanwhile, I am being told that my only objection to the split list is because of my antipathy to "who proposed it" and that I am not debating the topic "constructively", when rather obviously neither is true and when I have set out detailed objections and explanations in the face of a two-editor edit-war and imposition of content on the basis of purported "consensus". Pot meet kettle. N-HH talk/edits 10:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

About the Map.

I have a newer and better map of the Soviet union that you all will love no doubt!

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Soviet_Union_and_it's_satelite_states_and_allies.png

This map depicts the Soviet Union(Dark Red), with it's satelite states(Red) and nations that were subject to Soviet influence(Bright Red).

I wish to have permission to make this the principal image of the article. Please! :D Keeby101 (talk) 00:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I for one think that the map in the Soviet Union article should only depict the Soviet Union itself, to keep readers from being confused. Howicus (talk) 00:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Anyone else wish to comment/ share their thoughts on this? 24.173.43.179 (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Useful for an article on the foreign policy of the Soviet Union and/or Cold War. I think it would be confusing here. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Howicus and Vecrumba that this map goes beyond the scope of this article. Also, there is the slight problem that the name of the file is misspelled. It should be "The Soviet Union and its satellite states and allies.png". Note that there are 2 Ls in satellite and that the possessive of it is "its", not "it's". "It's" is a contraction of "it is". --Khajidha (talk) 05:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 November 2013

In the Khrushchev era section, fourth paragraph, second line, change the woman in "...the first human being, Yuri Gagarin in 1961; the first woman in space..." to man because Yuri Gagarin was a male. 99.5.249.219 (talk) 02:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done:. You're misreading the sentence. "the first human being, Yuri Gagarin in 1961; the first woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova in 1963" are two separate clauses. It does not mean that Yuri was a woman. RudolfRed (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Infobox again: "illegal" etc

I see there's renewed action over the words "illegal" and "restored" in the footnote. I can't help but thinking that we're overdoing this. As noted previously, the illegal/restoration theory is not universally held and is ultimately a subjective issue (international law is rarely so clear-cut and is invariably intertwined with politics). Annexation implies likely or possible illegality in any event – we don't need to overlay, for example, every reference to the Nazi invasion of Poland by attaching the adjective "illegal" to it. As for the word "restored", that already appears in the sub-heading for the Baltic states. As ever, it seems this is more about making points and making sure that the WP text lays everything on with a trowel. Simply referring to "annexation" and to the Baltic states declaring "independence" is more than enough to satisfy the generality of mainstream sources and WP verifiability and NPOV requirements. Neither wording would imply the annexation was legal or the independence something that had not been "restored" in some sense.
There's also the outstanding question, never resolved outside of two-editor decree, about how to head up the infobox itself. No one responded substantively to my suggestion that it could be something like "Post-Soviet States" and that we should avoid the term "successor state" altogether, whether applied to all 15 or only to 11, as it means different things to different people and in different contexts. Simply list the 15 under that heading, avoid any sub-headings, and have very brief footnotes along the lines of what we have now to explain the sometimes-noted differences in status of the 15. N-HH talk/edits 10:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

And now we have someone else trying to edit-war "Successor/Successor States" back in as applying to all 15. Actually, I don't object to that, as it is the standard header in WP and is probably the most common use of the term in this context too. However, I was actually trying to come to a compromise here after acres of pointless talk page debate and acknowledge the fact that the term successor state is sometimes used in a narrower sense, and hence may be confusing when deployed here. The fact that it can be applied to all but also to one or to 11/12 is precisely the problem. And "Post-Soviet states" is rather obviously not "original research" but a standard alternative term (and one that carries less potential confusion). N-HH talk/edits 12:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I've reverted your change. As I recall you were the only one who opposed the current scheme, I can't believe you are starting this up again after it has been stable for a while. Why can't you simply just let it go? --Nug (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
For the reasons that I have explained and that you have consistently ignored. And you haven't reverted my change, you have reverted my change as embellished – in a way that I actually opposed – by a subsequent edit. As you should know, my preference is to avoid all use of the term "successor" states: that represents a bid to both compromise and avoid introducing confusion. I would also remind you that your preferred version has no consensus either, nor is it the "original" version. It was stable for a while after that no-consensus addition because everyone had been ground down over it (and it wasn't me that started up the re-editing of this infobox section but someone else). Why can't you let it go and accept what is, surely, a reasonable compromise? What you're actually asking for is, "Why can't you let me win?".N-HH talk/edits 12:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Your reasons you have explained have not been ignored, they just simply aren't as compelling as you imagine them to be. 3-4 months of stability indicates WP:EDITCONCENSUS exists, of course in your mind you see that as "everyone had been ground down over it". Having observed you it seems that you wait months until some does a small edit related to the infobox, such as this, report it here then use it as a pretext for your more wholesale edit with the misleading comment "Tweaks to infobox: removing more contentious and confusing language". Bit more than a tweak and certainly not contentious (due to months of stability) nor confusing. I've reverted you to the last stable version, please present your case here and gain consensus before changing the text.--Nug (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Back in August I proposed alternatives to the introduction of the split-labelled list that never, as it seems I keep having to repeat, had consensus either. No one actually addressed those points. However, I did not then simply take it upon myself to implement any changes, or open an RFC or anything, but actually waited to see if anyone already involved did respond. You have now banked that restraint and lack of willingness to edit war against you and Vecrumba as somehow proving "consensus" or "stability" when, as already pointed out, it is nothing of the sort. Once the infobox started being messed around with again – including by you – I took it upon myself to actually do something about the problems.
As to the problems, I can repeat them again for you. The use of labels generally is problematic. The term successors has different meanings in different contexts. Some sources will simply describe Russia as the successor, others the non-Baltic states as successors and others all 15. People such as yourself, including recently, have flipped the infobox between these options – or in fact, in the version Vecrumba cooked up which you are now drilling into the page, another option altogether, wholly unseen in any source AFAIK and hence not just not definitive but outright incorrect, which posits only 11 successors and excludes Russia from that designation. Just avoiding the term altogether or indeed any definitive sub-headings, as I am suggesting, and simply having a main header "Post-Soviet states" – the name of our main page on them after all – is such an obvious solution that it seems odd anyone could object to it or edit war over it. What is your objection exactly? And do you not think there is a rather obvious problem also with labelling Russia with the sub-heading "Continuous with" and then having a footnote that tells us that the Duma at least declared Russia continuous with the Russian SSR, not the Soviet Union? And with your reverting copyediting to the footnote text which, among other things, restored the description of the unrecognised entities as "successor states" when no one calls them that and when they do not appear under the successor sub-heading you are insisting on randomly using for 11 of the actual states? N-HH talk/edits 11:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Your concede your original proposal had no support. Your new proposal from August "Post-Soviet states" elicited no support either. It is even more divorced from the documented intent of the inbox, which is to show the status of the emerging states according international law. There is no concept of "Post-Soviet state" in international law when discussing the status of states. "Post-Soviet state" is a term generally used in the context of discussion about countries dealing with some legacy of Soviet rule, like the Russian speaking diaspora. Your new term only brings more confusion as readers will wonder if they were all "Post-Soviet states", why did Russia get that UN seat belonging to the USSR and honour all USSR treaties in force, received properties, debts, etc, while the other states did not. In fact the Russian Duma explicitly declared false the perception of the RF as "merely one of the many successors of the USSR", and you want to perpetuate that false perception and confusion by using "Post-Soviet state".
Let's go through each of your problems you have articulated:
  • "You have now banked that restraint and lack of willingness to edit war against you and Vecrumba"
That is a pathetic ad hominem attack, highlighting you lack of genuine argument. The version you object to has been in place since June 2013[2] and I only made two edits since and Vecrumba none at all, while some 57 edits were made by others since June, many to the info-box itself indicating acceptance of the classification. The only objector being you.
  • "The term successors has different meanings in different contexts"
The context of succession/continuation/restoration in the info-box is in the context of international law, as preferred by info-box guide and supported by the sources. This has already been explained to you before, so please stop pretending that this argument hasn't been addressed.
The reason Russia is seen as "continuator" is because that is what reliable sources tells us. Your reliance upon an unsourced phrase about the Russian Duma added back in July[3] to argue the unsuitability of designating Russia as a continuator of USSR is an incredibly weak argument. That added phrase turns out to be misleading as it omits the fact that the Duma declared the Russian Federation to the continuator not only of the USSR, but also of the Russian Empire, the 1917 Russian Republic and the Soviet Russian Republic. Numerous sources corroborate the fact that Russia is the continuator of the USSR:
Dumbery in State Succession to International Responsibility - Page 156:
" the Federation of Russia is therefore viewed as the continuing State of the Soviet Union, which was itself the “continuator” of the Russian State existing between 1917 and 1922"
The Finnish Yearbook of International Law - Volume 2 - Page 164:
"The solution of the property issues also points towards the fact that Russia is the continuator state of the USSR. All the foreign embassies and the property within them, as well as all other such property in third states were transferred to Russia"
Crawford, Brownlie's Principles of Public International Law - Page 427:
"Russia was also accepted by the members of the Security Council as the continuator of the USSR. Russia assumed all treaty obligations and consolidated the debts and property abroad of the USSR "
Huber, A Decade that Made History: The Council of Europe, 1989-1999:
"the Paliamentary Assembly - following the example of the international community, which had immediately recognised Russia as continuator state to the USSR"
Bühler, State Succession and Membership in International - Page 161:
"since the first days of the year 1992 the Russian Federation has consistently claimed to be the "continuator State" of the USSR in all international affairs"
Boisson de Chazournes, International Law and Freshwater: The Multiple Challenges - Page 426:
"The Russian Federation claimed to be the continuator State and declared that all multilateral treaties concluded by the USSR would automatically remained in force."
I could keep posting sources but I don't want to bore you. "A total WP editor invention not reflected in any sources", according to you. What a joke. Oddly you contend that giving readers insight to status of states and differentiating between continuator/successor/restored is somehow more confusing.
However I do agree with you that unrecognised entities such as Abkazia and South Ossetia should not be included. That change was reverted a couple of times by others here and here. They don't belong because those entities were a part of those states already listed as having succeed from the USSR, e.g Georgia, and in one sense those areas are being double counted. So these should be removed in anycase. --Nug (talk) 08:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no point posting lots of sources. We know certain terms are used to describe each of the 15 and I have never disputed that Russia is a continuator state in the sense of it taking on the USSR's obligations in many areas. However, we also know different terms are used by different sources and/or in different contexts (I can post lots of sources that talk about the 15 successors and a commentary that states such a designation is the most common). The point is there is no universally agreed categorisation, terminology or definition, therefore we should try to avoid imposing it as best we can. Equally, no, the infobox is not meant to be an exposition of international law, especially not such a gross simplification and hence distortion of it. Worse than that, there is certainly no categorisation that, as a whole, designates Russia as "continuous", 11 others only – excluding Russia – as "successors" and the three Baltics as "restored", whether as a statement of international law or anything else. As I have said, this is your and Vecrumba's invention.

This all kicked off, if I recall, because you wanted the Baltics excluded altogether from a combined list headed up at the time simply "successor states" on the basis of your usual hobbyhorse that this would imply their original incorporation into the USSR was legal. Well, it wouldn't necessarily of course, but letting you have that one, and acknowledging the wider problem with the term, my proposal didn't list them as "successors". All my edit did was remove the sub-headings you inserted and avoid use of the term successors at all, by replacing the main heading with the perfectly reasonable and descriptive "Post-Soviet states". The Baltics remained in a separate sub-group at the bottom, with a footnote explaining the issue there, and for the other states. That dealt with your complaint but with the added bonus of not introducing new problems by suggesting there are definitive, agreed sub-classifications. You haven't explained in any real way what the actual problem with that as a solution to all the concerns from all sides, not just but including yours, is. And btw on the unrecognised entities, I never said they should not be included. Actually I think they should be in the infobox but not under any heading referring to "states"; nor should their footnote refer to them as such. They were in my version but you have now unilaterally wiped them, without any discussion (and misleadingly claimed that was all you were doing in your latest reversion). N-HH talk/edits 13:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I like quoting sources, here are some more:
Hollis The Oxford Guide to Treaties - Page 415
"The Russian Federation officially adopted this view, declaring itself as the 'continuator' and not a successor to the USSR. Even though the continuator concept was relatively novel at the time, the Russian Federation's view was generally accepted by by other states as well as by the UN where the name "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" was only replaced by the new name "Russian Federation"
Gaeta The UN Genocide Convention: A Commentary - Page 485
"In this scenario of separation, we would have one or several successor states, but we would also have a continuator state. The best such example is that of the Soviet Union, which has a number of successor states, but whose legal personality (together with UN membership and veto in the Security Council) was continued by the Russian Federation. In the second situation, however, we would have the dissolution of the predecessor states into several new successor states, none of which would be able to claim continuity with its predecessor, whose legal personality would thus be extinguished. Such were, for instance, the breakup of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia, or the dissolution of the former Socialist federal Republic of Yugoslavia."
You probably are aware of the coming referendum on Scotland's independence. There has been plenty of analysis of the implications of this, for example this paper. This analysis examines the potential consequences in light of dissolution of the Soviet Union and status of Russia/Baltics/11 Newly independent states as continuator/restored(or reverted)/successor states respectively. According to this analysis, the likely outcome is that rump UK would be, like Russia, a continuator state. On the other hand, Scotland would have difficulty in claiming preservation of its continuity with the pre-1707 Scottish state because Scotland was never illegally annexed like the Baltics states, thus would be considered a new state:
"Most likely, the rumpUK would be considered the continuator of the UK for all international purposes and Scotland a new state. This has been the most common outcome in the case of separation, as evidenced, for example, by the acceptance of Russia as the continuator of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) despite its political collapse. The fact that the rUK would retain most of the UK’s territory and population and that its governmental institutions would continue uninterrupted would count in its favour. So, importantly, would the acquiescence of other states in any claim of continuity. Since the rUK would be the same state as the UK, questions of state succession would arise only for Scotland."
And goes on:
"Reversion to a previous independent state such as the pre-1707 Scottish state may not be excluded. But it normally depends on conditions that are absent here, such as the unwilling subjugation of the former state."
Unwilling subjugation is a pre-requisite for maintaining the presumption of continuity and hence the possibility to restore or revert the state:
"What these statements suggest is that their formal legal identity of the Baltic states, rather than being extinguished in 1940 and then revived in 1991, was preserved throughout that period. It was significant that Russia’s control, though effective, was tainted by illegality. This places the Baltic states in the same category as the more fleeting cases of illegal but effective annexation mentioned above and suggests that in such circumstances even the passage of fifty years may not displace the presumption of continuity."
Thus this paper demonstrates that the classification of continuator, restored or reverted state, and successor, exists and are discussed together in the one analysis. No synthesis here. So your claim that it is an "invention" basically demonstrates your apparent ignorance on the topic of how states evolve, which the point of representing past and present states in the info-box. Unfortunate that a couple newbies should arrive now, I recall the only other editor to support you was the indef-blocked sock User:Peterzor. Looks like a checkuser may be in order. --Nug (talk) 12:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
As noted about 14 times now, we know different sources and different parties use specific terminology in some contexts. I don't understand what you're trying to prove with this wall of text. Interesting though that you're quoting Russia's viewpoint on continuation, when it suits you, having discounted when it doesn't, such as with its view on the status of the Baltic republics. But that's the nature of your pick-and-mix approach and something your last quotes don't resolve: that paper, which is not about the USSR anyway, does not appear to explicitly divide the post-Soviet states into discrete and definite groups of 1, 11 and 3 with the sub-headings you're insisting on.
Anyway, I'm very happy for you keep banging on in this amusing fashion about your asserted superior understanding of international law and continue your overheated bid to rationalise your preferred demarcations here, while glaringly avoiding the wider and more fundamental question one level beyond that, which is actually quite a simple one: why have purportedly definitive sub-headings at all, especially when they are clearly so problematic? Why are you quite so persistent that we simply must have sub-headings? And as for consensus, could you point to the army of supporters weighing in on your side? Cheers. Most of these are rhetorical questions btw. I'm not really looking for your take on the answers or likely to read them anyway. N-HH talk/edits 16:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
It's a mischaracterisation to claim I quote Russia's viewpoint on continuation, when it suits me, having discounted when it doesn't with regard to the Baltic states. It is not what I think that matters, but what reliable sources say. Sources tell us that the majority of the international community, except for Ukraine initially, recognise and accept Russia's claim as continuator of the USSR. Sources also tell us the majority of the international community do not accept Russia's claims with respect to the Baltic states and support the view that the Baltics were illegally annexed. Even the view within Russian scholarship is not unanimous. Unlike the consensus in Western scholarship, Russian historiography seems to be divided into the liberal-democratic (либерально-демократическое) camp and and the the patriotic-nationalist (национально-патриотическое) camp. The liberal-democratic camp is essentially aligned with the Western consensus view that the Baltic states were occupied and forcibly and illegally incorporated into the USSR, while patriotic-nationalist camp contends that the Baltic states voluntarily accepted Soviet troops and joined to the USSR via the free will of the Baltic peoples. In other words, the view that the Baltics were legally incorporated into the USSR is essentially a Russian nationalist viewpoint, that's why sock puppets like User:Peterzor, who apparently see you as their champion[4], come out of the woodwork in apparent support for you.
Turning your question on its head, why not have sub-headings? This is an encyclopaedia after all, so why not have more detail where we easily can (taking up less bytes to boot), why simplify to the extent of obfuscating? What is so problematical about sub-categories? You repeatedly claim different terms are used by different sources and/or in different contexts, but the context here is singular, that of transition from one state to another. Why are you so persistent in demanding a single category, a single category that misleadingly implies all entities emerged simultaneously with equal status? So persistent that after six months of stability you still feel compelled to revert to your preferred version? After all it was you who started this thread using the relatively minor issue of illegality/restoration[5] as an apparent pretext to a more wholesale change[6] to something you proposed four months ago[7] but failed to gain support. These aren't rhetorical questions btw, I do intend on reading your answers. --Nug (talk) 10:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
No amount of "notes" corrects the misconception created by the title "Successors" that all states came "after", that is what people take "successor" to mean. Really, what was wrong with the earlier compromise? It was clear, concise, and unambiguous, if somewhat imperfect--pertaining mostly to details of Russia as the continuation state. A single category is oversimplification to the point of being incorrect. Encyclopedias are meant to clarify, not to follow arbitrary imaginary rules. The breakup of the Soviet Union must reflect, not relegate to notes as if minor details, its unique circumstances. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
What do we need this information in the info-box anyway? Infoboxes are for non-controversial facts. TFD (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, not only is lumping them all into the one category is controversial, it is misleading too. --Nug (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
It's news to me that Russia considered continuation state, Baltics restored states, the rest successor states is, from the standpoint of international law, controversial in any manner whatsoever. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
The Baltic States have elements of successor states, for example people who emigrated there during the Soviet era are considered citizens, and various agreements made during that time are considered valif. AFAIK no other state has ever been considered to have disappeared and come back to life, meaning some discussion is required. Also, the Baltic States are fairly minor in the overall subject. TFD (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Soviet-era emigrants are considered non-citizens. With regard to various agreements made during the soviet period, Peter Van Elsuwege writes: "Proceeding from their basic standpoint of illegal Soviet occupation and state continuity, the Baltic States do not accept the validity of international treaties concluded by the Soviet Union. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania do not regard themselves as Soviet successor states and, therefore, bear no responsibility for the liabilities of this State. On the other hand, there is a presumption that the pre-war treaties, concluded by the then independent Baltic republicsm continue to be in force as long as they have not expressly been terminated. Most countries have recognised this basic position"[8]. The Baltic states aren't considered as having disappeared and brought back to life, that's the case with Austria when it was absorbed into the Greater German Reich, but not of the Baltic states. The occupation of the Baltic states is generally compared with the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, in both cases these countries never disappeared, but continued to exist de jure, as sovereign title was never transferred to the respective occupying power. While the Baltic States may well be fairly minor in the overall subject, the fact that Russia is recognised not as a successor, but as a continuator of the USSR is more major, but this is also obfuscated. Your apparent confusion and misunderstanding of these basic facts highlight the need to clearly articulate the status of these countries in the infobox. --Nug (talk) 08:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
TFD, we've been over this ground before. Just because the Baltic States couldn't be restored totally completely to their prewar condition does not make them not continuous. "Elements of" successor is utterly irrelevant here with regard to their sovereign continuity in international law, that is, your personal synthesis doesn't trump international law. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, other than our seeming predispositions to disagree first and examine positions later, I really don't understand where my proposal for the infobox (in international law... Russia successor (by treaty), Baltics continuous, rest successors) does not add valuable, concise, information for the casual reader or student. Certainly leaving someone to read the article to glean the same information is the less optimal solution. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Even the Soviet Union back in 1991 accepted the Baltic states were restoring their independence, the view that the Baltics are successor states of the SU is a more recent manifestation of Russian nationalist discourse. It seems somewhat tendentious that N-HH and TFD would apparently champion Russian nationalist POV over the consensus view found in reliable sources. --Nug (talk) 09:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
"champion Russian nationalist POV?" TFD (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Come off it. I'm probably about the only person currently involved who isn't seemingly trying to push some form of political line here but instead trying to avoid explicit labels and instead find the widest possible description, precisely so that we don't tie the infobox to expressing a view one way or the other. We've got some people trying to make it say, definitively, that all the states are successors and others trying to knock out the Baltic states and sometimes Russia too. My position is that we should do neither and avoid the term altogether due to the fact it is used at different times in different ways and that there isn't even unanimity when it comes to the more legalistic interpretation. And, as I keep having to point out to you, with reference to sources, there is no "consensus view" on the use of terminology and/or categorisation. Your pretending that isn't true does make it not true. Finally, as to where we are now, we seem to have a particularly bloated and badly written set of footnotes. That's the right place to briefly explain the complexity but they need to be concise. N-HH talk/edits 11:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Of course there is a political line in attempting to give undue weight to the Russian nationalist POV of the Baltic states being "successors" of the USSR, I guess it is tied up with the fact that many soviet-era Russian speaking settlers ending up stateless after the Baltic states restored their independence. But pretending that Baltic states are "successors" won't change that reality. Wikipedia ought to be a reflection of how things are, not what you may wish it to be.
You seem to be suffering a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHERETHAT. As I pointed out to you multiple times, the template guide has a preference for the official successors under international law, I guess because this is an encyclopaedia and the intent is that people may actually learn something. Your argument "there is no 'consensus view' on the use of terminology" and "there isn't even unanimity when it comes to the more legalistic interpretation" is just perverse, reliable secondary sources tell us:
"The Baltic states themselves have taken the stand that they continue the identities of the states existing before 1940. Accordingly this view states cannot be regarded as new states and therefore they cannot be successor states of the ex-USSR. This view has also been accepted by both the international community and the writers of international law."[9]
nor is it in any way controversial, Patrick Dumberry's monograph State Succession to International Responsibility published in 2007 summarises the current mainstream view on page 151:
"The only non-controversial point is that the three Baltic States are regarded not as new States (and not as successor States of the U.S.S.R.) but as identical to the three Baltic States that existed before their 1940 illegal annexation by the U.S.S.R."
You can end your denialism and pretense that no consensus view exists, secondary sources explicitly tell us there is. And you can stop telling pork-pies about your "referenced sources", you've only presented one as far as I can recall and it wasn't very convincing. NPOV is not about giving every fringe viewpoint equal weight and synthesising "the widest possible description", that's called original research. --Nug (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

formatting

lets discuss Ryulong issue here Anignome (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

{{Ref}} and {{Note}} are being used here to link the footnotes to each other. There's no reason to remove this formatting as you've been doing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
this is the olny article that does that, there is no need for this article to use that either Anignome (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
This is not the only article that uses {{ref}} and {{note}}. You do not have consensus to remove this formatting from here. Stop edit warring.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
What is the Ryulong issue that Anignome is asking be discussed? Is it the infobox question, or something else? If it is the infobox question, then should we have sections for Support 15-state version and Support 1-11-3 version? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
He is discussing this revert where I revert him removing the links from the reference to the footnote. It is unrelated to the list of nations in the infobox.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
It isn't obvious to me, even after viewing the two versions, what the issue is. Can someone explain what the formatting issue is, and why it is worth publicizing with an RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't even aware he bothered making an RFC about it. It does not require one. He removed {{ref}} and {{note}} for no reason and replaced a paired {{ref|1}} and {{note|1}} with <sup>1</sup>.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it wasn't worth an RFC, but removing an RFC tag after the box has published it causes confusion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Soviet_Union/Archive_14&oldid=1136232318"