Talk:History of the Soviet Union/Archive 3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Changing the subject I've just noticed, there's nothing in this article about the great purges of the 1930s, Isn't that a bit like having an article about Nazi Germany without mentioning the Holocaust. G-Man 22:15 UTC 12/4/03
I'm getting to the Great Purges. I'm also planning to start a little section on the nature of economic planning, the uniqueness of the Soviet Union's path of industrial development, more on the Cold War, and the generational shifts in leadership.
I'm still adding content. 7 172
regime is a potential term of disparagement to describe a "bad" government. Susan Mason
- Is there no end to the depth of Adam/ Lir/Vera Cruz/Dietary Fiber's ignorance of history??? Regime is used to refer to pre-modern systems of government that because of universally acknowledged flaws could not function in the age of democraticisation. All historians of any note (whether left or right wing) agree the Tsarist regime was one such, hence the ease of its collapse in early 1917. (Ditto with the Ottoman Empire). Government suggests a functioning effective modern system, so it is a POV term that is fine in most contents but misleading here. But then, given the fact that you have been banned twice, and will be again for your behaviour, I shouldn't even reply to you. Your behaviour is the embodiment of that wiki terms do not feed the trolls. So go away Adam and vandalise another article. STÓD/ÉÍRE 03:06 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)
At nearly 400kb, that newly added bitmap should be converted to a lossy format (gif, jpg, png). I don't think there will be a significant quality loss either (it's black and white). -- Notheruser 00:42 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)
- Please go ahead with that. I didn't realize that that file was a bitmap. 172
-
- I uploaded a new version. There doesn't appear to be a quality loss. -- Notheruser 00:53 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)
-
-
- Good work. Sorry about uploading that file as a bmp one. 172
-
-
-
-
- You mind if I delete the bitmap? -- Notheruser 01:02 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)
-
-
Please, go ahead. I'm sorry for uploading it. 172
This is the fifth article that comes up on a yahoo search for "History of the Soviet Union".
HI, seeing as how you keep mentioning my name here, I suppose I might as well join the debate. I noticed that Susan was arguing that regime is a potential term of disparagement and that, in Jtdirls response, he defined a government as a "functioning effective system", arguing that this couldn't possibly be used to describe the "czarist regime", thus implying that his definition of regime is: "non-functioning ineffective non-system", which certainly does seem to be a form of POV disparagement. Dietary Fiber
Pretending that you’re not the same person is pathetic, even for you. Incontrovertible evidence is already out there proving otherwise. See: http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-April/002479.html
Lying isn’t going to save you from another ban. Learning how to engage constructively with people is the only thing that might rehabilitate you. Once again, however, you’re (Susan/Dietary) living on borrowed time.
- And assuming that said person did learn how to engage constructively with people, how would you know? You've already said that you cannot be bothered to review their edits, and you prefer to cite past examples whenever dealing with them. I have offered to throw my weight behind the banning of this user, if you only prove to me that they are a troll, and a vandal, and that their information is blatantly inaccurate. Instead, you tell me that the troll status is already established, and it's a waste of time to work with this user. Please, stop calling Susan and/or Dietary trolls, and start outling what they are doing wrong. If they are not aware of their behavior, this will make it clear to them. If they are aware, then by outlining the problems they are causing, you will make your case stronger.
- --cprompt
-
- I'd rather not. The subject of this person with multiple personalities has been discussed ad nauseum. Just check the archives at http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/ -- Zoe
http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-April/002479.html
Where is everyone? This is an often-frequented article on a controversial subject that has been totally revamped in the past couple of days. I seem to be the only one adding content. Many users have done great jobs editing content, but only JTD has added content (a good intro). Constructive collaborators are needed, not trolls.
I’m citing some very prominent and respected historians in this article. While I’m sure that many readers are already familiar with them, non-expert readers and those who haven’t taken high school or college-level courses pertaining to this era of history might not be.
Therefore, I want to work with some readers willing to create links detailing the work of these prominent historians.
Does anyone think there is a need for a seperate article on the "Great Terror" or is this already covered by the "Great Purges" G-Man
No. This topic receives a lot of attention in this article and many other articles. 172
I have not read the article, but it seems like 172 wrote almost the whole thing. Does anyone else see the problem here of someone who has an obvious communistic bias writing all the content for the history of the soviet union?
Only someone who knoes the evil of the evil empire should be writing this article.
It depends on what bias you bring. If you are like the vast majority of contributors who is interested in producing a neutral point of view, add it in. However that above comment (if from you) suggests a definite bias.
If however you are the vandal-formerly known as Adam/Bridget/Vera/Susan/Dietary Fiber who has a habit of POVing articles with gross inaccuracies all your changes will be undone. If you are not that person, apologies for even suggesting it. The said person has caused enormous trouble on wikipedia and if not already banned will be shortly, meaning that all anonymous users touching articles continuously vandalised by Adam's family of trolls immediately raise attention and have their IPs checked out.
So if you are a genuine user, welcome to wikipedia. Please contribute as much as you can, following the basic rule that all articles should follow a Neutral Point of View. If this is just Adam in his 6th reincarnation as a vandal, you are not welcome. You have been banned twice. You will be banned as often as it takes and any article you vandalise with your factual inaccuracies and bias will be reverted. STÓD/ÉÍRE 23:26 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)
- Only someone who knoes the evil of the evil empire should be writing this article.
- Excuse me? I thought this was supposed to NPOV, and anyone could write on this article.
- --cprompt
My prose might be neutral to the point of seeming downright detached, but that’s not a problem. We’ll let the staggering causality tolls resulting from collectivization and the Great Purges, chronicled clearly in the article, speak for themselves. This is an encyclopedia article, and not a polemical journal. 172
Nevertheless, I'm sure that this article could use a little cleaning up (for missing links, tying errors, readability improvements to give it a more cohesive flow, etc.). I'm looking forward to new contributions to this article. 172
- Personally, I'm not sure which is worse, various POVs slipping in, or having to run around after you getting rid of MSWord's (or whatever's) encoding cruft that you leave behind in all these articles. ;) Seriously though, could you find something else to do your edits with, or maybe a setting that won't save it all as "’" etc.? -- John Owens
I didn't know that all that was a problem since it doesn't show up in the article. I'll just get rid of it when I copyedit the content. Sorry 172
