Talk:Post-Soviet states

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is a current candidate for the Article Creation and Improvement Drive. Please see the project page to find this article's entry to support or comment on the nomination.

	To-do list for Post-Soviet states:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
Add before and after statistic for post-Soviet economy, citing sources. Juppiter 18:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Add more about the human aspect. How has life changed in the former soviet republics? What good things from the Soviet days are gone? What bad things have been eliminated? Obviously, poverty is up, but in some republics there is more democracy. But what about day-to-day life? Are there still queues? It'd be good to look at some primary sources. Juppiter 02:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Could someone investigate why the answers.com page looks strikingly similar to the wikipedia post on the same topic: answers.com page wikipedia page

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. This article has been tagged since January 2007.

Contents 1 Map 2 OSCE 3 ECO 4 GUAM map 5 Chechnya and Dagestan 6 Soviet

[edit] Map

It would be cool to have a map where all these states are highlighted. Jacoplane 01:01, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You can just use this map:
from this article

That map has several problems -- it's outdated, showing 80s borders. It's also an JPG which is a nasty format to make a map of. I'm gonna see what I can do. Aris Katsaris 03:12, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

I made Image:post_soviet_states.png which I think should link to Image:world_post_soviet.png when clicked on, but I didn't know if that could be done. . .

Juppiter 16:22, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] OSCE

Should the OSCE be included as one of the regional organizations? It includes the entire post-Soviet space. Of course, it does extend beyond post-Soviet space, but so does the SCO. —thames 18:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

The UN likewise includes the whole post-Soviet space but that's not a reason to include it. In the section I had it mention "In this section those organizations are mentioned which are mainly (or completely) composed of post-Soviet states. Organizations with much wider memberships are not discussed." I think that's a reasonable criterion -- the majority of participating states to be post-Soviet states. But exclusivity (the organization's membership to consist entirely of post-Soviet states) is likewise defensible, in which case we should remove SCO instead. Aris Katsaris 18:24, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

The current criteria strikes me as fine. I think removing the SCO under an exclusivity criteria would have a negatiev impact on the article. The SCO is an important organization, as it reflects the post-Sino-Soviet bloc (just as the CIS reflects the extent of the Soviet Union (sans Baltic states)). —thames 19:14, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ECO

Currently the article has SCO (China-Post-Soviet). Maybe we should Economic Cooperation Organization as Turkey-Post-Soviet organisation (6 of the 10 members are former soviet republics) regardless of its history with Turkey-Iran-Pakistan (and no soviet) as founders. Alinor 13:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GUAM map

Maybe we should discuss this a little bit. I put the map GUAMandEurasec, because it shows how the CIS state have split into different groups for the current moment. That means membership is practicaly exclusive - eigther GUAM or Eurasec, not both. The map GUAM+Former+CIS also has positive sides - focused on GUAM, showing previous members. But none of the other organisations (Eurasec, CACO, CSTO, SCO) have this "other CIS" category on their maps (and this is good). So, maybe we should make a GUAM-only map to put here. Or, my proposal - keep the GUAMandEurAsEC-Other map. Alinor 08:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favour of yours, personally. —Nightstallion (?) 09:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chechnya and Dagestan

The article stated that basically they are independent and separate states attempting to leave the Russian Federation. It is very wrong to put Chechnya and ESPECIALLY Dagestan in the same boat as places like South Ossetia, or Transniestria, since in their cases, the elected governments and the majority of the people support separation from the main country (Georgia, and Moldova, respectivelly.)

The thing is that since about the year hello there is absolutely no reason to consider Chechnya a separarist state since their officials (elected by their people) do not consider it so. During the period roughly between 1996 and 1999 this article section would have made some sense (since the government and people were de-facto indep.) but definitely not in these days. For example, many people in Quebec would like to separate themselves from Canada and even some officials try to push that agenda but nobody calls it a "separatist state" (or province.)

As for Dagestan, there are '0' reasons why it should even be listed in that section. Dagestan officially never tried to become separate from Russia, and the people that wrote/edited this article may be confusing it with Tatarstan which did attempt to secede in the early 90ies.

Next time someone adds sections like these, It would be nice to see some logic (supported by facts) in their actions. --Lenev 00:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The Chechnya artice says "Chechnya is considered an independent republic by its separatists, and a federal republic by its federalists." Dagestan also has a section "Dagestani conflict". Good for me to list it "separatist conflicts". Of course, the level is that of guerilla, not of the state. Also, since you are saying about "roughly between 1996 and 1999", then still a historical mention makes sense, because people in the West remember something was going, and some explanation is due, rather than outright deletion. `'mikka (t) 00:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree that there must be some explanation regarding Chechnya and Dagestan, it's just that the way it was listed before, it clearly showed that Chechnya is a separatist entity which created confusion (atleast for me). If it is considered independent by its separatists, it does not mean that the opinion of the federalists does not matter because the elected government (elected by the majority of the people in generally fair elections) is federalist, and that is the "official" position of the whole entity. Whatever small/medium groups with different opinions there may be, their say is not as important as the official one. (See my example for Quebec)

I think it is best to keep those two removed from the list that contains South Ossetia, Abkhazia et al., and keep the explanation that's just below that, which talks about the historical events, and how these "separatists" are different from the ones who are quite close to being completely independent (like So. Ossetia for example), since officially those separatist events are over, even according to the Chechnya and Dagestan articles. --64.229.216.196 00:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC) --Lenev 00:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC) sorry forgot to login

Do whatever you want, but plain deletion of information is not an option. History changes every day, and if we keep deleting things from articles just because they slightly changed, we'll have a complete mess. A correct approach is to move/rephrase data in the current way. `'mikka (t) 00:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I will rephrase it, but there's no way those countries are staying in that list, because it is just blatant misinformation. However, there will be an explanation under it with all the needed information.

Also, since I did not finish editing the article reverting it was very inappropriate (especially since I provided an explanation, and I am a registered user with many other good edits. It's not like I decided to vandalize pages after all this time.)Here, have a quote,

"Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible, and stay within the three-revert rule except in cases of clear vandalism. " From Wikipedia's official guidelines.

--Lenev 00:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you notice the "...and deletions" part? And especially you did not provide explanations before deletion. I am repeating: I looked at your edit summary, then looked into the talk page, shrugged, and reverted unexplained deletion. The current version is 100% OK with me.

`'mikka (t) 01:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Conflict in Chechnya is nowhere close to end, and removing it from list is blatant misinformation and sweeping under the carpet. `'mikka (t) 01:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hahah, hilarious. That it's "nowhere close to end" is completely your opinion. It has not been "swept under the carpet", I am not going to repeat this again, I have added TWO PARAGRAPHS explaining the situation in detail. Adding that sentence gives the wrong impression that is why an explanation is there. If you want to improve the article, then improve the explanation paragraphs, adding a sentence does not make it better in any way. As for the differences between the listed conflicts and these ones they are explained in this discussion. The current situation is this= Chechnya is a part of Russia, the government admits it and the government was elected by the people. Anything else are no more than conspiracy theories and you're free to make an article on them, or even one of those weird "Russia is the devil" websites that so many Russophobes make. So far you made 0 (?!) points to support your decisions. "Sweeping under the rug" is an expression and it proves nothing other than your inability to present valid arguments on this issue.--Lenev 17:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The section name is "Separattist conflicts". First question: Are you saying that the separatist conflict in Chechnya is ended? Second point: Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Encyclopedia covers not only today, but past as well. The article is named "Post-Soviet States". There was Ichkeria. The issue must be covered. In addition, the Chechnya article says "In addition to the elected government, there is a self-proclaimed separatist government, not recognized ....". Therefore I say "sweeping under the rug" THe separatist conflict is "nowhere close to end". I thought you can read so I didn't care much about arguments. Now I see that you are writer, not reader; what is your nationality? `'mikka (t) 18:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I said that the conflicts are not all equal and that it was unfair to squish them all into one very simple list. However, I am OK with the new edits that explain each conflicts status.--Lenev 18:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You're twisting my words, I never said it should not be covered or that it should be forgotten! I said that it must be explained in more detail.--Lenev 18:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I see that you can't read or write. What was the point of your statement? In ANY debate/discussion, the arguments have to be presented. Never have I heard that one of the sides should find the opponents arguments by themselves.--Lenev 18:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

My nationality is irrelevant.--Lenev 18:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet

Many people seem to belive that the way foreward for post-soviet states is privitization, deregulation, etc. This is incorrect. Belarus has the highest GDP per capita of the post-soviet states and has a socialist economy. Its industial output decrease in the early 1990s but recovered under Lushenko it was the first country to reach 1990 economic levels again) and has steady economic growth, low unemploment, and does not have CIA secret prisons. Russia and other countries which implemented a IMF/US imposed program of handing over industry to capitalists had their economies collapse. It is true that since the post soviet period changes have to be made, but many Russians think that conditions were better under the soviet union and prefer it to the current regime. 72.139.119.165 21:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting, I took a course on this, and over 70% of Russians said they regretted the demise of the Soviet Union but didn't think it would be possible to restore it. And Yeltsin always struck me as a crook, though he was presented positively in the Western media. I think that socialism with a heart would be best for Russians. Juppiter 23:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

What's funny is that Estonia has a much higher GDP per capita than Belarus...more than twice as much in fact. Too bad propagandist moonbats are intellectually dishonest so in order to compensate for the fact that they are blindly wrong, they have to lie to themselves and others around them. Either that or they are too stupid to find the Cia World Fact Book or other reliable sources.