Talk:Soviet Union/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

I copied the layout and most of the text from the Temp page. That meant deleting most of the history section, but that was duplicated on History of the Soviet Union anyway. --Guppie

Did you check if that the text here had been edited? It had gone through some extensive editing. Please be more careful in the future. --mav
Yes, I did check the text for edits, sorry if I missed something. I was just tired of seeing the same changes on Soviet Union and History of the Soviet Union, so I went for a big-bang approach. I promise to be more careful in the future, I'm almost always careful. ;-) --Guppie
The two versions weren't that different after all. The main difference is that the history in the Soviet Union article was nicely divided in different sections. But I still did find some text that was lost. --mav

Rather than trying to cite the most sensational figures from black books and Robert Conquest, readers should focus on trying to improve this terribly weak article. The History of the People's Republic of China,for instance, is a far more informative and illuminating article. I take credit for most on the post-Mao era. This article tells you little if anything about the Soviet economy, Soviet society, the Cold War, the origns of the Cold War, the breakup of the Soviet Union, the casuses of the breakup, Perestroika, Glasnost, the Brezhnev Era, the Sino-Soviet Split, Communist ideology. In short, it’s not really going to help people understand why Soviet history unfolded as it did. I look forward to revamping it.

"Following the rise of Premier Joseph Stalin the Soviet Union greatly expanded, conquoring neighboring countries and assimilating them into what became a vast Soviet Empire." I'm not satisfied by this paragraph. Soviet Empire is a Reaganism and which countries did Stalin conquer before the WW II division of Poland? ²¹²

Would calling it a Soviet Empire not be consistent with calling the pre-1917 state the Russian Empire? Unless of course you define "empire" narrowly as a country whose governmental structure features an emperor, in which case the USSR should not be termed an empire. Wesley

Is the holiday "Hero's Day" or "Heroes Day"? -- Zoe

I think it is inappropriate to list the "Final President" in the table. With the USSR being a defunt entity, we are looking at it as a whole--what it was during its entire existence--not in one snapshot in time. --Jiang 09:41 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I see. "Kishka" deserves an honorable mention, but the first man in space doesn't. I don't think this is professional.
Michaely 07:49, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This is a wiki. If you think it belongs, add it. --Jiang 10:38, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I added some text on the historical significance of the USSR. The 3 lines of text saying effectively that the only good thing USSR did was destroing the Nazi was a disgrace and sounds like something from 1940s. Please check what I said for NPOV, I tried to be objective, but couldn't really afford to pay enough attention to that right now. Paranoid 20:25, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think some of it sounds like a press release from the Kremlin... Secretlondon 20:43, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)
 : Look, I lived in Soviet Union and I live in Russia now. I understand these issues quite well. But it's not the correct place to explain why I do in fact understand them, I will rework that and add to the History of the Soviet Union article. As for the tone, Secretlondon, I challenge you to find anything other than Stalin's repressions and lack of freedoms (to certain extent) that was really-really bad about Soviet Union (and which is not just as bad or worse for either the US, modern Russia or many other world countries). Or to find anything factually wrong or heavily spinned in what I wrote.
The history section is already too long. If you want to add, do it at History of the Soviet Union. --Jiang 21:18, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 : Jiang, I understand why you decided to remove these two paragraphs - I will rework this content and move it to History of the Soviet Union, but the existing part about the retrospective just cannot stay as it is. Because if it's considered the only Russian achivement worth mentioning, I simply don't see that other countries did anything worthwhile whatsoever. The last sentence implies that the price paid in human misery was so great that the net effect of the Soviet Union's existence might have been negative. This is not neutral point of view at all.
 : :Just a minute. It says (I wrote it) that the greatest achievement of the Soviet Union was the destruction of the Nazis. And does anyone dispute that? Given the Nazis were perhaps the greatest evil of human history surely their defeat is an achievemntment beyond compare? But, yes, maybe the price of human misery paid by the Soviet people was too great (25 million and more when the famines are considered). To ask the question is not to express a point of view but to sum up, briefly, the debate about the USSR.
      I don't think you can "sum it up briefly" in 3 lines. No more than you can sum up the history of the US like "The greatest achievements of the United States was sending a man to the Moon. But the price in human misery — the genocyde of American natives and slavery of Blacks may never be calculated." Is this a way to sum up the debate about America's historic role? No way. It's extreme oversimplification. Another important thing is that repressions and defeating Nazi are two almost completely unrelated things. Because of that you can't say "but". If it was worded some way like this: "The greatest thing was destroying Nazi, the worst thing was repressions", it would be passable. But to imply that the second somehow diminishes the value of the first (and that it has any relation to it) and of all other things that were good about USSR is not fair and not logical.
I think the problem is that you want to insist the Soviet Union was a positive force for humanity - in the absence of almost any evidence or support from the Soviet people. I visited the Soviet Union, I know it wasn't some prison camp nor some empire of evil. But nor was the fact it proposed to incinerate me with its nuclear weapons a positive force for human development (as your text ridiculously suggested). Apologies for Stalinism (like they only indulged in mass murder for 24 years of the 74 years of the USSR's history) don't cut it either. The difference between the USSR and the USA is that the people of the USSR overthrew the state, and the USA continues. So it is much more possible to definitively evaluate the USSR's historical significance than it is the USA's. Apart from a year or two at the end of its life the Soviet Union was a harshly repressive state. And, as a European social democrat, I resent the idea that it in some way promoted progressive politics. it diodn't. it was the excuse of every right wing dictator, from Pinochet to Franco, for their actions. If you are going to spout all the stuff about how it helped all those nations (helped mainly == gave them guns) then put that in too.

Feel free to tweak the current history section. Just make sure it stays the same length or becomes shorter. --Jiang

Contents

Victory day

Wasn't that (May 9th) a holiday too?

absolutely. And it still is in Russia. I added it.

ISO 9

I strongly object to the unilitaeral use of this 'standard' for transliterations. It violates the wikipedia policy to use common names and terms. This is not so bad in the russian version of 'USSR' but is unacceptable for the names of people. English speakers know who Khruschev is, they don't know who Hrusev is. Morwen 16:23, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Understood. What about adding the ISO 9 translit. in the first paragraph and using the typical Library of Congress translit. throughout the rest of the article? I'm referring to something like this. --Cantus
BTW, your "this" shows the 6th letter badly: Evgenʹevič. Mikkalai 22:26, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The 6th character should look like a tick mark. It's character "PRIME" or Unicode 2032. It's the equivalent of the Cyrillic soft sign or Unicode 044C in ISO 9 transliteration. Your browser can't display it? --Cantus

Too many names!

We have now the English name, the Russian name, and TWO transliterations. Perhaps we can remove one of the transliterations?

Weren't all the languages of the member SSRs official languages? The coat of arms contains 14 languages Dmn 14:37, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I restored the timeline in its original size. Thumbnails are fine in some occasions, but I feel some people are overdoing it. The image is 6K so no download problems. Soon people will need to click every image if this thumbnail mania continues, which IMO is a nuisance. The image conveys information which is relevant to the article (even when is it available in text as well, people will get a much better impression from the chart). We might as well print all text in point 6 to squeeze the whole article on one screen, hey what's the bias against graphical info? Erik Zachte 22:09, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It was the thumbnail that was 6K - the full image is less than 2K. This suggests a rule of thumb[nails]: don't use a thumbnail if it has a larger filesize than the full image. --Zundark 08:32, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

When did Stalin become leader?

Perhaps the party secretary was not exactly considered the leading position in 1924, but I'd say Stalin had basically accumulated enough power by the time of Lenin's death to be considered the leading figure in the USSR. Certainly Lenin's successor as Premier, Rykov, was not all that important. I suppose Stalin was in an alliance with Zinoviev and Kamenev until somewhat later, so it would be hard to say who exactly the leader was (although Stalin certainly held many of the cards), but he'd broken with them by 1926 or so, hadn't he? So why the 1929 date? john 07:49, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That's the generally accepted date, after the fall of Bukharin ended any pretense of collective leadership. His 50th birthday in 1929 was celebrated as befits a dictator. And I disagree that Stalin was the leading figure in 1924. At the time of Lenin's death Trotsky was regarded as the senior figure in the leadership. No-one at that time would have regarded Stalin as "leader". The party secretaryship was seen as an administrative position only. Adam 07:57, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Trotsky was already marginalized by the Stalin-Zinoviev-Kamenev triumvirate at that point, wasn't he? And Trotsky was never well-liked within the party, due to his not really being an old-school Bolshevik, and all that. While Stalin may not have seemed to be the leading figure, he already had a great deal of power in his hands by the time of Lenin's death. john 07:59, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes that is true, but I think the country would still have seen Trotsky as the leading figure in the regime after Lenin's death. It's a while since I read my namesake E H Carr's history, but I'm not sure that the triumvirate was formed before 1924. Adam 08:02, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Also, before 1929 Stalin made a point of not putting himself forward as the leader - he was actually very cunning about this point. Adam 08:05, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)


That last is a good point. As to the triumvirate, my copy of (ack) Robert Conquest's The Great Terror, which is the only book I have at hand that would plausibly deal with that, isn't at all clear on that. I had thought, however, that the grouping formed at some point after Lenin's stroke, and was, for instance, already in existence at the time of Lenin's "Last Testament". But I'm not sure on that. At any rate, 1929 seems okay, but I think we ought to have a footnote. (and also for Khrushchev in 1953, since it wasn't clear if he or Malenkov would be running things?) john 08:18, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Stalin was in the running before October 1917. He had the third highest total in election to the CC and he was pretty much head of the predecessor to the Politburo before October 1917. The public may have known Trotsky better, because his job was to make speeches. That didn't change the fact that the party itself trusted Stalin to implement the Lenin phenomena. Much too much is made out of this. Stalin was in the running even before October 1917. I mean how surprised would anybody have been to see Howard Dean become president? The guy was in the running as were some others. 205.179.217.195 06:36, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I see User:172 has taken up comic fiction again. His account of the wonders of Soviet agriculture is hilarious. Has he never heard of the kulaks? I will have a go at this later. Adam 08:11, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me, asshole. The heading said "economy" not "history." The content on this section ought to resemble, say, the short overview of the economy published in the last CIA Factbook entry on the USSR. If you changed the heading to "economic history," I'd rewrite it again and mention the kulaks. 172 08:33, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Seems a bit too upbeat to me, but I wouldn't call it an account of the "wonders of Soviet agriculture" (or "comic fiction"). He says that the collective farms were inefficient. I'm not sure that talking about the horrors of collectivization is necessarily appropriate at this point in the article, at any rate. john 08:22, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I find an slightly ironic tone is best when debating with 172. The suggestion that the low productivity of Soviet agriculture was the result of the climate is indeed comic. Could it have had something to do with the mass murder of the peasant class (and their livestock) in 1929-31? Ukraine is one of the world's most productive agricultural regions, yet millions died of famine there. As he has shown elsewhere, 172 absolutely refuses to acknowledge that the economic failures of stalinist states have some connection with the socialist economic system. Adam 08:35, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Fuck you, liar. Change the heading and you'll get a broader historical overview from me. I want the content to correspond with the title of the heading, that's all. 172 172 08:37, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Temper, temper. You're very quick to accuse others of personal abuse. Adam 08:51, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You slander me every chance you get, so I'll abuse you, scumbag. 172

Untrue! I have passed up several chances to slander you in recent days. I have to spend some time slandering other people here or they get jealous. You can't have all the fun. Adam 09:34, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That's because you get nothing out of slandering me, unlike some others. Your bullshit hardly stops me from making the changes that I want to make. 172 09:39, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This is completely ridiculous. Why don't you try to discuss the issues you have with each other, and come to a mutually agreeable version, instead of spewing ad hominem attacks? john 02:48, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Looking at the above exchange page it seems to me that this page has become WikiKindergarten not Wikipedia

For the record, I have made no ad hominem attacks, despite being called an asshole, a liar and a scumbag. I have made political criticisms, and will continue to do so as I see fit. Adam 03:02, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, you're playing cool and letting him look like a jerk, this time...At any rate, this whole feud is ridiculous. If you would both quit with these games, it'd be beneficial for everyone. john 03:37, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It is not a personal feud - why do people insist on personalising everything? I know nothing about 172 personally, not even his name. All I know about him is what he writes at Wikipedia, which is a consistent defence of stalinist regimes, past and present. He is perfectly entitled to his political views. My sole objection to 172 is when he writes or rewrites articles to reflect his political views and distort history. Adam 03:44, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)


I didn't say it was a personal feud. It's certainly a feud. At any rate, you're exaggerating to a ridiculous extent. At any rate, I have seen no evidence that 172 is a Stalinist, or that what he writes at wikipedia is a "consistent defense of stalinist regimes". He's certainly committed to avoiding demonizing Stalinist regimes in encyclopedia articles, which is an approach that one can agree or disagree with, and I think that at times this approach leads to quasi-apologetics. But he's a good contributor, and has brought far more good than harm to wikipedia. In this particular edit, look at what the text he replaced was:

The Soviet Union was the first country to base its economy on communist principles, where the state owned all the means of production and farming was collectivized.

That's it. That was the whole account of the Soviet Union's economy. It also did not mention the collectivization of agriculture. The sister article Economy of the Soviet Union also does not mention anything about it. Apparently such text, written by 172 himself, was moved to History of the Soviet Union, Part 1, had a long discussion of the process of collectivization. Perhaps you would consider it to be an apologetic account, but it seems to me to resemble standard textbook accounts of the collectivization. [1]

At any rate, the best way to deal with this is to try to work together to come to some sort of consensus, not make nasty comments about other people being Stalinists, or (in 172's case) hurling angry invective. You're both good contributors, and this is completely ridiculous. john 04:31, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Just as an experiment, I decided to look at the world's other surviving stalinist relic, Fidel Castro, and what did I find? The ubiquitous 172 again, making his usual excuses for dictatorship. "In this context, human rights is a loaded slogan. If you’re going to put it back in the article, make it point out something factual. You could make it point out, for instance, better health care, education, access to the essentials, and so forth. But most contributors, beining Westerners, will associate “human rights” with political rights. And it’s a fact that this is a weak area for Cuba." [172]

"A weak area." Who says 172 doesn't have a sense of humour? And how dare these silly westerners associate "human rights" with "political rights." Adam 05:21, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy you've not addressed a single one of my points. Your post is also a complete distortion of 172's argument on that page. He says:

I removed this:
"Supporters of Castro also point out that Cuba's human rights record is significantly better than many other countries in the Carribean/Latin America region."
By what measure? Health care? Education? Access to the essentials for survival? But this certainly isn’t the case for the issues that most Westerners associate with “human rights”. The above sentence shouldn’t be placed back into the article until it’s clarified.

Then Eclecticology says he wants to put it back in, because discussion of human/political rights is lame too, and 172 says that the whole thing should be made more specific, but that westerners are going to continue associating "human rights" with political rights. So he's arguing for taking out pro-Castro apologetics. This is really weak, Adam. john 05:37, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The paragraph I quoted is not a distortion of his argument, it is his argument, verbatim - I even left his spelling error in. Of course it was part of a longer discussion about editing the Castro article, but it is typical of his attitudes. It repeats the standard apologetics for Castro, yes it's sad that he puts people in jail, but he does have free health care, and only "westerners" quibble about political rights etc etc etc - exactly as the same people used to say about the Soviet Union. Adam 05:42, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That's not what he's saying at all. He took out a passage that said that Castro defenders point to his superior human rights attitudes, because he thought that shouldn't be in the article, because political rights is what people generally mean when they say human rights. In the passage you cite, he was saying that what he assumed to be what the original writer meant about "human rights" should be discussed specifically - education, health care, and so forth. That is all. I don't see any particular apologetics there, unless you are desperately looking to find them. Later on, he does go into a long discussion of how Castro came to identify himself as a Communist which does seem rather apologetic, but not particularly far from many standard historical accounts of such things. Now, I tend to think that 172 is rather soft on communism, but his contributions are always, in my experience, scholarly and intelligent, and within the realm of reasonable discourse on the subject at hand. You may disagree with him, but that does not make it illegitimate. Why don't you just try to discuss these things calmly, and try to come to some consensus, instead of accusing him of being a Stalinist, which is just counterproductive? john 05:47, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Because I know from experience that is impossible. After our polemics at Kim Jong-il I actually decided to deny myself the pleasure of further arguments with him, but when someone tells us that the failure of Soviet agriculture was due to the climate, my resolution crumbles in the face of such temptation. I know I am weak... Adam 05:59, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's only impossible if you keep on accusing him of being a Stalinist instead of trying to work out the issues productively. I don't think anyone would accuse 172 of being even-tempered, and you certainly seem to know how to get under his skin - at this point, you seem to have managed to figure out how to do this without getting your own temperature up (although that certainly isn't the case of the discussion over at Kim Jong-Il, where you both look like raving lunatics at times). So then, in any interaction with him, you have the ability to make him look utterly insane, if you so desire. But besides this being entertaining to you, what does it accomplish? A bit of politeness and respect would likely go a long way. 172 himself said (on User talk:Stan Shebs):

I'm honestly sick of that feud with Adam. It must be a gross annoyance to users who want to work on an encyclopedia rather than settle scores with people they've never met. So on one hand, I want to back way from that silly blood feud. On the other, I feel that I have to defend myself from his slander and misrepresentation, and point out Adam's pattern of abuse of other users.

Now, I assume you would contest that you are slandering and misrepresenting his views, or that you have a pattern of abuse of other users (and certainly this last is, at the very least, a case of the pot calling the kettle black, given some of the things 172 is wont to say to other users), but it seems pretty clear that the main thing he wants is for you to stop calling him a Stalinist (which, again, I have seen little evidence that he is. There are many grounds on which to engage in arguable quasi-apologetics for communist dictators besides being a Stalinist oneself.) So, if you think he's a Stalinist, that's fine, but saying it does nothing more than lead to embarrassing arguments (by both sides) on talk pages. There's no harm in being civil and polite. At any rate, I don't feel as if I'm getting anywhere with this probably ill-thought out effort at mediation, so I'll quit with it. But this argument just succeeds in making both of you look bad. john 06:42, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

During our polemics at Kim Jong-il, 172, after some prompting, said he wasn't a Stalinist. I said that I accepted that, and have not since then said that he is a Stalinist. I have said that he is a apologist for Stalinist regimes, which is a plain statement of fact. The USSR and the DPRK were or are Stalinist regimes, and 172 consistently rewrites articles so as to remove factual statements which could be seen as negative about these regimes (I can cite extensive examples if anyone wants). I'm sorry if he takes offense when I point this out, but if he doesn't want me to criticise him he should stop doing it. I appreciate that john, Stan and others are seeking to mediate, but I don't believe there can be any mediation between truth and falsehood. If User A says that two and two make four, and User B says that two and two make six, it is not an acceptable compromise to say that two and two make five. Adam 07:07, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that User:Adam Carr says that two and two makes four, and that User:172 says that the fact that two and two makes four is irrelevant to the topic under discussion? I've rarely seen 172 dispute the factuality of various attacks on communism (although he's certainly argued that they need to be more strongly contextualized), more to argue that they are inappropriate in an encyclopedia article, or inappropriate in the part of the article under discussion. Certainly that is the case with the dispute in this article. So, then, the question is not that 172 is promoting Stalinist big lies in wikipedia. It's that he's taking out statements about Stalinism that he says are not appropriate in particular parts of articles. You can disagree with that, but it's not the same thing as a conflict between truth and falsehood. john 07:12, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well I think it is, but I doubt anyone is going to persuade anyone else of anything here. I am off to write about Biton and Kleobis now, a much more congenial subject. Adam 07:19, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Economy of the Soviet Union

172, that's a lot of detail on the economy - the economy section at present seems to be nearly as detailed as the actual Economy of the Soviet Union article... john 08:44, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The economy of the Soviet Union article needs a total rewrite. It's a cut-and-past grab-bag from the Soviet history series. Now that you reminded me of the existence of this article, I'll restore the one sentence economic overview found on the article yesterday and move the new content to the Economy of the Soviet Union. I'll get around to writing a more detailed overview, so this is just a stopgap measure. 172 08:53, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I know we are not supposed to use copyrighted information, but I think that the US country studies qualify as valid sources because they are in the public domain. The article on the USSR has a wealth of information on the economy and culture of the country. I think that mention of the culture and outlook of the citizens is a very lacking topic in this article.

You probably didn't read it yourself, otherwise you'd have noticed that nearly all wikipedia's History of Russia is based on it. Mikkalai 20:32, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Soviet Union was before Russia a permanent member of UN's Security Counsil (or what it is, the one including USA, Great Britain, France, China, and nowadays Russia). Why there is nothing information about it in the article (I tried to add, but someone removed it.)

Also, Soviet Union was a member of League of Nations but were expulsed in 1939 because of attacking to Finland.

see pages: http://www.letton.ch/lvx_GB.htm

and this (League of Nations Expulsion of the USSR, December 14, 1939) http://www.letton.ch/lvx_39sdn.htm

Kahkonen 6 May 2004

I have reinserted this info and added some more, at new section 'Foreign Affairs' Erik Zachte 12:07, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Please follow the template. This page, along with others like it, serves more as a directory than as a comprehensive chronicle of information. For example, there is no section on foreign affairs in the United States (but this can be found in the related daughter articles of this page); nor is there a section on foreign affairs for East Germany, another defunct former Communist country. The function of pages based on this template is to enable people to find pages relevant to specific inquiries. 172 17:41, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

The template need not be followed so closely if there is a good reason to deviate from it. For example, a "foreign relations" section exists at People's Republic of China. We still need to develop Wikipedia:WikiProject Historical States for widespread use. --Jiang 20:15, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
By the way, is there an prominent notice that this page follows a template. How is one supposed to know that, without scanning the whole discussion page. Did I miss something? Erik Zachte 22:06, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Having the table and these standard template sections should be the cue. As stated before, we really need a better template for defunct states. We should flag the top of this discussion page with a notice that this is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Historical States. --Jiang 00:41, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Before we remake templates, does such an article on the foreign relations of the Soviet Union even exist yet? I'd rather not see one created right away either. Right now, the only daughters articles of Soviet Union that are anywhere close to being finished are the ones on history and the economy, and even they need significant work. 172 01:08, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

An in-depth article does not exist and I don't see any plans to create one. Since there is nowhere else to discuss the foreign relations of the USSR, this page must accomodate that section. I don't see why you're deleting it. --Jiang 01:58, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Actually, if no one plans to write about it, some of the text at http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/sutoc.html can be dumped into Foreign relations of the Soviet Union. --Jiang 02:03, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
I'm also removing it because it's a poor overview for a page such as this one. It's bringing a couple of anecdotes without giving a very broad view of the Soviet Union's relations with the outside world. Right now, this is being better served by the history section. 172 06:44, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
I thought that one idea of Wikipedia is that someone adds information and someone other expands it. Or should one first write a very big essay about it and only then add it to wikipage? Kahkonen 7 May 2004

172, I looked at your userpage. You make a habit out of this. I suppose you got desensitized to people calling you rude, or maybe you get some joy out of it. I also noticed you are a serious and valued contributor at the same time. Let me try to explain what I don't like about the way you handled this so far: Your first revert was without any commment on this page. You did comment on the second revert, stating that there were guidelines for this page that should be followed. As I said before, how is one supposed to know? But more important: even if they are good guidelines, I won't go into that, you don't just delete perfectly sensible info, you might possibly move it to another place. You objected to that in your second comment, because some other article needed more work first. Hey wake up, this is Wikipedia. If you object to other people contributing to this encyclopedia because it does not fit into your grand scheme, go write a book. Erik Zachte 12:08, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

What's my grand scheme? Why can't you take constructive criticism? I assume that you mean well, but how is this a sufficiently broad overview for such a page? 172 20:58, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
If this is your opinion, please make the 'overview' better. Kahkonen 11:30, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
Supporting Erik Zachte. Deleting information - like 172 did - only drives wikipedist away and whole idea of that great Free Encyclopedia falls. Kahkonen 7 May 2004
Quit taking this personally, alright. I was merely saying that this wasn't following the template, that's it. 172 11:45, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

172 "Why can't you take constructive criticism?" Who says? Anyway, since you didn't revert again, I am prepared to meet you halfway. I moved the 'anecdote' (which IMO is really an understatement) to a new subsection 'Korean War' in History_of_the_Soviet_Union_(1927-1953), as part of the 'Cold War' section. I hope you understand that this discussion was not really about how the SU article should be organized, but about how to deal with honest contributions of others, especially newcomers. IMO reverting should be limited to nonsensical and Troll actions. Since you are an experienced contributor, even a sysop, I would except you to show more restraint. Erik Zachte 12:09, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, I should be off the hook now. I worked this fact into a more complete overview of Soviet foreign relations. 172 21:35, 23 May 2004 (UTC)