Talk:Republics of the Soviet Union

Soviet Union Top‑importance

	Soviet Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Socialism High‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Russia: History / Human geography High‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the human geography of Russia task force.

Karelo-Finnish SSR

I found a source saying a republic i ahve never heard of. I think it must have joined another republic later on as i ahve only seen one source for thsi 16th repuiblic: Karelo-Finnish S.S.R.

http://www.russiannewsnetwork.com/soviet1.html <- source

I found several references to this, but named Karelo-Finnish A.S.S.R. I remember A standig for autonomous. As far as I learned during schooltime these ASSR's were parts of SSR's having some special status for preserving ethnic minorities. (I'm not sure though. Obviously, this is more than 13 years ago.) -- JeLuF

hmm well i'll jsut ignore thsi one for now. Teh ones mentioned are the ones taht i always see mentioned. - fonzy

It was incorporated as ASSR into Russian SFSR in 1956. See Karelo-Finnish SSR for more detail. Andris 10:31, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

Kalmykia

Removed Kalmykia from the list. As you can read in the article on Kalmykia it was an ASSR, part of Russia, but not an SSR. See for reference also: http://www.fotw.net/flags/su-_list.html -- JeLuF

Slovakia

Wasnt there briefly a Slovak and/or Czechoslovak Soviet Socialist Repbulic?

Yes there was (called CSSR), but it had nothing to do with USSR and so it doesn't belong to this article.—Kami888

CSSR stands for Czechoslovak Socialist Republic; there never was a "Soviet" Czechoslovakia. Kpalion 16:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolia

wasn't Mongolia a part of de U.S.S.R???—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.212.121.204 (talk • contribs) .

No, it was not.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 18:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History, See Also

I came here in hopes of reading about the Bolshevik Revolution, Lenin's new economy, Trotsky, Stalin acsent to power, the Gulag, the farming collectives etc... I was deeply disappointed This article is far from complete. I realise that there allready is an article about the bolshevic revolution and one on russian history. There should atleast be a see also reference to these two. I will be working on this article in the next few weeks to make it complete.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaanatakan (talk • contribs) .

You are more than welcome to make whatever additions you feel will improve this article.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 00:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abkhazia

Wasn't Abkhazia a seperate Soviet republic until 1931? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.157.44.34 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Not really. There was an ostensibly independent Abkhazian SSR from 31 March 1921 until 16 December 1921, which was not part of the USSR. In December 1921 it was incorporated into Georgia under a "special union-treaty", which was ratified in February 1922. Officially, this established Abkhazia and Georgia as equal partners in a Soviet Republic, and lasted until the creation of the TSFSR and USSR later that year. In 1931, Abkhazia was demoted to an autonomous republic within the Georgian SSR, but wasn't itself a Union Republic before. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Contrib 22:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tuva

Tuvinian People's Republic was not a part od the USSR until 1944, yet the picture provided doesn't reveal that fact

Just a naming trivia

Sorry, just a personal trivia (maybe you should add it on the article, if you think): people born in Soviet Republics had their names written (I mean, on the passports or ID cards) in Russian cyrillic or native languages (like Azerbaijani, Ukrainian...)? or maybe both? or maybe...it depends from republic to republic?

Russian, it was all done in Russian, the native languages where strongly not encouraged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.154.19.180 (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why...

...was the evolution map changed to show the Uzbek SSR and Turkmen SSR outside of the Soviet Union's borders? Moscow never considered them to be. See here for a map of Soviet Central Asia from 1922. -- Clevelander 02:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in fact they were outside the Soviet Union until 1925. The map you've shown isn't correct.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5246/Soviet.html

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/su-kh.html

Stalin himself said: "Bukhara and Khorezm, not being Socialist, but only People's Soviet Republics, may, perhaps, remain outside of the union until their natural development converts them into Socialist Republics"

Look it up, they really were not part of USSR. I won't reverse changes now, I hope you do it yourself.

Besides that, your map is wrong cause it has Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Armenia as separate republics in 1929, while they were part of TSFSR until 1936.

I looked it up. Of course they didn't consider themselves part of the USSR but they were internationally as well as by Moscow. My map comes from a credible source too.

I will fix the detail on the TSFSR though. -- Clevelander 16:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to talk about international recognition, then some countries didn't recognize the Soviet Union until well into 1930s, so what? Bukhara and Khorzem were not part of USSR, as a matter of fact, and Moscow recognized their independence until 1925. I also added another source just for confirmation. And a quote: "Bolshevik Russia hesitated to acknowledge the formation of a new state, but eventually signed an agreement with it on 13 September 1920. In this agreement, Russia acknowledged the independence of the Khorezm Peoples Republic. Military, political, and economic agreements, which were concluded at that time, promised aid to the Khorezm Republic from Bolshevik Russia."

Well, now I'm convinced. The borders shall be changed. -- Clevelander 16:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) also another source just in case you are still having doubts - http://www.progetto-uzbekistan.it/english/storia.HTM

Abkhazia

You can not use biased sources of well known separatist agitators like Chirikba (1992 he called for “digging the graves for all Georgians”) and Lakoba (who is participating in Separatist elections this February). Also the web site about “flags” is not reliable source or has any credentials to support such bold and highly disputed statement. When using sources for such statements which involve controversy and confrontation as well as historical accuracy, its wise and more productive to use neutral sources from either scholars or primary sources in historic documents. Please remove the sources by the radicals of separatist ideology and consult more neutral sources which will somehow give us assurance that the claim is reasonable. Thanks a lot. Ldingley 16:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link to this EU sponsored webpage:

http://www.rrc.ge/admn/url12subpirx.php?idstruc=57&idcat=2&lng_3=en

But I am interested in seeing sources that dispute the existence of the Abkhazian SSR (no irony, I really am). sephia karta 15:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may especially find useful these documents by the Georgian SSR resp. on the recognition of the independence of the Abkhazian SSR in 1921 and on the inclusion of the Abkhazian SSR as the Abkhazian ASSR in 1931:

http://www.rrc.ge/admn/url12subpirx.php?idstruc=48&idcat=1&lng_3=en

http://www.rrc.ge/admn/url12subpirx.php?idstruc=52&idcat=1&lng_3=en

sephia karta 16:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Mountain Republic

What about the Soviet Mountain Republic and other short-lived republics. They should also be mentioned in this article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.149.205.42 (talk • contribs).

Soviet Mountain Republic was never a republic of the USSR; it was an autonomous republic within the Russian SFSR.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then shouldn't it be called Soviet Mountain Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.149.205.42 (talk) 07:40:09, August 2, 2007 (UTC)

"Mountain Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic", actually (without the first "Soviet"). "Soviet Mountain Republic", however, is for some reason the name that's most commonly used in the English academic works. I'll make some adjustments. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That's why I was a bit confused because it was called a republic when in fact it was an autonomous republic within the federated Russian republic. Thanks for the addition to the SMR article. 24.149.197.132

NPOV

there is a conflicting perspective regarding the Baltic states, the alternative POV says the states were occupied by USSR until 1991, the status of the Soviet Republics was never recognized de jure by the Western democracies. Therefore the title is a POV by itself. Any suggestions welcome to make the article in compliance with WP:NPOV policies. Thanks!--Termer 00:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. All of them were socialist republics ; had their own Communist parties this is some kind of a joke or fantasy it seems. The USSR was a totalitarian unitarian state, the "republics" and "own Communist parties" existed only on paper and were administrative regions at best. This article misleads the reader big time I'm sorry to say! something needs to be done about it ASAP.--Termer 00:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The map illustrating the article says it all "Soviet Union Administrative Divisions", that's what the article should be called as well and then the content should be adjusted accordingly. The folklore part All of them were socialist republics etc. needs to go into the "histories garbage bin" -(a term from Soviet histography) --Termer 15:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Had their own communist parties is patently erraneous: Russi had no special section of KP SS 88.196.10.209 10:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. In what way is Republics of the Soviet Union not a descriptive title? sephia karta 15:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taken as descriptive, it would imply these administrative units were Republics. This is non-factual; therefore it's not descriptive. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 16:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For Wikipedia purposes, "factual" means "backed up by sources". The thread you yourself are backing says that the "republic existed only on paper", hence the sources exist, ergo the statement is factual and the title is descriptive. Furthermore, the map's caption ("Soviet Union administrative divisions") is factually incorrect as the republics were constituent members of the Union, and not its administrative divisions (oblasts, krais, autonomous okrugs, and ASSRs were top-level administrative divisions of the Soviet Republics).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

constituent members? The constitution of the USSR was a fictional literature that had nothing to do with the facts of life. And not to worry, the article is going to be rewritten according to sources that can be taken seriously to end up this fantasy piece on WP --Termer 21:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That the Constitution of the USSR defined the entities as "Soviet Republics" is a sourceable fact. That numerous academic sources referred to the entities as "Republics" is a sourceable fact. That the Constitution of the USSR was filled with lies and (pardon the pun) constituted a piece of "fictional literature" is an opinion, and a rather biased at that. Before attempting any re-write, I strongly urge you to review (and apply in practice) the WP:SOURCES, WP:RS, and, above all, the WP:NPOV policies of Wikipedia. There is room in the article for any opinions that can be backed up with good sources, but one must make sure not to give any of those opinions any undue prominence. If opinions can't be sourced, stick with the facts, and remember that Wikipedia is not about truth, it's about verifiability.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?). I consider this article very low priority that's why I take my time until the current fairy tale is going to be rewritten according to the facts. And I'm sorry to point out that I really can't take seriously opinions like the soviet constitution was anything more than a fiction on paper. If it's biased? no, its a fact! It was a fictional constitution that in the reality was a totalitarian regime ruled not by law. --Termer 01:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Termer! I still think you should thoroughly read the policies and guidelines mentioned above. I, in turn, should point out that for the purposes of writing a Wikipedia article, it matters very little what you, me, or any other editor personally thinks about the topic at hand. What matters is facts, facts, and more facts. That the Constitution of the USSR was a "fictional" document is an opinion (and so, of course, would be the opposite statement that this Constitution was, say, "true to life"). Facts would include the assertion that the Soviet Constitution proclaimed the Republics to be socialist entities, each having certain rights. A statement that, for example, such and such source described the Constitution as a fictional document full of lies, and that this statement is supported by such and such organizations based on such and such evidence would also be a fact. In other words, when in describing the subject one ventures outside the realm of facts into the realm of opinions, one must convert said opinions to facts by extensively sourcing them, remembering that exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and never basing the articles on personal experience or viewpoints (which is exactly what makes articles biased). To achieve NPOV, one should make an effort to shed light on all existing opinions that can be sourced in accordance with WP:SOURCE and WP:RS, without giving any of those opinions undue prominence by presenting them in a more favorable light. We are not here to promote opinions or raise awareness, we are here to describe and reference facts. I hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point Ëzhiki, the article should be factual based on sources not like the current fairy tale that doesn't ref to any source and is based on someones opinion. The socialist republic being the statement that is the most misleading--Termer 13:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's one statement that's easily sourced by the Constitution (yes, I know, currently it is not sourced at all, which will need to be fixed). Any alternate viewpoints should equally be sourced. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is cool other than, I'm sorry to point out: the Soviet Constitution can't be looked at as a reliable source by itself.--Termer 14:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am no big fan of the Soviet Constitution myself, but as per WP:RS, it is a reliable source and hence should be treated as such. It is, of course, by no means the only reliable source that can be used for this article.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Ëzhiki that's exactly what I meant, per WP:RS the Soviet Constitution can't be considered a reliable source by itself because it's not factual or trustworthy. It should be common knowledge that the Soviet Constitution had very little to do with the facts of reality.--Termer 15:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Termer, for Wikipedia puproses a "reliable" source is not one that contains truth (whether it does or not is itself a matter of opinion, which you are free to express privately, but not base whole articles on it), it is the one that is verifiable. A reliable source is one "that can be regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" (as per WP:RS). Whatever your personal view of the matter is, you can't deny that the Soviet Constitution did deal with the subject at hand and that it is a trustworthy and an authoritative source as far as the Soviet viewpoint is concerned. You may not like that viewpoint or you may want to challenge it, but you cannot challenge the fact that the Constitution is a good source suitable to illustrate this particular opinion. If you are planning to add alternative opinions (which is the right thing to do in order to achieve the NPOV), you will need to find other reliable sources supporting that alternative point of view. I hope I am not confusing you to death with all this, but understanding how NPOV works is vital if we are to produce balanced articles instead of propaganda sheets where cliques of editors revert-war between two poorly-sourced pieces of prose reflecting opposite opinions. This article very much needs improvement, but replacing one POV with another would not be an improvement at all. What's more, an opinion (in this case your statement that the Soviet Constitution is not factual or trustworthy) can never be declared "common knowledge", only facts can. No opinion can ever be a fact, only a sourced statement of an opinion can be (i.e., that someone holds a particular opinion is a fact, providing that this statement can be sourced, but the opinion itself is not a fact).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ëzhiki thats all cool! there is no need to explain me that! And I've never suggested to replace a POV with another. I'm suggesting to rewrite the article according to WP:NPOV. For example: All of them were socialist republics is very misleading etc. thanks--Termer 17:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great then :) All of them were socialist republics, however, is not at all misleading as long as one adds according to the Constitution of the USSR. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if one would also mention the occupations? Would you agree that "... all of them, including the occupied territories, were SSRs according to the Constitution" is NPOV? Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 19:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"According to Constitution" is not NPOV by itself, nor does it make the statement it references NPOV; it is merely an attribution for/verification of one of the viewpoints. NPOV can only be achieved when all prominent viewpoints on the subject are presented and sourced. The statement you supplied above is incredibly biased in that it does not attribute the term "occupied territories" to anything but merely voices an opinion of the author (you). That "the Republics were SSRs according to the Constitution" is a well-referenced statement; that the "Republics included occupied territories" is not. NPOV would be saying that the "Republics were SSRs <according to the Soviet Constitution>; however, according to <reliable source> some of them were considered occupied territories<where? by whom?>". This way both viewpoints would be fairly presented and well-sourced; as for the final conclusion, it would be drawn by readers, not imposed by Wikipedia editors. Our job is to present and describe facts and existing points of view, not to push opinions on readers or to present opinions as facts.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good once after according to the Constitution of the USSR comes a sourced and refd citation that explains what the Constitution of the USSR was all about in reality.--Termer 17:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that kind of explanation would belong in the Constitution of the Soviet Union article, not here. This is an article about the Republics, not about the Constitution.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats your opinion I don't share.--Termer 20:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not just my opinion, that's a good practice which keeps focus on the subject being discussed, not jumps from one related topic to another, thus confusing readers. Facts and sourced opinions about republics should be in the article about the republics, facts and sourced opinions about the Constitution should be in the article about the Constitution, and facts and sourced opinions about the Soviet Union itself should be in the article about the Soviet Union. If you need to cross-reference topics, that's what they invented hyperlinks for :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nice try! thats called keeping the focus on the POV, not on the subject, that's exactly why the neutrality of this article is disputed. The NPOV policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly.--Termer 21:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Within a topic—my point exactly! "Constitution of the USSR" is not within the topic of "Republics of the USSR"; it is a related subject that has its own article.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you want to put it that way, I have no problem with for example - the Baltic Socialist Republics were Republics of the Soviet Union according to the Constitution of the USSR. At the same time: according to the European court of human rights, the USA, the EU, the Soviet Baltic Republics were just occupied countries/states by the USSR. And of course it should not be forgotten that according to the Soviet Constitution article 15 the sovereignty of each Union republic was limited and that the USSR safeguarded the sovereign rights of the Union republics that during the era of Stalin were virtually non-existent. (The Government and Politics of the Soviet Union By Leonard Bertram Schapiro)[1]--Termer 22:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS."Constitution of the USSR" is not within the topic of "Republics of the USSR" is still just an opinion. Of course I'm not saying that the article here needs an in depth coverage of the constitution like the main article could...--Termer 23:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find the structure and spirit of your example above perfectly acceptable and NPOV-compliant. As for the Constitution, I also see nothing wrong in providing a brief (one or two sentences) overview of its aspects directly related with the topic at hand. A more in-depth criticism of the Constitution, occupation, and Soviet Union in general should go to the corresponding articles; otherwise the flow and the logic of the article would be compromised. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats it then. I'll get to work and rewrite the header ASAP. Thanks!--Termer 00:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So...in what sense is the title POV, or in other words, what would you propose? Regards, Bogdan 02:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's all up here what it was all about and a consensus has been reached, sorry for not getting to the article just yet. But I'll remove/replace the tag for now and rewrite the article according to the agreement ASAP. It's a very low priority I think, therefore I'm going to take my time with this. Thanks! --Termer 07:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to all of the Coats of arms of the republics. They have changed. Yeltsinfan (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Federative?

Why was the Russian SFSR refered to as such? What made it "federative," and why weren't any of the other republics considered federative? 98.221.133.96 (talk) 13:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian Republic was declared to be a "federation of the Soviet national republics" (a "free union of free nations") in January 1918. This declaration later became a part of the Constitution of the RSFSR, and the country was considered to be federative from then on. Does this help?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russian SFSR like Russian Federation nowadays consist of a number of nominally autonomous republics that are formed according to major territories inhabited by the indigenous peoples of Russia.(for ex Mari ASSR/Mari El, Tatar ASSR/Tatarstan etc.) Unlike the Native Sovereign Nations within the United States have sovereign immunity with their own laws, codes, etc. and are not federal subjects of the US, the autonomous republics were/are direct federal subjects of Russia, that was one of the republics of USSR by itself.

"The other" republics of the Soviet Union did not have major federal or autonomous subjects within their territories, that's why they were not called federal or "federative"--Termer (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Autonomous republics of the Soviet Union, four "other" republics did have ASSRs, why wouldn't these republics be considered federative as well? I think the article should clarify what is meant by being federative. 98.221.133.96 (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having 1 or 2 autonomous republics within some other Soviet Republics doesn't necessarily make them federations or it was chosen not to name these as such. And explaining here what exactly Federation means would not be exactly necessary either since the term has it's own article on WP.--Termer (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not so much what federation means, but why the other republics weren't federative in contrast to the Russian SFSR, since some of them did have a federative quality in containing ASSRs within their borders. I guess they weren't named as such, that's why only Russia got the "F" in SFSR. 98.221.133.96 (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that's precisely the point I tried to convey in my original response and Termer continued to develop. None of other SSRs were ever declared to be federative.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

according to the Article 76 of the 1977 Soviet Constitution?

Well, the Soviet Constitution is not a WP:RS exactly, so the subject needs to be redefined right from the beginning according to reliable, third-party, published sources. I'll see what I can do, meanwhile anybody feel free to help out. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 02:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't we been through this already (just two sections above this one)? The Constitution paragraph shows the official Soviet view, while the following paragraph shows an alternative view. What seems to be the problem, again?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:19, June 9, 2009 (UTC)

the official Soviet view may be added to any articles according to WP:YESPOV. Wikipedia articles however, should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources. And there is no problem, currently the book by Hough, Jerry F (1997) [2] defines the subject rather well.--Termer (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I missed that edit. Carry on :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:00, June 9, 2009 (UTC)

Successor?

noticed another thing in the article. The table in the article claims that Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania were successors of the ESSR, LSSR. This is factually incorrect. Please see for example 'Estonia By David James Smith, p. 20': ...longer established states simply restored pre-war diplomatic links rather than recognising a new, post soviet 'Thirrd Republic' as a successor to the ESSR founded in 1940. So either Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania should be removed from the Successor lists or "Successor" section should be renamed to something that is in sync with sources out there. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 04:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Baltics (again)

Can't we just say in the intro something along the lines of

that the people of Lith/Lat/Est consider the Soviet presence an occupation and that
the Russians (et al) considered the Soviet presence a legitimate takeover

without claiming the "correctness" of the two sides. A Russian is keenly aware of the common Estonian viewpoint and vice versa, and the fact that there are two very loud differing POVs is not obscure enough as to warrant justification with sources. It is like citing that the India and Pakistan have differences over Kashmir. The only reason why certain US-based editors feel the need to cite sources on the issue is because the USA took a political stand.

This, along with certain Westerners' ignorance of the Great Patriotic War/WWII difference shows a profound misunderstanding of the way things occur in the area of the former Soviet Union. 118.90.6.70 (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the article and it's sources. Not 'Lith/Lat/Est consider the Soviet presence an occupation' but so do the European Court of Human Rights[3], the United Nations Human Rights Council [4],[6] the United States,[7] and the European Union,[8]. and The Russian government and state officials, however, maintain that the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states was legitimate. Is there anything that's not clear enough about those facts?--Termer (talk) 02:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did read the sources and I do have problems. [5] and [6] are great examples of my initial objection, but can be used to show the differing viewpoints. [8] merely represents the opinion of the legislators at the time the motion was passed, and the resolution was pushed by those who have a POV. [3] is coloured by Baltic membership of the EU (amongst other things). [7] (BTW broken link but PDF copy here) doesn't even pretend to be neutral on the issue. [4] doesn't load (for me) at all :D It is obvious that they all reflect POVs, and using the organization's name to turn the opinion into a fact is not a good thing.

My intention was to put across the idea that it is clear that there are two opposing opinions. Both sides of course claim that their pov is the truth.

The main problem I have is that it attempts to make a statement of the "truth" (sorry, I couldn't find a suitable word) of the situation, and in that sense takes a stand on the aforementioned differences of opinion. The attempt at making a statement of the truth is shown by the words in the two sentences: "According to..." vs "[The Russians] maintain...".

I suggest that the intro of that paragraph is a sentence describing the two povs, then the next two sentences describing the two viewpoints, for example,

The legitimacy of the Soviet presence 1940–1991 is a topic which is contested between Lith/Lat/Est and Russia. [Sentence describing how Lith/Lat/Est consider it to be an unlawful occupation.] [Another sentence describing how Russia considers it to be a legitimate takeover.]

(IMO the article Political status of Taiwan is particularly well written.) 118.90.6.70 (talk) 06:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All those questions have been already addressed in my response above. Please do not return to make the same points over again. The only thing needing a comment perhaps, there is no hint of any statement of the "truth" anywhere. The text clearly says "according to"...--Termer (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing statement

Can anybody please rework and clarify the following statement found beneath the Soviet republics table:

due to the international justice an independent state, not belonged to the Soviet Union, which however had a status of the Soviet republic formally during the Soviet occupation

Thank you. Pristino (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Republic Numbers

The republics are numbered 1 to 15 on the table that includes population. What does the number refer to? Bevo74 (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be the order in which they gained independence. Unmake (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Transnistria

Should it be included as a successor to the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic alongside Moldova? It is a de facto sovereign state. [Soffredo] 08:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Republics of the Soviet Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070929120952/http://newsfromrussia.com/cis/2005/05/03/59549.html to http://newsfromrussia.com/cis/2005/05/03/59549.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]