Jump to content

Talk:Post-Soviet states

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 October 2018 and 21 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cklaus1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Environment

[edit]

I plan on drafting a section on the post-Soviet environment, and this is my preliminary bibliography. Please suggest additional sources or let me know if there are any problems with the following:

1. Mirovitskaya, Natalia; Soroos, Marvin S. (1995-01). "Socialism and the Tragedy of the Commons: Reflections on Environmental Practice in the Soviet Union and Russia". The Journal of Environment & Development. 4 (1): 77–110. doi:10.1177/107049659500400105. ISSN 1070-4965.

2. Henry, Laura A.; Douhovnikoff, Vladimir (2008-11). "Environmental Issues in Russia". Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 33 (1): 437–460. doi:10.1146/annurev.environ.33.051007.082437. ISSN 1543-5938.

3. "https://rsa.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10605851.1994.10640951#.W9J535NKg2w". doi:10.1080/10605851.1994.10640951#.w9j535nkg2w.

4. "https://rsa.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10889388.1999.10641120#.W_DSEehKg2x". doi:10.1080/10889388.1999.10641120#.w_dseehkg2x.

5. "https://rsa.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10605851.1995.10640994#.W9J5J5NKg2w". doi:10.1080/10605851.1995.10640994#.w9j5j5nkg2w.

6. Smith, David R. (1995-06). "Environmental Security and Shared Water Resources in Post-Soviet Central Asia". Post-Soviet Geography. 36 (6): 351–370. doi:10.1080/10605851.1995.10640997. ISSN 1060-5851. Check date values in: |date= (help)

7. Thomas, Valerie M.; Orlova, Anna O. (2001). "Soviet and Post-Soviet Environmental Management: Lessons from a Case Study on Lead Pollution". Ambio. 30 (2): 104–111.

8. Coumel, Laurent; Elie, Marc (2013-01-01). "A Belated and Tragic Ecological Revolution: Nature, Disasters, and Green Activists in the Soviet Union and the Post-Soviet States, 1960s-2010s*". The Soviet and Post-Soviet Review. 40 (2): 157–165. doi:10.1163/18763324-04002005. ISSN 1876-3324.

9. "https://rsa.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09644016.2010.508300#.W_DS5OhKg2x". doi:10.1080/09644016.2010.508300#.w_ds5ohkg2x. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cklaus1 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the section about Baltic states enviroment is seriously out of date: it relays on one source from 1993.Kyng (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finland?

[edit]

From the Russian perspective, isn't Finland also a post-Soviet state?--76.185.174.187 (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finland was never part of the Soviet Union and remained independent since before creation of USSR. Mellk (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe view

[edit]

This article has several mistakes in it. Estonia's and Latvia's declaration of independence days are wrong, they did so only after the August coup started, i.e. not in 1990. I'll check sources and fix it.

However, what I first wanted to do was to remove a fringe view by an author who has zero competence in post-Soviet economic/social development issues.

"Commenting on Milanović's report in 2021, Kristen Ghodsee and Mitchell A. Orenstein state that the suffering associated with the transition to capitalism "had produced few results for 90 percent of the former socialist population."

According to the bio of Kristen Ghodsee is "primarily known for her ethnographic work on post-Communist Bulgaria [...] She was critical of the role of Western feminist nongovernmental organizations doing work among East European women in the 1990s. She examined the shifting gender relations of Muslim minorities after Communist rule, and the intersections of Islamic beliefs and practices with the ideological remains of Marxism–Leninism."

Sorry, but an ethnographer/women's studies specialist is not an expert in economic matters. Her statement is nonsensical. This can easily be measured by HDI trajectory, GDP growth trajectory etc. That's how economists/sociologists actually work. They don't make unbased outlandish statements like the one inserted into the article. Of course the majority of ex-Soviet population are better off now. Knižnik (talk) 04:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is an example on a serious study on changing quality of life in Romania since World War II to its current situation. Nice graphs offered, covering meat consumption, housing etc. etc.Knižnik (talk) 04:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Similar sources could be found for post-Soviet states.Knižnik (talk) 04:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems common for some here who don't like certain points of view to scream "fringe!" in order to discredit a source they disagree with. In this case it falls flat because this is not some radical blog or The Grayzone, but a serious academic work published by Oxford University Press, one of the oldest and most prestigious of academic publishers, by TWO anthropologists and political scientists, Kristen Ghodsee and Mitchell Orenstein. Both focus their research on Post-Soviet Eastern Europe, with Orenstein in particular focusing on "the political economy of transition in Central and Eastern Europe, the role of ideas in economic policy reform, and Russia’s hybrid war on the West. Among his many published works are four prize-winning books on political economy and international affairs." For some reason the editor above neglected to mention the credentials of the other author. Not that Ghodsee alone isn't qualified to write on such matters. Quite the opposite, as anyone who researches this scholar can plainly see.
Regarding the material cited from the book, it was added in order to complement the material from Branko Milanović's 2015 piece which was already included in that section. In fact, the quote from the OUP book which appears to be the point of contention here (that the transition to capitalism "had produced few results for 90 percent of the former socialist population.") comes directly from this study by Branko Milanović, who stated that "only 1 out of 10 people living in “transition” countries have seen a successful transition to capitalism and more democracy." As you can see, this is not "her statement", as the above editor incorrectly asserts, and there is nothing fringe about it; it was added to complement and corroborate the source from Milanović. I'm going to restore this material in a few days unless others raise objections, because it seems to me that the above editor is purely politically motivated in removing it. If this continues to be an issue, I will take it to the WP:RSN.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion that "transition to capitalism "had produced few results for 90 percent of the former socialist population."" is definitely a fringe view. It is not shared by the vast majority of economists. And also, what do these authors base their outlandish conclusion on? Which data? HDI in succesful post-Soviet states like Estonia and Lithuania is almost at par with Italy and (in Estonia's case) higher than in Greece. What about meat consumption? The vast majority of the ex-Soviet population can allow more meat than in Soviet times (shortages of meat producst were a chronic problem in the USSR that made people angry). Even the worst performer - Ukraine - had in 2021 a GDP per capita higher than Ukrainian SSR in 1991. Anyway, this is just me pointing at data that contradict the outlandish claim. The bottom line is you've picked a random book which states absurd and unsabstantiated claims that are not shared by specialist authors.Knižnik (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this was the view put forth by economist Branko Milanović himself in 2015, which was complemented by this study published in 2021. In other words, this is not just the baseless opinion of Kristen Ghodsee and Mitchel Orenstein. I will be more than happy to take this to RSN, and I'm pretty sure the source will be judged as reliable given the publisher is OUP and that both authors are academics and specialists in the field of post-Communist studies. The material in question is also WP:DUE by my estimation, as it is attributed to the authors (so as not to be in Wikipedia's voice) and directly references the preceding work by Milanović in that specific paragraph. C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can take it to wherever you want: Hans-Hermann Hoppe is also a scholar, but we don't normally use his books, because his "research" is WP:FRINGE. The particular statement you are defending is also fringe, outlandish and WP:UNDUE. Now, Branko Milanović is a specialist source, but regrettably his research that someone has cited in this article: "According to economist Branko Milanović in 2015, many former Soviet Republics and Warsaw Pact countries still have not caught up to their levels of output during the twilight of the Soviet era, including Bosnia-Herzegovina, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Serbia, Tajikistan, and Ukraine." is contradicted by data in this very article: according to the World Bank-sourced table, many of the countries he lists actually had surpassed Soviet era GDP. Knižnik (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over the passage again I have decided to rewrite the material in a more balanced fashion to attribute the contested statement to Milanović himself and then flushed out the opinions of Ghodsee and Orenstein on Milanović's piece, who have somewhat diverging views. I hope this is satisfactory.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Error in table 6.1.2 Former self-declared states

[edit]

Region listed in table 6.1.2 as Central Asia of former self declared country Tatarstan (Republic of Tatarstan) and color coded green, differently from rest Eastern Europe color coded yellow, but Tatar ASSR then part of the Russian SFSR of the Soviet Union was located in Eastern Europe and nowadays Tatarstan (Republic of Tatarstan) as part of the Volga Federal District southeastern part of European Russia and Eastern Europe

EgorovaSvetlana (talk) 19:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Country comparison cruft

[edit]

There are very good reasons to remove these tables. First of all it's cruft, with its emblems and random selection of data. Second, it gets top billing for no reason whatsoever; one would expect such an article to start with the dissolution of the Soviet empire.

But such sections, often called "Country comparison", have not met with consensus anywhere, as far as I know--rather, seasoned editors have removed them consistently. See, for instance, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_International_relations/Archive_6#Country_comparison_sections. In fact, there is an RfC for it here, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_International_relations#Rfc_on_Country_Comparison_charts/tables, and certainly no consensus on inclusion: it leans the other way. User:Nederlandse Leeuw compiled a lot of the relevant data at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of the Baltic states, and they may have something to say on the topic. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but these comparisons aren't explicitly banned by any existing policy. As such, they should be justified on a case-by-case basis. I'll let others chime in. In the meantime, refrain from reinstating your preferred version until a consensus is reached. Archives908 (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems the Rfc discussion itself is on-going, and certainly no final and outright decision has been made for a total removal of these comparisons. Archives908 (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the Rfc is focused on bilateral relations articles. This article is not a bilateral relations article. Archives908 (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a distinction without a difference. In the meantime, this article looks like a picture book. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion is not policy. Archives908 (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies I think @Archives908 is right that it would be a good idea to wait for the outcome of the RfC. I don't think it's a good idea to single-handedly start removing comparison tables from random articles beforehand, especially articles that nobody in the RfC has mentioned yet, let alone WP:EWing over it.
Nor do I think it's a good idea to mention this article in the RfC after you have edit-warred over it with Archives908. I don't appreciate it when people needlessly create a dispute with another editor, and then make that part of a theoretical discussion in order to receive support for one's own side in the dispute. I will not support you in this practical dispute between you and Archives908 just because I theoretically agree with you in general that country comparison tables are generally not useful, particularly in bilateral relations, or between arguably somewhat random sets of countries.
It's a bit more complicated with the post-Soviet states, because a little over 3 decades ago, they were one single country, so a comparison table is arguably a bit less random in this case. Whether these comparison tables should still nevertheless be removed anyway, even in this particular case, is something to be decided in the RfC, or after it. Not during it. Let's not get ahead of ourselves, and avoid any needless edit-warring ever. It has never solved anything. Patience, my friend. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nederlandse Leeuw, this isn't a random article, nor was my edit part of some eradication program. Look at the article in its current state: it's awful. The user could have considered moving that god-awful comparison down the page, or making it less trivial. But you are entitled to your opinion. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So are you. You're not entitled to WP:EW. And I stand by my comments of what I consider to have been unhelpful or inappropriate actions. I think we should await the outcome of the RfC. Patience rather than rushing. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind: I see how Archives908 handles discussion, after their condescending edit summary. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies You have been warned about WP:EW. Archives908 just restored the previous version of the article before your edit-warring per WP:BRD. I think you should keep it WP:COOL, and be a bit more careful and diplomatic right now, and not question Archives908's good-faith edit. If you are bothered by the fact that you cannot get your way immediately (at least not until the RfC decides in your / our favour), I suggest you go do something else in the meantime. There is nothing for you to gain here by choosing this as your hill to die on. Please be patient, and allow the process of consensus-building at the RfC to continue. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Nederlandse Leeuw for your constructive input and rationale approach to this matter. It is appreciated!
Drmies, there was nothing condescending of my edit summary. Your edit was reverted by two different users and I restored the last stable version of the article. Per WP:BRD- you made a Bold edit, it was Reverted, and you should have sought Discussion. Furthermore, per WP:TPG, any content regarding an article should be discussed on the talk page of the respective article. My personal talk page is not an appropriate place to build WP:CON. I would've expected an editor- with 15 years of experience- to have known these basic tenants by now.
Back to the topic at hand, even if the Rfc result is in your favor, this article is not a bilateral relations article, nor can it be treated as such. The country comparison table merits inclusion in this article. These republics were part of the Soviet Union for a considerable part of time. This particular table, in my opinion, gives the reader a quick overview of relevant information about each of the 15 nation states since dissolution. However, I am not opposed to moving the table elsewhere in the article. For the time being, I see little valid reason for blanket deletion and support the status quo. Archives908 (talk) 00:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Archives908 on the policies and guidelines invoked, and the necessary but constructive feedback given to Drmies. While I do not (yet?) agree with Archives908 on whether the country comparison table should be included in this article, for procedural reasons I will accept the status quo for now. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Populations

[edit]

Not a real problem but the individual country populations don't add up to the area totals. For instance the Central Asia states add to 78,554,330 but the total given for Central Asia is 2,204,101 short of that. The total for the former Soviet Union seems to be 4 million short of the individual states total. 195.226.58.141 (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Post-Soviet_states&oldid=1219735818"