Talk:Historiography in the Soviet Union

See also Suppressed research in the Soviet Union

edit

This article doesn't inform which subjects were suppressed and which ones were invented by the party, eg. the anti-Katyn research.Xx236 (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

This article doesn't inform which historians were persecuted.Xx236 (talk) 09:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Further reading - obsolete

edit

Many texts listed under Further reading are obsolete. Texts published after 1986 are preferred.Xx236 (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Historiography in the Soviet Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Historiography in the Soviet Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

A Statement in the subsection "Reliability of statistical data"

edit

It is claimed that "The law of large numbers or the idea of random deviation were decried as "false theories"" in the subsection "Reliability of statistical data". However, since there were numerous statistics and probability theory books published in the Soviet Union during different time periods, it is impossible for this statement to be correct, as the law of large numbers, or random deviations are the core of a mathematical statistics or probability theory course. Indeed, one version of the law of large numbers is named after the Soviet mathematician Andrey Kolmogorov.

Needs far more discussion of specific Soviet historians and their works

edit

Would anyone accept an article on a Western historiographical school, however controversial or discredited, that made almost no mention of the specific texts and historians involved and which spent the vast majority of its wordcount polemicizing against the school? Should the Whig history article be pared down to include only Constitutional History of England? From this article you'd almost think that the Short Course was the only work of Soviet history that ever had any influence or impact. For all the talk about suppression of certain lines of research, this article itself contributes to the continuing suppression of detailed knowledge of Soviet intellectual life. When Robert Conquest is named more times in an article on a socialist historiographical tradition than any historian within that tradition, there is a huge problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.220.235.165 (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Do you have any specific suggestions? - Altenmann >talk 20:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply