Wikipedia

Talk:History of the Soviet Union/Archive 2

< Talk:History of the Soviet Union
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

I added much more content. Does anyone want to take a look?

I read a couple of sentences, saw the POV, and quit. Try again later 172. Susan Mason

What POV, Lir/Dietary Fiber/Susan/Vera/Adam?

Go ahead, if you think that there’s a bias, please find it and state it.

It would be interesting if you could prove your ability to do anything else other than slandering.

172

Blimey!! I'me impressed, As it happens I was just thinking that this article was a bit superficial and needed more content adding. G-Man

It was already shown that you deleted the holocaust from World War II. Im obviously not simply "slandering", you have quite the aversion to criticism. Things to Work on:

  • Romanov regime
  • The Kronstadt Revolt finally forced this
  • disaffected and disillusioned sailors
  • stalwart supporters of the Bolsheviks under the provisional government, *quickly crushed the Kronstadt Rebellion.
  • the tutelage of Lenin
  • quite autonomous.
  • the Party took constructive steps
  • Trotsky exploited the ?Scissors Crisis?
  • Stalin exploited the problems of the ?Scissors Crisis?
  • a fierce political battle took place

Susan Mason

Removed this rather clumsy rewrite of the opening paragragh

The Soviet Union was a large federated state stretching from eastern Europe to western Asia, which existed from 1922 to 1991. Its origins date back to the October Revolution of 1917, in which the later leaders of the Soviet Union overthrew the Provisional Government of Russia, (which itself had replaced the Romanovs ealier that year).

to the original:

The Soviet Union was a large federated state stretching from eastern Europe to western Asia, which existed from 1922 to 1991. Its origins however in reality dated back to the October Revolution of 1917, in which the later leaders of the Soviet Union overthrew the Provisional Government of Russia, which itself had replace the Romanov tsarist regime earlie in the year.

  • The rewrite said "its origins date back to . . . 1917." The original said "its origins however in reality" dated back". That wording is deliberate. You cannot say it dated back because it only came into existence in 1922. The "however in reality" is used to show that the principles on which the post 1922 state were founded could be traced back earlier. The person responsible for the edit completely screwed up the meaning of the sentence.
  • The Provisional Government did not replace the Romanovs. What did it do, move into their apartments and sleep in their beds? It removed the Romanov tsarist regime, the system of government headed by a Romanov tsar, not the people themselves, which is something totally different.

Susan likes jumping in and doing rewrites of things. In one tiny paragraph she managed to screw up to key facts with a poorly worded edit. I hope she isn't as clumsy with everything she rewrites. STÓD/ÉÍRE 03:13 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)


Im sorry, I wasnt aware that this article was on a fictional subject; so naturally I thought the "in reality" was redundant. Susan Mason

BTW, your latest rewrite is a grammatical and factual mess. And if you don't know how 'in reality' is used in a sentence, LEARN. STÓD/ÉÍRE 03:42 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)

the resultant dismantling of the ACS with Glasnost

What's ACS? This acronym is used in the article only once, it's not linked, and it is nowhere expanded. -- Branden


regime is a POV term. 172.138.71.117

Only someone who never writes history would think that. BTW - is 172.138.71.117 Adam/Lir/Vera/Susan/Dietary's latest identity, or do you have a Cinderella Complex - everytime the clock strikes at midnight you get a new identity? STÓD/ÉÍRE 04:18 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)

So let me see if I understand you Eire/Jtdirl/Zoe/172/Stod...it will be ok for me to change all the US government links to US regime? We certainly want to settle on a standard convention for such things... Susan Mason

Is there no end to your lack of knowledge on this issue? The Russian regime of the Tsar is generally called a REGIME because it was not a government in a modern sense. It was not organised on standard governmental structures lines. It had poor accountability and little control. It was a haphazard system that had evolved over the centuries and which by Tsar Nicholas II's time had become such a bureaucratic mess even the best monarch would have difficulty controlling it. And Nicholas, though personally a good man, was not particularly intelligent with no great organisational skills. Systems like that are not akin to governments, in which there is

  • accountability
  • responsibility
  • structured bureaucracy.

Where you have a more haphard structure of governance, with little democratic control, no democratic mandate, a high level of autocracy and usually a strong degree of authoritarianism, the word regime is generally used, because it is not in any modern democratic sense a government. That OK Adam? (Or which personality are you going under this hour? STÓD/ÉÍRE 04:33 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)

My name is not Adam. Since when are governments always democratic? It would inappropriate to speak of Roman governance then? What about a military-governor, should we refer to them as something else? What about democratic republicanism vs pure democracy, does any kind of democracy qualify or do only certain types result in governments? How about a constitutional monarchy, does Australia have a government?

  • My understanding of this issue is that you don't want to use the word government because your POV is that Nicholas was too stupid to run a government.

Let me ask this, did Russia ever sign any international treaties (or engage in any wars) prior to 1917? Im not a great historian, such as you or 172 or Zoe, so Im not really sure, but I would assume that an intercontinental "power" which engages in international treaties and wars might possibly, according to some kind of "amateur" understanding, be construed as a government, of sorts... Susan Mason

Boy when you said you are not a great historian you hit the nail right on the head. I do not think Nicolas II was too stupid to run a government: I think he was a decent and honourable man, and next to no-one would have been able to run that bureaucratic mess that was the regime. That is the word used by historians to describe older systems of government, many of them dating back to earlier periods of history, which were swept away by new systems of government that are more akin to what we think of as government. Historians collectively refer to them as ancien regimes, and they include the French system up until 1789, the Papal States up until 1870, the Russian regime up until the collapse of what historians regularly call the 'Tsarist regime' in 1917, the Austro-Hungarian Empire up to 1918 and sometimes the Ottoman Empire. Some include the Chinese empire in this group of 'ancien regimes'. STÓD/ÉÍRE 04:50 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)


You did state:

  • Nicholas...was not particularly intelligent

Which does seem to indicate that you think he was a bit "unintelligent". I see...so are you suggesting that we change the Roman Empire to Roman Regime? Is it the Holy Roman Regime? Perhaps the Austro-Hungarian Regime and the Ottoman Regime? What about the Iraqi Regime, is that so named because the "administration" there is so bungling and haphazard and antiquated? In England, prior to the civil war, was that the British Regime?

I noticed that you said "ancient regimes" but you only seemed to refer to "governments" from what I construe to be "modern european history". Are regimes a unique European form of government, gah, I keep saying government by accident, I mean, are regimes a unique form of European...uh...administration? I suppose you did mention the Chinese Regime, when would you say the Chinese Regime came to an end? Not to get off topic, I know how much that upsets some wikiusers, Im just trying to understand your naming convention.

What about very ancient "governments", would we find a "Babylonian Regime" or an "Anasazi Regime"? Susan Mason

Calm down, folks (or don't, if you don't want to) Cyan 04:46 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)

I reccomend meditation. Susan Mason

I found a book to back me up. Now granted, this is an elementary US-based history book written during the height of Cold War anti-Russian sentimeent, however

does state on page 425 (in the second column):

  • The failure of the tsar's government...

And earlier on page 392 (in the first column):

  • ...[In 1903,] both governments [Japan and Russia] were now ready to make peace

As far as I can tell regime isn't mention in this book at all. But maybe the authors didn't know what they were talking about? Susan Mason

You said it. Elementary. Basic, not in depth like this article or many of the articles on Wikipedia. Look up Richard Pipes, Russia Under the Old Regime. He even used the word regime in the title. That is just one of many that comes to mind. The word regime was used to refer to all 'pre-modern' states, many of whom were described as ancient regime (and pronounced as in french), with the disappearance of their ancient regimes leading them into modern systems of government akin to what the modern world would call government. STÓD/ÉÍRE 05:27 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)

So Pipes argued that it was incorrect to refer to Russia having a government, or did he just merely use the word regime as a POV synonym for government? I feel bad that Becker and Cooper never learned the definition of government. I wonder how many other history professors don't know what they are talking about? Susan Mason

You said

  • The word regime was used to refer to all 'pre-modern' states,

This indicates that the word regime is no longer used to refer to pre-modern states.

Susan Mason

Cyan hit the nail on the head...calm down! Take a breather, let the page sit for a few, let some emotions cool off. When you're ready, I'd like to know if this argument is mostly around the word "regime"? I don't see anything wrong with Susan Mason's edits, maybe I'm missing something? If the word regime is being disputed, why not use a milder alternative? Is a regime not a government? As AT LEAST a temporary measure, couldn't we just use the word "government", while discussing (perhaps a bit friendlier!) whether regime is POV or NPOV or encyclopedic or subjective?

An idea: Why not list what constitutes a regime, and what constitutes a government? If the argument is over words, it's clear that the words have a different meaning to each party. --cprompt

Dictionary.Com thinks a regime is a form of government, not something other than a government. Susan Mason

JTD:

Who’s there to ban all the latest Lir/Vera incarnations RIGHT NOW?

172

Hold your horses! Assuming Susan Mason is Lir (as I and others suspect), what are they doing "RIGHT NOW" that warrants banning?
--cprompt


Jtdirl, did the Soviets establish a Soviet government or a Soviet regime? Susan Mason

Jtdirl, please stop removing factually correct information from the article, such as the size of the Soviet Union. --cprompt

As user Lir, then as Vera, Adam set out to screw up pages by causing pointless edit wars, by hacking articles to pieces, by running amok causing mayhem all over the place and leading some users to leave permanently. Since Adam came back first as Susan, then as Dietary, he has done the same, with wars on Idolatry, for example, in which RK openly accused Dietary of telling barefaced lies, of misrepresenting his opinions and then causing rows on the basis of the misrepresentation. After ripping into Dietary and telling 'it' that he had had enough and would keep everything they did under watch from now on, Dietary disappeared and lo and behold Susan came back again. Having started a row in the standard Susan style ("lets scrap some rule we all agreed to, because I don't like it") earlier tonight, in standard Lir style she has focused on this article. As usual she doesn't actually know what she is talking about (but then when did that every stop any of Adam's 'creations'!). In fact in this case she manages the almost impossible feat of screwing up a two-line paragraph by rewriting it in a way that ensures it doesn't contain the facts it was designed to contain but instead misleads the reader.

Lir and Vera did exactly the same. What so-called 'Susan' did tonight is like deja vu for anyone who witnessed Vera or Lir being a pain in the ass. At this point, RK has openly accused Dietary of being a liar. 172 has had various pages deliberately screwed up by the various Adam brood. There is a long queue forming to ask what the hell is Adam/Lir/Vera/Susan/Lir doing here and, given the fact that they already have been banned twice, why are we tolerating them a third time? 172 doesn't want to go through the nightmare of the deliberate incompetent 're-writing' of this piece that he went through with Susan's predecessors. And I don't want to have spend my time cleaning up Susan-created bullshit from pages she 'rewrites' with only a minimal degree of factual knowledge. We have had enough of her trolling. STÓD/ÉÍRE 06:14 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)

Lir/Vera/Susan/Dietary might only be adding factual anecdotes and statistics as a pretext for what really amounts to some kind of sick personal crusade against JTD.

JTD is not omniscient and omnipotent. He can’t be faulted for wiping out some valid point that Susan/Lir/Adam had made while reverting his inane revisions. There simply is not enough time to go through all of his/her revisions, which usually entail removing great portions of the text and leaving the rest of it in a jumbled, incoherent, irrelevant, or idiosyncratic mess.

172

So let me clarify:

  • You both feel it is inane and misleading to refer to a "Russian government" existing prior to 1917/22? Susan Mason


I have restored the missing info. Susan buried her garbled changes within a larger paragraph. I have edited out the Susan-isms, put back facts and kept the rest of the paragraph in situ. Sorry for the accidential editing. STÓD/ÉÍRE 06:28 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)


I guess this is where, like so many others, we put the old wiki phrase into effect. DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS. Bye bye Susan. STÓD/ÉÍRE 06:28 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)

Lir/Vera has the ability to deconstruct articles and force other contributors to go through each revisions one by one in a deliberate manner while refusing to yield on a single point. Deliberating with Lir/Vera is futile and self-defeating.

To be held accountable for explaining why one would revert the changes of this user is simply acquiescing to his/her little game.

JTD, the consummate troll-watcher, is bearing a great burden, sacrificing his time to save this article along with many others from this insanity.

172


So let me clarify:

  • You both feel it is inane and misleading to refer to a "Russian government" existing prior to 1917/22? Susan Mason

That might all be true, but I am not focusing on the history of this user. I am looking at the article itself. To me, it seems like a good idea to keep most of the vital info on the top of the article. A quick Internet search confirms the facts. When the dispute is between using the word "regime" or not, to me, "government" is milder and can be used as temporary compromise. Even if the user(s) Lir/VeraCruz/Adam/Susan Mason/Dietary Fiber (are you SURE they are ALL the same person?) have had a history of destructive edits, this article certainly does not seem to be suffering from this behavior. If a building was set on fire, grab a hose and put it out. But if an arson walks past a building, there's no need to call the fire department.

I clicked Old Versions, and "Last" next to the latest revert. It was clear to see what was changed, and it is no great task to see exactly what the differences are between the two versions. In fact, it doesn't seem that much more difficult to see what was edited than to revert it. If Susan Mason has written jumbled, incoherent, irrelevant passages before, at a glance, I can tell this is not one of them. I tend to assume that Susan Mason has good intentions at heart, even if she is stubborn, and assumes controversial viewpoints.

If Susan Mason should be banned, bring it up on the mailing list. Certainly that is more productive than blindly reverting every contribution she makes.

In short, I'd like to just ask that you take at LEAST a quick glance at pages before you revert them, regardless of who wrote them. I am sure that someone could point me to situations where Susan Mason's judgement on an article has been poor or tasteless, but this is not one of them. Susan Mason's contributions improve this article by adding more facts, and making it less pointed (POV-wise).

(oy, my comment has definately suffered from being edited as the talk page changes before I submit) --cprompt

Jtdirl, thanks for adding the facts back! :-) --cprompt

Isn't "regime" just another word for any type of government.User:G-Man

That's what the dictionary says, but it seems to have some negative connotations when people think about it. If the meanings are equivalent, I think government is a good compromise. --cprompt

The word regime describes a form of government that is not comparable with a modern system of government but was autocratic and relied heavily on bureaucracy and a sense of living in the past. The word is generally used to describe governmental systems associated with the Tsar, the Ottoman Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, or the Ancien Regime of Louis XVI. It is the standard terminology used in mainline history (eg, Richard Pipes, Russia under the Old Regime) to describe a form of pre-modern system tettering on the brink of change or collapse. Government has none of the meaning required to convey the nature of the regime. Just as regime would mislead if used when describing Tony Blair or George Bush's participative modern governments, so government misleads when used to describe the autocratic governmental system. STÓD/ÉÍRE 20:43 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)

Why should JTD and I deliberate for hours with Lir/Vera over a change that is historically incorrect? Deliberation is not going to wipe the term “regime” out of the historical lexicon nor will it transform King James into an Englishman posthumously. We can’t be faulted for not playing his/her game.

172

What is historically incorrect about referring to the Soviet Union as a government, rather than regime, or stating that its origins date back to the October Revolution? I cannot fault Susan Mason's edits on this particular article, and she seems willing to negotiate. I strongly encourage both parties to (re)read Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. If you still feel that Susan Mason's behavior on this or other articles is unacceptable, consider Wikipedia:Complaints about other contributors, or the mailing list. Now, for a a compromise:

  • Use the word "government" instead of "regime". Some people feel that "regime" has negative connotations, but two dictionaries say that they would be equivalent in meaning in this context (three, if you count my Wiktionary entry!)
  • Change the wording of the first paragraph entirely. I considered proposing my own paragraph, or editing, but I opt not to, mainly to remain neutral, and also because it seems that Susan Mason agrees with it in its current form. The phrase "however in reality" seems awkward to me, though. Perhaps it could be removed, in favor of one or two sentences explaining how its core principles were developed at the revolution, and perhaps explaining how that differs from the day it "officially" established. Then, your feelings and Susan Mason feelings are communicated in the article. The meaning is not changed, but the wording that could not be agreed upon is gone.
  • Do not participate in edit wars. It's basically a game of chicken, seeing who will stop reverting first. It really accomplishes nothing, and is a waste of time. When you see the article begin to become edit warrish, speak to a sysop about protecting the page. Since we're all still talking here and the edit war seems to have stopped, I have decided not to protect the page.

(Posted later, after Jtdirl's definition of regime, but before I could click submit :-( ) Please show any references to the usage of the word regime as you have phrased it. Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster (www.m-w.com) both do not use the word in that sense. They refer to it as the government in power, or as a reference to an earlier government. Ancien regime refers specifically to the goverment in France before the 1789 Revolution, or as a "system or mode no longer prevailing." I cannot find a dictionary with the definition of the word regime as you have used it, such that "government" would be a grossly inaccurate term.

I wrote a mouthful, but let me know what you think. :-)

--cprompt

You seriously overestimate 'Susan's willingness to compromise. She simply doesn't. She talks about compromise endlessly, lulls people into thinking they have a compromise worked out, then does her own thing anyway. For example, Sue ulilaterally decided to abandon the format for elections on wiki {country, election}, {year} producing US presidential election of 2000 instead of US presidential election, 2000. the reason for not using of is because where it is used, it produces wars over whether the word 'of', 'in', 'during' etc is better. So it was put to a vote, and the majority decided that using a comma was less open to problems than of/to/in/during etc. So Susan's idea was outvoted. Now she has created (or had created until it was renamed) US primary elections of 2000, totally ignoring the agreed consensus reached. Last night alone, she mucked pages on James VI/I (adding in garbage) yet everytime an attempt was made to correct such clangers as declaring the king of scotland 'english', an edit war would result. The page had to locked. She screwed up the page on Charles I, which I see someone has reverted. She screwed up the page on US presidential election, 2000, which someone I saw earlier had to fix, including putting in references to [[US presidential election ''of'' 2000]]. As Vera Cruz she caused one of the biggest edit wars ever with new imperialism, leading to the wiki-list being jammed with calls for her to be barred. (she was). As Dietary Fiber she has produced an edit war on idolatry, with RK openly accusing her of telling lies about his opinions. As Vera Cruz, Lir, Susan Mason and Dietary Fiber this user has produced chaos all over the place. Your idea that compromise is possible with this person is well meaning but naive. There is a long long list of articles where this has been tried and has failed. She does not compromise. She pretends she does, and some people take it seriously and get strung alone, until one day or one week later they give up in frustration as she ignores everyone else's opinion and does her own thing. That is everyone's experience, Cp. And that is why we are all so unwilling to waste our time going through yet another compromise 'charade' with her. It is simply a waste of time as a long time of users can testify to, not to mention those who quit wiki after the Lir Experience. STÓD/ÉÍRE 22:09 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)

Could you humor me? If Susan Mason refuses to compromise, or ignores a consensus, precedent, or policy on this article, I will support the idea of banning her.
--cprompt
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_Soviet_Union/Archive_2&oldid=96183431"