Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hodja Nasreddin (talk | contribs) at 04:37, 8 October 2011 (→Useful sock edits?: more problems here beacuse of the sock and other questionable edits). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Historiography in the Soviet Union article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 6 months

Soviet Union C‑class High‑importance

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Russia: Science & education / History C‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. 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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the science and education in Russia task force. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.

History C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Historiography in the Soviet Union article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 6 months

Disputed tenets of Soviet historiography

This is the latest name of the disputed myths section.

Let's see if we can use this to develop a compromise version on talk, incorporating findings and arguments from above sections. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Then please make a constructive suggestion instead of presenting us as the same hopelessly unencyclopedic POV version that has already been discussed above. Pantherskin (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The most appropriate section's name should be "Conquest's and Pipes' views of some events of Soviet history". Again, this section belongs to Soviet history, not Soviet historiography, because it presents different versions of some historical events, not how Soviet historiography presents well established and well known facts.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Although I believe this discussion (as well as the disputable section) belongs to another article, let me quote some other scholarships that contradict to Pipes' statements. After Civil war, when both Red and White terrors were understandable, and before Stalin took full power there were no terror in the USSR.

"In 1926 a new RSFSR Criminal Code was enacted. This Code also included the death penalty as 'an exceptional measure for the protection of the workers' state', existing only provisionally 'until its abolition'. In the next year, an attempt was made to restrict the application of the death penalty to certain political38 and military crimes and to banditry (Article 167 of the Code). This restrictive policy resulted in a rather sharp decrease in the number of death sentences in the RSFSR from about 0.1% of all sentences in 1922-25 to only 0.03% in 1928. In 1928 about 1.5 million sentences were pronounced in the entire USSR (according to figures given by the criminologist Gernet), which means that the total number of death sentences was probably about 450 as against about 1,200 in 1923 and 1,300 in 1926." (The Soviet Union and the Death Penalty. Author(s): Ger P. Van den Berg Source: Soviet Studies, Vol. 35, No. 2 (Apr., 1983), pp. 154-174)

In connection to that, could anyone remind me what was the number of death sentences in the US and the UK during that time?

Pipes' conclusions are disputable, and cannot be presented as examples of debunking of some myths.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Paul, I noticed you changed the source for the quote above. Is Van den Berg the antecedent source for Volobuev and Schutz or was that just a correction? VЄСRUМВА  ♪  03:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I inserted Volobuev by accident: I copypasted it from the wrong article (I was working with two files simultaneously).--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Silly propaganda

This article purports to review Soviet-era Russian historical scholarship, but it reads more like an attack piece against Russia with the "historical revisionism" characterization. If the article is supposed to be about Soviet historiography, then it should at least cite Soviet-era sources. There should be a summary of Soviet views on history rather than tendentious distortions. Attempts to show that Soviet historiography is unreliable is not substantiated by a consensus. Virtually all scientific works on Russian history in the English language cite Russian sources, including the Soviet period.

This scholarly work does not conclude that Soviet historiography is reliable, dubious, or of a revisionist type

Some older Western historians argued that LEnin, through his obedient and well-organized Bolshevik Party, manipulated the ignorant and uneducated working masses to gain power for himself. Soviet historians, by contrast, insisted that the Revolution had genuine popular support, although they stress the political role of Lenin as an organizer and propagandist. Kravavi (talk) 02:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracies

In another example, the Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939 as well as the Polish-Soviet War of 1919-1920 were censored out or minimized from most publications, and research suppressed, in order to enforce the policy of 'Polish-Soviet friendship'.

The Polish intervention in the Russian Civil War is discussed at length in Soviet-era volumes on the Civil War. The Soviet Encyclopedia article describes the war as "a conflict that broke out as a result of the bourgeois Polish government against the Soviet state...at the instigation of the Entente powers, the Polish circles attempted to expand Poland's borders from Gdansk to Odessa." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kravavi (talk • contribs) 02:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

1. ^ Cite error: The named reference reflections was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Paul Gregory, Russian National Income 1885–1913. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1982
3. ^ Richard Pipes Communism: A History (2001) ISBN 0-812-96864-6, pages 73-74.

You fail to counter the argument. The piece you cite is hardly extensive; it very much falls under "minimized" (not to mention, major biased). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The USSR is not Russia is not the USSR

@Kravavi: Do not confuse Russia and the USSR. Saying something "bad" about the USSR (defunct) has absolutely no bearing on today's Russia, and it genuinely pains me to note the exception, other than the degree to which official Russia chooses to ignore or deny Soviet atrocities. (Which, again, are not Russian atrocities regardless of the position Russia takes.) Not to mention that Soviet encyclopedic accounts of conflicts are often significantly lacking factual basis. In the Soviet Union, history served politics (not my words). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Rename

The request to rename this article to Historiography in the Soviet Union has been carried out. If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag.

Soviet historiography → Historiography in the Soviet Union – - unambiguous term (another meaning of "Soviet historiography" is "methodology in the studies of history of the Soviet Union", while the article talks about "methodology in the studies of history in the Soviet Union" - two letters but big difference.) Lolo Sambinho (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. When I saw the title, I assumed the article would be on "Historiography of the Soviet Union" – this move would add clarity. Jenks24 (talk) 11:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Jenks Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yes, these are two slightly different subjects. But this article includes (and suppose to include) the Soviet methodology in the studies of history (hence "Soviet historiography"). Biophys (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support unambiguity. GreyHood 20:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I think the nom is right about the content. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Lolo Sambinho and Jenks24.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose until I see a proposal on continued reflection of Soviet methods and direction regarding portrayal of history. That is different from random, officially unguided, practice by historians within the frontiers of the USSR. The title changes the primary thurst of the article. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Same reasons as Vecrumba. Vecrumba is right, when someone like Roger Markwick writes on Soviet Historiography there's a multiple meaning not captured in "Historiography in the Soviet Union" as Soviet Historiography refers to "Historiography practiced in the Soviet manner in the Soviet Union" not simply "Historiography practiced in the Soviet Union." While the situation isn't as simple as there only being a state mandated historiography, due to the force of control exercised over historians, all academic historiography of consequence needed to respond to the official position. Yet, at the same time, other historiographical practices also existed, usually of no consequence due to amateurism (Gulag Archipelago, for example). And we can't just call it "Official Historiography in the Soviet Union" because as Markwick notes: much academic history was an attempt to defer the pressure of official methodology. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

What does "Soviet manner" mean, in your opinion?

In addition, from your and Peters posts I conclude that before discussing the change of the title we need to come to consensus about the article's content. Again, what this article is supposed to be about? If the article is about the attempts of some Soviet historians to distort the history of XX century, its name should not be "Soviet historiography". If the article is supposed to describe the activity of the Soviet historians as whole then its structure should be different: many good historians, such as Vipper, Tarle, Rybakov, et al left quite brilliant works despite the fact that they did not deviate from the Marxist doctrine.

My personal opinion is that the first option: a story about the attempts to falsify history by some official Soviet historians. However, that is not a story about historiography as whole, and even not a story about Soviet Marxist historians, because some Marxist historians, such as Vipper, do not fit in this narrative.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Robert Vipper, --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the idea that all Soviet historians had to fight against the pressure of official methodology does not seem to be correct to me. Being just an amateur historian, I am familiar with just two comprehencive historical methodologies, Marxian and Toynbeean, and I am not sure the latter is significantly better. Marxist methodology left enough of freedom of manoeuvre for many historians, the problem was not with Marxism, but with persistent attempts of semi-literal party leaders to interfere into the work of Soviet scholars.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Useful sock edits?

I don't usually care who added content; this was removed as "edits by sock of Jacob Peters". A quick reads makes the content appear solid, although I cannot say much about the reliability of the ru reference? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Russian link leads to a wall of text (many pages). I do not see where it tells whatever was quoted. Trusting banned users is a very bad idea. You can restore a copyright violation or worse. Of course you are very welcome to restore anything that can be referenced to English-language RS. Biophys (talk) 02:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we have a serious problem here. Those are extensive changes made by the sock of the banned user. All of them must be reverted or checked. Moreover, I checked references 20-22 (pages are indicated). Reference 21 simply tells nothing on the subject. The claims made by references 20 and 22 are incorrectly summarized in the article. I can try to fix it if no one objects. Biophys (talk) 04:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• C-Class Soviet Union articles
• High-importance Soviet Union articles
• WikiProject Soviet Union articles
• C-Class Russia articles
• High-importance Russia articles
• High-importance C-Class Russia articles
• C-Class Russia (science and education) articles
• Science and education in Russia task force articles
• C-Class Russia (history) articles
• History of Russia task force articles
• WikiProject Russia articles
• C-Class history articles
• Mid-importance history articles
• WikiProject History articles
• Requested moves