Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:54, 23 November 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to 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: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 30 days

	Soviet Union was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 2, 2005 Peer review Reviewed August 13, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Soviet Union Top‑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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Socialism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism 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.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia: History / Human geography Top‑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 Top This article has been rated as Top-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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Former countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country

Template:Misplaced Pages CD selection

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Template:Pbneutral

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Soviet Union. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Soviet Union at the Reference desk.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on December 8, 2004 and December 26, 2006.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

About the Map.

I have a newer and better map of the Soviet union that you all will love no doubt!

http://commons.wikimedia.org/File:The_Soviet_Union_and_it%27s_satelite_states_and_allies.png

This map depicts the Soviet Union(Dark Red), with it's satelite states(Red) and nations that were subject to Soviet influence(Bright Red).

I wish to have permission to make this the principal image of the article. Please! :D Keeby101 (talk) 00:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I for one think that the map in the Soviet Union article should only depict the Soviet Union itself, to keep readers from being confused. Howicus (talk) 00:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Anyone else wish to comment/ share their thoughts on this? 24.173.43.179 (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Useful for an article on the foreign policy of the Soviet Union and/or Cold War. I think it would be confusing here. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Howicus and Vecrumba that this map goes beyond the scope of this article. Also, there is the slight problem that the name of the file is misspelled. It should be "The Soviet Union and its satellite states and allies.png". Note that there are 2 Ls in satellite and that the possessive of it is "its", not "it's". "It's" is a contraction of "it is". --Khajidha (talk) 05:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Successor states box, again

OK, so my watchlist tells me people are still edit-warring over this. As I noted a while back, although there was some debate over the simple list of 15 successor states, there was never any consensus to unilaterally replace it out of the blue recently with the split list, which suggests that only 12 of the 15 are "successors". Shall we do the maths?

• The latter change, to the split list, was based on a proposal by User:Vecrumba. Per the diff above, User:Nug actually included it – and has since regularly reverted anyone removing it. User:Robert McClenon has said they are OK with it, although they have also backed other options. That makes 2 people backing it outright, arguably 3 in total.
• By contrast, a succession of people explained on the talk page that they were more or less happy with the old 15 successor list. Others since have explained in detail why the new split version is problematic and/or occasionally removed it before being instantaneously reverted by Nug. Those include me, User:636Buster, User:Quandapanda, User:My very best wishes, User:Peterzor, User:TFD, User:Paul Siebert, User:LokiiT, User:MisterShiney, User:Sussexonian, User:Ryulong. That's at least 11 editors.

The lack of consensus for the split list, which has nonetheless been doggedly and repeatedly forced onto the page, couldn't be more glaring. N-HH talk/edits 09:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Either the list of 15 states or the split list is satisfactory to me. The list of 12 states was not satisfactory to me. It implied that the invasion of the Baltic republics did not happen. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a case pending with the ArbCom about infoboxes. Does anyone really want to be added as a party to the ArbCom case and topic-banned from infoboxes? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Not withstanding the fact that User:N-HH cites old opinions as immutable though they may have since changed, he neglects to mention the WP:EDITCONSENSUS that exists with the current scheme where 15 or so longstanding editors have made subsequent edits to the article without taking issue, or that a number of the most recent edits he cites as supporting his POV are by either blocked sock puppets or have very low edit counts and thus would not be familiar with past discussions since archived. It seems that User:N-HH basic rationale is basically "I don't like it", he hasn't given an adequate explanation on why we should dumb down the information provided. --Nug (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Really, there hasn't been any "warring" over the info box for some time, the separation (Russia, restored, newly sovereign) makes the requisite main points as long as the "after" states continue to be listed in the infobox, and that version has been stable. I don't see much point in stirring up conflict by alleging conflict. We've all disagreed at some time in the past. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

We are only talking about a few weeks here. This is not something that has been on the page for years and been happily passed over by 100s of people editing the page. It is clearly a contentious issue for several people who have edited and commented, the vast majority of whom have not assented to it (and, for the record Nug, I and others have explained at length in the past what the problem is, nor have we argued for "dumbing down". But you know that; you just have ignored it). To claim that there must be consensus because most of them have not carried on arguing for that entire period or have not joined Nug in edit-warring over it – or because one of them has since been IDd as a sockpuppet – is sophistry of the worst sort. But that's what I've come to expect on these topics from the pair of dedicated Baltic nationalists who range across this pages. Everything has to have huge banners everywhere declaring this or that to be "ILLEGAL!" "RESTORED INDEPENDENCE!" etc. It's very tiresome. N-HH talk/edits 09:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

"It's very tiresome." I agree. It also illustrates the point that I have made in the ArbCom case that infoboxes are often contentious because, by their nature, they often simplify, and often oversimplify, and so result in argument over what is the "right" (actually, least wrong) oversimplification. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

@N-HH, having run out of valid arguments you now hit bottom by resorting to personal attacks of "Baltic nationalists", which is somewhat comic because then Obama and the entire US Senate are Baltic nationalists too. Why are you so bugged out by this issue that you cannot let it go?. It seems to be a personal issue for you, is it? I've looked through the archives again and it appears you have disingenuously counted the votes of a question on removing the list of predecessor and successor states from the infobox entirely and mis-applied it to acceptance of this current scheme. The only argument you offer is to cite one single author who uses "successor" in a broader sense, which has been countered by the citing of dozens of authors who use "successor" only in the international law sense. It was also pointed out to you that the inbox doc recommends the official predecessor/successor under international law for most cases, with alternate guidance given for some edge cases. The current scheme is a compromise that fulfils these aims while giving additional precision which is actually more compact (some 900 less bytes of space). Why you cannot cope with this compromise and let it go remains an open question, but I agree, it is getting tiresome. --Nug (talk) 23:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The infobox page recommends, "For most cases, the main and/or official predecessor/successor (under international law) is sufficient....In the case of any potential confusion, list only this." But if the Baltic states are not successor states, why list them at all? TFD (talk) 08:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

@Nug. I rather obviously have slightly less investment in this than you do. I left the discussion a while back and have never actually edited the infobox part of the page itself. I was only moved to comment again because of your latest knee-jerk revert to a version that manifestly has no consensus (and, btw, a "compromise" has to be actually accepted as a compromise to be such, not simply be what one side of the dispute unilaterally declares to be a "compromise"). And then you chose to claim your version is agreed while accusing me of having no argument other than simply "not liking" the infobox and of wanting to dumb down, all of which you surely know to be not true. If you don't want analysis or critique of your political position, which, as it happens, seems to be based on you and your fellow Baltic/Soviet-focused editor "liking" your preferred infobox because it highlights political points you want made in flashing lights and bold headings, don't dish it out and/or fraudulently suggest that everyone agrees with you when quite the opposite is true.

Even if I have misrepresented the stance of others – which I haven't – you can't show more than 3 people backing your pet infobox. Whatever there may be consensus for here, it's certainly not that. And as you know, my argument is not based on one author using the term one way himself. It was based on plenty of other examples and the fact that that author was commenting on overall use. You are either lying or cannot read; your choice there. And finally, no, the US senate is not full of Baltic nationalists. But are you seriously suggesting that these questions, even today, are not clouded by the politics of the cold war? N-HH talk/edits 09:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not obvious you "have slightly less investment in this". You being "moved" to start this thread demonstrates your evident sensitivity to this issue which is further magnified by your view that a succinct clarification in an inbox (fwiw earning a barnstar) is perceived by you as "flashing lights and bold headings" and claim "Everything has to have huge banners everywhere declaring this or that to be "ILLEGAL!" "RESTORED INDEPENDENCE!" etc" and recourse to the lazy polemical invocation of the "Baltic nationalist" bogeyman (I guess User:Robert McClenon must be a Baltic nationalist too in giving me that barnstar). I've long experience in Misplaced Pages and your reaction certainly raises eyebrows.

Calling my position fraudulent is somewhat hypocritical, as you appear to dishonestly claim the current version has "manifestly has no consensus" linking to past archived discussion knowing full well that earlier discussion was of a different issue of whether the Baltic states should be listed at all in the inbox, for which there was no consensus.

Your attempt to mislead is exposed when you claim User:Ryulong opposes the current scheme. Yes, he opposed the earlier issue under discussion, but it is clear he editorially supports the current version by directly improving it here and here. It is odd that you should miss User:Heironymous Rowe's explicit support , and discount the implicit support for the current scheme through subsequent edits of the article by at least a dozen other editors. I guess User:Ryulong, User:Heironymous Rowe and everyone else you don't agree with are all "Baltic nationalists" too. --Nug (talk) 11:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I never claimed Ryulong "opposes the current scheme". You really need to read what people post properly. As for Hieronymous Rowe, we have no idea why they reverted, they could have done so simply on the housekeeping basis of Peterzor being a problematic user. Also you seem to not understand why I have raised the Baltic nationalist issue and, as so often, have the reasoning back to front. It is not because I assume anyone supporting the current format must be a Baltic nationalist, it is because the two most vocal supporters of it demonstrably are actively engaged in editing on Baltic nationalist issues and seem to have something of an anti-communist obsession.

Anyway, I'm somewhat bored of this bickering. As ever the most pushy and activist editors get to make sure contentious articles make the points they want to make, backed by spurious argument and claims of consensus. As noted, I'm not going to join in any edit war over this, so there's not much point in clogging up the talk page any more. I did though hope you might at least deign to acknowledge some of the problems here. N-HH talk/edits 12:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

What complete BS, I've hardly edited any communist related topic and just because I'm currently editing the Estonian nationalism article does not make me a "Baltic nationalist" anymore than your current involvement in the Nazism and Fascism article make you a Nazi or a fascist. --Nug (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Again you have my reasoning back to front – it's simply the most recent evidence of a wider pattern. I'm sure those familiar with your account and its previous username, including ArbCom, will have their own opinions about whether you have "hardly edited any communist related topic" or indeed whether your forays into the world of Baltic pages – especially those where nationalist issues and the relationship with the Soviet Union are involved – are more or less confined to your edits today to the Estonian nationalism page. Do you actually take me and everyone else for morons? N-HH talk/edits 18:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Now that is a pot calling the kettle black, whatever my past sins were they were never so egregious as to earn an indefinite topic ban as you have under a previous username for West Bank/Judea_and_Samaria articles. Cheers. --Nug (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Er, my point was about your denying the nature of your editing history quite so preposterously, given that there is evidence both on your contributions page and from an ArbCom case, not about the fact of any ArbCom case per se, which are often as not "block everyone we can see in front of us, whether they've made 4 edits or 100 to the pages in question". If I'd tried to claim that I had "hardly ever edited on Middle East topics" your response might have some relevance. N-HH talk/edits 10:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Clarification

I remember that there was an article content Request for Comments on twelve successor states vs. fifteen successor states. If I am mistake, please correct my recollection. I supported the 15 successor states, as did everyone except two editors. The two editors argued, correctly, that the occupation of the three Baltic republics had never been recognized by most other nations, so that the Baltic republics were restored and were never successors of the Soviet Union. I, and some other editors who supported the 15 states, found that point to be true but irrelevant, in that only listing 12 successor states would imply that the occupation of the Baltic republics had never happened. That is, the 12 successor states position reflected international law, but ignored history. The consensus was that, of the choice of showing 15 states or the choice of showing 12 states, showing 15 states was "less misleading" than showing 12. That consensus, which was the consensus of the regular editors, and the editors who responded to the RFC, wasn't satisfactory to at least two editors. Two alternatives were proposed then. The first was removing the list of predecessor and successor states from the infobox, because any list oversimplified. The alternative was the split list, 1 continuator, 11 successors, and 3 restored. Listing only 12 successor states is clearly contrary to consensus (based on the RFC), and would ignore fifty years of occupation. Do we need another article content Request for Comments on which of the three alternatives is "least wrong"? I am satisfied with the split box. I am satisfied with 15 states, as "less wrong" than omitting the Baltics. I am satisfied with no successor states, because the other options all oversimplify. If we don't need another RFC, then we should just accept that the only consensus is that listing 12 successors as such is wrong. What do we want? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, infoboxes exist to give readers the main facts in brief. It is not a good place for lengthy contested information. I suggest therefore that omit that field. TFD (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that infoboxes exist to give the readers the main facts in brief, but would add that they exist to give the readers the undisputed facts in brief, not to provide a "least wrong" summary of complex or controversial facts. My first preference, like that of TFD, would be to omit the successor states. The complexity of succession can be dealt with in the text, as it is. However, I will be satisfied with any oversimplification that doesn't obscure the tragic reality of twentieth-century history in pursuit of the abstraction of international law. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't see any satisfactory solution that relies on using the term "successor states" (or indeed the terms "restored states" or "continuous" etc), given that it is not always used in a technical legal sense and that, even when it is, there are acres of quite serious academic text about how to analyse the situation and apply the term. Anyone who wants to can, as we all know, find sources that describe all 15, the 12 minus the Baltics, or just Russia as "successor states" to the Soviet Union and insist that we need to do it that way. The issue I have with the current split list is that it takes such a definitive position: although an improvement on the original bid to drop the Baltics altogether, it still formally excludes not only the Baltics but now Russia from the designation "successor states". That is no less wrong than formally including them would be. The only options that seem to be open are:

• Outright removal of any such list from the infobox
• Retitling the list as "Post-Soviet states" and including all 15 modern countries, with appropriate – and brief – footnotes explaining the different status in a legal sense of Russia, the Baltics and the other 11
• Retitling the list as "Soviet Republics" and listing all 15 historic SSRs (linking to the appropriate SSR page not to the entry for the modern state)

While I would happily take option 1, it seems a shame to lose information that is probably useful to some readers and that can surely be presented without all this aggravation. Also an RfC with all those options, and including the options of the current split and that of losing the Baltics outright from any list, might be a little confusing. N-HH talk/edits 17:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I get the distinct impression that it isn't so much the split list which is the issue for N-HH, it is who proposed it. If anyone else other than Vecrumba or I proposed it probably would have been perfectly okay. It is unfortunate that it has become personal. Formally Russia is seen as continuator, Russia asserts it, the international community accepts it. While other post Soviet states had to formally accede to the UN, the UN simply replaced the text "USSR" with "Russian federation" (or whatever the formal name) in all UN documents, I don't have the source on hand but I can post a cite later. Removing it altogether will not work, people unfamiliar with the discussion will wonder why there is nothing and put it back in. That is why a split list is better, it lists all 15, succinctly indicates the differing status of each and takes up less bytes to boot. --Nug (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, your "distinct impression" is your own business, however absurd it might be and however much it shows you personalising this as much if not more than I have been. If you missed the fact that I have spent ages here explaining the problems in great detail and suggesting alternative options – even just now – I can't help you with that. As for your point about Russia as continuator, you don't even seem to have noticed the bit where I said "footnotes explaining the different status in a legal sense of Russia, the Baltics and the other 11". Nor have you seemed to grasp that the problem with the split list is that it takes one version of the terminology re status and sets it in stone as the only correct one. Do you actually have any response to what I actually wrote above? N-HH talk/edits 10:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration

For information about how controversial infobox cases can be, and also as a warning against getting dragged into the ArbCom, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes and its subpages. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, I know how arbitration cases usually pan out! And not only do they end badly for anyone named in them, the rulings rarely solve the underlying problems – indeed they often exacerbate them by scaring off those less invested in the topic, who nonetheless get caught up in them – so they're doubly pointless in terms of improving WP, especially given how much time they take. N-HH talk/edits 17:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Sad to say, then don't accuse other editors of treating you like a moron and debate the topic constructively or not at all.

While the infobox (I'm assuming it's still there) is a simplification, it is not incorrect in positioning the newly independent, Russia as successor (really, the CIS states agreed to this succession, there's no serious controversy on this topic), and restored. That there are nuances does not invalidate the summary. IMHO it would be far more confusing for the average reader to see no infobox. If you believe the infobox is a major source of confusion, you should be able to explain that lucidly without insulting anyone. If your contention is that the nuances and didactic arguments of scholars on international law are absent from the infobox, then, frankly, that's exactly as it should be. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, Nug is treating people like morons if he expects them to swallow his claim that he doesn't really edit much on topics relating to communism and eastern European nationalism. Meanwhile, I am being told that my only objection to the split list is because of my antipathy to "who proposed it" and that I am not debating the topic "constructively", when rather obviously neither is true and when I have set out detailed objections and explanations in the face of a two-editor edit-war and imposition of content on the basis of purported "consensus". Pot meet kettle. N-HH talk/edits 10:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Link to Lenin's Testament

In a recent edit I removed a link: there was a line saying that "Lenin was to be replaced by a troika..." with "was to be replaced with" wikilinked to Lenin's Testament.

The reason I removed it is because Lenin's Testament in no way suggests the Zinoviev-Kamenev-Stalin troika, and in fact suggests that Stalin in particular be removed from his position, while doling out criticism to both Zinoviev and Kamenev (among others, including Bukharin). Now Lenin was a pretty critical guy in general and one might suggest that the fact that no one really made him happy means that the testament was meant to be largely constructively critical rather than damningly critical, but his suggestion that Stalin was "too rude" and needed to be replaced is explicit. He clearly did not want Stalin in power.

Having said all this, Lenin's Testament is important given how it was suppressed, particularly given how every leader after his death tried to justify his policy du jour using something Lenin wrote at one time or another. So I think we should work it back into the article somewhere, just not in a way that suggests that Lenin wanted the ZKS troika in power, because I think it's pretty clear that that's false.Eniagrom (talk) 08:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 November 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the Khrushchev era section, fourth paragraph, second line, change the woman in "...the first human being, Yuri Gagarin in 1961; the first woman in space..." to man because Yuri Gagarin was a male. 99.5.249.219 (talk) 02:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

 Not done:. You're misreading the sentence. "the first human being, Yuri Gagarin in 1961; the first woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova in 1963" are two separate clauses. It does not mean that Yuri was a woman. RudolfRed (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Infobox again: "illegal" etc

I see there's renewed action over the words "illegal" and "restored" in the footnote. I can't help but thinking that we're overdoing this. As noted previously, the illegal/restoration theory is not universally held and is ultimately a subjective issue (international law is rarely so clear-cut and is invariably intertwined with politics). Annexation implies likely or possible illegality in any event – we don't need to overlay, for example, every reference to the Nazi invasion of Poland by attaching the adjective "illegal" to it. As for the word "restored", that already appears in the sub-heading for the Baltic states. As ever, it seems this is more about making points and making sure that the WP text lays everything on with a trowel. Simply referring to "annexation" and to the Baltic states declaring "independence" is more than enough to satisfy the generality of mainstream sources and WP verifiability and NPOV requirements. Neither wording would imply the annexation was legal or the independence something that had not been "restored" in some sense.
There's also the outstanding question, never resolved outside of two-editor decree, about how to head up the infobox itself. No one responded substantively to my suggestion that it could be something like "Post-Soviet States" and that we should avoid the term "successor state" altogether, whether applied to all 15 or only to 11, as it means different things to different people and in different contexts. Simply list the 15 under that heading, avoid any sub-headings, and have very brief footnotes along the lines of what we have now to explain the sometimes-noted differences in status of the 15. N-HH talk/edits 10:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• Delisted good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Soviet Union articles
• Top-importance Soviet Union articles
• WikiProject Soviet Union articles
• B-Class socialism articles
• Top-importance socialism articles
• WikiProject Socialism articles
• B-Class Russia articles
• Top-importance Russia articles
• Top-importance B-Class Russia articles
• B-Class Russia (history) articles
• History of Russia task force articles
• B-Class Russia (human geography) articles
• Human geography of Russia task force articles
• WikiProject Russia articles
• B-Class former country articles
• WikiProject Former countries articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Selected anniversaries (December 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (December 2006)