Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:06, 25 February 2014

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

Template:Vital 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)

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)

And now we have someone else trying to edit-war "Successor/Successor States" back in as applying to all 15. Actually, I don't object to that, as it is the standard header in WP and is probably the most common use of the term in this context too. However, I was actually trying to come to a compromise here after acres of pointless talk page debate and acknowledge the fact that the term successor state is sometimes used in a narrower sense, and hence may be confusing when deployed here. The fact that it can be applied to all but also to one or to 11/12 is precisely the problem. And "Post-Soviet states" is rather obviously not "original research" but a standard alternative term (and one that carries less potential confusion). N-HH talk/edits 12:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted your change. As I recall you were the only one who opposed the current scheme, I can't believe you are starting this up again after it has been stable for a while. Why can't you simply just let it go? --Nug (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

For the reasons that I have explained and that you have consistently ignored. And you haven't reverted my change, you have reverted my change as embellished – in a way that I actually opposed – by a subsequent edit. As you should know, my preference is to avoid all use of the term "successor" states: that represents a bid to both compromise and avoid introducing confusion. I would also remind you that your preferred version has no consensus either, nor is it the "original" version. It was stable for a while after that no-consensus addition because everyone had been ground down over it (and it wasn't me that started up the re-editing of this infobox section but someone else). Why can't you let it go and accept what is, surely, a reasonable compromise? What you're actually asking for is, "Why can't you let me win?".N-HH talk/edits 12:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Your reasons you have explained have not been ignored, they just simply aren't as compelling as you imagine them to be. 3-4 months of stability indicates WP:EDITCONCENSUS exists, of course in your mind you see that as "everyone had been ground down over it". Having observed you it seems that you wait months until some does a small edit related to the infobox, such as this, report it here then use it as a pretext for your more wholesale edit with the misleading comment "Tweaks to infobox: removing more contentious and confusing language". Bit more than a tweak and certainly not contentious (due to months of stability) nor confusing. I've reverted you to the last stable version, please present your case here and gain consensus before changing the text.--Nug (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Back in August I proposed alternatives to the introduction of the split-labelled list that never, as it seems I keep having to repeat, had consensus either. No one actually addressed those points. However, I did not then simply take it upon myself to implement any changes, or open an RFC or anything, but actually waited to see if anyone already involved did respond. You have now banked that restraint and lack of willingness to edit war against you and Vecrumba as somehow proving "consensus" or "stability" when, as already pointed out, it is nothing of the sort. Once the infobox started being messed around with again – including by you – I took it upon myself to actually do something about the problems.

As to the problems, I can repeat them again for you. The use of labels generally is problematic. The term successors has different meanings in different contexts. Some sources will simply describe Russia as the successor, others the non-Baltic states as successors and others all 15. People such as yourself, including recently, have flipped the infobox between these options – or in fact, in the version Vecrumba cooked up which you are now drilling into the page, another option altogether, wholly unseen in any source AFAIK and hence not just not definitive but outright incorrect, which posits only 11 successors and excludes Russia from that designation. Just avoiding the term altogether or indeed any definitive sub-headings, as I am suggesting, and simply having a main header "Post-Soviet states" – the name of our main page on them after all – is such an obvious solution that it seems odd anyone could object to it or edit war over it. What is your objection exactly? And do you not think there is a rather obvious problem also with labelling Russia with the sub-heading "Continuous with" and then having a footnote that tells us that the Duma at least declared Russia continuous with the Russian SSR, not the Soviet Union? And with your reverting copyediting to the footnote text which, among other things, restored the description of the unrecognised entities as "successor states" when no one calls them that and when they do not appear under the successor sub-heading you are insisting on randomly using for 11 of the actual states? N-HH talk/edits 11:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Your concede your original proposal had no support. Your new proposal from August "Post-Soviet states" elicited no support either. It is even more divorced from the documented intent of the inbox, which is to show the status of the emerging states according international law. There is no concept of "Post-Soviet state" in international law when discussing the status of states. "Post-Soviet state" is a term generally used in the context of discussion about countries dealing with some legacy of Soviet rule, like the Russian speaking diaspora. Your new term only brings more confusion as readers will wonder if they were all "Post-Soviet states", why did Russia get that UN seat belonging to the USSR and honour all USSR treaties in force, received properties, debts, etc, while the other states did not. In fact the Russian Duma explicitly declared false the perception of the RF as "merely one of the many successors of the USSR", and you want to perpetuate that false perception and confusion by using "Post-Soviet state".

Let's go through each of your problems you have articulated:

• "You have now banked that restraint and lack of willingness to edit war against you and Vecrumba"

That is a pathetic ad hominem attack, highlighting you lack of genuine argument. The version you object to has been in place since June 2013 and I only made two edits since and Vecrumba none at all, while some 57 edits were made by others since June, many to the info-box itself indicating acceptance of the classification. The only objector being you.

• "The term successors has different meanings in different contexts"

The context of succession/continuation/restoration in the info-box is in the context of international law, as preferred by info-box guide and supported by the sources. This has already been explained to you before, so please stop pretending that this argument hasn't been addressed.

The reason Russia is seen as "continuator" is because that is what reliable sources tells us. Your reliance upon an unsourced phrase about the Russian Duma added back in July to argue the unsuitability of designating Russia as a continuator of USSR is an incredibly weak argument. That added phrase turns out to be misleading as it omits the fact that the Duma declared the Russian Federation to the continuator not only of the USSR, but also of the Russian Empire, the 1917 Russian Republic and the Soviet Russian Republic. Numerous sources corroborate the fact that Russia is the continuator of the USSR:

Dumbery in State Succession to International Responsibility - Page 156:

" the Federation of Russia is therefore viewed as the continuing State of the Soviet Union, which was itself the “continuator” of the Russian State existing between 1917 and 1922"

The Finnish Yearbook of International Law - Volume 2 - Page 164:

"The solution of the property issues also points towards the fact that Russia is the continuator state of the USSR. All the foreign embassies and the property within them, as well as all other such property in third states were transferred to Russia"

Crawford, Brownlie's Principles of Public International Law - Page 427:

"Russia was also accepted by the members of the Security Council as the continuator of the USSR. Russia assumed all treaty obligations and consolidated the debts and property abroad of the USSR "

Huber, A Decade that Made History: The Council of Europe, 1989-1999:

"the Paliamentary Assembly - following the example of the international community, which had immediately recognised Russia as continuator state to the USSR"

Bühler, State Succession and Membership in International - Page 161:

"since the first days of the year 1992 the Russian Federation has consistently claimed to be the "continuator State" of the USSR in all international affairs"

Boisson de Chazournes, International Law and Freshwater: The Multiple Challenges - Page 426:

"The Russian Federation claimed to be the continuator State and declared that all multilateral treaties concluded by the USSR would automatically remained in force."

I could keep posting sources but I don't want to bore you. "A total WP editor invention not reflected in any sources", according to you. What a joke. Oddly you contend that giving readers insight to status of states and differentiating between continuator/successor/restored is somehow more confusing.

However I do agree with you that unrecognised entities such as Abkazia and South Ossetia should not be included. That change was reverted a couple of times by others here and here. They don't belong because those entities were a part of those states already listed as having succeed from the USSR, e.g Georgia, and in one sense those areas are being double counted. So these should be removed in anycase. --Nug (talk) 08:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no point posting lots of sources. We know certain terms are used to describe each of the 15 and I have never disputed that Russia is a continuator state in the sense of it taking on the USSR's obligations in many areas. However, we also know different terms are used by different sources and/or in different contexts (I can post lots of sources that talk about the 15 successors and a commentary that states such a designation is the most common). The point is there is no universally agreed categorisation, terminology or definition, therefore we should try to avoid imposing it as best we can. Equally, no, the infobox is not meant to be an exposition of international law, especially not such a gross simplification and hence distortion of it. Worse than that, there is certainly no categorisation that, as a whole, designates Russia as "continuous", 11 others only – excluding Russia – as "successors" and the three Baltics as "restored", whether as a statement of international law or anything else. As I have said, this is your and Vecrumba's invention.

This all kicked off, if I recall, because you wanted the Baltics excluded altogether from a combined list headed up at the time simply "successor states" on the basis of your usual hobbyhorse that this would imply their original incorporation into the USSR was legal. Well, it wouldn't necessarily of course, but letting you have that one, and acknowledging the wider problem with the term, my proposal didn't list them as "successors". All my edit did was remove the sub-headings you inserted and avoid use of the term successors at all, by replacing the main heading with the perfectly reasonable and descriptive "Post-Soviet states". The Baltics remained in a separate sub-group at the bottom, with a footnote explaining the issue there, and for the other states. That dealt with your complaint but with the added bonus of not introducing new problems by suggesting there are definitive, agreed sub-classifications. You haven't explained in any real way what the actual problem with that as a solution to all the concerns from all sides, not just but including yours, is. And btw on the unrecognised entities, I never said they should not be included. Actually I think they should be in the infobox but not under any heading referring to "states"; nor should their footnote refer to them as such. They were in my version but you have now unilaterally wiped them, without any discussion (and misleadingly claimed that was all you were doing in your latest reversion). N-HH talk/edits 13:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I like quoting sources, here are some more:

Hollis The Oxford Guide to Treaties - Page 415

"The Russian Federation officially adopted this view, declaring itself as the 'continuator' and not a successor to the USSR. Even though the continuator concept was relatively novel at the time, the Russian Federation's view was generally accepted by by other states as well as by the UN where the name "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" was only replaced by the new name "Russian Federation"

Gaeta The UN Genocide Convention: A Commentary - Page 485

"In this scenario of separation, we would have one or several successor states, but we would also have a continuator state. The best such example is that of the Soviet Union, which has a number of successor states, but whose legal personality (together with UN membership and veto in the Security Council) was continued by the Russian Federation. In the second situation, however, we would have the dissolution of the predecessor states into several new successor states, none of which would be able to claim continuity with its predecessor, whose legal personality would thus be extinguished. Such were, for instance, the breakup of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia, or the dissolution of the former Socialist federal Republic of Yugoslavia."

You probably are aware of the coming referendum on Scotland's independence. There has been plenty of analysis of the implications of this, for example this paper. This analysis examines the potential consequences in light of dissolution of the Soviet Union and status of Russia/Baltics/11 Newly independent states as continuator/restored(or reverted)/successor states respectively. According to this analysis, the likely outcome is that rump UK would be, like Russia, a continuator state. On the other hand, Scotland would have difficulty in claiming preservation of its continuity with the pre-1707 Scottish state because Scotland was never illegally annexed like the Baltics states, thus would be considered a new state:

"Most likely, the rumpUK would be considered the continuator of the UK for all international purposes and Scotland a new state. This has been the most common outcome in the case of separation, as evidenced, for example, by the acceptance of Russia as the continuator of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) despite its political collapse. The fact that the rUK would retain most of the UK’s territory and population and that its governmental institutions would continue uninterrupted would count in its favour. So, importantly, would the acquiescence of other states in any claim of continuity. Since the rUK would be the same state as the UK, questions of state succession would arise only for Scotland."

And goes on:

"Reversion to a previous independent state such as the pre-1707 Scottish state may not be excluded. But it normally depends on conditions that are absent here, such as the unwilling subjugation of the former state."

Unwilling subjugation is a pre-requisite for maintaining the presumption of continuity and hence the possibility to restore or revert the state:

"What these statements suggest is that their formal legal identity of the Baltic states, rather than being extinguished in 1940 and then revived in 1991, was preserved throughout that period. It was significant that Russia’s control, though effective, was tainted by illegality. This places the Baltic states in the same category as the more fleeting cases of illegal but effective annexation mentioned above and suggests that in such circumstances even the passage of fifty years may not displace the presumption of continuity."

Thus this paper demonstrates that the classification of continuator, restored or reverted state, and successor, exists and are discussed together in the one analysis. No synthesis here. So your claim that it is an "invention" basically demonstrates your apparent ignorance on the topic of how states evolve, which the point of representing past and present states in the info-box. Unfortunate that a couple newbies should arrive now, I recall the only other editor to support you was the indef-blocked sock User:Peterzor. Looks like a checkuser may be in order. --Nug (talk) 12:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

As noted about 14 times now, we know different sources and different parties use specific terminology in some contexts. I don't understand what you're trying to prove with this wall of text. Interesting though that you're quoting Russia's viewpoint on continuation, when it suits you, having discounted when it doesn't, such as with its view on the status of the Baltic republics. But that's the nature of your pick-and-mix approach and something your last quotes don't resolve: that paper, which is not about the USSR anyway, does not appear to explicitly divide the post-Soviet states into discrete and definite groups of 1, 11 and 3 with the sub-headings you're insisting on.

Anyway, I'm very happy for you keep banging on in this amusing fashion about your asserted superior understanding of international law and continue your overheated bid to rationalise your preferred demarcations here, while glaringly avoiding the wider and more fundamental question one level beyond that, which is actually quite a simple one: why have purportedly definitive sub-headings at all, especially when they are clearly so problematic? Why are you quite so persistent that we simply must have sub-headings? And as for consensus, could you point to the army of supporters weighing in on your side? Cheers. Most of these are rhetorical questions btw. I'm not really looking for your take on the answers or likely to read them anyway. N-HH talk/edits 16:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a mischaracterisation to claim I quote Russia's viewpoint on continuation, when it suits me, having discounted when it doesn't with regard to the Baltic states. It is not what I think that matters, but what reliable sources say. Sources tell us that the majority of the international community, except for Ukraine initially, recognise and accept Russia's claim as continuator of the USSR. Sources also tell us the majority of the international community do not accept Russia's claims with respect to the Baltic states and support the view that the Baltics were illegally annexed. Even the view within Russian scholarship is not unanimous. Unlike the consensus in Western scholarship, Russian historiography seems to be divided into the liberal-democratic (либерально-демократическое) camp and and the the patriotic-nationalist (национально-патриотическое) camp. The liberal-democratic camp is essentially aligned with the Western consensus view that the Baltic states were occupied and forcibly and illegally incorporated into the USSR, while patriotic-nationalist camp contends that the Baltic states voluntarily accepted Soviet troops and joined to the USSR via the free will of the Baltic peoples. In other words, the view that the Baltics were legally incorporated into the USSR is essentially a Russian nationalist viewpoint, that's why sock puppets like User:Peterzor, who apparently see you as their champion, come out of the woodwork in apparent support for you.

Turning your question on its head, why not have sub-headings? This is an encyclopaedia after all, so why not have more detail where we easily can (taking up less bytes to boot), why simplify to the extent of obfuscating? What is so problematical about sub-categories? You repeatedly claim different terms are used by different sources and/or in different contexts, but the context here is singular, that of transition from one state to another. Why are you so persistent in demanding a single category, a single category that misleadingly implies all entities emerged simultaneously with equal status? So persistent that after six months of stability you still feel compelled to revert to your preferred version? After all it was you who started this thread using the relatively minor issue of illegality/restoration as an apparent pretext to a more wholesale change to something you proposed four months ago but failed to gain support. These aren't rhetorical questions btw, I do intend on reading your answers. --Nug (talk) 10:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

No amount of "notes" corrects the misconception created by the title "Successors" that all states came "after", that is what people take "successor" to mean. Really, what was wrong with the earlier compromise? It was clear, concise, and unambiguous, if somewhat imperfect--pertaining mostly to details of Russia as the continuation state. A single category is oversimplification to the point of being incorrect. Encyclopedias are meant to clarify, not to follow arbitrary imaginary rules. The breakup of the Soviet Union must reflect, not relegate to notes as if minor details, its unique circumstances. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

What do we need this information in the info-box anyway? Infoboxes are for non-controversial facts. TFD (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, not only is lumping them all into the one category is controversial, it is misleading too. --Nug (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It's news to me that Russia considered continuation state, Baltics restored states, the rest successor states is, from the standpoint of international law, controversial in any manner whatsoever. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The Baltic States have elements of successor states, for example people who emigrated there during the Soviet era are considered citizens, and various agreements made during that time are considered valif. AFAIK no other state has ever been considered to have disappeared and come back to life, meaning some discussion is required. Also, the Baltic States are fairly minor in the overall subject. TFD (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Soviet-era emigrants are considered non-citizens. With regard to various agreements made during the soviet period, Peter Van Elsuwege writes: "Proceeding from their basic standpoint of illegal Soviet occupation and state continuity, the Baltic States do not accept the validity of international treaties concluded by the Soviet Union. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania do not regard themselves as Soviet successor states and, therefore, bear no responsibility for the liabilities of this State. On the other hand, there is a presumption that the pre-war treaties, concluded by the then independent Baltic republicsm continue to be in force as long as they have not expressly been terminated. Most countries have recognised this basic position". The Baltic states aren't considered as having disappeared and brought back to life, that's the case with Austria when it was absorbed into the Greater German Reich, but not of the Baltic states. The occupation of the Baltic states is generally compared with the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, in both cases these countries never disappeared, but continued to exist de jure, as sovereign title was never transferred to the respective occupying power. While the Baltic States may well be fairly minor in the overall subject, the fact that Russia is recognised not as a successor, but as a continuator of the USSR is more major, but this is also obfuscated. Your apparent confusion and misunderstanding of these basic facts highlight the need to clearly articulate the status of these countries in the infobox. --Nug (talk) 08:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

TFD, we've been over this ground before. Just because the Baltic States couldn't be restored totally completely to their prewar condition does not make them not continuous. "Elements of" successor is utterly irrelevant here with regard to their sovereign continuity in international law, that is, your personal synthesis doesn't trump international law. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, other than our seeming predispositions to disagree first and examine positions later, I really don't understand where my proposal for the infobox (in international law... Russia successor (by treaty), Baltics continuous, rest successors) does not add valuable, concise, information for the casual reader or student. Certainly leaving someone to read the article to glean the same information is the less optimal solution. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Even the Soviet Union back in 1991 accepted the Baltic states were restoring their independence, the view that the Baltics are successor states of the SU is a more recent manifestation of Russian nationalist discourse. It seems somewhat tendentious that N-HH and TFD would apparently champion Russian nationalist POV over the consensus view found in reliable sources. --Nug (talk) 09:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

"champion Russian nationalist POV?" TFD (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Come off it. I'm probably about the only person currently involved who isn't seemingly trying to push some form of political line here but instead trying to avoid explicit labels and instead find the widest possible description, precisely so that we don't tie the infobox to expressing a view one way or the other. We've got some people trying to make it say, definitively, that all the states are successors and others trying to knock out the Baltic states and sometimes Russia too. My position is that we should do neither and avoid the term altogether due to the fact it is used at different times in different ways and that there isn't even unanimity when it comes to the more legalistic interpretation. And, as I keep having to point out to you, with reference to sources, there is no "consensus view" on the use of terminology and/or categorisation. Your pretending that isn't true does make it not true. Finally, as to where we are now, we seem to have a particularly bloated and badly written set of footnotes. That's the right place to briefly explain the complexity but they need to be concise. N-HH talk/edits 11:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course there is a political line in attempting to give undue weight to the Russian nationalist POV of the Baltic states being "successors" of the USSR, I guess it is tied up with the fact that many soviet-era Russian speaking settlers ending up stateless after the Baltic states restored their independence. But pretending that Baltic states are "successors" won't change that reality. Misplaced Pages ought to be a reflection of how things are, not what you may wish it to be.

You seem to be suffering a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHERETHAT. As I pointed out to you multiple times, the template guide has a preference for the official successors under international law, I guess because this is an encyclopaedia and the intent is that people may actually learn something. Your argument "there is no 'consensus view' on the use of terminology" and "there isn't even unanimity when it comes to the more legalistic interpretation" is just perverse, reliable secondary sources tell us:

"The Baltic states themselves have taken the stand that they continue the identities of the states existing before 1940. Accordingly this view states cannot be regarded as new states and therefore they cannot be successor states of the ex-USSR. This view has also been accepted by both the international community and the writers of international law."

nor is it in any way controversial, Patrick Dumberry's monograph State Succession to International Responsibility published in 2007 summarises the current mainstream view on page 151:

"The only non-controversial point is that the three Baltic States are regarded not as new States (and not as successor States of the U.S.S.R.) but as identical to the three Baltic States that existed before their 1940 illegal annexation by the U.S.S.R."

You can end your denialism and pretense that no consensus view exists, secondary sources explicitly tell us there is. And you can stop telling pork-pies about your "referenced sources", you've only presented one as far as I can recall and it wasn't very convincing. NPOV is not about giving every fringe viewpoint equal weight and synthesising "the widest possible description", that's called original research. --Nug (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

RFC

How shall the infobox look and what shall it mention? Kalix94 (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The purpose of infoboxes is to provide clear, concise and non-controversial information. Listing all the successor states of the Soviet Union and providing details about disputes over whether the Baltic States were successors or restored states is too much information and belongs in the body of the article. So I suggest not using the successor state field. TFD (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

What disputes are you imagining? Patrick Dumberry's monograph State Succession to International Responsibility published in 2007 summarises the current mainstream view on page 151:

"The only non-controversial point is that the three Baltic States are regarded not as new States (and not as successor States of the U.S.S.R.) but as identical to the three Baltic States that existed before their 1940 illegal annexation by the U.S.S.R."

So I do agree with you about not using the successor state field in this case.--Nug (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

We discussed this a long time ago. The Baltic States have attributes of both revived and successor states. For example, Russians born there are citizens. Oddly, your latest source says that it is not absolutely clear that Russia is the continuator of the Soviet Union, so again the list is ambiguous. And per a comment below, the Baltic States are a very minor aspect of the Soviet Union, and whether they are revived or successor states has almost no significance to this article or for the vast majority of people reading this article. TFD (talk) 09:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:V, content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Your belief that Russians born there during the soviet period are citizens is factually incorrect, as the article Non-citizens (Latvia) indicates, thus your view that Baltic States have attributes of both revived and successor states is synthesis and certainly not supported by any reliable source, otherwise you would have posted a cite by now. --Nug (talk) 09:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC).

Your link says two thirds of Russians in Lativa are Lativian citizens. Estonia allowed Russians to chose citizenship, while Lithuania considers Russians born in Estonia to be citizens. Anyway, you provided the source that said the annexation was recognized de facto by many states, including the UK, and de jure by others, and that they have elements of both successor and continuator, while I provided you with a source from the UK government explaining the status of these states. I assume you read those sources, so no need to link them over and over and over again.

Incidentally, the Soviet Union occupied many states during WWII, such as Poland, why should we include these specific states? Under the UK article, we do not include in the infobox the approx 50 foreign states which were once dependencies.

TFD (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

"Lithuania considers Russians born in Estonia to be citizens", that is just plain confused. Your contention that post-1991 naturalisation process of immigrants is somehow relevant is just synthesis, as sources show that the naturalisation policy was driven by humanitarian concerns rather than any obligation a real succession would entail. No, your UK source, which discusses the potential succession of Scotland from the UK in light of the experience of other countries including the Baltic states, makes no mention of "elements of both successor and continuator" anywhere, for example:

"Cases of annexation that other states have treated as being illegal are even less apposite to Scotland. The Baltic states may seem atypical in that they apparently reappeared after a period – forty years – that lasted much longer than, say, Iraq’s more fleeting occupation of Kuwait. But if that is indeed what happened, the principle nonetheless rests on the preservation of their identity throughout a period of illegal annexation. It is not applicable to a voluntary union.""

--Nug (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC).

That is one aspect in which the Baltic states can be seen as restored states. OTOH, as pointed out, it had little significance. There was no government in exile to return. The president of the Latvian SSR remained president after independence. It may be that the Baltic states were humanitarian in allowing Russians to remain, but that is not a feature of restored states. The main difference between the Baltic states and the other "successor" states is that the West had recognized them as part of the Soviet Union.

Also, if the Baltic states are not successor states, why list them at all? We do not list Poland, although it was also occupied by the Soviet Union.

TFD (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You are not making sense. So now other "successor" states were not recognised by by the West as part of the Soviet Union? Sigh, you really ought to read WP:Synthesis. --Nug (talk) 10:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Guidance on how an infobox shall look and what it mentions is found in Template:Infobox_former_country/doc. --Nug (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment is this RFC really just about the Baltic states? Personally, I can't understand why calling them successor states is mutually incompatible with them also being restored states. The labelling frankly doesn't really matter, this is a rather semantic debate. Thom2002 (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

It is not mere semantics, the template documentation expresses a preference for listing successors as defined "under international law". This is an encyclopaedia and WP:Accuracy is policy, and sources tell us there is agreement by "writers of international law" that the Baltic states are not secessor states of the USSR. But no one is insisting on removing the Baltic states from the info-box, but rather indicate the generally accepted view in international law scholarship with some simple annotation as was originally used in a version stable since June, until recent edit warring and initiation of this RFC by a suspected sock puppet. --Nug (talk) 08:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Your proposal seems emminently sensible then, Nug, and is one that I would support.

this is not only the baltics it also that the infobox uses an orignial construction on Predecessor/Successor syntax, see Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia how Predecessor/Successor syntax shall be used Kalix94 (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Urrr what do you mean exactly? I had a look at the SFRY infobox, what exactly are you proposing for the USSR infobox? Sorry I'm struggling to follow the meat of your proposal. Thom2002 (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

see the png, the current version wrong according to Template:Infobox_former_country/doc under the "Preceding and succeeding entities" section Kalix94 (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Kalix94, you have been reported as a suspected sock puppet. --Nug (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Nug, the SPI has not over yet, and whatever the spi rules i still make a good point about the soviet union infobox Kalix94 (talk) 08:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

see https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Soviet_Union&diff=591574083&oldid=591428362 changes there to see what i meant Kalix94 (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

We have discussed this before on talk before you were banned, and a majority of editors deemed the default template parameters inadequate to handle the complex case of the Soviet Union. --Nug (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, this issue seems to surround you and just you, Nug, as you seem to not be able to allow the Baltics to be considered successor states or succeeding.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Incapable of focusing on the ball and not the player? No, the issue is WP:V, reliable sources tell us that the Baltics are not considered successor states in international law, the infobox guide tells us that the preference is to list successors in international law, and annotating the infobox guide in a succinct way to indicate which countries are considered continuous/restored/successors in international law seems the best solution, as you previously seemed to support with these edits, . No one advocating removing the Baltic states all together. --Nug (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

International law is not the issue here. The template only says "succeeded". Nothing about labeling them "successor states" anywhere on Misplaced Pages, and even in the template documentation it's only a suggested guideline and not a hardline rule, so clearly we can treat the USSR as a unique case. And I only fixed that ugly ass formatting half a year ago. Don't say those edits somehow support your side of the argument. You are twisting things into what you think is best and this only shows that you need to be prevented from disrupting this page anymore.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It is implausible to suggest that you edited the form of the infobox June last year without understanding the content, you were part of the discussion in May about removing the Baltic states altogether. Your edits (at that point the infobox was to a compromise version including the Baltics) came directly after my edits, you could have easily hit the revert button but instead you choose to refine it further. The only disruption I see is your revert before the closure of this RFC and your somewhat belligerent tone. it is not helpful. Yes, I agree with you that the Soviet Union is a unique case, hence the need for annotation, while your treatment is identical to any other country article which is in contradiction to your claim of uniqueness. --Nug (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• RFC Comment Hi, in case sources describe the successor-state issue as controversial, then the infobox is probably not the right place to approach it and it should be handled in the body of the article. If only editors say the issue is controversial, then as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned, it isn't controversial and the states can be listed in the infobox, IMO. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
• This whole debate seems to surround the fact that Nug will not allow the Baltic States to be considered "successors" to the Soviet Union due to their declarations of independence. Removing him from the equation should solve this unnecessarily WP:LAME dispute. The template doesn't even say "successors". It says "preceded by" and "succeeded by" which is as neutral as possible. Nug's persistence in this (I recall gaining his ire previously because of this perennial dispute) is problematic. I've instituted the version which apparently is in use on other Soviet era articles that was apparently promoted by a sockpuppet and instituted the use of the template's "today" parameter to contain everything about the footnotes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

But apparently not sufficiently WP:LAME for you to jump in and revert to a banned sock puppet's preferred version, a version that most people agree is inadequate, before this sock puppet initiated RFC is even concluded. Many observers would perceive your revert as somewhat at odds with your earlier edits, in support of the version most people accept. --Nug (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of that being a sockpuppet of a banned editor, it is in fact a better way to treat his page because it does not need a whole lot of unnecessary formatting just because you keep insisting that the Baltics have to be mentioned separately when the template does not insist what you think it does. Template:Infobox former country#Preceding and succeeding entities may say "For most cases, the main and/or official predecessor/successor (under international law) is sufficient" but clearly the Soviet Union is a unique case which means we don't need to abide by those rules. People going to this page do not need to see such an extensive coverage of the politics of the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the infobox. They just need to know what came before (the Russian SFSR, et al.) and what came after (the RF, the Baltics, the -stans, etc.), and we may as well also say what exists today (including the 4 limited recognition regions). And no. Only you perceive that point of view based on my edits from June 2013. Throughout this debate you have been putting words in my mouth without even having the common decency to notify me that this discussion has been on going. I left last year it because you are so bothersome to deal with. The fact that you have been using me to your advantage disgusts me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

?? Why would I notify you of an RFC started by somebody else, the last time you edited this article was last June, you are hardly on my radar and in any case that would be canvasing. No less bizarre is your claim I have been using you to my advantage or have been "putting words" into your mouth "throughout this debate", all I did was present evidence of your apparent previous editorial support. These kinds of wild accusations hardly exhibits the collegiate behaviour expected here. Since where you an authority on what people "need to know"? Template:Infobox former country#Preceding and succeeding entities saying "For most cases, the main and/or official predecessor/successor (under international law) is sufficient" implies that this is the general expectation of readers is to see successors under international law. Yes, the Soviet Union is a unique case, thus the annotation indicates the uniqueness. Your version takes up way more space making the infobox a mile long and double listing states using both the "successor" and "today" parameter. --Nug (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to continue to respond to you in two separate threads. It's just getting annoying. So this covers your post in the main thread as well as this subthread.

You should not have been misconstruing my fixing of your formatting of the infobox in June 2013 as an implicit agreement with you on how things should be treated. I was simply tired of arguing with you, as will soon happen again. I looked in the archives and found multiple instances of you referring to the edits that I had made as me agreeing with you on this matter and you never bothered to contact me during that time.

The Soviet Union is a unique case in that we do not need to stick with the "international legality" that you have been pushing for. Any and all nations that were formed from what was once the Soviet Union should be considered as "succeeding" the Soviet Union, whether or not they are considered "successor states" by international law. This means that I agree with the 15 member model and the much simpler treatment that I had implimented in the past few days, as well the use of the today parameter, which is what is used elsewhere on the project for these former countries and is being used to show any current nations (and their flags) that claim self autonomy, whether recognized or not and ot host the footnotes. We should be presenting this information as simply as possible to the reader who will look at the infobox to see what countries came into existence with the dissolution of the USSR. They do not care about the technicalities in the matter and omitting anything or separating them is not useful to the lay reader. To be honest, the infobox could lose the footnotes.

There.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding: "I looked in the archives and found multiple instances of you referring to the edits that I had made as me agreeing with you", that's just BS, I only referred to you once previously in drawing a conclusion any other reasonable person would with respect to your edits. Your claim that any and all nations that were formed from what was once the Soviet Union should be considered as "succeeding" the Soviet Union has one big flaw, the Baltic states were already formed before the USSR was even created. A reader who will look at the infobox to see what countries came into existence with the dissolution of the USSR will be misled because the the Baltic states already existed since 1920. In fact, the notion that the Baltic states only came into existence with the dissolution of the USSR is considered Russian nationalist POV. And again, how do you know readers "do not care about the technicalities in the matter and omitting anything or separating them is not useful to the lay reader", it is obvious that you do not care but don't project this onto the reader. This is an encyclopaedia after all, readers come here to be educated and informed. --Nug (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Well you drew the wrong conclusion.

And the lay reader coming to this page will be confused by the omission or special treatment of anything in the infobox. Your insistence that the occupation of the Baltics by the USSR and their declaration of independence before the dissolution affords them special treatment in an infobox makes no sense. Infoboxes should be as simple as possible. If you claim readers will be misled by the inclusion of three nations and their flags, then that should be covered in the prose.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Ryūlóng, of course the Baltics are in no manner "successor states" to the Soviet Union. Don't argue with editors and accuse them of being obstinate when you don't have your facts straight. Nor does one create inaccurate infoboxes only to correct misconceptions in article text. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 07:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania became independent nations towards the end of the USSR and are Post-Soviet states. I do not see how that means they cannot be described as "succeeding" (not as "successor states") and not listed in a simple list with the others, instead of all of the footnote stuff.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

They were occupied territories under international law, therefore they are in no manner succeeding, legally or otherwise, and only colloquially "post-Soviet". The current infobox of mismatched before/after and now also current is a misleading and unencyclopedic mishmosh. I'm sorry to be so blunt. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

They still succeeded the Soviet Union in the common sense of that word. The infobox does not need to be the place to give a detailed account of the legality of the 15 sovereign nations that now exist in what was previously the territory of the USSR.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox former country#Preceding and succeeding entities#To_which_entries_should_I_link? states "Do not list entities that were formed/dissolved outside the life-span of the discussed state", it also states "If the predecessor and successor are the same, and this predecessor/successor continued to exist during this period, do not list either" the Baltic states were formed in 1920, before the Soviet Union which was formed in 1922, and continues to exist after the end of the Soviet Union, therefore the Baltic states shouldn't even be listed. --Nug (talk) 08:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no sensible reason to omit the Baltic states. They are Post-Soviet. Stop pulling these technicalities out of nowhere to suit your desires. You and Vercrumba have consistently been in the minority on this issue but your presences have stagnated any movement forward. And WP:IAR can be applied here to include them because the documentation of a template is not a hardline rule to be followed anyway. Do not remove the Baltics from the page, again, as you have been wont to do for over a year.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

As discussed and referenced ad nauseam above, there isn't a source in the world that would contradict the general description of all 15 as "Post-Soviet states". Many reputable sources, relying on the general use of the term, would also describe all 15 as "succeeding" or being "successor states" to the Soviet Union (one source even describes the latter as the most common terminology used in broader academic discourse). Yes, there are legal technicalities here but as noted most people are surely not interested in that when it comes to an infobox. All they want to know is the relatively simple (not oversimplistic) answer to the simple question: "what states came before and after?" The idea that we should exclude the Baltics altogether or give them a special discrete title or description that is not universally used in the literature is rather clearly being driven by an agenda. Can we, finally, just forget the politics for once? Short footnotes to clarify the situation very briefly do make sense I think, but not any overextended or confusingly written discussion. N-HH (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no politics or agenda, just what sources tell us is the mainstream view in the international community. You ask "what states came before and after?" the simple answer is the Baltic states comes both before and after, yet this infobox only lists them as "successors". This "discrete title that is not universally used in the literature" is a red herring, a similar argument used unsuccessfully in Mass killings under Communist regimes to argue that "mass killing" cannot be used because sources use different terms like genocide, democide, politicide, etc. The reality is the situation and status of the Baltics is different, so it can be said that pretending that they were no different to the other 12 seems to be driven by politics too. --Nug (talk) 10:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this edit of yours Nug is completely out of line. You need to stop pushing this idea of yours that the intricacies of international law demand that three nations not be listed on this page's infobox. Your edit here is also problematic.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The template guide is both sensible and clear. Your recent arrival as set back any progress, you are advocating a position that has no support at all apart from evident Russian nationalist sock puppets. You don't even seem to understand what the issues are, and resort to falsehoods, I don't advocate removal of the Baltics, but you advocate removal of all footnotes and reversion to the original state from a year ago, something that no one supports, even N-HH. --Nug (talk) 10:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The template documentation is not a hardline rule that must be followed at all times. And we don't need four footnotes detailing who did what with the dissolution in the infobox. The rest of the article is for that. I've even made a footnote going "For more details, see the section below". And frankly it sems you do want to remove the Baltics, that's what you did here just today and multiple times in the past. This isn't Russian nationalism. It's common sense to think that the Baltics are one of the many nations that came about after the Soviet Union was dissolved. You need to drop this insistence that their "illegal" occupation during WWII and their independence a year before the dissolution of the whole makes them so special that they cannot be considered succeeding (not successor states).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

We don't write articles based upon common sense but what reliable sources tell us. While the template documentation is not a hardline rule, its usage has set an expectation and your unsupported treatment is contrary to that expectation and is thus misleading to readers. Sources tell us that indeed the Baltic states are a notably special case, and sources also tell us that the view that occupation was "legal" is minority Russian nationalist POV within Russian scholarship, let alone the rest of the world. You may have noticed that this article is protected from IP edits, this is because of disruptive IPs coming out of Russia. Your revert before this RFC was concluded demonstrates your combative temperament, your support of sock puppet edits: "I am taking on responsibility for that sockpuppet's edits" just displays the seemingly rank level of hypocrisy given your own alleged issues with sock puppets. So please stop disrupting the attempt at consensus building here, as others have claimed you are prone to do. --Nug (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Nug, I just looked at the last 10 unique IP's that edited this page before it was protected, and not a single one originated from Russia. Why would you make something like that up? LokiiT (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes we do. And it's called cognitive dissonance. I will prevent banned editors from being a pain in my side on this project but frankly, this one had a point that I agree with. The same way you agreed that Tommy Oliver should be deleted.

And the issue has nothing to do with the legality or illegality of the occupation of the Baltics in 1940. That's what you're making it out to be. This is over using an accurate infobox that shows what nations were formed from the territory of the former Soviet Union that most people know were previously part of the Soviet Union.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, this is nothing to do with the underlying debate about the historical annexation or about denying its presumed illegality. Quit trying to frame the debate that way and also thereby smear everyone disagreeing with you as some kind of Russian nationalist stooge. It's about how to present information in an infobox – clearly and comprehensively yet relatively simply – while avoiding terms that have disputed meanings and uses. If you don't understand any of my points about the use of sources, about presenting distinctions in the infobox and about the use of the term "successor state", which you appear not to, you can re(?)-read what I've already written and think about it a bit harder rather than pushing me to write it out yet again, here or on my own talk page. N-HH (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

You don't need to repeat what you said, I understand the point you are making perfectly well, you have stated the term "restored states" is "misleading" and the claim that it aligns with RS is "flat-out fraudulent" because you assert "not every source uses the terminology in that way" and that we must follow "real world usage as found in a multitude of reliable sources", citing a single writer's opinion written back in 1995 this usage "is the most common in academic and other discourse". Is that a fair summary? The fallacy in your argument is notion that because some sources use the term "successor" that it therefore invalidates the applicability of the term "restored state" and thus that later term is "misleading". Now there are many problems with this argument, calling it "misleading" you are implying that these terms are mutually exclusive or at least compete with each other in usage, however that contradicts with your other argument that "restored state" is a narrow legalistic term. But as narrow as it may or may not be, it never the less remains applicable and thus cannot be construed as "misleading" in any way. As Asbjorn Eide writes

"State restoration occurs when a previously independent state has been incorporated into a larger entity for some time but subsequently has regained its independence. The prime examples from recent time are the three Baltic states which were incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1940 and regained their independence in 1991"

Nothing misleading about that.

The second issue with your argument is the claim that only terms in "real world usage" that "is most common" (as opposed to allegedly "narrow legalistic" terms) should be used. Not withstanding the fact that the specific guide on "common usage" applies only to article titles, problem is that determining common usage would be an exercise in original research, unless you can find a source that states what the usage is. You have found one source published in 1996 that asserts the use of "successor" is the most common "in academic and diplomatic discourse". However Webber also writes in 1996:

"The Baltic states themselves have taken the stand that they continue the identities of the states existing before 1940. Accordingly this view states cannot be regarded as new states and therefore they cannot be successor states of the ex-USSR. This view has also been accepted by both the international community and the writers of international law."

These two sources contradict each other because it is through academic and diplomatic discourse that writers of international law and the international community respectively communicate. Indeed these two conflicting contemporaneous sources point to a controversy that must of existed in 1996. But ten years later in 2006 later the matter appears to be settled, as Dumberry writes:

"The only non-controversial point is that the three Baltic States are regarded not as new States (and not as successor States of the U.S.S.R.) but as identical to the three Baltic States that existed before their 1940 illegal annexation by the U.S.S.R."

You misunderstand the intent of WP:IAR. The gist of WP:IAR is that when it comes to a choice between the spirit and letter of some rule when improving the encyclopaedia, ignore the letter. Now maintaining that status quo by insisting on the letter of template guide's "successor" term isn't improving the encyclopaedia, where as succinctly annotating the infobox with relevant information that removes any ambiguity is an improvement that is in spirit of the template guide's preference of listing successors under international law.

It is really unfortunate that you seemed to have brought your baggage of bad faith to this discussion. You really must attempt to put your mistrust aside and work in good faith for the good of this encyclopaedia. --Nug (talk) 11:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

You accuse us of repeating our arguments when you do the same thing. There is no need to give special treatment to anything in the infobox that requires an essay worth of footnotes to explain. Discussion of the legal status of any and all nations that were formed between 1989 and 1992 from Soviet territory should be in the article. Just a simple list of names and flags are fine for the infobox.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Your chronic exaggerations don't make for a helpful contribution. This inbox version that you improved has succinct footnotes. --Nug (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

It's succinct but not concise. All that was said in the footnotes can be said in prose.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Nug, considering I have never said that the term "restored states" is "misleading", yet you claim several times over in your latest essay that I have, you clearly have not understood what I am saying or what my point is. Nor, btw, despite what you go on to say, have I ever said that we should use the most common terms or relied on the Webber source as definitive proof of what those might be. N-HH (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

ps: by contrast, we do very much get the points about annexation, restoration and state succession etc. As I think has been pointed out to you about four times now, there's no need to keep posting lengthy quote-filled essays about them or to turn the actual and relatively simple presentational issue here into a debate about any underlying issues of international law. N-HH (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Well in fact you did say it was misleading back in May last year: "plonking them definitively and exclusively under the term "restored states" is as misleading as simply including them as successor states would be". So it now it appears you are even backing away from seeing "successors" as misleading too. I thought this was settled back in June last year, I even got a barnstar over it. The only thing continuing to drive this discussion is your lack of support when confirmed sock puppets recently reverted, and Ryulong's unhelpful involvement. This opposition driven seemingly by your distrust and bad faith of my motives. I said before, if anyone else other than Vecrumba came up with the idea you would probably be fine with it, which you denied ofcourse. But this bad faith was confirmed by your recent personal attack on your talk page "Well, that's not wholly inaccurate and at least it acknowledges that they were Soviet republics. If another editor had made that change, I'd be less sceptical about it. The problem is, as noted above, is that Nug is virtually an SPA." You really need to think hard about your own motivation here and whether bad faith is clouding your otherwise good judgement. --Nug (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

You have spent a lot of time these past weeks solely focusing your editing to denote the Baltic states as different within meta areas of the project rather than improving the prose.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Nug you betray your lack of comprehension, as I have been suggesting. The point of the first sentence you quote is that it is misleading to exclude them from the list of "successor states" and instead put them under another, separate and specific sub-label (whatever that might happen to be), because in some cases and under some criteria they are described as "successor states" – possibly even in the majority of academic and other serious sources, many of which are not using the term in a technical legal sense. You have noted, surely, that precisely because of this dual real-world use, I have been against not only excluding them from being listed under a specific heading or sub-heading "successor states" but also including them under it, and instead have preferred to avoid the phrase altogether? All my change to Vecrumba's version did – which btw, as already noted, did not "settle" the issue but just happened to be the winner in an edit war and the last unilateral imposition before everybody got bored – was take out the definitive sub-headings, including "successor states". It happily and deliberately left the Baltics grouped separately, together with a footnote referring to their independence being "restored". Without bothering to explain how that change of mine was a problem, you then chose to edit war over it and have since repeatedly removed the Baltics outright from any version of the list. As for my "personal attack", that was a statement in respect of an observable pattern of editing. Your latest one on me, by contrast, is pure speculation about my motives based on misconceived inference from a single statement in another context; even though I repeatedly explained at some length, including again now, exactly what the problem was with your and Vecrumba's preferred formulation. And do you really think your barnstar or showing off about it proves anything? N-HH (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The barnstar shows that your characterisation of the past resolution as "did not "settle" the issue but just happened to be the winner in an edit war and the last unilateral imposition before everybody got bored" is egregiously misleading. Yes, you have repeated your objection over and over that "in some cases and under some criteria they are described as "successor states"", but you seem not to comprehend that the intent or spirit of the template guide is to show them under one specific criteria - that of successor under international law. No educative purpose is served by applying this infobox data inconsistently across articles, it just adds confusion. --Nug (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

We do not have to follow the template's documentation if it gets in the way of us presenting information that everyone is aware of because of this fucking technicality you keep bringing up. Besides, that point in the template documentation you keep praising does not fit here. What we need is the part that goes

In some cases, most readers would expect to see every state that was formed, not just the official predecessor/successor. If so, list all states.

People are expecting all 15 nations, regardless of the legal status of the Baltics during the Cold War.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

And this indeed does show all fifteen, not just showing the eleven official successors but also the four that aren't official successors, annotating one as official continuator and three as official restored states to ensure there is no ambiguity or confusion so as to be consistent with the spirit of the guide.

Perhaps the issue is merely having dividing lines, so I've tweaked the infobox, removing dividing lines between "Continuous with", "Successors" and "Restored" and grouped the lot under N-HH's "Post-Soviet states" category. --Nug (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted this bold move of yours to restore the overly complex version. We do not need to provide these dividing lines in the infobox. We do not need to follow the "official successor" part of the template documentation. Instead we can use the "list everything everyone considers to have been formed" part of the documentation, and that does not say anything about grouping them together as "restored", "continuous", and "successor states" when the template should only be used to say "this is what came before, and these are what came after", without any excessive footnotes or superfluous formatting.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Nug, that's just your long-preferred version, with sub-headings and all, but with the de minimis addition of "Post-Soviet" as a main super-heading (my suggestion of using that as the list header is precisely because it is a bland description that carries minimal baggage or potential confusion, not because its use is crucial). It's not a compromise or a solution that meets any of the objections that have been raised, by me or anyone else. N-HH (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you have said many times "in some cases and under some criteria they are described as "successor states"", I hate say this yet again but you seem always to dodge this, under the criteria of international law there is no ambiguity, they are described as "restored states" and the template guide has a preference for indicating the status "under international law". What is your objection to adopting this single criteria as defined in the guide and thus annotating the infobox with the 1,11,3 format? --Nug (talk) 12:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

And many times you have ignored the point. As to what the template and the guidance actually say: first, of course, it does not use the term "successor state" but the phrase "succeeded by". Secondly, the associated guidance only refers to "international law" in terms of defining "the main and/or official .. successor", in cases where that is the only state to be listed. The guidance then says, in a separate paragraph, that in many cases "most readers would expect to see every state that was formed". In that context, the guidance says nothing whatsoever about hedging and qualifying that list on the basis of "international law" or relying on it to make explicit assertions about international law. N-HH (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The second paragraph discusses including "new entities" that were formed, i.e. successors under international law, and goes on to illustrate that point by citing the example of the new states formed out of Austria-Hungary. As you well know, the Baltic states are not "new entities" but pre-existing entities that also preceded the USSR. --Nug (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Questions About So-Called RFC

First, the heading says RFC, but I don't see an RFC banner. Was this version of the so-called RFC ever published in the proper fashion? Should it be published, or is this issue so LAME that it should be allowed to be ignored by leaving the status quo?

Second, what are the options in this !vote? The current version of the infobox, with 1 continuator, 11 successors, and 3 restored, was the version that had the fewest objections. The only objections were from two stubborn Baltic advocates who wanted to ensure that the Baltic republics were not listed as successor states, and that has been done by enumerating them as restored. The alternatives were to list 15 states, and to list 12 states. The 12-state version is simply unacceptable in that it would ignore 50 years in which the Baltic republics were listed as SSRs on maps. What change is now being requested that is making us go all around again?

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The RFC was started by User:Kalix94, proposing this version. It was published properly and a comment from one non-regular was elicited. However User:Kalix94 was later confirmed to be a sock puppet and this RFC has since expired. --Nug (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The RFC template was removed, yes, but this "current version of the infobox" is just the one Nug boldly reinstated. As I said above, there is no need to put these dividing lines in the infobox just because Nug is insisting that we have to follow the "international law" point in the {{infobox former country}} documentation, rather than the "list everything people assume happened" point in the documentation. This coverage of who is continuous, who is a successor according to international law, and who is restored should be covered in the article prose rather than forced onto readers in the infobox.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

And Robert McClenon, there are two arguments here:

• Use a documentation that divides the 15 post-Soviet states according to their status under international law, including a set of footnotes to explain what these divisions mean or
• Use the template's existing parameters as per every other former nation on this site, without any special labeling of the entities and direct people to read the article to see the divisions

Nug (along with Vercrumba) has been pushing for the former, as it seems he wants to push this fact that the Baltics were illegally occupied and re-obtained their independence before the fall of the Soviet Union and are not "successor states" under international law, but restored, and the Russian Federation's status as continuous with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics requires separate coverage. Other users here, including myself, have thought that the introduction of this division in the infobox is unnecessary, and should be covered by the prose (which it is). When we have inserted this version that uses just the existing parameters, Nug has removed them per the first point in {{infobox former country}}'s documentation that states in its first point

For most cases, the main and/or official predecessor/successor (under international law) is sufficient, since that is what most readers would expect to see. In the case of any potential confusion, list only this.

as well as its third point

Do not list entities that were formed/dissolved outside the life-span of the discussed state.

Both of these are frankly wrong interpretations of the documentation. The first point would only say "list Russia". And the third point does not cover the Baltics, which did exist before the Soviet Union, but were annexed (as Nug would point out illegally), but as they declared themselves independent again before the fall, according to the third point they should still be listed. He has also ignored the second point of the documentation, which states

In some cases, most readers would expect to see every state that was formed, not just the official predecessor/successor. If so, list all states. If only parts of other countries were taken to form the new entity (or if an already existing entity received some of the land from a dissolved entity), list these states only when there are not so many other states to list.

I believe that in the case of the Soviet Union, this means "list all of them in the documentation". The template most certainly does not say "and be sure to list the intracacies of international law". Just "list all of them".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I see. It is a matter of edit-warring over the 15 versus the more complex 1, 11, and 3. Nothing has changed. I didn't look at this article for a while, and maybe should have, but didn't have to do so. I preferred the simpler version of the 15, at least if the wording could be changed to avoid stupid arguments about the status of the Baltics. At the same time, I was satisfied with the more complex 1, 11, and 3. Nug and Vercrumba were obstinate and insisted on special handling for the Baltics. Nug then tweaked the infobox to split it into 1, 11, and 3, and I was satisfied, and I thought that there was satisfaction. Therefore the barnstar for Nug, and, since he is continuing to be stubborn, I regret giving it, but I don't know if I can take it back. There is not satisfaction. I have said before, and Ryulong has repeated, that the details should be in the text. At this point I would suggest that we DELETE THE INFOBOX, but that would provoke the editors who think that infoboxes are more important than article text. Do we really need another RFC? Do we really need more sockpuppetry? Do we really need more edit-warring after a stupid INFOBOX? Can't we let the article text state the issues? Isn't it finally time to have a consensus infobox, or no infobox? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you mean Robert, when you say "Nug then tweaked the infobox to split it into 1, 11, and 3, and I was satisfied, and I thought that there was satisfaction. Therefore the barnstar for Nug, and, since he is continuing to be stubborn, I regret giving it" Continuing to be stubborn about what? I thought there was satisfaction too with the 1, 11, and 3 format, as evidenced by six months of stability and improvements including a couple of edits by Ryulong back in June with this and this. Then around December a couple of editors User:Mankiw2 (an apparent throw away account with 96 edits) and User:Kalix94 (a confirmed sock puppet) started attempting to undo the 1, 11, and 3 format. User:Kalix94 then started the RFC, the only editor to respond to the RFC expressed support for the 1, 11, and 3 format after I explained it to him. Then Ryulong arrives, and Ryulong being Ryulong, expressed support for the sock puppet and disavowed his previous edits improving the 1, 11, and 3 format. And even before the RFC was closed he reverted it to the version preferred by the sock puppet. And he continues to revert, If he thinks it is so lame why is he persisting with this. So it seems to have become basically a pissing competition with Ryulong. Exactly what is wrong with annotating the infobox if it saves reader having to parse the main text of the article? Readers would be confused by seeing the Baltic states as successors in 1991 after reading the article 90th anniversary of the Latvian Republic. The whole raison d'etre of infoboxes is so that people do not have to read the main text. --Nug (talk) 12:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Stop fucking saying my fixing of formatting is agreeing with you god damn it man. And the content belongs in the text. There's no need for annotation. And my version has a "for more details, look below" line damn it. And it's only WP:LAME because you keep making it so.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

At this point, Ryulong, you are the one who is engaging in profanity. Please dial it down. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Never was profanity raised during this debate? It's Nug's constant accusation/assumption that I somehow approved the version he prefers that he keeps bringing up that needs to end.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Who are you kidding, you improved the 1-11-3 format not once, but twice, after you were heavily involved in the discussion in May, so you can't pretend you didn't realise what you were editing. Please stop this silly pissing contest. --Nug (talk) 16:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Even if I did agree, I'm allowed to change my mind.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

As discussed, I'm actually happy with some differentiation in the infobox: I'm not sure it's necessary, but it's not wrong to note it subtly in some way either, and it would at least hopefully settle the dispute. However, if that differentiation is to be incorporated or noted, it can't be done in the Nug/Vecrumba format which uses terminology and sub-headings that are not applied universally. Indeed, whatever we do, the explicit term "successor state" should probably be avoided altogether, whether applied to all 15 or just to 11 or whatever. It's not necessary and it just creates confusion and arguments of the sort that have been going on here for months. I guess that is a mid-point option between the two broader options highlighted above. Given that we have an infobox, I think it would removing this section altogether just to avoid pettifogging disputes driven by single-issue campaigns would be a retrograde step. But it may be the only solution. N-HH (talk) 12:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The 1, 11, and 3 format terminology is widely accepted under international law, and the spirit of the template documentation is to reference the status "under international law", in that case there is no confusion. The suggestion of removing the section altogether will not work because sock puppets like User:Kalix94 will just revert it anyway. --Nug (talk) 12:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

We don't need the "1-11-3" format or "international law" considerations. The simple list is fine. It should not be removed. It should not be modified to the "let's throw a table in there" format.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It is apparent that you stubbornly hold on to your position and will no doubt edit war N-HH's "Post-Soviet state" solution too. However, it is clear when referencing the infobox guide a general expectation exists that we should base it on international law considerations, in the minority of cases where we want to list additional countries that are not official successors under international law then annotating them appropriately is warranted so as not confuse readers who hold that expectation. BTW I was replying to N-HH. He asserts the terminology of continuous/successor/restored state is "not applied universally", however under the criteria of international law it is unambiguous. --Nug (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

As much as you stubbornly hold onto your position that the contents must be explained thoroughly in the infobox or not at all. And stop repeating that one point about the infobox documentation and stop repeating your international law argument. Per the second point of the documentation, all states should be listed regardless of their status under international law.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Calm down. Per the sixth point: "If the predecessor and successor are the same, and this predecessor/successor continued to exist during this period, do not list either. Instead, make it clear what this state was somewhere in the events section". But I've modified my position back in May from excluding them altogether to including them as long as there is appropriate annotation. Nothing in the documentation prohibits annotating the infobox as required, in fact they encourage it, that's why a footnote parameter exists. --Nug (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

That is only for situations where the nation has changed names back and forth and the name before is exactly the same after, as the example they give during the US Civil War. And the annotation is "Read #Post-Soviet states for more information on succession". We don't need anything more crammed in the infobox if prose suffices.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

As indeed the case with the Baltic states, their names are exactly the same as the pre-1940 states. The whole raison d'etre of infoboxes is so that people can at a glance get the salient points without having to read the main text, so you annotation is somewhat impractical. --Nug (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a stretch and you know it. And infoboxes are just a summary of the salient information. Not a substitute for reading the whole page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't try to weasel out of that one, it is not a stretch, it is easily verified that the pre-Soviet and post-soviet Baltics states are identical. While glancing at an infobox may well never be a substitute for reading the whole page, never the less for many time constrained people an adequately annotated infobox is important to them. --Nug (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It is indeed a stretch because it hinges on your constant argument that the Baltics must be treated differently if included or not included at all. The Baltics succeeded the Soviet Union along with the Russian Federation and the nations that made up the Commonwealth of Independent States in the literal sense of that word. It does not matter how many times you can point out the illegality of the annexation and the legal status after the dissolution. They should be mentioned and there is no need to say that they are special in the infobox when that can be thoroughly covered by this article or related ones. And pointing users to a point on the page that has the information is better than having an infobox extend farther than it needs to be.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Well I disagree, and repeating your opinion doesn't make it any more valid or give it greater weight than my opinion. It appears you are unwilling to compromise and remain stubbornly fixated to the version originally promoted by the sock puppet. The inconsistent hypocrisy of your stance with respect to annotation is evidenced by your retention of annotation for South Ossetia, Abkhazia (why are these even included?), Nagorno-Karabakh and Transnistria with a footnote regarding their status in international law "These states have limited recognition in the international community." --Nug (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Nug, if the Baltic states were never part of the USSR, but were only occupied, why include them at all? The USSR occupied many countries, including Poland, but we do not include them. Or do you think we should? Unless you think that the Baltic states were mid-way between part of the USSR/occupied. TFD (talk) 04:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

TFD, this is a red herring. The discussion is about the intent of the infobox and the utility of the 1,11,3 format in achieving that intent. --Nug (talk) 05:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The 1-11-3 format is not necessary when the prose can cover this issue. The infobox should just the commonly accepted "Post-Soviet states" and the prose of the article can delve into the intracacies of international law. As we often repeat each other. And the inclusion of the four states that claim sovereignty but are not Post-Soviet does require a footnote because the nature of international law in that group is about now and not 20 years ago.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes we know what you think should and shouldn't be, but your opinion carries no more weight than anyone else's, probably less because your reasoning appears to be so often terribly flawed. For example just before you told us that point six of the template guide was "only for situations where the nation has changed names back and forth and the name before is exactly the same after", when I pointed out to you that the Baltic states also changed their names back and forth and their names before was exactly the same as after, you tried to weasel out of it and repeated what should and shouldn't be. And again, your justification for inclusion of footnotes for the four entities but not the others "because the nature of international law in that group is about now and not 20 years ago" is just as flawed, because Russia, the 11 new states and the Baltics are considered today as continuator, successor and restored state under international law. You insist prose can cover this issue for the 1+11+3 countries, but for the 4 insist footnotes are required, while your criteria for footnoting the 4 applies just as equally to 1+11+3 countries. This kind of flawed justification indicates that your opinion for what should or shouldn't be is totally arbitrary and inconsistent with any guidance we may have. --Nug (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

All I gather from your constant posts is that the Baltics need special consideration. We do not need to annotate the list of 15 because that can be covered in prose. And maybe you're right when it comes to the states of limited international recognition. I'm deleting the today parameter so you can stop harping at me over their inclusion. No footnotes outside of the one for .su. No special treatment for any entity. Just a list of the 15 internationally recognized Post-Soviet states.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Just brilliant, the only source that mentions "internationally recognized Post-Soviet states" says there were only twelve. --Nug (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I get it Nug. You want the Baltics either not mentioned or mentioned but with the proviso that they're treated specially. You don't have to keep tearing apart sources to get your way.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I want this encyclopaedia written on the basis of verified reliable sources, not based upon what you WP:KNOW. In any case "post Soviet state" is an anachronism since it refers to the state as it was during the transitional period, known as the "post-Soviet era", in the years immediately after the fall of the SU when Soviet structures still remained in place. Certainly today all states, except for Transnistria and maybe Belarus, aren't considered "post-Soviet states" any more, certainly not Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania after their accession to the EU. --Nug (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

So you get to reject sources when they include the Baltics along with the members of the NIS/CIS as a general group of states that came into existence (either newly or again) after the dissolution of the USSR?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Nug, I hope you're not suggesting that the quote cited above is evidence that the source in question thinks there are only 12 internationally recognised post-Soviet states (whatever that would mean anyway) let alone that this is a widely held opinion? The reference to "international recognition" there is meant, of course, to exclude Transnistria et al, not the three Baltic states. Also, if you cared to read further into that book, you would see that a footnote on p.230 explains that the author has simply taken the decision to exclude the Baltics from consideration in this specific context for specific reasons. The fact that they have to explain that is, if anything, evidence that they would ordinarily be included in the category. As for "anachronism", there is of course no anachronism in using the phrase "post-Soviet" to refer to the post-Soviet period or to post-Soviet entities any more than it is an "anachronism" to refer to the "Soviet Union" in the relevant context. N-HH (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The Baltic states aren't universally considered to be "post-Soviet states", as you have shown with the footnote on page 230:"Here as elsewhere the three Baltic states are excluded, because, since joining the EU and NATO, their profiles are very different."

As Rick Fawn writes in International Organizations and Internal Conditionality: Making Norms Matter in the last paragraph on page 3:

"Post-Soviet is taken to mean current countries that were part of the USSR since its formation in 1922. “Post-Soviet” therefore excludes the Baltic republics."

--Nug (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Stop pulling things out nowhere to advocate the removal of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania from the infobox unless they are treated separately from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. It's getting tiresome. All fifteen nations are considered to have come out of the Soviet Union in some form, which is all that the infobox is trying to illustrate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Stop trying to derail my discussion with N-HH. --Nug (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Nug: You told Ryulong to stop trying to derail the discussion between Nug and N-HH, but I don't see such a discussion. At least, I don't see a give-and-take discussion or a dialog. I don't see Nug responding to N-HH's careful exposition, so I don't see how Ryulong, with a more blanket dismissal of Nug's arguments, is derailing the discussion. In any case, the discussion is becoming tiresome, as is any argument about the infobox. I would be more interested in a discussion of whether to list the largely unrecognized states such as Transnistria. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

As I read it, N-HH was calling into question on whether I was suggesting "post-Soviet state" applied only to 12 rather than the 15 former Soviet republics, and I responded with a 2013 source that gave an explicit definition of post-Soviet as those countries that were part of the USSR since 1922. Other authors, for example Vinokurov, contend that the Baltics aren't considered post-Soviet states on account of their EU membership and non-involvement in any form of regional integration in the FSU. So N-HH's contention that "post-Soviet State" is a universally applied category is disproved. N-HH's wider argument with respect to the 1-11-3 format is that he claims it uses sub-headings that are not applied universally, saying that in some cases and under some criteria they are described as "successor states", citing a single source where the author has simply taken the decision to call the Baltics "successors" in the specific context of his book for specific reasons. However I have replied to him many times that using the single criteria of international law results in no ambiguity what so ever, but he never seems to address that point. But then I may have misinterpreted him, so Robert, please explain your take of N-HH's "careful exposition". --Nug (talk) 05:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Why do we have to adhere to this strict reading of sources and one point in a template's formatting? Why do you keep rejecting the grouping of the Baltics from the RF and the other 11? Why do you keep editing your comment days after you posted it? None of this is necessary.

And McClenon, what do you think is a good way to refer to the four states of limited recognition?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOR and WP:V require us to be strict with our sourcing. You have repeatedly asked why the Baltics have to be treated specially and not grouped with the other 11. Because reliable sources tell us that the Baltics represent a special case and are treated seperately, for example:

• The New Russian Foreign Policy by Serman Garnett, p78:

"A second stabilizing factor is that Russia sees the Baltic states as a special case outside its integrationist framework for the rest of the former U.S.S.R. This status already emerged in the late Soviet period, as Boris Yeltsin sought issues on which he could differentiate himself from Gorbachev. …… Although this early honeymoon quickly deteriorated, the special status for the Baltic states in Russian foreign policy remains. They are a special case, separate from the CIS and other states of the former U.S.S.R."

• International Law: A Dictionary by Boleslaw Adam Boczek, p130:

"When analysing the problem of succession and continuity of states with regard to the Soviet Union one must first deal with the special case of the three Baltic republics, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania……their case must be treated as restoration of of independence and statehood which soon gained universal recognition including by the Soviet Union itself…"

• Why Did the Soviet Union Collapse?: Understanding Historical Change by Robert W. Straye, p 196

"The Baltic republics, always a special case, received immediate recognition of their declarations of independence."

• Consequences of State Succession for Nationality by the Council of Europe. p38

"These three States represent a special case since their claim to be identical with the three Baltic States annexed by the Soviet Union in 1940 was accepted by the international community"

Why are you opposing something that is so widely supported by the sources? --Nug (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion about the states of limited recognition would be to leave them out of the infobox, unless someone can provide a compelling reason why they are required. As to N-HH's exposition, unless I have misread him, he is focusing both on international law and on history, rather than only looking at international law. Looking only at international law was used by Nug and Vercrumba to argue in favor of listing only 12 states, which was historically absurd, since the Baltic republics were, legally or illegally, part of the Soviet Union from 1940 to 1989. If N-HH wants to continue to elaborate, he can, but I wouldn't blame him if he is disgusted with this non-discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Robert, you totally mis-interpreting my argument. Neither I or Vercrumba (as far as I can tell) are arguing on listing only 12 states, we are for listing all 15 using the 1+11+3 annotation of continuator/successor/restored state, categories which are universally accepted under the criteria of international law as reliable sources show. --Nug (talk) 03:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

No. I am not misinterpreting your argument, but am reporting your old argument. In August you (Nug) and Vercrumba wanted to list 12 states rather than 15, and were in a minority, before you (Nug) modified the infobox to permit the 1+11+3 approach. My point is that you would have preferred an approach favored by international law, the 12-state infobox, rather than one that was consistent with history, as the 15 or the 1+11+3 infoboxes are. You (Nug) preferred the technicality of international law over the actuality of history. It is true no one now is recommending omitting the Baltics, but you had been arguing for that. I was not misinterpreting your argument of this summer. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Why would you report an old argument when we have moved on? The original discussion was back in May not August, btw. I don't see how reporting what I may have preferred back in May last year and implying that I am continuing to argue that now, helps the discussion. Just to be clear, I agree with listing all 15 with the 1+11+3 annotation of continuator/successor/restored state that was implemented back in June and stable until January this year. It is both accurate historically and in terms of international law. As I understand it, this current discussion revolves around N-HH's objection to the 1+11+3 annotation claiming it is not universally accepted. But his claim of it not being universally accepted is simply untrue if we restrict the criteria to that of international law. --Nug (talk) 06:27, 25 February 2014 (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)