This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Renamed user 8anjf087ed (talk | contribs) at 18:35, 23 April 2017 (→in lede: "and granted independence to non-Russian nations under Russian control."). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:35, 23 April 2017 by Renamed user 8anjf087ed (talk | contribs) (→in lede: "and granted independence to non-Russian nations under Russian control.")(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vladimir Lenin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| 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, 13Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | Vladimir Lenin is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vladimir Lenin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| 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, 13Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
Not so good article
Fischer 1964 as the main source
I don't know the book, but:
- Fischer was a journalist, not a historian.
- Many Soviet documents were top secret in 1964.Xx236 (talk) 13:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Lenin is viewed by Marxist-Leninists
There are almost no Marxist-Leninists in Poland. Where are there so many of them to be mentioned here?Xx236 (talk) 13:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
united Russia
Not united but invided and annected.Xx236 (talk) 13:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Responding to wartime devastation, famine, and popular uprisings
Rather Responding to the destruction of Russia due to his own crazy ideas of a society without economy Xx236 (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- A number of these points fail to make any coherent sense so I'm not really sure what is actually being conveyed. What on Earth does "There are almost no Marxist-Leninists in Poland. Where are there so many of them to be mentioned here?" mean? It is also apparent that there is a level of anti-Lenin WP:Advocacy going on here and statements like "his own crazy ideas of a society without economy" demonstrate a complete lack of familiarity with Lenin's actual beliefs. As for the claim regarding Fischer, his major biography of Lenin is only one of several used here; it is not the "main source" by any means. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- What is the source of your knowledge? Do you have any knowledge of Lenin's economical dreams? Xx236 (talk) 12:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- I admit, I'm anti-Lrenin, like I'm anti-Stalin and anti-Hitler.Xx236 (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Xx236, you very obviously want to rewrite this article so that it reflects your own passionately anti-Lenin views. You wish to foreground everything Lenin did that you regard as morally reprehensible. In doing so you display utter contempt for the Reliable Sources written by Lenin's biographers and historians of Russian history, because you appear to regard many of them as being insufficiently damning in their assessment of Lenin. In doing so you demonstrate that you really do not understanding how Misplaced Pages works. I would strongly suggest that you read, and contemplate, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:Advocacy, and WP:Verifiability, not truth. Let me be perfectly clear. Misplaced Pages does not exist to serve your anti-Leninist crusade. You are more than welcome to create your own website to give your opinion on Lenin, if you so wish. However, if you persist in trying to reshape this article in accordance with your opinions but in contravention of Misplaced Pages policy then I have no doubt that administrators will see fit to administer sanctions against you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Russian
If I translate the russian article, it is clear not much work has been done on the English one, also they have FACTUAL SOURCES. Considering this is one of the most famous communists I seem to be lead into dislike for him based on what is written and which historians/journalists are used for the sources that work. Maybe he knew he would be demonized in countries run by the bourgeoisie? Maybe because he is a part of Russian history, so they are actually motivated to have true information on his life? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:7000:9404:E381:C8A8:E7A2:60DE:DA53 (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- ...And your point is? Most of what you have written above is unintelligible. Graham Beards (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Graham, the point being that the article relies on verifiable sources whose historicism might be faulty, and that the semantics are highly disfavorable. I think that comes across pretty clear and I'm not even a native English speaker. But then again, wikipedia's politics are extraordinarily libertarian so I'm not surprised that one of its shills is conveniently blind to any inherent ideology in the articles. /Revan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.69.13 (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Image sizes
I thought this would be a good place to ask Midnightblueowl what the merit of selectively enlarging a picture of a house is. Over to you. --John (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- I was merely restoring the longstanding image size. Having the image slightly larger allows it to better fit within the given space vis-à-vis the adjacent text and permits the reader a clearer view of the building featured in the photograph. Without the slight enlargement the image is too small to make out any level of detail. Moreover, the enlarged image size has been a longstanding part of the article and was present when it passed as an FA, so it is not something that has attracted any opposition or criticism over the past year or so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- The size the image displays at is a function of the particular device one views it on. I see this was discussed at the FAC last year. It is better to leave them at standard. Sometimes one is left bigger in thumbnail view if it is important to reveal detail without clicking on the image. I've seen this used for a map, for example. This is a picture of a house and to me it doesn't seem to matter if the reader can see the detail without clicking on it. Am I missing something? --John (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
POV
One of the main sources is a 1964 book by a journalist Louis Fischer. At that time many documents were closed in Soviet archives.Xx236 (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- The other source - Sandle about Soviet Socialism. Which part of Soviet was Socialist - mass executions, starvation, rapes, atomic weapons?Xx236 (talk) 12:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- responsible for mass human rights abuses. - no rights abuses are able in lowlessness.Xx236 (talk) 12:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- a champion of socialism and the working class - has he ever met the working class? The working class in Poland destroyed his system.Xx236 (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- I have removed Lenin was anti-imperialist, and believed that all nations deserved "the right of self-determination". because Lenin created the Soviet empire annecting many nations, eg. Georgians, Red Army invasion of Georgia.Xx236 (talk) 12:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- People, stop your dreams about good Lenin. Xx236 (talk) 12:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- A lot of the stuff you're talking about happened after Lenin died, like atomic weapons and Polish Solidarity. And this page is not supposed to be a pro- or anti-Lenin rant. Lenin's positions on imperialism and national self-determination are important and need to be included. Equally Lenin's policies in consolidating the USSR also need to be mentioned. But it's shouldn't be a matter of point-scoring.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- The text has plenty of issues and you don't address any of them. Xx236 (talk) 05:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- Lenin himself created the basis of Stalinism.
- As far the point-scoring works creating a biased featured page.
- A lot of the stuff you're talking about happened after Lenin died, like atomic weapons and Polish Solidarity. And this page is not supposed to be a pro- or anti-Lenin rant. Lenin's positions on imperialism and national self-determination are important and need to be included. Equally Lenin's policies in consolidating the USSR also need to be mentioned. But it's shouldn't be a matter of point-scoring.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Xx236 (talk) 05:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Vladimir Lenin is a featured article
accuracy, neutrality, completeness, and style
- Bad joke.Xx236 (talk) 05:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- This article will appear on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 22, 2017.
- Very bad joke.Xx236 (talk) 06:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- So tell us what's wrong with it. — Amakuru (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- Very bad joke.Xx236 (talk) 06:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Under Trotsky's leadership, the Red Army put down the rebellion
This page is about Lenin and Lenin decided to fight against the revolutionaries. Doesn't Under Trotsky's leadership move responsibility?Xx236 (talk) 06:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Dialectic
An article about Lenin doesn't even mention dialectic or diamat. It's certainly not a featured article.Xx236 (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Ryan's opinions are controversial
http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=43183 Xx236 (talk) 06:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- 10,000 victims of Red Terror? 50,000 according a Russian historian.
- All victims of Soviet repressions - about 2 million.Xx236 (talk) 06:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- This source provided does not support the claims that you are making. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- Personally, I consider Ryan's thoughtful academic work on early Soviet repression to be one of the most balanced works on the subject, which says a lot given it is generally a highly polarized field of study. And it should be noted that Ryan's source for the 10,000 to 15,000 victims of the Red Terror (p. 114) is Nicolas Werth's chapter in The Black Book of Communism (p. 78).--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Non-communist legacy
I have questioned the value and sourcing of this section with the author. As they are reluctant to discuss it here, I am doing so for them. --John (talk) 10:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- I think it should be removed as it is badly written and trivial.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- Pinging Brianboulton, Ian Rose, Tim riley, SchroCat, Nikkimaria, Maunus, Graham11, Алый Король, Dank, Dudley Miles, Graham Beards, Laser brain, Iridescent, and Amakuru, all of whom edited the FAC for this article in 2016, plus Jimfbleak, one of the TFA coords, not included in the above list. I'm aware a couple of these editors have since retired, but am pinging everyone, including the opposer, to get as broad a range of commenters as possible. This article will be on the main page in a couple of days, and it would be good to get this discussion resolved before then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- Trivial are parts of the existing page, since many years.
- Badly written - yes, I wasn't allowed to learn English at school because it was a Communist school and English was the language of our enemies.
- Pissing Lening is the reaction on 45 years of Leninist terror and cultural terror. The page contains Communist legacy. It's obvious bias. You have created biased page, now you are told - it's biased and you answer: your critics is badly written and trivial. Generations of Polish people opposing Leninist propaganda, beaten, imprisoned, expelled from universities, aren't trivial. Xx236 (talk) 11:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed it should be removed, and notwithstanding Xx236's use of English, which is not an argument foer deletion. If WP:RS tell us tat there is such a thing as a non-communist legacy, then folow them But they don't, and the reason for that is that there is no 'Non-communist legacy'- even the things mentioned (children's books, peeing Lenin etc (He would've liked that!) etc) are only the result of his being known / notable / famous for his role in the Bolshevik Party, the revolution, and communism generally. If there was a 'Popular Culture' section (and I'm glad to see that there int), this would be where the material would go. But, fundamentally, there is no non-communist legacy- his legacy is purely based on his connection to that thing- so the section should, likewise, also not exist. — O Fortuna 11:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- Leninist terror creates Leninist legacy - mass graves, censorship, destruction of academy. Unborn children of Lenin's victims don't create any legacy the way Communists do - T-shirts, Zizek. What about Good Bye, Lenin!? Is it a legacy or not?
Kołakowski has written at least several pages about Lenin's ideology. What about mentioning him? Xx236 (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- Either we accept Adolf Hitler#Legacy and accept similar part of Vladimir Lenin#Legacy or we remove/correct Adolf Hitler#Legacy. Xx236 (talk) 12:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- I wasn't commenting on anyone's command of English. I was just saying that the section was badly written. Starting with the heading, it was hard to understand what the section was trying to communicate.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- It was trying to communicate terror and censorship. Xx236 (talk) 12:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- Mike, thanks for ping. I think Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi has summed it up perfectly, it's just a trivia section, which no longer has a place in any graded article, let alone an FA, I'm happy to see that section go asap Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- The problem is that parts of the article don't deserve to be FA.
- Anti-Communist opposition wasn't trivia, but fight for freedom.Xx236 (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, maybe; but this is not 1919, and we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, Xx236. The point of view of the encyclopaedia is that when this article was upgraded to featured article status, this section was not part of the peer review. Therefore, it cannot just be unilaterally inserted, but has to go through the same review and commentary the rest of the article did. Which is what is happening right now. This is your opportunity to persuade those involved in ugrading the article that your edits are worthy of inclusion- but I woud suggest that appealing for justice on behalf of Georgian kulaks is probably not the best strategy. Just my 2p you understand. — O Fortuna 12:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- It was trying to communicate terror and censorship. Xx236 (talk) 12:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- I wasn't commenting on anyone's command of English. I was just saying that the section was badly written. Starting with the heading, it was hard to understand what the section was trying to communicate.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
The added content should be removed because it is poorly sourced and tantamount to trivia. I suggest reverting to this version. Graham Beards (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
References
- Fischer 1964, p. 87. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFischer1964 (help)
- I think it is a good idea to have a section on how Lenin has been remembered outside of the USSR countries and the communist movement - but it should probably be based on scholarly evaluations of his work and his influence on non-communist thinkers (Steve Bannon for example has been described as influenced by Lenin), and it should definitely be based on high quality scholarly sources. The version included by Xx236 was indeed a list of trivia with no clear notability and based on low quality sources, which did not match the quality of the rest of the article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Correct the page
The page is based on several controversial sources and contains erors. My cricis has been ignored since December 2016.Xx236 (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- What is a cricis? --John (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- I suspect "criticism" or some variation is what was intended. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Xx236, we have all read your various comments; no one is ignoring them. Frankly it is often difficult to understand what you are trying to convey given your poor grasp of the English language coupled with your highly erratic spelling and sentence structure. However, more significant is the fact that other editors generally do not accept your criticisms and views as being valid. You accuse mainstream, WP:Reliable Sources produced by historians of Russian history and biographers of Lenin of being "controversial sources" merely because they do not conform to your highly specific, extremely anti-Lenin stance. You completely and flatly ignore Misplaced Pages policies on issues like WP:Advocacy. You clearly are not interested in the presentation of a nuanced and balanced article about Lenin that draws neutrally upon the reliable sources produced by historians and other specialists. All you want is for this article to be reformulated into an unrelenting condemnation of Lenin and a lionisation of anti-Lenin and anti-Soviet figures. In short, you don't appear to be here to build an encyclopedia; you appear to be here to 'right great wrongs', and that is not what Misplaced Pages is about. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Changing TFA date
See here; I'm planning to pull this as TFA for April 22, in order to be able to run it on November 7. Since this is going to run in just over 24 hours I need to do this tonight (US east coast time). Please comment asap if there are objections to pulling this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- No objection to running it in November; Iri's argument makes a lot of sense. --John (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- Done, and I've left a note on Midnightblueowl's talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- Good call, folks. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- Done, and I've left a note on Midnightblueowl's talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Mind the gap
In ===Civil War and Polish–Soviet War: 1918–1920=== there is a significant gap in the timeline: this gap corresponds to the Soviet westward offensive of 1918-19. The misleading effect is that military operations according to the current state of the article start in 1919. I have recently inserted a short summary, which has been deleted. Please justify history on this front starting in 1919., or revert the revert. Gravuritas (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- Do you have WP:Reliable Sources to support the inclusion of this information? Your original inclusion of this information lacked any supporting citations, reliable or otherwise. This is not acceptable anywhere at Misplaced Pages, let alone on a Featured Article. As someone who has been editing since 2013, you really should be familiar with the basic rules by now. Moreover, given that this offensive does not appear to be mentioned in the biographies of Lenin, is it really crucial for inclusion here in this article? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- WP:RS- of course- e.g. see the linked article, but I 'll make a more detailed response in a few days.
- Gravuritas (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- A Misplaced Pages article does not constitute a WP:Reliable Source that can be cited in other Misplaced Pages articles. That is even more the case in a situation like this one, where the Soviet westward offensive of 1918-19 article is barely referenced itself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Gravuritas has twice now removed "and granted independence to non-Russian nations under Russian control" from the lede ( ). They have stated that this wording was not present in the 17 April version which the article has been reverted to, but this is completely untrue. This wording is present both in the 17 April version () and in the September 2016 version that passed FA (). If Gravuritas wishes to remove or amend this then they need to discuss it here first with other editors and gain consensus for their actions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- I have checked twice the version on 17th April, to which you referred when you inserted that phrase, and I couldn't find that phrase in that version. I also checked the article as it was in Sep 2016 on the date when it was FA-rated, and I could not see that phrase. I will check again and, if I have been mistaken, I'm sorry.
- Gravuritas (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- Not a problem. We all make mistakes. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- You are right- my mistake. Apologies.
- Gravuritas (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
in lede: "and granted independence to non-Russian nations under Russian control."
How cute and magnanimous from Lenin! Too bad that almost all those non-Russian nations actually had to fight a war against bolsheviks to get them recognize their independence, and those nations who lost war were quickly re-annexed. How did this propaganda BS literally in the lede pass a FA review?--Staberinde (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- Woah, woah, woah, cool your jets, Staberinde. There's really no need for such heated language as "How did this propaganda BS literally in the lede pass a FA review?" If you find the current wording problematic, we can always discuss it politely and without hyperbole. As it stands, I think that the present wording is the best possible option for describing the situation without going into excessive detail.
- First, Lenin believed—or at the very least espoused the belief—that each and every national group should have the right to self-determination. This was a view that he discussed in a number of his published writings. He even acknowledged that national groups may wage legitimate wars to gain independence from socialist states. In this he was an anti-imperialist, not a Russian nationalist. On this point, Lenin was at least partially sympathetic to the idea that the Finns, Georgians, Estonians etc could break away from Russia. Accordingly he issued the Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia in November 1917; it was only after this that Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Transcaucasia, and Poland declared independence for themselves. His regime certainly backed Marxist revolutionary groups within those countries and welcomed their later reintegration in the form of the USSR (by which point he was largely mentally incapacitated and no longer leading the government), but that does not negate the fact of his initial declaration.
- I'm certainly not trying to whitewash any of the actions carried out by Lenin's government or paint an unduly rosy picture of it. However, I believe that the current wording—"granted independence to non-Russian nations under Russian control"—deals with the situation succinctly, accurately, and neutrally in a manner that is appropriate for the lede. There is nothing there that intrinsically suggests that Lenin behaved "cute and magnanimous", as you describe it. Do you have a suggested wording that you feel is an improvement? Perhaps "acknowledged independence" or "recognised independence" might be preferable to "granted independence", but at the same time these alternatives might suggest that Lenin only recognised the independence of these nations after they had declared it, which is simply not the case. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- I provided more accurate wording but it was reverted. While it is true that Lenin's rhetoric was positive towards self-determination, that has little weight compared to fact that as soon as Germans were out of way Red Army tended to invade (Estonian War of Independence, Latvian War of Independence etc.) nations that had declared independence, and actual recognition for those as independent countries came through various peace treaties (Treaty of Tartu (Russian–Estonian), Latvian–Soviet Peace Treaty etc.). Current wording basically implies that Lenin handed out independence to all minorities simply because he was nice guy, then in reality whole western-border of Russia was determined by military realities, and independence movements that weren't particularly lucky were just rolled over (Red Army invasion of Georgia, Basmachi movement etc.).--Staberinde (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- Isn't it however true that part of the Bolshevik platform was national self-rule, or some kind of autonomy, within a Soviet system? A reason it attracted many non-Russians, especially Georgians and Armenians? If this is encompassed in that sentence, then maybe the word independence is a poor choice, or maybe the national treaties on the Western Front and the national self-determination have been mixed together into one sentence.--Simen113 (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- I provided more accurate wording but it was reverted. While it is true that Lenin's rhetoric was positive towards self-determination, that has little weight compared to fact that as soon as Germans were out of way Red Army tended to invade (Estonian War of Independence, Latvian War of Independence etc.) nations that had declared independence, and actual recognition for those as independent countries came through various peace treaties (Treaty of Tartu (Russian–Estonian), Latvian–Soviet Peace Treaty etc.). Current wording basically implies that Lenin handed out independence to all minorities simply because he was nice guy, then in reality whole western-border of Russia was determined by military realities, and independence movements that weren't particularly lucky were just rolled over (Red Army invasion of Georgia, Basmachi movement etc.).--Staberinde (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages featured articles
- Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page
- Old requests for peer review
- Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
- All unassessed articles
- FA-Class biography articles
- FA-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Top-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- FA-Class biography (core) articles
- Core biography articles
- Top-importance biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- FA-Class Soviet Union articles
- Top-importance Soviet Union articles
- WikiProject Soviet Union articles
- FA-Class socialism articles
- Top-importance socialism articles
- WikiProject Socialism articles
- FA-Class Russia articles
- Top-importance Russia articles
- Top-importance FA-Class Russia articles
- FA-Class Russia (history) articles
- History of Russia task force articles
- WikiProject Russia articles
- FA-Class military history articles
- FA-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
- Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
- FA-Class World War I articles
- World War I task force articles
- FA-Class Atheism articles
- Mid-importance Atheism articles
- FA-Class Judaism articles
- Mid-importance Judaism articles
- FA-Class politics articles
- High-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- FA-Class Economics articles
- High-importance Economics articles
- WikiProject Economics articles
- FA-Class Philosophy articles
- Low-importance Philosophy articles
- FA-Class philosopher articles
- Low-importance philosopher articles
- Philosophers task force articles