Talk:History of the Russian Federation/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Untitled section
Post-Communist Russia is a very contentious topic, especially among economists, sociologists, and political scientists in both Russia and the West. The most heated debates center on the reform strategies, and are often argued with great personal bitterness. However, it can't seem to arouse much interest on Wikipedia; it seems that most are just interested in rehashing the atrocities on the Stalin era.
I hope that this statement will help arouse that interest. I suggest that some read the article (just note, however, that my proofreading is nowhere near finished!). Moreover, they should take a look at the very though provoking links that I've added, which cover almost every spectrum of the debate. 172
I suggest to move the page to a more accurate title, kind of "History of post-Soviet Russia". ("communist" is kind of slangish here IMO) Mikkalai 17:37, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The article is not consistent with other acticles on the similar topics. The title is incorretct. Drbug 10:58, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I don't know about consistency, but the title was not very good. I moved the article to History of post-Soviet Russia. The reason is that post-Soviet is traditionally used in regards to the xUSSR, post-comminism more rarely so. The second reason is that historically the dissolution of the Soviet Union is a more important event than the transition from socialism (not communism, actually) to market economy. Only people like Ronald Reagan (if he wasn't dead) would probably use post-communist, because they were preoccupied with communism. :) The third reason is that post-Soviet is a wider term, covering not only the economy/politics, but the geopolitics - the emergence of the new state - as well. Paranoid 06:41, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- "Postcommunism" gets thrown around a lot in academic jargon in Western political science too. At any rate, I'm glad that this title has finally been changed. 172 06:45, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Questions
"The question of how well Russia's fragile democratic and federal institutions will fare in the meantime is in doubt, with recent signs of the presidency under Yeltsin's successor, Vladimir Putin, increasing its already tight control over parliament, regional officeholders, all mass media, courts, and civil society."
-- Why this paragraph in this article? How this question is relevant to the history? If author wants make the point then it is better create another topic like "Democracy in Russia".
Questions
Paranoid, Mikkalai, and anyone else following this page:
I removed these two sections. I think that these sections are now redundant, given the sections that have been added recently. If I'm wrong, please go ahead and revert my changes. 172 05:40, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Also, does footnote #4 belong somewhere in the text, as opposed to where it is right now in the footnotes? 172 05:43, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- A third question, in what category does this article belong? Russian history? Is there a category for post-Soviet history? 172 05:59, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Oh my, maybe this isn't my best day-- I have yet another question. What's the proper format for the pictures? I sure as hell don't know. 172 06:01, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- A third question, in what category does this article belong? Russian history? Is there a category for post-Soviet history? 172 05:59, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)