Talk:Eastern Bloc/Archive 1

This page 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.

Were Cuba, Red China, North Vietnam, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Angola part of the bloc?

Obviously not, since (a) they weren't in Europe, (b) their governments were not maintained by Soviet military force, (c) some of them only had communist governments for a few short years (Ethiopia and Afghanistan), and (d) China was an enemy of the Soviet Union. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 09:43, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Interesting. What authority defines the term by those criteria? I didn't realise such an authority existed. Although I have not encountered Ethiopia or Afghanistan being referred to as Eastern bloc countries. I have definitely heard quite a few countries not included on this page referred to as such, eg, Yugoslavia. To quote answers.com "The name applied to the former communist states of eastern Europe, including Yugoslavia and Albania, as well as the countries of the Warsaw Pact." I am not suggesting that answers.com is a good authority, but you can't define a colloquial term like this so strictly and easily. The definitiion you seem to be using is countries 'created' by the intervention of the Soviet Red army. In my oppinion this is not correct. Where was the term coined? How has it been used over the years by different people? I'm sure 'Eastern bloc' means different things at different times to different people. Your 'definition' does not help in the understanding of the term. 203.206.38.46 15:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there any real difference between the Eastern bloc and the

07:47, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's tricky with near-synonyms. I would have guessed that the most common usage in English would include Yugoslavia in the Eastern bloc, but obviously Wikipedians who disagree with me on this point have had the last say on the content of the article. The very issue is whether the Eastern block and the Warsaw Pact are synonyms or not. If they really are, of course it is time to change this article into a redirect — and mention the term in the introduction of the WP-article. If they are not, then this article would be the best place to make it clear and obvious exactly how the two concepts differ. At the moment, I don't think this article does. --Johan Magnus 10:06, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is a difference betwen Eastern bloc and the Warsaw Pact. The Warsaw Pact was a military organisasion made as an answer to BRD membersihip in NATO in 1955.

The Easter bloc is an term including states with communist economy and ideology. Yugoslavia was never part of the Warsaw Pact, but was labeled a "member" of the Eastern bloc because of a communust economy.

Eastern bloc refeers to the economy rather than power,military or geography. In other words states as Cuba, Albania and Vitenam has a part in the eastern block, in the same way states as Sweden, Austria, Finland, Switerland and Argentina was all part in the Western World due to kapitalism and their political system, hence all four was official military neutral and not members of NATO.

Yugoslavia had special economical system. They had a community ownership (društvena svojina) not ownership of state (državna svojina) as in communist countries. People who worked in company owned that company. Imagine that all employees are shareholders of their company. Worker on higher rank and who is longer employed has higher share, but all workers have same decision right.

Maybe you can insert this map: de:Bild:Ostblock_in_Europa.png greetz, de:Benutzer:fakie

Actually, that map is wrong. I assume the different shades of blue are to show the difference between non-Soviet communist countries and the Warsaw Pact. In that case, Bulgaria is mislabelled, as it was part of the Warsaw Pact. edolen1 16:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

All the marked countries have benn part in the Eastern bloc in the first definition. Later the light-blue-marked countries weren't in that definition anymore... de:Benutzer:fakie

Why is Romania a different shade of red? A key would be nice on the picture. --Chickenfeed9 14:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that the name should probaby be Eastern Bloc. It is capitalized in the vast majority of sources that I have found and since it is referring to an area rather than a direction, I would expect it to be capitalized, like East Coast. -- Kjkolb 11:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It is also capitalized within the article. Agree. Canonblack 12:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Support. Was my first thought on seeing the article; have moved page accordingly. David Kernow (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

this map is wrong, Czechoslovakia and other states are not included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.71.247 (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the map, Albania is said to be not aligned with the Warsaw Pact, of which it was in fact a member.

Though only temporarily. Yaan (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

When Władysław Gomułka was appointed 1st secretary the Soviets tried to stop it, they did however let him remain in that post. The article implies that he didn't retain that position. The citation is in Polish. Can anyone clarify this? Ozdaren (talk) 12:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this has been discussed before, but Yugoslavia was not part of either COMECON or Warsaw Pact. Period. It's not temporal, it just never happened. Albania withdrew from both organizations in 1961, i.e. most of the 1945-1990 period they were quite hostile to the Soviet Union. Guess why Hoxha had all those nice semispherical bunkers built. If you want to keep the introduction short, it's really better to mention neither of them. Yaan (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Who said that Yugoslavia was in the Comecon or Warsaw Pact? Both countries were obviously at times allies with the Soviet Union -- with Albania being a full on member of both the Warsaw Pact and the Comecon for a decade. Albania only later withdrew after Soviet and Yugoslavia's relations became better, but both countries definitely were at least partly allies of the Soviet Union at some time. Nothing in the intro states that every country was allied with the Soviet Union for every second of their existence, nor does any definition of the term, especially a loosely defined one, state such a rigid requirement.Mosedschurte (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think if you say "Albania was part of the Soviet Bloc" most people will understand that this means not "at one point in history" or "for more than a decade", but something like "when it existed".

I don't really know of which point in history exactly you refer to when claiming that Yugoslavia "was at least partly" and "for some time" ally of the Soviet Union. Would you say Yugoslavia's links with the Soviet Union were stronger than those of Finland or Egypt? Yaan (talk) 14:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we need Category:Eastern bloc. The current categories of this article (Politics by region | European politics) are grossly inadequate. What other subcategories should we add? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I just created it. I'm placing it on some pages now.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This article has the same map repeated twice, first in the lede and later in the article. I note from the history section that different maps have previously been used on this page. There seem to be some problems with the current map partly because it confuses different historical moments. The Eastern Bloc as a set of nation-states is a Cold War phenomenon, a map which depicts Ukraine or Moldova as part of the Eastern Bloc, when they were part of the Soviet Union long before the Cold War adds to confusion. The formation of the Soviet Union and the emergence of what is commonly understood as the Eastern Bloc are two very different processes historically and this map conflates those processes. The map also includes Albania as part of the Eastern Bloc which is wrong. In terms of visual appearance personally I find the map extremely "heavy" especially compared to the other maps on the page, colours are too "political", lines are too detailed, use of hammer and sickle is unnecessary. There are good maps of Cold War Europe which I think convey this idea of the Eastern Bloc much better, and frankly, much more neutrally (both in an aesthetic and POV sense):
Ostblock_in_Europa this obviously is in German, but I think much more effective and available now requiring minimum work.
Eastern Bloc Europe This is perhaps something to aim for.--Goldsztajn (talk) 05:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Several problems: First, the map isn't repeated -- a separate map showing the old 1938 borders is shown below, with the new SSR and Satellite State territories on it. Second, the Eastern Bloc isn't just a "cold war phenomenon" -- that's a pretty western view of it. The last prior map that was in the article up until February also listed the SSRs, but it doesn't really matter because they are listed to help the reader with the later expansions over other countries anyway, and showing the country borders doesn't hurt. Also, the

Russian SFSR as an Oblast (like a state) within the Russian Republic. Also, Albania was most definitely in the Eastern Bloc before it went with China in the 1960 Sino-Soviet split. Read the article for the details. By the way, Ostblock_in_Europa is not even detailed low res and even lacks country labels. This was the last map, and it was actually pretty good, except the country labels were too small to read unless one clicked on it: Last Map heading this article. I wouldn't have a huge problem with putting that in the intro section again (and moving the final map to the Satellite section below), but it was actually pretty good, but the problem for Wikipedia article illustration purposes is that the country labels were too small too read. Mosedschurte (talk

) 05:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Where is it commonly (

WP:V) understood that the Eastern Bloc was not just a Cold War phenomenon? A Google books search turns up nothing but Cold War references [1]. I'm not saying previous maps didn't have problems, I'm saying this one conflates different historical periods (not to mention its aesthetic problems). On Albania and Yugoslavia, these countries need to be depicted differently to both the Soviet Bloc and the Western Bloc. I think the Baltic countries in particular are complex to represent, but as in my point about Moldova and Ukraine, these nations relate to the formation and expansion of the Soviet Union (which is a different historical process to the emergence of the state socialist countries in Eastern Europe and the Third World) and not the formation of what is understood as the Eastern Bloc. Simply put, the Eastern Bloc was about a set of nation-states, the map confuses nations and nation-states and distinct historical periods, the formation of the USSR, the Second World War and the Cold War. I think using the analogy with the European Union is not helpful in this case (this reference subsequently dropped in a comment re-edit). As relates to COMECON (although the EEC, not the EU would be the matched example), perhaps yes; but "Eastern Bloc", is much more a term rooted in Western European and North American political discourse to specifically emphasise the contrast between the "West" the "East".--Goldsztajn (talk

) 06:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

First, I think you're mixing history of the Eastern Bloc, i.e., the underlying history of Russia SFSR, the Ukraine SSR and Belarus SSR, with the Eastern Bloc. These countries did expand to take in other European countries to become part of the Eastern Bloc, which obviously includes all the European Soviet Union Republics as the lead organization. There is all of one pre-WWII paragraph, and it just describes the relationship of the Russian SFSR, Ukraine SSR, Belarus SSR and their joining of the USSR, with that sort of background being proper. Re "A Google books search turns up nothing but Cold War references" is simply ridiculous -- of course they all mention the Cold War as they became the center of the Cold War, but their very existence and activities therein were not all some grand scheme in the Cold War. These are related but differing events. Many historians don't even view the Cold War as starting before the 1947 pre-Marshall Plan negotiations, 2-3 years after the occupation and political transformation process had began in these countries.

The "Eastern Bloc" simply refers to the European Soviet Union itself, which obviously includes

Satellite States. It's not that difficult a concept, though some sometimes use the term (or "Communist Bloc") to refer to a wider range of countries. Wold War II is discussed because this is how some of the various SSRs and Satellites States were brought into the Bloc through Soviet occupation (some starting in 1939 in the Nazi-Soviet Europe split deal, then losing it with Barbarossa, with all again and the rest of eastern Europe by 1944-5) and the machinations for initial political control thereafter (almost all of which occurred from 1944-1947). The Cold War picks up a few years after the creation and essentially ends with the Soviet collapse, along with the collapse of control over the Eastern Bloc -- both SSRs and Satellites, all of which still exist today with different names (no more SSR or People's Republic), though Germany was re-unified.Mosedschurte (talk

) 06:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The starting point of my comment is about the map. The map clearly confuses and conflates historical periods, a quick glance at the talk page shows at least one other editor has already mentioned this (Albania is the most obvious example, but there are others). The legal national entity, ie nation-states (not nations), whatever its borders was the USSR, it was not a "bloc" (if you wish to state it was a "bloc" this needs referencing, but nowhere am I aware of the USSR ever being understood commonly as a bloc, per se). In a map of this nature, including the various Soviet republics (ie nations) adds confusion. The position argued above in effect is that the Eastern Bloc implicitly comes into existence in 1920s (if not 1917), a position not reflected anywhere. To deny the result a Google books search is to deny

WP:V. Your position seems to be based on seeking to engage in a debate on the history of the Eastern Bloc, which is not what the comments on the map are based on. The comments on the map are based on what is the conceptual basis for justifying the definition of Eastern Bloc which you assert. There is a significant difference. The map also remains aesthetically poor. The contrast with the map on the Warsaw Pact is stark.--Goldsztajn (talk

) 12:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: "The map clearly confuses and conflates historical periods"

--Let's not make this more complicated than the very straightforward subject. Not only does the map not even cover multiple historical periods, but it couldn't be more straight forward. The map simply depicts all countries that were (at least at one time) members of the Eastern Bloc -- that is, European Socialist Republics within the USSR (e.g., Estonia, Latvia, etc.) or Satellite States (e.g., Western Poland, Hungary, etc.). It honestly does nothing more than that. More importantly for purposes of ending the waste of time on the issue, it purports to do nothing more than that.

--It is also nearly identical to the last Map that was in the intro to this article, but just with bigger, more readable labels. I simply made one with bigger titles.

Re: "The problem it seems to me, is you characterise the Eastern Bloc as conceptually similar to the Holy Roman Empire or the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which has little if no

WP:V

."

--Not only have I never made such a claim, but I have zero idea what you're talking about. Nor is any mention of this is in the article. Nor do I really want to blow time arguing about such things on a Wikipedia talk page.

Re: "Albania is the most obvious example, but there are others"

--I've never seen Albania not listed as a Soviet Satellite State for its first few years, so it fits the definition of the map, though it later split with the Soviets. The prior map had Albania in a different shade, and I happen to have this map file in Photoshop, and I can shade it differently if you really want. It just seems more confusing.

Re: " To deny the result a Google books search is to deny

WP:V

given that you provide no counter referencing, ie that the commonly understood concept of the Eastern Bloc (a rhetorical term different from Warsaw Pact, NATO etc ie constituted bodies of nation states) is basically a Cold War phenomenon."

--Eleven words into that sentence, I almost stopped responding altogether to this silliness. You've got to be kidding me. A google book search for

WP:Reliable Source

as a Google book search on a Wikipedia talk page.
 :--More important, WHO CARES whether some percentage of people necessarily associate the term with the Cold War? It's not even in the article.

Re: "Your position seems to be based on seeking to engage in a debate on the history of the Eastern Bloc, which is not what the comments on the map are based on."

-- If you check the comments above, I think it's pretty obvious which editor is pushing debates that don't even relate to the article. Almsot everything in the article is well-sourced as is, and doesn't even waste time on EITHER side of any issue regarding whether the term "Eastern Bloc" is associated by some certain percentage of people with the "Cold War" or any other such concept. Rather, as it should, it just describes its formation and the operation during its existence. There is a short section at the end regarding other countries sometimes referred to as being the "Eastern Bloc" or "Communist bloc".

Re: "but nowhere am I aware of the USSR ever being understood commonly as a bloc, per se"

--This is correct and nowhere in the article does it say that the USSR is the Eastern Bloc itself. Rather,

Russian SFSR, even though it is far to the west of the other SSRs. The Kaliningrad Oblast was not a separate Socialist Republic, which is one of the reasons that it is still part of Russia today.Mosedschurte (talk

) 13:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to respond as you are talking in tangents. There is one "state", that is the USSR. The republics are simply constituent parts of a single state, the USSR. It was the dominant state hence the Soviet bloc or Eastern Bloc. The concept of Eastern Bloc, that is a group of countries grouped around the USSR, was primarily a Cold War phenomenon. Nowhere have you provided any verifiability for your conceptualisation of the Eastern Bloc. You conflate the history of the Eastern Bloc countries with the concept of the Eastern Bloc. I am questioning the conceptualisation as presented in the map. It seems to me you need to provide some verifiability about how you present the Eastern Bloc, with such a strong focus on the republics and the historical conflation (ie mixing changes in the USSR with the emergence of the Eastern Bloc in the Cold War). Please remember I am talking about the map, not the article. This [2] is a very good example of a map on the Eastern Bloc which doesn't conflate historic periods and remains aesthetically neutral, I would suggest aiming for something of that nature.--Goldsztajn (talk) 05:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

First. Let me point out that extensive use of words "silliness" etc. is a standard Mosedschurte's behaviour, that is hardly tolerable on WP talk pages.

Second. Ii fully support Goldsztajn's opinion on the new map. It is incorrect and it should be replaced with the old one. In addition, the style of this artwork is far from neutrality and, therefore, it undermines one of WP pillars. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Taking into account that the USSR was formed by joint decision of three republics (RSFSR, Ukrainian and Belorussian republics), and, accordingly, ceased to exist as a result of the joint decision of Russian, Belorussian and Ukrainian leaders, Ukraine and Belarus cannot be called "annexed" republics. I fixed that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Read the article. The

Byelorussian SSR were expanded to take in the annexed areas of Eastern Poland. It's all explained, complete with maps, in the article and linked articles. This is the most basic history imaginable.Mosedschurte (talk

) 03:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

RSFSR was expanded to take the annexed territories of East Prussia, 3 portions of Finland, Karelo-Finnish SSR, Tuvan People's Republic (it was annexed too in 1944) but the Crimea was transferred to Ukraine. So why RSFSR was not the same color as the rest SSR? Bogomolov.PL (talk) 12:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree. The picture creates a wrong impression that the USSR was formed vis annexation of Belorussia and Ukraine by RSFSR. Although the legend doesn't state it unequivocally, the picture in combination with the legend creates such an impression. Either the picture or the legend should be changed. I changed the legend, but it can be modified back if the approprioate modifications will be done of the picture (the same colour for the all Soviet republics within pre-1939 borders).--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Now "Other annexed or expanded"Mosedschurte (talk) 00:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

How "annexed" and "expanded" can be combined together? That is like combining a predator and a prey into the same category. The map is confusing. The legend makes it to be even more confusing. You either change the map, or let's keep my version of the legend.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It's called a conjunction -- both other expanded and annexed SSRs. It's literally that simple. And you just attempted to replace it with an incorrect map that didn't include Yugoslavia (please read the article before making changes).Mosedschurte (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You're, at this point, vandalizing the page by replacing it with a map that doesn't include Yugoslavia as, at this point, you've been warned twice. Please read the article before future changes. At this point, after two warnings, any such change is knowingly placing incorrect information in the article.Mosedschurte (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The definition of Eastern Block is vague (in contrast to the Warsaw pact). Therefore, both maps are equally correct (or incorrect). Consequently, replacement of one map with the another (and vise versa) has nothing in common with vandalism. (This wikilawyer's trick will not work, you should perfectly know about that). By the way, other editors also expressed their concern about the map you created. Of course, the problem can be easily resolved by modification of the map, and I can tell what these modifications should be to resolve all my concern. However, it can be possible only if you are ready for a dialogue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You're simply fibbing now to try to justify the change. Read the article, and you've already been warned twice now about WP:vandalism, since any change after you've been told would be knowingly inserting incorrect material, and I'm now recopying part of the article here:

---

Use of the term "Eastern Bloc" generally refers to the "communist states of eastern Europe, including Yugoslavia and Albania, as well as the countries of the Warsaw Pact."<ref>''Eastern bloc'', ''The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy'', Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005.</ref><ref>Hirsch, Donald, Joseph F. Kett, James S. Trefil, ''The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy',' Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2002, ISBN 0618226478, page 230</ref> Sometimes, more generally, they are referred to as "the countries of Eastern Europe under communism".<ref>Satyendra, Kush, ''Encyclopaedic dictionary of political science'', Sarup & Sons, 2003, ISBN 8178900718, page 65</ref><ref>Chopra, Ramesh, ''Dictionary Of Political Science'', Gyan Books, 2005, ISBN 8182052238, page 35</ref>

---

Mosedschurte (talk) 03:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

"Generally refers" means "has no exact definition", so you just demonstrated my point. In addition, your map also contains errors. Replacement of one incorrect map with another does not constitute vandalism. However, if you are not inclined to discuss the problem, you may try to report to ANI. Maybe you will be more lucky that time...--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

In addition, the article itself also contains errors (history of formation of the USSR), so I recomend to fix them...--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Even in scholarly books and articles, the words "USSR" and "Russia" are frequently being used as synonyms. That leads to numerous confusions. In particular, it is very easy to find citations that would allow to draw a conclusion that RSFSR (one of the Soviet republics) was a metropolia that annexed other parts of the former Russian empire, and then ruled this newly established empire. That article follows this wrong concept.
The article fosters a number of Cold war myths and presents Russia as a center of Communism. The article is dramatically far from neutrality and cites the sources incorrectly (for instance "Russian-dominated" became "RSFSR-dominated", that is misinterpretation of the source and a factual error: not all Russians lived in RSFSR, a substantial amount of Russians lived, and continue to live in Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Belarus etc).
The statement of the RSFSR dominance is no more correct than the claim that Scotland was annexed by England (in actuality, since

) 14:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

1. This article DOES NOT use the words "USSR" and "Russia" as synonyms, nor would that proper (and even less so post-1944 when the USSR extended as far west as Konigsberg). Nor have I seen it cite to a source that does so.

2. Not only was the Template:Contradict-other tag false, but not a single example or link was even included on the Talk page from the Soviet Union article claimed in the tag. If fact, I actually just copied the exact language on the Treaty and Declaration from that article for which YOU had just provided cites therein to this article. It was nearly identical already, but I made it word-for-word. Where's the contradiction?

3. Again, not only was the "Citecheck" tag false, but not a single example was pointed out for it. "When using this template the text should have:Citations in footnote, Harvard referencing, or some other standard format.Multiple citations (or one key citation) that an editor tried to verify and found that the article passage misstated or misconstrued the original source's content.Please try to improve the article or make a good faith attempt to verify the citations in question before adding this template, and discuss the matter on the talk page. If only one citation is problematic, or there is a desire to tag particular citations, consider using failed verification instead."

4. No reference is made to ethnic Russians, and of course Stain was born in Georgia -- who cares? (Okay, I didn't know that Gorbachev spoke with a Ukrainian accent so I personally found that pretty interesting, but who cares in terms of the article?) No reference is made to the birthplace of any leader.

5. That ref tags must now be added to the caption of a map containing the most basic history concepts, such as Russia dominating the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union dominating the Eastern Bloc, bears the marks of disruptive editing more than making a helpful contribution to the article.

6. Re the POV tag, I still haven't seen an example. You stated "The article fosters a number of Cold war myths", without providing a single one. In fact, the article largely steers clear of activities outside the Bloc. You stated it "presents Russia as a center of Communism", when it does nothing of the sort and instead presents the Soviet Union (obviously Russia-dominated) as taking actions to control the members of the Bloc, which no one I've seen comes close to disputing at this point. Including none of the huge number of sources cited on the topics.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

First. The article states that the starting point of the Eastern Bloc expansion was RSFSR, not USSR, so it implicitly states that RSFSR was a center of the world Communism. This POV is not shared by all, so the article is not neutral, therefore I placed the first tag.

Second. The sources are being cited inaccurately, quotations are taken out of context and false assertions have been made about a source's facts or conclusions. See, for instance:

Ref 15. No ISBN, no page. Cannot check

Ref 16. On the page 230 the book cited contains no definition of Eastern Bloc. However, the page 316 contains the following definition:"The name is applied to the former Communist states of Eastern Europe, including Yugoslavia and Albania, as well as the countries of Warsaw pact.", whereas the article states: "The terms Eastern Bloc, Communist Bloc or Soviet Bloc were used to refer to the Soviet Union and the other communist countries of Eastern Europe, including those in the Soviet-dominated Warsaw Pact." My conclusion is that the statement is false. The source doesn't state that the term Eastern bloc is applied to the USSR, taken separately, just to the USSR + its satellites.

Refs 17-19 are aimed to support the following statement: "Non-Soviet members of the Eastern Bloc are often referred to as "satellite states" of the Soviet Union." Let's see.

Ref 17 On the page 43 it states: "The fall of the Berlin Wall heralded the collapse of the command economies of the ex-Soviet Union and its network of Eastern bloc satellite states."

Ref 18. On the page 63 it states: "Still, the end of the communist regimes in the Soviet Union's satellite states in Central and Eastern Europe would by itself already have been a factor etc"

Ref 19. On the page 178 it states: "The demise of both the Warsaw Pact and Comecon in the first months of 1991, as the former satellite states of the Eastern bloc asserted their independence of action, etc"

All three references do not support the statement. "The Eastern Bloc satellite states" and "The satellite states of Eastern bloc" is not the same. Moreover the latter implies that "Warsaw Pact and Comecon members" and the "satellite states of the Eastern bloc" is about the same. I think, there is no sense to continue. One of five references is dubious, others are wrong. I will analyze the rest of the article, but even now it deserves a second tag.

Third. These misinterpretations are being done constantly in this and other articles you edit. I am almost sure that instead of bringing the text into accordance with the sources you yourself have chosen you will try to find other sources that would better demonstrate the idea you push. In that concrete article the idea is: "The core of the Eastern bloc is RSFSR and the story of Eastern Bloc expansion is a story of the increase of RSFSR's dominance". This is a pure synthesis of published material, hence the third tag.

The validity of the references supporting your strange statements in the legend is commented below.
My conclusion: the tags are justified and they relate to the article as whole.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

RSFSR ≠ USSR. "RSFSR dominated" ≠ "Russian dominated" (the latter is sometimes, inaccurately, used as a synonym for "Soviet dominated"). The "Soviet bloc" term is vague and different definitions exist for that term. The citations provided only partially support the text (that represents a WP:SYNTH). The tag restored + one more tag added.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Please provide quotations from the books cited that support the sentence "The Eastern Bloc was under Russian domination.[65][66][67][68]. - 7-bubёn >t 23:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are a few that do more than just support it, but actually use the words "dominate" and sometimes even refer to the Eastern Bloc by name:

• "Several new members (and applications under consideration), for example, are from what used to be known as 'Eastern Bloc' countries during the long period in the twentieth century of Russian domination of eastern European countries such as Hungary, Romania, Poland and the Czech Republic."<ref>Harris, Phil, ''An Introduction to Law'', Cambridge University Press, 2006, ISBN 0521697964, page 215</ref>
• <nowkiki>"This has been the case with most countries of the Eastern Bloc formerly under Russian domination (with the exception , more or less, of Yugoslavia and Albania)."^[1]</nowiki>
• "Prior to the breakup of the Soviet Union, Soviet Russia dominated Eastern European countries such as Poland, Hungary, and the former Czecholslovakia."<ref>Vandrick, Stephanie and Dorothy S. Messerschmitt ''Ethical issues for ESL faculty: social justice in practice'', Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002, ISBN 0805840281, page 60</ref>
• " . . . and to hint that the president was moving towards reestablishing his country's sphere of influence 'on the outskirts of the former Soviet Empire' -- that is, previously Russian-dominated space.<ref>Black, Joseph Laurence, ''Vladimir Putin and the new world order: looking east, looking west?'', Rowman & Littlefield, 2004, ISBN 0742529665, page 67</ref>

It's not a particularly controversial concept at this point.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This perfectly demonstrates my point: the words "Russian dominated" (that can be seen in many scholarly articles and books) became "RSFSR dominated" as a result of the arbitrary

WP:SYNTH--Paul Siebert (talk

) 12:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Paul Siebert here: the presented quotes do demonstrate confusion of the terms "Russia" and "Soviet Union" according to the cold was concept of "Russian bear". At the same time there is a grain of truth in this interpretation: RSFSR did dominate the Soviet union, however not politically but economically. BTW did you know there was e.g. Communist Party of Belarus, Ukraine, Turkmenistan, etc., but there was no Communist Party of RSFSR? Similarly, some other major organs of RSFSR and USSR were merged. However this does not amount to primitive "domination". Don't forget: It was a

Central Committee. - 7-bubёn >t

17:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

--Guys, this has been missed, but ht article had been changed by yesterday and it no longer said "RSFSR dominated." Instead, for those cites, it says "The Eastern Bloc was under Russian domination." The sources support exactly that in that phrasing. There is simply no question. As for "Soviet Russia" being a synonym of the USSR, no way: "Noun1. Soviet Russia - formerly the largest Soviet Socialist Republic in the USSR occupying eastern Europe and northern Asia"

--7Buben: In terms of Russia dominating the Soviet Union (which by the way, is not necessarily nefarious -- it made up the vast majority of its land mass and population as well) and the Soviet Union dominating the Bloc, these are each incredibly basic and widely understood historical concepts, with numerous citations for each. I would agree that Russia did so for the Soviet Union economically, but it did so in basically every way, as well. Finally. of course the central committees actually dominated politically. These are addresssed in the politics section (and sub-article) at great length, along with the entire political process.

--Paul, also please stop putting random tags on the top of the page, and I don't want to say that you're lying, but you claimed to have provided an example and gave absolutely none on citecheck or original research. I understand if you want to put the POV tag for the article (though you've not even explained that) during some argument, but the false tagging for cite checking and OR are clearly out of line.Mosedschurte (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The story of pre-1941 expansion of the USSR in a context of Eastern Bloc is an original research. The Eastern bloc history started in 1945, so everything before that should be removed. The term "Non-Soviet members of the Eastern Bloc" is completely your invention that is absent in the sources you cite. I placed both tags back. Please, don't remove them until the issue is resolved.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

PS. I did provided the example: the introduction that is a result of

WP:OR. You haven't even try to refute it.--Paul Siebert (talk

) 21:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

PPS. The way to resolve the issue would be to remove the story of the USSR expansion, and to start telling about the Eastern bloc itself. There were no "non-Soviet Eastern bloc satellites". There was the USSR and its satellites, i.e. other Eastern bloc members. That must be stated clearly in the article. Until that has been done, the tags will stay there.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

--That's not

WP:Original Research

. You've mixed up the Wikipedia definitions. The material is from secondary sources, and is in fact stated in part on Wikipedia elsewhere. You instead don't think that this should be in the article for the background. There was no primary source material or other original research being taken. In fact, it's utterly basic history on the Soviet Union's formation in the "background" section. The history of the Soviet Union is simply NOT original research under the Wikipedia definition.

--Please stop falsely placing tags unless you read the Wikipedia politics. The word Non-Soviet was meant to describe members besides the Soviet Union. This is not a "cite check" issue, but a description issue. Because of your own confusion (no comment) I changed the non-Soviet members descriptions from "Non-Soviet members" to the far more clumsy and unnecessary "members of the Eastern Bloc besides the Soviet Union".Mosedschurte (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. As I already explained, you

tend to put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources

, exactly what WP tells about synthesis of material. In addition, the tag equally relates both to original research and unverified claims. I explained what unverified claims mean: all pre-1941 story has no direct relation to the Eastern bloc. Don't remove the tag. The tag was placed correctly.

I presented some example of incorrect citations. You didn't respond.

In addition, since a part of the text is only marginally relevant to the article, and should be removed (as I already pointed out), I place one more tag.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

--"all pre-1941 story has no direct relation to the Eastern bloc." That's simply not

WP:SYNTH

. That's your opinion thinking that formation background material shouldn't be in the article.

--"I presented some example of incorrect citations. You didn't respond." Where exactly are these example of incorrect citations in the article?

--So far, you're floundering -- and pretty badly -- unable to provide a single example for any tag, much less those two. I'd be glad to discuss any incorrect citation or

WP:Original Research material in the article, but you've raised none to discuss at all.Mosedschurte (talk

) 21:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

--It is. You combine two separate subjects: the expansion of the Soviet Union as a separate political unit, and the formation of the Eastern bloc. In that sense, the article is an original research.

--My analysis of refs 15-19.

--Two possibilities exist. Either I am unable to explain my point of view properly (that may take place, I concede), or you refuse to get a point. Maybe, it makes sense to ask for a third opinion?
Let me try again, however. The Eastern bloc was formed when the USSR got its first ally/satellite in Eastern Europe (i.e. in 1945) and ended with disappearance of COMCON/Warsaw pact, not with dissolution of the USSR. The USSR was a separate political unit, so division of the USSR onto SSRs is irrelevant to this article. (One exception would be the Baltic states. Their annexation was never recognised de jure by western democraties. However, this doesn't change a picture much).--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: "--It is. You combine two separate subjects: the expansion of the Soviet Union as a separate political unit, and the formation of the Eastern bloc. In that sense, the article is an original research."

--That's simply not

WP:OR, it's including background information in the article that you think is not relevant. Moreover, it's pretty clear that you know that now, and and are on the edge of WP:Vandalism

knowingly putting that tag on.

Re: My analysis of refs 15-19.

--Still waiting for this imaginary analysis.

"and ended with disappearance of COMCON/Warsaw pact, not with dissolution of the USSR."

That's an interesting opinion. It has no facts or sources, and in no way supportions a "citation" or "original research" tag, but an interesting opinion. The USSR was a member of the Bloc, so it's annexation of states into it is, of course, relevant to the article (for example, such invasions and annexations are cited in nearly EVERY SINGLE book about the Eastern Bloc), but we're into such a silly argument (the opposition to which is, of course, entirely without facts or sources, as well), that it doesn't really matter at this point.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Re "That's simply not" If it is a background, then put it into the Background section under the name "History of pre-war expansion of the USSR. main article: history of the Soviet Union".

Re: "Still waiting for this imaginary analysis" Forget. I changed the introduction, and, if you agree, the issue is resolved.

The USSR annexed Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. It also occupied and annexed part of Finland and part of Poland. It also annexed some disputable Romanian provinces. However, that happened before 1941, and before the USSR got its first European satellite. If some sources mention expansion of the USSR as a part of the Eastern bloc history, it must be presented in "Controversy" section. The story of the pre-war USSR expansion is a story of the USSR, not Eastern bloc. Similarly, the history of formation of the United Kingdom and history of British Empire are two different things.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Forget. I changed the introduction, and, if you agree, the issue is resolved."

Okay.

Re: "If it is a background, then put it into the Background section under the name "History of pre-war expansion of the USSR. main article: history of the Soviet Union"

The pre-World War II material is in the background ALREADY. The creation of the Bloc, including the expansion through annexation of one of its members -- the Soviet Union, through its Republic annexations and expansions -- DURING WORLD WAR II by the way is not (it had actually lost most of them before 1944 again, and then regained all of Eastern Europe from '44-45). Not that this is really at issue, but this comports with nearly every Eastern Bloc textbook history description, which also describe these annexations. There is nothing "controversial" about it.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

In articles, the background material used to be in the section named "Background". The article has no such a section. I agree, the background section is needed, and the main idea of this section should be: before 1941 Stalin expanded his political influence by geographical expansion of the USSR (generally, following the ethnic map (Roberts), or the old Russian Empire borders). After the war, his capabilities, and, therefore, his strategy changed, and he started to create a political alliance, an Eastern block, that combined Communist states that were more or less independent, but shared Communist ideology and, as a rule, were involved in military or economic collaboration with the USSR. For pre-1941 border change, see a History of the Soviet Union article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well that's an interesting take, but that's not how the actual sources deal with it, and it's also not exactly "background" material -- the annexations officially occurred again much later, were in fact discussed before occurrence at Allied discussions in 1944 and 1945, and some were not recognized until much later (and some never).Mosedschurte (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Russian SFSR domination - what does it mean? Leaders of Russian SFSR were deciding everything in USSR and Eastern Bloc? Who knows names of Russian SFSR leaders? It is a problem with the political domination - who were these persons from Russian SFSR leadership? Only one name? First (only) wellknown Russian SFSR leader was Eltsin just couple a years before Russian SFSR end. Russian SFSR leaders never play any role in USSR and world politics. So who politically dominated? Bogomolov.PL (talk) 06:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That line has been out of the article for two days.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is a basic bloc map of Europe which I've put together to improve upon the present map for this article with all its attendant problems. The map is not finished yet, there are some aspects to clean up (esp. Yugoslavia and USSR), but comments and suggestions are welcome. My main concern has been to:

a) clearly demarcate the countries involved (rather than constituent entities, eg republics etc)
b) remain aesthetically neutral
c) clearly differentiate counties' alignment (aligned, neutral, neutral-western-aligned, non-aligned, formerly aligned)
d) keep to wiki style and formatting
--Goldsztajn (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me aesthetically as a base map of Europe overall, but it would obviously require a lot of work for an Eastern Bloc article map:

(1) no country labels (I'm sure you would add those)

(2) The Europe-wide map covers a huge area way larger than you need for the Eastern Bloc -- i.e. it goes out to the Atlantic ocean past Spain and inside past the Caspian Sea (if you have a much larger copy in photoshop, etc., east-west:just focus in from East Germany westward and maybe to halfway into the Black Sea, north-South: Finland (maybe not even all of it) down to Albania). In addition, it also makes it impossible to have readable country labels when each country is so small on a widescale map (that was the main problem with the last map).

(3) There are a bunch of other countries colored in on that Europe map in that aren't in the Bloc at all.

(4) This map doesn't include the SSRs (both the last map, which was okay but the labels were too small and the current one do, and the SSRs are discussed at length in the article (so we don't have to provide separate maps for each)

(5) There's some map weirdness up around Finland with Ladoga and Omega. Fill with the water color. Actually, I made the water color blue on a bunch of maps (instead of white) and it helped a lot to differentiate from non-colored countries.Mosedschurte (talk) 04:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Svalbard is formally a Norway part, but has demilitarized zone status. So any NATO (or even Norway) troops and navy can not be istalled there.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 06:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I support Goldsztajn's version, although the Mosedschurte's argument #2 seems reasonable: the map covers too large area.

There is no need to label different countries on this map.

There is no need to mention Soviet republics there. The article mix two subjects that should be discussed separately: the pre-1941 expansion of the USSR and the history of the Eastern Bloc (the latter started in 1945). The first part belongs to another article and should be removed from here. (To demonstrate my point, let me remind you that the British Empire and the United Kingdom are two separate things).--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've done a bit more cleaning up of the map, borders are now clearer (esp. USSR and Yugoslavia), removed the large lakes which were unnecessary, removed Svalbard as a bit of a distraction. Will crop the map. I'm not convinced the map needs country labels, as a legend could take care of most of the problems, the point it seems to me is to illustrate the Eastern Bloc as an entity. I'll add the legend shortly for consideration.--Goldsztajn (talk) 05:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Definitely need country labels and to crop it down to the Bloc for starters (these are already a feature of the current map). Re: "to illustrate the Eastern Bloc as an entity", not to put too fine a point on it, but the "entity" illustration obviously isn't the point, rather, the map id to help by imparting information on the Bloc to the reader discussed therein. It also clearly came from some sort of old Europe-wide Marshall Plan/possible war scenario (or whatever), because most of the colored countries on the map aren't even in the Bloc.

These are obvious sort of starting points in working a Europe-wide map toward a usable Eastern Bloc map, and there are a few more less obvious ones after that (e.g., don't remove the lakes -- just make them water colored).Mosedschurte (talk) 07:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Crop done, legend added. See no reason to exclude Western Europe or those countries aligned to the USA/West. The point is the "Eastern Bloc" as an entity came into existence within the social and political context of the Cold War; the map needs to illustrate that aspect, not the history of the expansion of Soviet Union or territorial changes in World War II.--Goldsztajn (talk) 07:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm reloading the image in my browser and I'm still seeing what looks to be the old huge pan-Europe map with no labels, etc. In fact, most of the colored countries in the map I'm getting in my browser aren't even in the Bloc.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Empty your cache, reload doesn't solve the problem necessarily.--Goldsztajn (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I just read your comments above re illustrating other countries. Obviously not for the top of this article, and it's not really appropriate for any subsection in this article, which doesn't even begin to categorize or rank the various non-Bloc countries. It would perhaps be interesting for Cold War, or Cold War (1953–1962), which lacks any kind of image at the top of the article.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I probably need to clarify the colour of France, it's position somewhat akin to Albania...and not.--Goldsztajn (talk) 07:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This pretty much goes without saying, but you don't really need France for an Eastern Bloc map anyway, so I really wouldn't bother clarifying it.Mosedschurte (talk) 08:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the comments about the use of this map for this article, I have designed the map to replace the current map at the top on the basis outlined above, addressing the problems repeatedly highlighted on this talk page.--Goldsztajn (talk) 08:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, but there are a lot more problems for this map that would have to be fixed to get close to being at the top of an article on the Eastern Bloc. I'm not talking all the various detailed problems, but major issues like just for starters, the depiction of ANDORRA, BELGIUM, CYPRUS, DENMARK, FINLAND, FRANCE, GREECE, ICELAND, IRELAND, ITALY, LIECHTENSTEIN, LUXEMBURG, MALTA, MONACO, NETHERLANDS, NORWAY, MACEDONIA, SCOTLAND, UNITED KINGDOM, SAN MARINO, SPAIN, SWEDEN, SWITZERLAND, TURKEY, none of which are even in the Bloc. Not to mention that it lacks even the country labels of the current map. It also includes non-defined terms for other countries in the map not even discussed in the Eastern Bloc article (e.g., Portugal being "western aligned"? and "neutral countries"). Interesting maybe for Cold War, or Cold War (1953–1962), the latter of which lacks an intro image, though you'd probably draw fire on the "western-aligned" and "neutral country" descriptions (I'm not even getting into that here, as it's beyond the scope of the Eastern Bloc article).

But aesthetically the map itself looks nice. I was thinking of using a similar template for future maps. Mosedschurte (talk) 08:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Goldsztajn, you made an excellent job. Sorry, Mosedschurte, but your arguments seems purely artificial. Not only Eastern Bloc, but its opponents deserve mentioning on the map. And we have to discriminate between the Eastern bloc's political opponents and just neutral countries. In that sense, different colours for different Western countries are quite relevant.
As regards to Liechtenstein, San-Marino or Andorra (you forgot Vatican:)), they seem to be comparable with a pixel's size, so they cannot be shown here. Makedonia didn't exist during the Eastern Bloc's time.
Countries' labels are redundant here. Moreover, they will just distract a reader. If someone needs a political map of Europe, he can get it in a couple of mouse clicks.
In summary, I see neither major nor minor problems with the map and I propose to introduce it into the article right now.
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at the article, and I have to concede that the new map is also satisfactory. The legend also seems more neutral than before. Therefore, although I still like the map made by Goldsztajn more, I don't mind to leave the present map. I see only one problem: after 1960 Albania wasn't a USSR's satellite state.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The new map is an improvement, and given that Mosedschurte now seems to be willing to alter the map s/he created, some further problems need to be addressed to bring the map up to standard:
1) I still do not see the need for naming the countries (let alone the constituent republics of the USSR) as a legend and/or caption could do that (it's also outside wiki style, see below), but nevertheless, from an aesthetic point the font used needs to be smaller and sans-serif (it looks to have serifs, although resolution is poor so I can't tell for certain. The resolution problem is compounded by use of PNG format rather than SVG). Using official names of the countries also creates a huge amount of chartjunk.
2) Whether or not the constituent republics of the USSR stay in the map, at the very least the borders of these republics MUST be of a different (and milder) colour and smaller stroke width than that of the borders of the Eastern European countries. This is not only basic wiki style, but simply commonsense.
3) Albania needs to be a different colour indicating its political trajectory (I would suggest adding text along the lines suggested in my map, viz. "aligned until 1960").
4) The caption at present on the map is a statement of the obvious...adding "waters, seas and lakes are in Blue" would not be out of place. :)
5) Given wiki has some very clear guidelines on maps, I would suggest these be consulted by other editors (see

).
--Goldsztajn (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you know this, but just for clarification, this obviously isn't a locator map (which I've also used many times and they are not supposed to be country names for the icon placement purposes) or the similar area map, but a historical map, with the template here, with the primary example given here.

(1) Like those maps, it has country names. Using the main maps Wikipedia template, the country name font is now Arial like both the main Wikipedia template suggests, though the actual fonts used in maps vary considerably. To be honest, I thought that the last font was more clear, but I just changed it to Arial to minimize any issues about it. Note that, even though the SSRs are actually separate countries, I decreased the font size anyway. Also, like those maps, the caption is within the caption style. I also changed the water color to the template suggested color (I thought the other color made it more clear, but it doesn't really bother me either way).

(2) Done. Note that the SSRs are technically actually separate countries, but I don't particularly care about the border colors as long as they are visible to the reader, so I changed the SSR borders to a pinkish hue. The stroke for all borders is already down to 2 (any less and it bleeds), which is used on most maps (some bigger).

(3) Done. Albania was actually a satellite state for over a decade, but I don't feel it necessary to inlude that and just assigned it a different color. The reader can scroll to the Albania subsection for more details re its entry and bloc history summary. I was thinking of an efficient one color for Yugoslavia and Albania as "temporary satellites" or something along those lines, but it's not really an important issue, and it might just be another reason for more complaints later about a NAM country being the same color as Albania (not that that would actually contradict the map).

(4) The caption breaks out satellites from the USSR, Yugoslavia and Albania. It is now in the general style of other historical maps, though they differ pretty greatly.

(5) Those templates are in the main template for maps above, and they are also for other map styles. Note that unlike this map, most maps, including those used as exemplary maps, break from these styles fairly significantly. I don't really care so much as it's visible and helpful to the reader, so I pretty much followed the overall map template style. Re: "and given that Mosedschurte now seems to be willing to alter the map s/he created", I've probably made 100+ changes within 20 or so different versions of various maps and graphics based on other people simply commenting upon them.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The map outlines the Eastern Bloc countries, so it is closer to a locator's map (Countries, political entities) than to historical map (Empire with its main cities, borders powers, offensives ; battles with unities and moves. Same colors than Area maps, add war/historical-icons). Therefore, your major argument is not rock solid.

(2) Initially (and at the very end of the Soviet bloc) the SSRs were almost separate countries. However, they weren't separate countries technically. The change of teh borders' colour is hardly visible. Coventional maps depicted the SSRs borders as dashed lines, and I propose to do so.

(4) The caption in its present form is redundant. Thanks to your recent improvements of the map, even without the captio, the reader knows everything about the colours of the USSR, satellite states, Albania and Yugoslavia. I propose to replace caption just with "The map of Eastern Bloc." This would resolve a part of remaining neutrality issues.

(5) I also see no need in the countries' names on the map.

Re: "I've probably made 100+ changes". I have to concede that it is possible to convince you to agree with some modifications of the text/graphics you created. However, from other hand, you must concede that it used to take enormous time and efforts...--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

--Agree on the redundant caption (forgot to delete this when I uploaded the map). I just changed this.

--There's simply no question that it's a historical map, and I was just pointing out the separate template for it (the location maps don't have country names and the like because you can place geolocator coded labeled info on them -- it's actually quite a neat Wikipedia feature that I've used for other articles -- and so they must be bare bones).

--In any event, regardless of their categorization, for conventional maps, the actual Wikipedia template -- for ALL maps -- has the country name codes on it, including fonts, size, etc. This is what is used in the map. Moreover, yet another and overriding reason, is that it is helpful to the reader when these countries are discussed. This really isn't an issue, and country labels are frequently contained in maps of all varieties, which is why it is on the Wikipedia Template.

--The SSR borders are definitely not always dashed -- in fact, they are rarely, if ever, are dashed: see the last Eastern Bloc map for this page, here and here. I can make them gray instead if anyone truly cares, but the pink better reflects the colors around them and actually blends better. And if you can't see the difference in color between this ....this.... and ....this...., then you might need to check with an optometrist. The reason for they aren't dashed is that they weren't provinces or regions (like the Oblasts and autonomous regions), but actually separate countries, though they of course were, in practice, centrally controlled through the CPSU structure.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The map still contains errors. Soviet republics never had the names you gave them. There was no "Moldavia SSR", but Moldavian SSR. "Moldavia" is a Russian word, the Moldavians themselves use Moldova. However, during Soviet times the word Moldova never used as an official name. The situation is similar with all other republics. I still see no reason to have the countries/rebublics' name on the map, btw, however, if we will come to consensus to keep them, the name of the USSR should be on the map.
Although the republics' borders do not have to be dashed, the change you made is insufficient: the difference between state borders and SSR's borders is still very hardly visible. Try to fix it.
One more error is the absence of internal division of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. The republics of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia had the same status as the Soviet republics. It is unclear for me why did you put the latters and omit the formers. --Paul Siebert (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
PS. I have a drivers license, therefore everything is ok with my vision. Probably, the problem is on your side: you ability to see even small difference in colours is outstanding...--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Goldsztajn, the map looks good, but I think the upper and right side could be cropped a bit. Then the relevant part would be a bit bigger. I don't think the idea of differentiating between neutral countries is very well thought out. For example, I could understand Finland a and Switzerland having a different colour, but why Switzerland and Austria? Regards, Yaan (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

May be NATO area has it's own history? NATO was established and next expanded. And reduced - Algeria after independency was lost. And what with the colonies and dominions of NATO countries in Mediterranian region? Can be colonial status respected as presence of this territory on the same side as it's metropoly? Algeria wasn't a colony legally - so it was a EU and NATO part as France national territory, you see. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Paul: SSR names changed. You're going to love the SSR borders. Just moving ahead about five spaces, I made the borders practically invisible. Someday someone will come along and bitch about that, but you can still see them so I don't really care at the moment until that day comes.Mosedschurte (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

West Berlin was lost again. Bosnia western boundary was not erased as the rest of former Yugoslavian republics. But Czechoslovakian (and Yugoslav) republics - future countries were not shown, but Soviet SSR - future countries - were depicted. Why? Bogomolov.PL (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've stopped working on the map I drafted in this section as Mosedschurte is now editing his/her map per requests made here...and I have no interest in dual power conflicts... :P I would add my agreement with Paul Siebert and Yaan (and repeat myself) I still see no need for internal borders of the USSR on the main East Bloc map at the top of the page. These should go. Perhaps the caption of the map should be "Eastern Bloc 1949-1989". Regarding formatting of the map, once we reach a satisfactory map I will make an SVG image per wiki styling.--Goldsztajn (talk) 07:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I note that this change [3] to the article included removal of the

) 05:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

--The "cut under 10K<rprose" refers to the Wikipedia standard, though there are often FA articles longer than even the standard, which is: The general standard is: "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose. If an article is significantly longer than that, it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries."

--Someone (perhaps it was you), placed the length tag there just when it went over 10K in readable prose (I think it hit 10.2K rprose). I cut the article size to (and moved text elsewhere), it dropped back below 10,000 rprose words, and I removed the tag.

--Although

Society of the Song Dynasty (13.6K rprose)), I've attempted to keep it below this limit just for readability purposes. Several separate articles for particular areas have been created (with links in the article). A number of which have recently appeared on the Wikipedia main page for Did You Know.Mosedschurte (talk

) 05:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There's two different issues here, one is the actual data size of the article which is 130kb. I placed the tag in the first place on that basis as was explained in the edit summary and which is visible here [4]. There was no reason to remove it, which is why I placed it back. The second issue, raised now, is of readable prose. If the article is 10,102 or 9,897 or 9,954 words it is still very much at the extreme upper end (6K to 10K is a two-thirds difference). Just because other articles are 10,000+ doesn't mean they also do not need to be shortened. (I would also note most of the articles you cite tend to confirm Wikipaedia's problems with

systemic bias). The article seems to be full of details that are better left to other pages. The article could reduced by excluding some of the pictures (are five photos of Berlin necessary? are three photos illustrating shortages necessary? are three photos of cars necessary? Of course, the Trabbie must stay!). Frankly, the fact that the article is now the 554th longest article amongst English wiki's 2.823 million odd articles suggests more is not the answer (while we can interpret it as a good sign that List of Doctor Who villians at #580 is not as large as this article, the fact that ‎List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters is #12 is....utterly unsurprising given systemic bias). --Goldsztajn (talk

) 07:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

--There are a few confusing concepts (at least they confused me long ago when I first looking at Wikipedia article lengths). The "130K" is the size of the source text, which includes references and the like. The reason that is not used to judge whether an article is too long -- while readable prose is -- Wikipedia wants to increase the incentive to use Wikipedia:Inline citation, which are now required for FAs and GAs. E.g., if we eliminated reference text from this article, it would probably cut "source text" by 40-60%, but it would obviously mean the highly undesired result of cutting of all citations. "Source text" size was an issue (and used as a rough proxy) in the old days when various browsers had issues rendering pages over 32KB (a few legacy ones still weirdly have issues with 400KB), but it's no longer an issue.

--This is why now only the main body prose (excluding links, see also, reference and footnote sections, and lists/tables) should be counted, since the point is to limit the size of the main body of prose, called "readable prose"

--Also, re images, they aren't included in either of these parameters (they are not in the "130K"). They are in yet another confusing parameter "image size", for which there is not currently a length requirement, but I seriously anyway doubt with the thumbnail images in this page that it is even 1MB of total loading, which is pretty small for today's internet pages.

--As an aside, I was cleaning up the article tonight (not for length reasons), at it is currently: 8,940 readable prose text words. I wasn't trying to cut it (if anything, I was thinking of adding some subarticle material back), but just as a result of repettive text, setnence cleanups, etc. The "source text" length is now 125.8K. I had actually axed a couple of images in the process (note: of course not the Trabbie). While the articles I gave may have been the subject of systemic bias, they were also

systemic bias. I honestly think we can safely say that an article on a topic so broad and important in 20th Century history as the Eastern Bloc is not. Interestingly, I just looked through the total length pages (source text, not readable prose), and two articles I linked through another article are on it, including oddly Mircea Eliade (19,200 rprose) (note: the number of obscure Romanians in the top 500 of English Wikipedia is frankly weird).Mosedschurte (talk

) 11:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Section on comparative economics

There is quite a large section in the article, which frankly has some very rubbery statistics (and too many red links). The source of those stats even qualifies as follows: "Although one may argue World Bank estimates of GDP in 1990 are too low (because of undervalued local currencies) per capita income in each East European economy is undoubtedly lower than in their counterparts 50 years ago." (East-Central European economies in transition p.17) I think the comparisons in the article are misleading because they take pre-War situations and compare with the end of the Cold War, ignoring the massively different economic impact World War II had on Eastern Europe and the nature of the socialist economies.

For example, the way the article presents a comparison of Italy and Poland is as if both countries were in equal situations. If I chose to compare Cambodia and Thailand economically between 1960 and 2000 without contextualising the impact of 20-odd years of war and genocide in Cambodia it would be considered highly misleading. Yet, this is exactly what the table in the article does with Italy and Poland.

At the same time, I do think it is worthwhile having some kind of comparative sense of Eastern bloc development vis a vis the West. But important contextualisating is necessary:
-first, comparison of the correct time frame is necessary, this means data needs to be within the period of 1950-1989;
-second, we need to include figures like life expectancy and literacy;
-third, there needs to be a clear indication about the LIMITS to statistical comparison in regard to the state socialist economies, eg if we compare per capita GNI, GDP or GNP it will not include the fact that housing, health care and education in the East were free, social needs which for the majority in the West constitute 50%+ of spending (what this means in practical terms is that statistically services were not able to be measured accurately if at all in the Eastern bloc)
-fourth, the problems associated with all sources of statistics on the Eastern bloc. While Soviet statistics were notorious, in many cases Western stats on the Eastern bloc could be equally unreliable (and ideologically coloured).

A more useful comparison would look something like this:

	Per Capita GNP (1980 Dollars)	Life Expectancy (yrs)	Literacy (%)
Romania	2,340	71	98
Portugal	2,370	71	na
Poland	3,900	72	98
Bulgaria	4,150	73	na
Hungary	4,180	73	98
USSR	4,550	71	100
Ireland	4,880	73	98
Spain	5,400	73	na
Czechoslovakia	5,820	71	na
Italy	6,480	73	98
GDR	7,180	72	na
United Kingdom	7,920	73	99
Finland	9,720	73	100
Austria	10,230	72	99
FRG	13,590	73	99

Source: World Bank:World Development Report, 1982 p 111

The table above illustrates that the Eastern bloc countries generally had social standards of education and health which were on par with the West (which is not a controversial statement), but that the economic strength of the countries was weaker than those in the West, with some important exceptions. Whereas what we have at present is a section on the economics of the Eastern bloc countries which conveys none of the nuances necessary.--Goldsztajn (talk) 11:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify the stricken text above: the red linking of the Eastern bloc country names is unnecessary and confusing (since a red link on wiki means a non-existent article).--Goldsztajn (talk) 12:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a small clarification: At least in the GDR, housing was not free. It was relatively cheap, probably due to heavy subsidies and fixed prices (just like for basic foodstuffs), but free it was not. Yaan (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, would note the problematic comparisons under discussion here are also repeated in the

Eastern Bloc economies article.--Goldsztajn (talk

) 12:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm frankly not surprised you feel that way (there are a few others I know that no doubt would jump in about the same -- e.g., you just left a comment for Paul Siebert on his talk page), but the comparisons are from the actual sources. These are World Bank sources for GDP, and are cited literally countless times for historical GDPs. It doesn't get any more textbook, especially for summary purposes, than such a GDP comparison.

Re:"Just to clarify the stricken text above: the red linking of the Eastern bloc country names is unnecessary and confusing (since a red link on wiki means a non-existent article)"

--I don't agree since it was a completely different shade of red, but I changed it to green anyway just to avoid a dispute.

--I also took out the grouping, which I frankly thought was helpful to the reader, just to avoid any dispute.

Re: "I think the comparisons in the article are misleading because they take pre-War situations and compare with the end of the Cold War, ignoring the massively different economic impact World War II had on Eastern Europe and the nature of the socialist economies. "

--Well, that's an interesting opinion, and I'm not surprised that you possess it, but the sources don't agree with you. By the way, just for illustrative purposes on the viability of such concerns, both Germanies were near the top of GDP on both sides despite suffering tremendous war damage back the 1940s (not that the argument was good in the first place), but the sources also never purport to say that such countries went through entirely equal circumstances, and certainly not between 1939 and 1944. In fact, it is impossible to say this about any countries. I'm not really arguing the point anyway, as our opinions don't particularly matter.

--World Bank GDP statistics are cited nearly countless times as the lead stat in broad economic summary comparisons, for the obvious reason that it measures total economic production, and of course no such statistical comparison is ever perfect.

--Out of an abundance of caution, I just added the phrase "While arguably the World Bank estimates of GDP used for 1990 figures above underestimate Eastern Bloc GDP because of undervalued local currencies, per capita incomes were undoubtedly lower than in their counterparts." Note also that I'm not adding the many sources that state that Eastern Bloc GDPs were actually overstated by the GDP figures for a wide variety of reasons to this article.

Re: "we need to include figures like life expectancy and literacy"

--This isn't a health comparison, it's a discussion of total economic production for economies, for which GDP is the primary indicator.

Re: " if we compare per capita GNI, GDP or GNP it will not include the fact that housing, health care and education in the East were free, social needs which for the majority in the West constitute 50%+ of spending (what this means in practical terms is that statistically services were not able to be measured accurately if at all in the Eastern bloc)"

No, GDP actually measures services rendered, and whether the person or the state pays for such services does not effect its measurement.

Re: --1980 health indicator table at the end--

--Obviously, several problems such as it's one year, 1980, it's 10 years before the dissolution of the bloc, they are health, not economic, indicators (if we wanted other economic figures there are plenty available on production, industrialization, etc.).Mosedschurte (talk) 14:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: "...you just left a comment for Paul Siebert on his talk page." You are thinking in a wrong direction. Although I disagree with many things you are writing, I am not intended, and I will not oppose to everything you write (See the Holocaust talk page for example). In this particular case, I think the Economy section is the least controversial section of the article. One obvious reason for that is the well known fact that the USSR and its satellites lost Cold war primarily for economical reasons.
However, I have to concede that some Goldsztajn's arguments sound reasonably: WWII had a deep impact on majority countries and it would be absolutely incorrect to ignore that. The scientists would call that "the non pure experiment". I would say, the only example of pure experiment are presented for BRD/DDR.
I would say that using the idea proposed by Goldsztajn will help to make the section more neutral, and, probably, will help to demonstrate the major point even better.
Let's think about that together.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: "One obvious reason for that is the well known fact that the USSR and its satellites lost Cold war primarily for economical reasons. However, I have to concede that some Goldsztajn's arguments sound reasonably: WWII had a deep impact on majority countries and it would be absolutely incorrect to ignore that. The scientists would call that "the non pure experiment""

--It's not an "experiment", but just figures generally demonstrating economic stagnation using GDP of the sort cited in numerous sources. Like any other citation of GDPs -- by far the most widely cited figure for aggregate economic development and production -- they almost never assert that circumstances in all countries are the same or even similar.

--That said, I wouldn't have a problem adding a sentence with economic industrial and/or infrastructure damage to the various countries of World War II. I ran across an interesting table in a book (can't remember which now, damnit) a few months ago. I'll see if I can dig it up.

--As for the 1980 health stats table, it obviously is 10 years before the end of the Bloc (1980) and doesn't illustrate the stagnation central to the topic (and the sources), as well as oddly focusing on health stats instead of economics (I'm not going to address any purported reasons for that).Mosedschurte (talk) 06:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

May I throw in that whoever added the tables for the Soviet Union and the GDR is apparently comparing apples with oranges, as apparently the exchange rates used there are quite different from the ones used in the table with the other Eastern European economies. Either that, or Czechoslavakia and Hungary in 1990 were only 1/3 as wealthy as the Soviet Union! Yaan (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. It seems the 1990 CIA factbook does not contain much data on the 1990 per capita GDP of the Soviet Union. It certainly does not say it was 9211 USD per capita. So the table on the USSR/USA comparision seems somewhat incorrect anyway. "cited literally countless times for historical GDPs" & "It doesn't get any more textbook, especially for summary purposes, than such a GDP comparison." - How many sources did you actually check? Yaan (talk) 13:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(1) Re: "comparison of the correct time frame is necessary, this means data needs to be within the period of 1950-1989" Done - note, I DON'T actually agree with this, as I agreed with the actual economists in the source that the 1938 pre-World War II figures were best for comparison. In any event, just to avoid further dispute, I went to the source for later figures -- the actual OECD historical stats (the ones everyone else cite to anyway), grabbed historical sources and started at 1950. And they are now sorted per 1950 GDP, not grouped.

(2) Re: "Although one may argue World Bank estimates of GDP in 1990 are too low (because of undervalued local currencies)" Done - I grabbed the more recently available PPP figures instead. No more exchange rate issues.

(3) Note that the official historical OECD PPP figures now show higher Eastern Bloc GDPs than the nominal versions.

(4) Also note that the official OECD PPP are more comprehensive.

(5) Re: "the red linking of the Eastern bloc country names is unnecessary and confusing" Done even though the red was clearly a different color than the links, I changed it to a more soothing green.Mosedschurte (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The final year of data needs to be 1989. It cannot be 1990; in that year the Eastern European countries may well have been free-for-all bootleggers' paradises rather than liberal capitalist market economies, but state-socialist centrally-planned they were not. I'm also somewhat dubious about the 1973 figures...Portugal's per capita GDP higher than USSR, Czechoslovakia or Hungary...very odd. --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

--Every economics source I've ever seen listing GDP's (just a few of them are in the economics subarticle) lists 1990 as the final year for comparison, not 1989. Obviously, it doesn't matter what we think, but I think the economists do so because they had access to open data for the period, but again, our opinion on that is not particularly important.

--The 1973 figures are from the official OECD publications (it's listed in more than a few) for GDP.Mosedschurte (talk) 11:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I found a citation using the same OECD PPP historical figures but citing 1989 figures for most of the countries. They have been added.Mosedschurte (talk) 14:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Didn't it become part of the Eastern Bloc in 1979, rather than leaving it? Yaan (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It was never part of the Eastern Bloc. Read the definition.Mosedschurte (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The relevant statement is "Other countries that were not Soviet Socialist Republics, not Soviet Satellite States or not in Europe were sometimes referred to as being in the Eastern Bloc or Communist Bloc, including: [...] Democratic Kampuchea (Cambodia from 1975-1979)". Maybe you can point me to the exact source that says so, I hope you can still remember where exactly on books.google.com you found it? Yaan (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The PRK received Soviet aid from 1979, of that there is no doubt. From 1975-1979 the PRC supported DK and there were limited contacts with Yugoslavia and the DPRK, but DK was an entho-nationalist state that made Romania seem benign; it could never be considered part of the eastern/Soviet bloc.--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed this reference.--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Good fix.Mosedschurte (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This section is redundant and should be deleted from the article for following reasons:
1. The history of expansion of the USSR is the history of the USSR, not of the Eastern Bloc. In other words, the section that ostensibly discusses the Eastern bloc, in reality covers tangentially related pre-war history of the USSR. That fits

criteria and should be fixed. I placed Conform to template tag into the article.
2. It is definitely biased, because the idea to consider a single country as a block is not shared by majority scholars. One has discriminate between Great Britain and British Empire: the United Kingdom was formed much earlier than the British Empire emerged, and no one can claim that Scotland was a part of British Empire. It is a part of the United Kingdom, and, along with Wales, England and Northern Ireland composed the metropolia i.e. the core of British Empire.
3. In addition, this section reflects a position shared by peoples from some central European countries and does represent the global point of view.
I placed the appropriate tags in the section, and I hope to fix these problem in close future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The map also looks terrible and misleading. However, since the whole section should be replaced with the short link to the History of the Soviet Union (1927–1953), it poses no serious problem.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

--Well, it's obviously not surprising you'd argue that and tag up the sections in such an article (what else is new), but historians all disagree with you. Virtually every single one addressing the topic discusses the 1944-45 acquisitions of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldavia and Western Poland.

Re: "It is definitely biased, because the idea to consider a single country as a block is not shared by majority scholars. One has discriminate between Great Britain and British Empire: the United Kingdom was formed much earlier than the British Empire emerged, and no one can claim that Scotland was a part of British Empire. It is a part of the United Kingdom, and, along with Wales, England and Northern Ireland composed the metropolia i.e. the core of British Empire."

(1) This article is not the

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

, which greatly expanded in 1944-45 adding new countries to the Union.

(2) The article, which covers the Eastern Bloc -- the communist countries of Eastern Europe -- doesn't purport to state that they are separate from the

USSR

, but rather are Eastern European communist countries that became that also became part of that Union again between 1944 and 1945.

(3) As for "overcoverage", it's a whopping 11% of the prose text of the Wikipedia article. That's not opinion, that's the actual mathematical fact.

(4) As for "bias", how is merely including history possible "biased". I can understand the relevance claim, but the "bias" claim is just non-existent by merely including it.

Re: "In addition, this section reflects a position shared by peoples from some central European countries and does represent the global point of view."

--This claim is rather odd:

(1) No reputable author I've seen disputes any of the history in the section. It's pretty basic history, in a very summary fashion with links to the Wikipedia articles covering items (many in much more detail).

(2) If it "represents a global point of view", isn't that what it's supposed to do? If not, what point of view should it be representing?

(3) I'm not even sure it's within Wikipedia policy to claim that something is improper because it is a belief "shared by peoples from some central European countries". For example, I am sure many of those people believe the Holocaust occurred. Does this make an article reporting the Holocaust as a factual event improper? Is this some kind of attack on these peoples' beliefs? And I'm not even getting what's "Central European" about any of it--these historical events are covered in detail in hundreds of history books.

(4) Making the claim even more odd, I drafted a fair amount of the text and I'm most definitely not from central Europe.

(5) In fact, in relevant part, the text comports with the other articles on Wikipedia -- to change it (not that any of it is even disputed history) would be to make it incompatible with the rest of Wikipedia. These are hardly disputed historical events in 2009.Mosedschurte (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I also just went through the section and reduced it even further.Mosedschurte (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: "No reputable author I've seen disputes" I don't claim (and I never claimed before) that you present incorrect facts or facts taken from non-reputable sources. The very facts are correct, however, the way they are presented is wrong.
Webster defines the word "bloc" as: "a group of nations united by treaty or agreement for mutual support or joint action".
Oxford dictionary tells that a bloc is "a group of countries or political parties who have formed an alliance"
According to Webster, union is "formation of a single political unit from two or more separate and independent units". Oxford dictionary tells that union is "a political unit consisting of a number of states or provinces with the same central government".
In other words, a bloc is a group of more or less independent political units with no central government whereas in the union there is a single government that controls all members of the union, in other words, a union is a single political unit per se.
The section is written in such a way that it rejects the fact that the USSR was a single political unit. This is a minority view, or even an original research (made via synthesis of published materials to push this point).
Definitely, some facts form the section belong to the article, however, the history of the expansion of the USSR is a history of one (future) member of Eastern bloc, not of the Eastern bloc. That section is a part of introduction, however, it may be a separate section if you renamed it into "Expansion of the Soviet Union". (The name of the next sentence should be changed accordingly). In addition, the section must be reduced in size. If you agree about that, we may discuss more minor details and then to consider removal of the tags.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: "The section is written in such a way that it rejects the fact that the USSR was a single political unit."

--Not only is it NOT written in such a regard, but the section actually describes the formation of the

Treaty of Creation of the USSR

and the declaration thereof.

--In fact, several points of the article make clear that the annexed areas became

USSR

, and in fact, broke out these specific countries in their own section.

--Moreover, the minimal 11% of text on the subject would be in the article as background material anyway.Mosedschurte (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: "That section is a part of introduction, however, it may be a separate section if you renamed it into "Expansion of the Soviet Union". (The name of the next sentence should be changed accordingly).

--THAT is an issue? No problem. It means the exact same thing as "annexed as Soviet Socialist Republics", which is just a more descriptive way to describe the expansion via annexation.

--The next background sentence on after the Russian Civil War isn't named.

Re: "In addition, the section must be reduced in size."

Already done. If you check the history about an hour ago, I cut the whole thing down to 11% of the prose size article.

Re: " If you agree about that, we may discuss more minor details and then to consider removal of the tags."

I really could care less about these when they are not accurate. Sometimes they're helpful, other times they're just a reason for some kind of fake pressure. I don't really care about that.Mosedschurte (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The debate here seems to be developing in much the same way as the discussion on the map. I agree with Paul, I think the article conflates and blurs the formation and the expansion of the USSR with the Eastern bloc. The structure of the article alone does that. IMO, and to start with, "the post-war europe discussion" and "expansion of the USSR" sections should be merged as "Post-war situation in Europe" with no more than four of five sentences with relevant links. From the beginning with the debate on the map in the lede (which still contains mistakes) Mosedschurte's opinion was very clear, as such I think we need comments from different editors. Should we place an RfC? --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: "The debate here seems to be developing in much the same way as the discussion on the map. I agree with Paul,"

--Wait, you mean you seem to be agreeing with the guy whose Talk page you've alerted multiple times to come onto this article Talk page re your causes. Astounding.

--Note also, that at his request, just to make life more easy frankly, I already changed the title of the section to "Expansion of the USSR" and shortened the entire section down to 11% of the prose text of the article.

Re: "IMO, and to start with, "the post-war europe discussion" and "expansion of the USSR" sections should be merged as "Post-war situation in Europe" with no more than four of five sentences with relevant links."

--4-5 sentences. There are 4-5 countries just to begin with, setting aside World War II and conferences. It would be kind to call that an unrealistic non-starter.

--And if you're thinking of such a merger for chron reasons, that's another no go. The history for the non-annexed countries also began during World War II, some of it in mid-1944.

--Basically, almost all of this happened simultaneously, with some direct mixing -- e.g., whether the annexation of eastern Poland (which was annexed) would occur was a debate thoroughly mixed with what the government in western Poland, which was not annexed, would look like up to and past Yalta, and in fact, what it's very territorial borders would be on all sides.

--This is yet another reason that all of the historical sources covering this topic cover the annexations in detail -- it's all very interrelated.

Re: "Should we place an RfC?"

--Well, if history has anything to show for it, right now, I'd imagine that it would be you, Paul and Yaan probably wanting to delete large swaths of the article -- a conclusion that would shock exactly no one just clicking through edit histories. I haven't really done this so far because I don't want to turn this into a nasty debate because the history is pretty vanilla with this article, but I could always go into the Talk pages for the article for all the members of the Eastern Bloc (Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Hungary, etc.), mention that someone wants to oddly delete all of the annexed Eastern Bloc territories' history from an Eastern Bloc article (except for maybe 5-10 words each), and see what they say.

--Moreover, then there's the issue of the all of the actual historical sources on the topic of the Eastern Bloc -- the communist countries of Eastern Europe -- ALL which also describe these annexations in great detail.

--Or, we could just approach the matter like adults -- avoid the RfC, almost certainly followed by some arbitration, et al. -- and actually have an article which reflects the historical sources on the topic in the first place.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

In a little over a month of discussion on the talk page I think I have made a single edit to the article. I'm not interested in an edit war. There is nothing nefarious about communicating to another editor on a user talk page, implying otherwise and stating I'm editing here because of "causes" is in bad faith and

a personal attack, NPA. Myself and the other editors you mention have been nothing but polite and constructive to you on this page. --Goldsztajn (talk

) 01:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

--I'm the one suggesting discussing the matter like adults. I don't want to waste time going to arbitration and having to whip out all of the major sources on a matter which is plain vanilla history.

--Look, re serious discussion, the fact of the matter is that almost every single historical source dealing broadly with the overall history of communist eastern Europe (rather than a specialty book) focuses primarily on the following:

(1) Initial establishment of Soviet control (both the annexation, and to a greater extent, control in the non-annexed countries)

(2) Political control excercized thereafter by the ruling parties and purges (lots on the various trials, purges and getting cadres into the key spots).

(3) Economies of the countries, with some mention of command economies, stagnation, collectivization, etc.]

(4) Civil control - e.g., censorship and dissent control, secret police, etc.

In such a topic, obviously

Olympics

(see below) is just not realistic.

On a serious note, if you really want to see what most broad sources addressing communist eastern Europe spend time on, see the more detailed sub-articles, many of whcih are

WP:Summary Style

summarized in this article in relevant parts:

• Eastern Bloc politics
• Eastern Bloc economies
• Eastern Bloc emigration and defection
• Eastern Bloc information disseminationMosedschurte (talk
  ) 02:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources?

The Section on Eastern Bloc defection currently states that "With virtually non-existent conventional emigration, more than 75% of those emigrating from Eastern Bloc countries between 1950 and 1990 did so under bilateral agreements for "ethnic migration."[186] About 10% were refugee immigrants permitted to emigrate under the Geneva Convention of 1951.[186]".

The source given is Regulation of Migration by Anita Böcker, p.209. What Böcker actually says is "More than 75% of the European East-West migration in the period from 1950 to 1993 can be classed as 'ethnic migration'. But it is clear that this classification is not always precise. Many of the 'ethnic' migrants seized the opportunity to leave their home country for political or economical reasons. The 'ethnic' factor also shows that East-West migration was and remains a subject of bilateral agreements. In many cases it was and still is less a question of economic disparities than of political negotiations and bilateral relations between sending and receiving countries.

About 10% of the people migrating from Eastern and East-Central Europe and from the Balkans to Western Europe can be classified as refugee migrants. In reality there were probably more of them. At any rate, the public perceptions bear little resemblance to their actual number. The direct connections of this refugee migration with political circles and their relative importance in the Cold War are significant. This form of migration was given a legal basis by the Geneva Convention of 1951".

IMHO Anita Böcker does not say that

• There were bilateral agreements that explicitely dealt with ethnic migration,
• That all or even the majority of those migrants that she calls 'ethnic' migrants were subject to such or similar agreements,
• That any Eastern European did permit emigration because of the Geneva Convention.

Yaan (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

"* Re: "does not say that There were bilateral agreements that explicitely dealt with ethnic migration,"

-You've got to be kidding me. She says "The 'ethnic' factor also shows that East-West migration was and remains a subject of bilateral agreements." specifically referring (though it is not in this article) the many such bilateral agreements regarding ethnic migration such as:

• the Soviet-Polish repatriation agreement, which allowed Jews to go to Poland from where a separate agreement permitted them to go to Israel, ditto for the Soviet-Romanian repatriation agreement (vehicle for Jews to get to Israel) (discussed ad nauseum everywhere),
• the 1968 Turkish-Bulgarian agreement to permit ethnic turks to go to Turkey (e.g., Cohen page 477),
• bilateral agreements between West Germany and the Polish, Romanian, and Soviet governments regarding the migration of ethnic Germans, etc., e.g., discussed here

That's how such ethnic migration occurred, via agreements for it.

"* Re: "does not say "That any Eastern European did permit emigration because of the Geneva Convention.

The sentence is unclear, and it should be that 10% were refugee migrants under the Geneva Convention and permitted asylum on that basis, not that they were permitted emigration for that reason. It has been changed.Mosedschurte (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No need to show temper again, especially if you don't even dispute my third point. I wrote that Anita Böcker on p.209 "does not say that there were bilateral agreements that explicitely dealt with ethnic migration,", and in fact she does not say so, though maybe she does elsewhere in the book. The table on p.208, where she clarifies what to her are 'ethnic migrants', gives more than 5 million people moving from East Germany to West Germany. That is more than half of the total number of what Böckers classifies as ethnic migrants. Now I am very aware that the East German government sold some political prisoners etc, but that certainly does not mean a large percentage of those five million people were migrating to West Germany under any bilateral agreement. Your interpretation of Böcker's text certainly makes one wonder why the GDR felt it necessary to build a wall - maybe they should just have cancelled the agreement that made all this ethnic migration occur!

Btw. Böckers also gives a slightly different timeframe, she lets it end in 1992/1993 rather than 1990. This is significant as, as you certainly know if you have read the text you linked to above, political liberalization at the end of the 1980s and especially in 1989/90 meant that especially the numbers of ethnic German migrating from Eastern Europe to Germany became much higher. Yaan (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to make the following note, which is basically to express an overall impression of the article as it stands. To me, the article is basically a selective summary of the countries of the Eastern bloc with too much detail on each countries' historical experience and development (already well covered elsewhere on wiki) and very little on the idea of the "Soviet/eastern bloc" as an entity. So what does that mean? For example, there needs to be reference to Eastern bloc culture...Dean Reed (the "Red Elvis") or the phenomenon of the Eastern Bloc musicals or the extremely complex films of Eastern Europe which developed during this period reflective of the tensions between censorship and creative freedom. These were cultural phenomena which developed as a result of a set of shared experiences by being part of the bloc. Or the Olympics, the sense that the Cold War was being played out in sport. Of course there is COMECON, COMINFORM, Warsaw Pact (which are basically buried in the article at present) and these need greater prominence. Or the role of Eastern bloc foreign aid to the Third World. But to me, the article should be focused on the entity of the bloc and those manifestations, comparative aspects (economics, political) and contrasts (the times when the bloc was not unified, splits, divergences). Also, there needs to be mention of dissent (and not just intellectuals famous in the West) or and its ideological currents and underground movements (eg punk). To me the section on revolts is just a detailed chronological list, but does not really explain to a reader how such revolts built up, they were not necessarily spontaneous, and how dissent (before, during and after revolts) over the entire period of the Soviet bloc played a role. I would even say it would be useful to a reader for the article to explain why dissent developed in different ways in the bloc. None of these issues I've mentioned would be

) 01:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: "For example, there needs to be reference to Eastern bloc culture...Dean Reed (the "Red Elvis") or the phenomenon of the Eastern Bloc musicals or the extremely complex films of Eastern Europe which developed during this period reflective of the tensions between censorship and creative freedom. Or the Olympics, the sense that the Cold War was being played out in sport. . . . and its ideological currents and underground movements (eg punk)."

--Are you seriously suggesting we cut the entire annexation of eastern Poland (which you suggested above) out of an Eastern Bloc article, while simultaneously adding sections on actor Dean Reed, the Olympics and Punk rock music? In an article that is already 8,900+ words?

--Honestly, I'm going to refrain from saying what I think about that particular sentence, because . . . well, I'll just stop. At least now I know what I'm dealing with.

--Here's the bottom line, the article is very well sourced and reflects the literally hundreds of sources that address the topic of communist Eastern Europe overall generally in Wikipedia:Summary style. The focus almost entirely on the formation history via the Soviet Union, political control (from the Soviets and their own parties), the economies and civil life inside the Eastern Bloc.

--So far, just to avoid the hassle I've agreed to changes in an article that I don't think are particularly good, and don't reflect the majority of sources, just to avoid a battle and to frankly make the article less likely to draw future battles.

--However, when we get into the process of even discussing deleting the entirely of the History of annexation of Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia (or putting them in a few words as suggested above) in exchange for sections on actor Dean Reed, the Olympics and Punk rock music -- let's be blunt, lala land would be a nice way to describe the reality of this idea for a summary level Eastern Bloc article -- we can just skip straight past the RfCs and mediations, and straight into arbitration, I'll have to blow time whipping out every huge historical text on communist Eastern Europe as a general historical matter, show them how they go through the various annexations in detail and how almost none (or some tiny number) of the main historical texts addressing the topic broadly spends any significant time on the topics of actor Dean Reed, the Olympics and Punk rock music.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Please draft your edits and complete them before saving, to avoid confusion with your meaning and intent.--Goldsztajn (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Since Eastern bloc was not a country but a group of countries combined together by formal (Warsaw pact, COMECON, etc) or informal (communist ideology, Soviet dominance) criteria, the story of Eastern bloc must be focused on the Eastern bloc as whole, on on some specific aspects of the history of its constituents. In that sense, story of Eastern bloc should start with Yalta (what is currently the case in the present version). The next section (expansion of the USSR) looks as odd as the section "history of Russian empire would.
Dean Reed was popular in many Eastern bloc countries, therefore he has a relation to more than one Eastern bloc country. It would be logical to include him. By contrast, expansion of the USSR has nothing to do with the bloc history, or has just a tangential relation to it. Considerable reduction of this part will improve the article, and total removal will improve it even more.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree with Goldsztajn that this article has the wrong focus. We learn twice that "Silesia, Pomerania and East Prussia conatined much of Germany's fertile land" (with sources!), but nothing about how those border changes affected the relations between Poland and East Germany, what effect destalinization had on the Eastern bloc etc. Indeed, it seems most of the Eastern bloc's history ended in 1950 or so!

It does not really help that the timeframe we talk about is completly unclear. In the section about Eastern Germany, we can read that "Property and industry was nationalized under their [the SED's, Y] government.[80][82] If statements or decisions deviated from the described line, reprimands and, for persons outside public attention, punishment would ensue, such as imprisonment, torture and even death.[79]" and "An elaborate political police apparatus kept the population under close surveillance,[83] including Soviet SMERSH secret police.[80] A tight system of censorship restricted access to print or the airwaves.[83]"

Sources 79 and 80 refer to the 1945-1947 period ("Failure of Interallied cooperation" in Wettig's "Stalin and the Cold War in Europe"), but this is left unclear (and btw. an SED government was only formed in October 1949, I think.) Indeed it seems that only the immediate post-war history is covered for most countries. IMHO this is another good reason to just reduce this stuff to a few sentences.

I also agree with Goldsztajn that the Eastern Bloc was more than just a political entity. Economic and even military aspects are now very much hidden within the article, and culture should definitely be mentioned too. After all, it was part of intra-Eastern Bloc relations, too. Yaan (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

One more factual error: SMERSH (from SMERt' SHpionam, literally "death to spies") was a military counter-intelligence. It was established during WWII and it was discontinued soon after the war. Mosedschurte is not accurate (as usually).--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Literally like clockwork:

---

"-Well, if history has anything to show for it, right now, I'd imagine that it would be you, Paul and Yaan probably wanting to delete large swaths of the article -- a conclusion that would shock exactly no one just clicking through edit histories."
--Me, in another section above to Goldsztajn 15 hours ago

---

Even I didn't expect it to be that fast.

Re: "the story of Eastern bloc must be focused on the Eastern bloc as whole, on on some specific aspects of the history of its constituents." (Paul)

--Actually, I generally agree, though the definition of the Bloc is all communist countries of Eastern Europe, including those that broke with the Soviets (such as Albania and Yugoslavia).
--The article focuses mostly on shared control, characteristics and events effecting the Bloc as a whole (Marshall Plan, Tito-Stalin split, etc), as do most historical sources on the subject.
--In terms of actual conflicts, it focuses mostly on attempts to break from the Bloc or its policies, e.g., Hungarian Revolution of 1956, Czech '68 invasion, etc., as do most sources

Re; "Dean Reed was popular in many Eastern bloc countries, therefore he has a relation to more than one Eastern bloc country. It would be logical to include him. By contrast, expansion of the USSR has nothing to do with the bloc history, or has just a tangential relation to it." (Paul)

--If you're honestly stating that discussions in a high level

should not be, then I'm not sure what to tell you.
--Honestly, and this shouldn't be surprising, I've read large numbers of publications focusing on the broad history of Eastern Europe -- though no books that focus on specific segments such as entertainment or culture therein -- and I've seen large numbers of descriptions of the annexation of Poland in the broad historical texts and pretty much nothing in such publications on Dean Read, though I'm sure he's talked about in other publications.

Re: "what effect destalinization had on the Eastern bloc etc." (Yaan)

--Try the sub-articles, such as

WP:Summary Style

article.

Re: "We learn twice that "Silesia, Pomerania and East Prussia conatined much of Germany's fertile land" (with sources!)"

--Silesia and Pomerania are not mentioned a single time in the article.
--East Prussia is mentioned one time, in a map caption in the East Germany section describing the areas of eastern Germany ceded to Poland.

Re: "Economic and even military aspects are now very much hidden within the article, and culture should definitely be mentioned too."

--There is not only an entire

.
--There is also a section that addresses all three major military actions within the Bloc for those attempting to revolt, i.e., Hungarian 1956 Revolution, Czech '68 invasion after the Prague Spring and the Eastern German uprising of 1953 where the Red Army was called in to crush protests. While the descriptions focus on the Bloc-related aspects of each event, each section also contains SEE or MAIN links to the main Wikipedia articles on the topic, as well.

Re: "One more factual error: SMERSH (from SMERt' SHpionam, literally "death to spies") was a military counter-intelligence. It was established during WWII and it was discontinued soon after the war. Mosedschurte is not accurate (as usually)."

--Shocking, a false accusation against another editor by Paul.
--The Smersh were broken up in 1946.

--Here's the article and here is the source:

---

article: "An elaborate political police apparatus kept the population under close surveillance (another source), including Soviet SMERSH secret police.(Wettig)"
The source: "Unconditional submission to the USSR was greatly enhanced by Soviet terror exercised notably by the secret police organization 'Smersh' which used German auxiliary personnel selected on recommendation by local communists."

---

Mosedschurte (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Funny, but I thought "soon after the war" and "in 1946" was about the same. There were no Eastern Germany during that time, just Soviet occupation zone, and DDR was found later. Therefore what we have here is not a false accusation, but a false accusation in a false accusation...----Paul Siebert (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

--Please. Of course, no one said East Germany had been declared by then, and in fact the article makes this quite clear. This is all while it is being occupied and transformed, as is made quite clear.

--I would just cut such accusations (and I'm not even going to get into the reasons that you particularly should stop making them), and focus on the substance of the article.Mosedschurte (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You are wasting your energy in vain: I didn't want to accuse you in making deliberate false statements in that concrete case. It was just a minor technical error (probably, poor source). The problem is that you do many such errors, that is quite understandable taking into account the speed you work with.
You probably noticed that I am much more polite when I communicate or collaborate with Wikipedians other that you. The reason is quite simple: if I am too polite, you simply ignore my arguments. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

--Please, the source obliterated your accusation against another editor in one sentence. It's there in black and white.

--I would steer clear of false accusations against other editors and focus on the article. You've done the same thing in another article in the same day -- again, falsely.

"The reason is quite simple: if I am too polite, you simply ignore my arguments."

--Wow. You're falsely attacking me so I won't ignore you. Okay. You know, sometimes I have to step away from my computer for a day or two and I can't answer your every question.

--I HIGHLY suggest changing this tack on Wikipedia.Mosedschurte (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I began this as a fairly simple reflection on issues with this article, in part, stating that there should be "mention" of a number of issues. But the claims made by Mosedschurte above are simply gross misrepresentations of what I wrote. We have three editors who agree on the need for change and the incorporation of issues not addressed and the reduction or editing of other issues. If Mosedschurte is so agitated by this development, and consensus seems highly unlikely, surely an RfC would be in the interest of all? --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Section break

(1) My only point re deleting the annexations in Eastern Europe (except in a sentence) accompanying mentions such as the popularity of actor

-- which was not a "gross misrepresentation" but direct quotes from you -- we could just skip the RfC and mediation and go straight to ArbCom. That just clearly doesn't reflect the major sources broadly addressing the history of communist Eastern Europe. I would rather avoid all of that.
(3) To be honest, given that we have space to work with with the article down at ~8,700 prose words, if someone wanted to add a short well-sourced WP:Summary style paragraph on culture in the Eastern Bloc addressing similar tastes/issues, I wouldn't object (though the high level sources on communist eastern Europe history as a whole spend little to no time on it).
(3) With regard to early history, the article has already been rearranged and shortened -- and was just again -- regarding the annexations in any event.
(4) The problem with adding even more on Comecon and the Warsaw Pact (I had drafted more earlier) with regard to the Eastern Bloc as a whole is that there was very little dissent -- these were essentially just Soviet vehicles (not surprisingly), with the few major dissents already mentioned. That's also part of the reason the Wikipedia articles on them are so sparse (though they could deserve some work). I will add a couple of more sentences later which I had been planning to do.
(5) I also wouldn't object to additions of short well-sourced WP:Summary style sentences regarding dissent generally in the Eastern Bloc in the political and civil restrictions section.Mosedschurte (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: "We have three editors who agree on the need for change". WP is not a democracy, and the possibility cannot be ruled out that Mosedschurte is right, not we three. To my opinion, the issue is not in "three vs one" but in Mosedschurte's refusal (or inability) to provide solid arguments.
To my opinion, one of the major issue is that Mosedschurte pushes his own definition of Eastern bloc. His definition could be found in the

article:

"Eastern Bloc countries were either Soviet Socialist Republics or were ruled by Soviet-installed governments, with the exception of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which retained its full independence." (Obviously, I changed this phrase immediatelly after I found it, although I cannot be sure that Mosedschurte will not revert my change).

Based on this definition Mosedschurte pushes the idea that history of Eastern bloc was the history of the expansion of RSFSR's dominance. Therefore, the formation of the USSR is represented as an annexation of Byelorussia and Ukraine by RSFSR. Both the former and the latter are very original points of view that are either minority views or OR.
However, Mosedschurte fails to provide a support for this his major point, namely, that the Eastern bloc had been formed before the USSR got her first satellite that was formally a politically independent state (of course, we leave Mongolia beyond the scope). Moreower, the Mosedschurte's point of view is self-contradictory, because, the definition of the word "bloc" (see above), implies that its constituents retain greater or smalles degree of political independence. However, it is simply incorrect to state that Estonia, Latvia or Eastern Poland had even minor political independence (in contrast to East Germany, Hungary of Bulgaria). Obviously, under "fails to provide" I mean a failure to prove that Mosedschurte's concept represents a majority view, or, at least, is supported by a reasonable number of highly reputable scholars. By contrast, the point of view I support is that Eastern bloc is a vague definition generally used to describe formally independent countries that were the members of either Warsaw pact or COMECON, or both.
Another reason behind the conflict may be that Mosedschurte simply doesn't understand our arguments. For example, in the case of "Dean Reed vs annexation of Eastern Poland" the arguments are quite straightforward: although the latter was much more important fact, it cannot be in the article because it has only a tangential relation to Eastern bloc (happened earlier, and related to history of the USSR and Poland only).--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC) PS. I like the idea of RfC, however, if Mosedschurte insists on arbitration, I don't mind.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(1) That was a misstatement of my position, but that was fairly obvious. The Eastern Bloc simply consists of the communist countries of Eastern Europe.

(2) Not surprising anyone, nearly every single source broadly addressing the history of the communist countries of Eastern Europe addresses the annexation of Poland. They do this both because the annexation was an expansion of one member of the Bloc and because it clearly involved another member (what remained of Poland), and discussions thereabout its formation. On the other hand, no historical source broadly addressing the history of communist eastern Europe that I've seen discusses, for example, the popularity of actor Dean Reed.

(3) The article was already modified (see above)

(4) Though it's not even in the broad historical sources on the Eastern Bloc, I also have stated that I would not object to a short well-sourced and well-written

WP:Summary Style

paragraph on culture in the Eastern Bloc.

(5) I also already added more info on Comecon and the Warsaw Pact, along with a paragraph on the end.Mosedschurte (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether it was a misstatement or not, the most direct way to understand each other is to present the opponent's point of view as you see it. In this concrete case, I see no contradiction between my statement and your. If we accept your last definition (that seems to be absolutely correct) than we come to conclusion that story about Estonia, Karelian Isthmus, Eastern Poland of Bessarabia, as well as all about other SSRs belong to history of the USSR, not to the Eastern bloc article: some of these territories had never been a separate countries, and others ceased to exist as a even formally independent countries after annexation. Does the story of the annexation of Savoy belong to the Triple Entente history? Obviously not.
My conclusion is: (i) I fully agree that "the history of the communist countries of Eastern Europe" has to "address the annexation of Poland." (ii) This article is not a summary of the histories of separate Eastern European countries under Communist control, it is the article about Eastern bloc as whole. Accordingly, it must focus on common features, antagonism, cooperation etc.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there is any other way to explain this rather obvious point than the following very basic logical points: (i) every major historical source addressing the topic addresses the Soviet Polish annexation (as opposed to the popularity of actor

WP:Summary Style paragraph. I doubt actor Dean Reed would be important enough in the context of the Eastern Bloc to be included in such a paragraph.Mosedschurte (talk

) 16:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to clarify two points. In terms of my comment "We have three editors who agree on the need for change" I'm sorry if I implied that I thought 3 vs 1 meant we had the right to make change irrespective of another editor. I agree with Paul's statement that Wikipaedia is not a "democracy", I was only trying to point out that DESPITE the fact that three editors agreed, it might be more productive to seek an outside opinion. Mosedschurte has made very clear that anything we write will automatically be treated negatively, so a different voice is perhaps necessary. (I would also note

WP:CANVASS which specifically warns editors against the kind of behaviour of which Mosedschurte is concerned). My second point, I see no connection between Arb. and an RfC. An RfC is just that, a request for comment, editors can choose to ignore it and that does not mean arb is around the corner.--Goldsztajn (talk

) 21:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yugoslavia

Could someone please explain why is

) was a target of multiple assassination attempts by the KGB.
The country later came to be the principal founding member of the , and its head-of-state became the movement's first Secretary-General. The country declared itself completely neutral in any possible conflict between the Western and Eastern Blocs, and prepared defensive measures against both an invasion from the East and the West.

I also contest the usage of the current lead map, and I'd like to know why this one, recognizing all of the above, has been removed? It is also either incorrect, or refers only to the situation at the start of the Cold War (at least with respect to Yugoslavia). Yugoslavia is named as a "Federal People's Republic" (FPR Yugoslavia), which existed between 1945 and 1965, when the country was renamed into the "Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" (1963-1991) (SFR Yugoslavia).
Yugoslavia's inclusion aside, the map can only be assumed to be correct up to the year 1963, which means it does not depict the latest state of the Eastern Bloc. It is likely that the map lists Yugoslavia as a part of the Eastern Bloc because it depicts the situation prior to the split between Yugoslavia and the USSR. (I hope I'm making any sense :) --

) 15:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The sources include Yugoslavia and Albania in the list of Eastern Bloc countries likely because they were communist countries in Eastern Europe, which was the definition. The article describes the post

Tito-Stalin split occurrences, including what you described above re the NAM, and the anti-Tito Stalinist purges in the rest of the Bloc following the Tito-Stalin split. Also, re the map, the different colors for Yugoslavia and Albania reflect their different statuses, even though both fall within the lists and source definitions of Eastern Bloc.Mosedschurte (talk

) 16:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Communist. Yugoslavia was by constitution, and indeed its state name, a socialist state. Not a communist one.
• Eastern Europe. The category "Eastern Europe" is indeterminate. Yugoslavia is much more a part of central, southern, and/or south-eastern Europe, reaching more to the west than Vienna. It is, at the very least, highly disputable to include Yugoslavia into "Eastern Europe". --
  TALK
  ) 16:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not my definition or list. It's the sources. I actually had edited the article before without Yugoslavia, but it is pretty much considered a member in most sources (ditto for Albania), so I included it with explanations as to to the Tito-Stalin split and Hoxha split following de-Stalinization to comport with the sources and als provide an explanation of differences with the Soviet Union.

In any event, the policy splits of Yugoslavia and Albania are fairly thoroughly discussed, so it is not a particularly large issue. Inlcuding such explanations of policy splits (with dates) also helps to decrease edit wars with editors in the future just deleting or adding it to an otherwise unexplained list. Ditto for the different country colors for them on the map.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand, but I really don't like the shape of the lead. It implies that Yugoslavia was a satellite state of the USSR, which is quite incorrect. Yugoslavia (and perhaps Albania) must be set apart from the Warsaw Pact states, if listed at all.
That's one thing, the image is another. How can we justify using an outdated map (correct only for 14 years, between 1949 - 1963) just because it shows the member states of one of the Eastern Bloc countries? (Also, the member states of the

and Yugoslavia are not shown, a sign of selective representation of info)

Finally, the two sources to me do not seem to determine this conclusively. Especially if Yugoslavia's inclusion contradicts their own definition of the Eastern Bloc. --

) 16:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

We can add a sentence to the lead: "

Albania broke ties with the Soviets in 1960." (also, it's not just those two sources -- it's many more, I just didn't want a huge cite list).Mosedschurte (talk

) 16:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, let me remind you that the term "Eastern bloc" is vague. By contrast to the Warsaw pact or COMECON it refers to no concrete treaty (that is usually needed to speak about block). That is why some degree of arbitrariness is unavoidable when we try to elaborate the definition of the Eastern bloc, its spatial and temporal boundaries. As a consequence of that, the attempt has been done recently to represent Soviet Socialist Republics as the separate members of the Eastern bloc, and a long and difficult discussion was needed to (partially) resolve the issue. By the way, the old map you are talking about was replaced with new one to support this wrong concept I described above, and the present map was a result of several iterative modifications that have lead to something that more or less satisfied all the parties.
Obviously, if we reduce the Eastern bloc definition to that of Warsaw pact or COMECON, the term "Eastern bloc" definition would be more strict, although fully redundant. In the absence of strict definition (and, as a result, strict membership criteria) the fact that someone consider Yugoslavia (or Albania) the Eastern bloc's menber, and someone does not is absolutely understandable.
To my opinion, the solution would be to state explicitly that although the category of "Eastern bloc" is indeterminate, the list of Eastern bloc countries varies from source to source, so sometimes Yugoslavia and Albania are in that list, and sometimes they aren't.
Your reference to Yugoslavian constitution seems not to be relevant: most Eastern bloc countries (including the USSR itself) were the socialist ones, according to their constitutions. (DDR's governing party was "Socialist United Party of Germany", btw).--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: "I understand, but I really don't like the shape of the lead. It implies that Yugoslavia was a satellite state of the USSR, which is quite incorrect." I support this idea. To my opinion, the article provides oversimplified description of the establishment of Communist regimes in Eastern Europe. According to the article, both their formation and existence was a result of the active and sustained efforts of the Soviet leadership. However, it is well known, that Eastern European Communists were among the most active and persuaded opponents of Nazis, so in some European countries (besides those who already obtained the negative experience of 1939-41 Soviet occupation) Communists were really popular after WWII. Yugoslavia belonged to that category, and it was the long, bloody and successful partisan war that brought Tito to power, not Stalin's help. Therefore, there were no objective reasons to call some Eastern European regimes "puppet states", and these countries the "satellite countries", accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Also, the member states of the ČSSR and Yugoslavia are not shown, a sign of selective representation of info." You are right, they must be shown. I already raised this question before.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Because the term is indeed vague I do not object to the inclusion of Yugoslavia, but as you said, with the situation explained in the lead. I'll draw up my proposal. Lets talk about the map. --

) 17:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Lead map

The lead map has a number of faults.

• It is inconsistent in that it shows only the member states of one country and ignores the others.
• Yugoslavia's inclusion aside, it accurately represents only 14 years of the Eastern Bloc's existence (1949-1963)
• It does not depict the situation at the end of the existence of the Eastern Bloc, becoming inaccurate after 1963.

In the absence of a different solution, I suggest we restore the old lead map. --

) 17:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The "old map" to which you refer is actually several iterations ago. Not only does it not depict "member states" of Yugoslavia, but it doesn't depict Yugoslavia in any color -- contradicting the sources on the matter -- contains no legend, does not comport with Wikipedia guidelines on map colors and inefficiently displays all of Europe and the Atlantic Ocean and portrays Romania in a different color. In short, it's a disaster.Mosedschurte (talk) 18:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

In actuality, the only drawback of the old map is too bright colours that seem to be inconsistent with WP neutrality policy and the absence of Yugoslavia. The present map's drawback is a large number of unnecessary details. If we add administrative division of CSSR and Yugoslavia the map will become terrible. I propose to remove the countries' and the republics' names and to live just a legend: it is not the Eastern Europe's political map, we don't need these details here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

In short:

• A legend can quite easily be included in the caption.
• Map color guidelines are not strict policy.
• Romania is in a different color because of Ceauşescu's significant independence from the USSR. Not because of some supposed "disastrous" error.

The only valid argument is the disputable listing of Yugoslavia as an Eastern Bloc country. I say "disputable", as it is neither in Easter Europe, nor a communist state (which, according to the sources are the "entry requirements"). I am aware that the constitution was arguably not conclusive proof for the latter, but it is easy to find sources on the fact that Yugoslavia housed a form of market socialism, far removed from the Eastern Bloc (and Albanian) communist regimes.

In any event, I don't see your point? Are you trying to prove both images are a disaster? If so, then both are inappropriate for the article. --

) 18:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The current image comports with sources on the issue, goes so far as to list Yugoslavia and Albania in a different color, includes the legend and efficiently shows only the part of Europe depicted. Why one would change to a map that does not do so would be baffling. As well, frankly, I didn't even address the arguments about Yugoslavia not being Communist because it's a not worth getting into a dispute over. While they attempted to switch to a "market socialist" economy, I've never seen any book claim that they were not politically Communist, they were run by the League of Communists of Yugoslavia and the word "Socialist" in the title has absolutely ZERO to do with such a determination, e.g., Czechoslovak Socialist Republic. In any event, it's irrelevant anyway.Mosedschurte (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The dispute seems to be senseless: it is impossible to create a single map that would reflect all the history of the Eastern block correctly. To my opinion, the present map is satisfactory provided that necessary explanations are given in the legend/caption. However, as soon as administrative division of the USSR is shown, the same should be done everywhere on the map.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying the map is supposed to reflect the entire history of the bloc. However if I'm not mistaken, the main map is supposed t depict the latest state of the Eastern Bloc, not some random period of its history. --

) 19:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no latest state of the Eastern Bloc. It has been defunct for nearly two decades. The map is not supposed to depict any one point in history. Rather, it reflects the Eastern Bloc per the sources, and it even (though it certainly does not have to) reflects Albania and Yugoslavia in different colors. It's not a particularly complicated depiction.Mosedschurte (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The "latest state" of the Eastern Bloc would be the late 1980s. As I said, I am under the impression that the lead image should depict the latest state of the Eastern Bloc. Particularly since the state of the Bloc in the period after 1963 is the state in which it remained for cca. 37 years, and it is the condition in which it dissolved. (I'm glad you find the map so graciously benevolent towards Yugoslavia and Albania.) --

) 19:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: "As I said, I am under the impression that the lead image should depict the latest state of the Eastern Bloc." As explained, this impression is simply wrong. It depicts no one time in history.Mosedschurte (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It depicts no one time in history to our opinion. However,

DIREKTOR seems to have a right to propose another vision and he has the same rights as you do to decide what should be in the article and what shouldn't. Please, keep that in mind.
To my opinion, the map should reflect the whole period of the Eastern bloc history and it should reflect all extreme definitions of the vague terms "Eastern bloc". In other words, it should (i) show all countries that were considered the Eastern bloc countries at least by one reliable source during any period of EB's history, and (ii) show the EB's "core" i.e. the countries that are considersd the EB countries during the whole EB's history by all the sources.
In that sense, Yugoslavia, Albania and, probably, Romania should be colored on that map, but (i) the colours must be different (what is already the case in the present version), (ii) the administrative division issue should be resolved, and (iii) necessary explanations have to be done. My conclusion is that the present map is satisfactory, although minor modifications are desirable (+ some caption/legend changes).--Paul Siebert (talk

) 19:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced the map with a version taking care of all the problems discussed to date. It is also now in preferred wiki format (ie SVG). --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Eastern Bloc/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following

, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

In terms of rating: I wrote much of it, so there's obvious bias there, but I rated it a B, though I actually think an A could be appropriate: 1. It's Factually accurate and verifiable. It provides extensive references to all sources, complete with page numbers for each source. It provides in-line citations from reliable sources in Harvnb format and it contains no original research. 2. It is extremely broad in its coverage and addresses the main aspects of Nazi-Soviet economic relations, while staying focused on the topic in a summary style (the wealth of material out there is pretty overwhelming). 3. It neutrally represents viewpoints of the sources without bias. 4. It is stable -- I don't think it's had an edit war. 5. It is illustrated with images on point, with proper captions and all properly tagged for copyright status. 6. It's fairly well-written. It could use some improvement on a few sentences being clunky, but it complies with MOS. Re B, it's pretty easy: 1. It's suitably referenced (almost every line has inline citations to major works) 2. It reasonably covers the topic - comprehensive coverage, nearly 10,000 words too. 3. It has a defined structure - lead, topics and sub-topics 4. It's generally free from major grammatical errors, though it is changing 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials -> several maps, photos, tables, etc.Mosedschurte (talk) 12:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 12:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 20:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)