Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Russia/archive1
History of Russia
An important article for the main page. Self-nom. 172 08:05, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Wow. It ought to take about a week for more knowledgeable editors to read this in several senses majestic article (66 kb!) properly and prepare a vote or a comment on it, so I thought I might as well chatter ignorantly about superficial aspects while we wait. I mean to ask for information, not object. The article is a hub, with each section summarizing a subarticle—"Main article"—to which the reader is referred for fuller information. Some of those summaries seem very long for such a system, in fact the "Imperial Russia" and "Soviet Union" summaries are longer than the subarticles they refer to! (This proportion is not necessarily unreasonable as such, since the subarticles are themselves hubs, inviting the reader to click on through to subsubarticles of History of Russia.) IR is 7 screens on my system, and 20 kb long (remember it's a summary). SU is 8 screens and 24 kb. Is this necessary? When I started writing a pretty long and elaborate subarticle to William Shakespeare, which is also of course a hub (a trim 28 kb), I was asked kindly but firmly to put a one-paragraph summary of it into the parent article. Perhaps that wouldn't do at all for the History of Russia. But 66 kb...? I'm far from being a 32-kb limit fanatic, but are we seeing two totally different cultures here? 172, you must have thought long and hard about it, I'd like to know what your ideas are about not just the simple concept of length, but the whole issue of organizing information across sets of articles. Bishonen | Talk 12:53, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I have. Each section is a summary of the component articles of the History of Russia series. The way the series was already structured before I'd rewritten the article determined the content of my rewrite. Thanks. 172 01:37, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Object.Abstain.I don't mind the legnth but I think it is still to early for us to be able to nominate any 'history of a country' article - too many important articles have not yet been written, or what is perhaps more relevant in this FAC case - are written but not mentioned or linked in the articles.Some relevant articles to the History of Russia, that the article seems to forget about and I could think of after 5 minutes: 1) mention of1956 Hungarian Revolution or Prague Spring of 1568, both supressed by the Red Army, or Polish Solidarnosc contribution to the end of SU 9) Just makes me wonder how many other important events/articles are not mentiond/linked... This needs much more work - it is very far from being comprensive. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk13:09, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, and I can come up with a list longer than the 66K article of things omitted in the 66K article. Many things will inevitably be omitted in such a broad brush survey history of Russia over the past thousand years, even things that interest Polish and Hungarian nationalists, such as the invasions of 1956 and 1968 or Solidarity. (You know, we have a History of the Soviet Union article.) 172 20:07, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I will refrain from any comments on Soviet/Russian or other nationalists and their desire to censure some parts of the history. I'll just say that I don't agree with what you deem important and what not. In my opinion this article ommitts essential facts and thus is not comprehensive and cannot be featured. You don't have to agree with me. We shall see what other reviewers/voters think. Besides, as I wrote above, in many cases it is not the matter of adding new paragraphs but simply ilinking some of the existing data - and even if you were to add all of my notes in separate sentences I doubt it would even be more then an additonal ~1k - hardly noticable considering the current size of the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:50, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oppose (though not strongly) for the reasons stated above by Piotrus. I understand that the article needs to be a selection of facts, or else it gets too long. However, the present version of the article seems pretty one-sided, especially in the 20th century parts. This needs to be corrected first. Halibutt 22:26, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)- Support - the article is much better now, thanks. Halibutt 15:37, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Each of Piotrus' points (1956 Hungarian Revolution, Prague Spring, Solidarity) are now integrated into the article. [1] As for being "one-sided," I am an American academic, and I have no dog in the fight between the competing Polish and Russian patriotisms on Wikipedia. Perhaps I do tend to go through the military history a bit more rapidly than other areas. My work as a historian focuses mainly on how the social and economic context of the domestic order shapes institutions, war, and diplomacy. So, perhaps this can disappoint Eastern Europeans interested in the dynamics of all the battles between Poland and Russia. But, as you can see from my recent edits, I will accommodate readers from regions that have borne the brunt of Russian imperialism in the past, as long as the edits can be well integrated into the rest of the text and not stay off topic. All the specific objections should be resolved now. 17200:15, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- You see, it was possible to incorporate those things in the article without much change in size :) As a note, I consider those events important on a world scale - after all, when a country (Russia) fights for few hudreds years with another one (Poland-Lithuania), both at some point lose their sovereignity to another (granted, Russia loss during Dymitriads was much shorter and less complete then Polands during the partions, but still the Dymitriads are compared in Russia to the Napoleonic Campaign and The Great Patriotic War, so they should be mentioned), when relevant articles exist and can be easily ilinked - I think it is simply writing history, not accomodating some regions or nationalistic viewpoints (for which there is no place in Wiki). In a few hours I will go over the article adding various ilinks I can think of. Don't worry, I don't plan on any major expantion or POV twisting, just linking the relevant articles. A note: war of 1632-34 - the Smolensk War - was not a success for the Muscovy. Fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:54, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Each of Piotrus' points (
- Support. Impressive achievement. Mark1 02:25, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Huge, but well organized and very extensive. --L33tminion | (talk) 02:49, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Support
Object. 1. The references and further reading needs to be split into those sources actually used as references and those simply made available for the interested reader to go find more. The distinction is very important. As it is now, the article could have only one actual reference and all of the others could have been unused.2. Could use more inline citations for any potentially contentious facts noted. (Could always use more. What is mundane to one person is novel to another)3. What Muscovy is and if it is different from Moscow is not immediately clear in that section.4. Otherwise looks great. I will have to take your word for it that it covers everything it needs to, but it looks very comprehensive and well written. - Taxman 22:11, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)- This thread should have been archived already. I'm not sure why it was not before the last objection. (1) They are all references, and I have clarified that. [2] (2) Most featured articles lack inline citations. When we are writing at this level of detail (summarizing a 1,000 years of history), general knowledge and facts from other sourcebooks are sufficient for writing, and does not necessarily require specialist knowledge. In contrast, for contentious topics of recent history that go into a higher level of detail, inline citations are necessary and I use just about every few sentences, e.g., 22:32, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to add last minute criticisms, this just happened to be the first time I checked out this nomination in detail and I had noticed there were few votes. specific bits: as to 2), yes they do and I won't continue objecting on that basis alone. I still think this article needs them though and there are plenty of facts in this article that could use it. The FA criteria are also very clear on the need for them. For 3) That makes even less sense to me now. I'm not sure what principality and vassal mean in this context (they could use short inline definitions or rewording), and not sure what Vladimir is. So Muscovy absorbed Vladimir? Then what, did it turn into all of Russia? The rest of the muscovy section doesn't answer that I could find. Unfortunately I saw another problem, that the coverage of WWI and its effects on Russia is very short. I know you agonized over what to summarize and leave out, but the glossing over in one paragraph of something so significant doesn't seem good. I guess since I have commented late we could extend the voting on this article to allow more time to adress or withdraw these objections as needed. That seems to be what is done. - Taxman 05:53, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
- (2) No, they don't. Only a handful of featured articles have inline references, and many of them are mine. Just a couple of days ago, e.g., History of post-Soviet Russia to an article in which essentially all of the facts can be backed up by other encyclopedias online or the LOC handbook on Russia (also online). (3) The info on Vladimir, Muscovy, Moscow, and Russia is in the article has been clarified, i.e. that Vladimir-Suzdal' was a principality, that Moscow was the capital of Muscovy, that the term "Russian Empire" was formally adopted under Peter the Great, etc. More content was also added on WWI. [5]06:32, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Now, hopefully you can clarify where you think that inline references are needed...(Never mind-- footnotes are now added where they are most needed as guides to futher reading to support the work in the article. 172 07:51, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)) 172- (2) Thats what I meant. I was agreeing with you. Nice job fixing up last minute suggestions/objections. - Taxman 21:50, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
- (2) No, they don't. Only a handful of featured articles have inline references, and many of them are mine. Just a couple of days ago, e.g.,
- I didn't mean to add last minute criticisms, this just happened to be the first time I checked out this nomination in detail and I had noticed there were few votes. specific bits: as to 2), yes they do and I won't continue objecting on that basis alone. I still think this article needs them though and there are plenty of facts in this article that could use it. The FA criteria are also very clear on the need for them. For 3) That makes even less sense to me now. I'm not sure what principality and vassal mean in this context (they could use short inline definitions or rewording), and not sure what Vladimir is. So Muscovy absorbed Vladimir? Then what, did it turn into all of Russia? The rest of the muscovy section doesn't answer that I could find. Unfortunately I saw another problem, that the coverage of WWI and its effects on Russia is very short. I know you agonized over what to summarize and leave out, but the glossing over in one paragraph of something so significant doesn't seem good. I guess since I have commented late we could extend the voting on this article to allow more time to adress or withdraw these objections as needed. That seems to be what is done. - Taxman 05:53, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
- This thread should have been archived already. I'm not sure why it was not before the last objection. (1) They are all references, and I have clarified that. [2] (2) Most featured articles lack inline citations. When we are writing at this level of detail (summarizing a 1,000 years of history), general knowledge and facts from other sourcebooks are sufficient for writing, and does not necessarily require specialist knowledge. In contrast, for contentious topics of recent history that go into a higher level of detail, inline citations are necessary and I use just about every few sentences, e.g., 22:32, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support for a beautiful piece of rework. I only regret that you had to nominate this yourself! +sj + 05:11, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I wish sj would elaborate on this "regret", because I don't understand it—is there something between the lines there? Many people prefer to self-nominate (I know I do, if only because it's a good way of getting it done at the best moment in the article's life—those who wander past an article and like it may easily be premature). There's not usually any "had to" about it. Bishonen | Talk 15:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support. This is to country history articles what Sarajevo is to city articles. Neutralitytalk 07:16, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Support.
Reluctantly object. This is one of (if not the most) amazing articles I've yet read on Wikipedia, but there's some nasty POV issues in places - i.e. "Alexander was succeeded by his son, Nicholas II (1894–1917), a weak man with below-average intellect and hardly any constancy of character." Meanwhile, Nicholas and his empress were strongly influenced by a small clique of scoundrels, most notably Rasputin. Rasputin gradually won astounding influence. Generals and ministers were dismissed on his whims, seriously impairing the work of government departments, until his assassination in late 1916.In spite of broken health, Lenin worked unceasingly until his death in early 1924. I'm no expert on the matter, but even I know that these are disputed, and thus, that a moderation of these statements and attributing them to someone would be helpful.The coverage of the Red Terror is fairly one-sided, too. The changes in Russian society fails to mention any negative ones.Ambi 12:45, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)- (1) Well, I suppose "Passion-bearer Holy Tsar Martyr Nicholas II" is now the politically correct standard. (The hysterical vilification of everything Soviet on Wikipedia goes hand-in-hand with the enthusiastic embrace of all that preceded it.) I deleted those two sentences, first on Nicholas II and then Lenin. [6] They are not important. Readers can find out more about their bios in the relevant articles. (2) Rasputin's role in the dismissal of a number of ministers and generals is well documented, and mentioned in the Rasputin article. There is no need to modify that paragraph. (3) The coverage of the Red Terror is fairly one-sided, too. This is neither here nor there. Reread (or read?) the section on the Russian Civil War. Do you object to the following: "...a reign of terror was begun within Russia as the Red Army and the Cheka (the secret police) destroyed all enemies of the revolution... [T]he Bolsheviks did not have the consent of all elements of society and thus had to force their rule over Russia during the civil war. They swept away the tsarist secret police... but ensured the survival of their own regime by replacing it with a political police of considerably greater dimensions, both in the scope of its authority and in the severity of its methods." Are you saying that it is one sided because you are under the impression that the Bolsheviks did not set up a political police of greater scope and brutality than the tsars? (4) The changes in Russian society fails to mention any negative ones. First, note the fact that the section comes before the one on Stalinist industrialization and collectivization. Hence, the section covers the years immediately following the revolution, the early-to-mid 1920s-- years of relative economic recovery before Stalin's consolidation of power. Second, is this "positive" to you: "...the Soviets persecuted religion... Many religious leaders were sent to internal exile camps. Members of the party were forbidden to attend religious services. The Church was shorn of its powers over education. Religious teaching was prohibited except in the home and antireligious instruction was stressed in the schools." My guess is that most people consider anything mentioning "persecution" and "internal exile camps" to be "negative." 172 13:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- 1) Don't assume to know what my opinions are (indeed, I largely agree with the sentiment) - but that statement was just not NPOV. Thanks for fixing the issue, though. 2) The role of Rasputin is disputed - that he had influence in this way is undeniable, but this article takes a definite stance on how much influence he had, which is disputed, and characterises him as a complete villain, which is also disputed. I'm not exactly happy with 3), but I think you make some good points, and I don't think it's worth an objection, and I think you have a point on 4). I've crossed out some of them, but there's still a couple of concerns left. Ambi 10:14, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- (1) Well, I suppose "Passion-bearer Holy Tsar Martyr Nicholas II" is now the politically correct standard. (The hysterical vilification of everything Soviet on Wikipedia goes hand-in-hand with the enthusiastic embrace of all that preceded it.) I deleted those two sentences, first on Nicholas II and then Lenin. [6] They are not important. Readers can find out more about their bios in the relevant articles. (2) Rasputin's role in the dismissal of a number of ministers and generals is well documented, and mentioned in the Rasputin article. There is no need to modify that paragraph. (3) The coverage of the Red Terror is fairly one-sided, too. This is neither here nor there. Reread (or read?) the section on the Russian Civil War. Do you object to the following: "...a reign of terror was begun within Russia as the Red Army and the Cheka (the secret police) destroyed all enemies of the revolution... [T]he Bolsheviks did not have the consent of all elements of society and thus had to force their rule over Russia during the civil war. They swept away the tsarist secret police... but ensured the survival of their own regime by replacing it with a political police of considerably greater dimensions, both in the scope of its authority and in the severity of its methods." Are you saying that it is one sided because you are under the impression that the Bolsheviks did not set up a political police of greater scope and brutality than the tsars? (4) The changes in Russian society fails to mention any negative ones. First, note the fact that the section comes before the one on Stalinist industrialization and collectivization. Hence, the section covers the years immediately following the revolution, the early-to-mid 1920s-- years of relative economic recovery before Stalin's consolidation of power. Second, is this "positive" to you: "...the Soviets persecuted religion... Many religious leaders were sent to internal exile camps. Members of the party were forbidden to attend religious services. The Church was shorn of its powers over education. Religious teaching was prohibited except in the home and antireligious instruction was stressed in the schools." My guess is that most people consider anything mentioning "persecution" and "internal exile camps" to be "negative." 172 13:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
OpposeWithdrawn, will take point to talk page Way, way, way too long. There's 2 or 3 articles' worth here. Sorry, jguk 22:09, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, and over 1,000 years of history too. And this would not be the longest FA. The article has to provide summaries of a series of a dozen-or-so articles, and it is as brief as it can possibly be given that function. The above objection is dubious. 172 22:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I think it would be better to break it down to 2 or 3 articles (each one of which may be worthy of featured article status) cf History of the United States, jguk 09:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It already is broken down into more articles. See Template:History of Russia. In fact, Russian history, 1892-1920). It would be utterly impossible to produce a shorter summary of all these articles on over 1,000 years of history while being comprehensive. In that sense, take a look at some of the resolved objections above. Many users still feel that article could still stand to be even more comprehensive. In short, the objection is dubious. 17209:32, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- While I'm normally strongly opposed to really long articles, this a special case, and I agree with 172. This already does a very good job of summarising a record number of articles, and trying to break it down yet more would damage the article as a whole. Ambi 10:14, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- cf History of the United States? That article sucks. (I wrote much of it, so I can say that.) 172 09:43, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It already is broken down into more articles. See Template:History of Russia. In fact,
- I think it would be better to break it down to 2 or 3 articles (each one of which may be worthy of featured article status) cf History of the United States, jguk 09:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I still think this would be better as 2 or 3 featured articles rather than 1. There are a number of guidelines for articles - one of which is a pragmatic 32kb limit. I had problems making a save on this page myself when making a minor adjustment. Now, I'm happy to bend the rules slightly in the interests of good writing - but not by too great a deal. Split up into 2, I think we have 2 featured articles here. But I am nervous about the length - has 172 considered what the article would look like as 2 separate articles? This is not a negative comment, and I am disappointed that 172 has taken it negatively. I never vote "oppose" for an article that I would not support if my concerns are addressed, jguk 13:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The function of the article is to summarize the 13 individual articles on Russian history, and thus has to correspond with the history of Russia template. We cannot have two separate articles because there are not two separate history of Russia templates, as there should not be. The only possible split would be to divide into into separate pages (not articles) along the lines of History of the Soviet Union (one of the components of the history of Russia series that this article summarizes). 172 17:09, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- On reflection, although I am still concerned about the length of this article and believe there are good reasons for converting this into 2 or 3 articles, I don't think there's any need to argue this point here and this shouldn't get in the way of promoting it to featured status. It is more suited to the talk page, and I will raise the issue there in the next few days. I would add that I would have preferred 172 to have chosen constructive dialogue rather than incivility, which makes it all too tempting for me to dig my heels in and oppose. But that is not the proper approach, and I will resist it. I hope we will soon have a more constructive discussion on the talk page, jguk 19:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The function of the article is to summarize the 13 individual articles on Russian history, and thus has to correspond with the history of Russia template. We cannot have two separate articles because there are not two separate history of Russia templates, as there should not be. The only possible split would be to divide into into separate pages (not articles) along the lines of History of the Soviet Union (one of the components of the history of Russia series that this article summarizes). 172 17:09, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Length is not an issue if the topic warrants it, and covering Russian history from Muscovy to the present is pretty wonderful. Will people read it from top to bottom? I don't know. What's important to me is that this is an exemplary show for a Wikipedia article, showing it to have as much breadth and substance as any print encyclopedia. This is an article to be proud of. A shrunken form would, I'm afraid, probably not be (I'm not at all impressed by the History of Germany article, as a contrast). --Fastfission 13:47, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support, I agree with every word Fastfission said. Bishonen | Talk 15:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)