Talk:Emigration from the Eastern Bloc/Archive 1

Archive 1

Russia vs USSR

Throughout the Eastern Bloc, both in the Soviet Socialist Republic and the rest of the Bloc, Russia was given prominence, and referred to as the naibolee vydajuščajasja nacija (the most prominent nation) and the rukovodjaščij narod (the leading people).[9] The Soviets encouraged the worship of everything Russian and the reproduction of their own Communist structural hierarchies in each of the Bloc states.[9]

Referring to Russia does not make any sense here. If RSFSR was supposed to be here, then it should be RSFSR, not Russia - for disambiguation purposes. Even then RSFSR was a multinational political entity (like sovereign Russian Federation today).

I also searched google for the "наиболее выдающаяся нация" (leading people) quote and it seems to have been authored to Stalin. This reference is rather tendentious (even if the quote itself is real), since those who lived in USSR would rather recall "дружбу народов" (friendship between nations) than some "most prominent nation". Google search gives little links to "the most prominent nation" in Russian: http://www.google.ru/search?hl=ru&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=2MK&newwindow=1&q=%22%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B5+%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%8E%D1%89%D0%B0%D1%8F%D1%81%D1%8F+%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F%22&btnG=%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BA&lr=&aq=f&oq= which, I believe, proves that little people know about it at all.

The whole statement seems to be targeted to claim that USSR was a Russian nationalist state, which it never was in reality, Russian nationalism was persecuted like any other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murmillo (talk • contribs) 23:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Though it's beyond the scope of this article, Russia was essentially the RSFSR during the period, though the latter clearly includes several areas with non-ethnic Russians, which is yet another topic beyond the scope of this article. And I don't think that the source was referring only to a specific quote by any one person, but a generalized reference. I clarified the sentence.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Restoring topical organization

The Level 2 TOC sections of the article are topically organized, with all of the emigration restrictions discussed in one section from all time periods. This is for several reasons, including keeping topical material together, for transitional ease as the non-Soviet EB implemented later resembled those of the Soviet Union (so the sections are adjacent) and for ease for the reader. The text in the section quite clearly and purposefully identifies years for the facts therein, so the inclusion of such Emigration Restriction material in the "Emigration Restrictions" section does not misrepresent temporal order.

Please do not make major organizational changes to the article without discussing them on the Talk page.

In addition, changes to the WP:Lede were made without explanation, and an image was moved to the wrong location. Please discuss such changes, or at least provide some reason for any such odd changes.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

My edits were explained in edit comments.

• (1) Therer is strong opinion that Nemmersdorf Massacre is not what Nazis presented to be. Dubious illustrations cannopt be used in other places.
• (2) "Eastern Bloc emigration and defection arose as a point of controversy soon after the Revolution of 1917" is nonsense: there was no Eastern bloc in 1917, hence I modified the intro.
• (3) According to (2) I moved the pre-1945 issues into pre-history section.
• (4)Accordingly, one image of Soviet visa was moved into chronologically correct section

Finally, wholesale revert without stating reasons smells WP:OWN and disrespect to fellow wikipedians. I am not an occasional vandal here. My edits restored, since you did not present convincing arguments that counter mine.

"Keeping topical material together" - the whole world picture dramatically changed after 1945, and it is natural to split "topical material" into two pieces. This is commonly done in various historical overview articles. After all, it is still together, in one page. Mukadderat (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I did not do anything catastropic, destructive changes, to be reverted on sight. I did my changes in several steps, each step clearly explained in edit summary. You did not disputed the edit summaries, you just said basically that your version is better and I have to ask you permission to change it. And my edits are not "major" either. I did not rewrite the text. Just moved a single piece from one place to another. Wikipedia is encyclopedia which anyone can edit. You have no right to revert without really serious objections. Mukadderat (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

A few things:

(1) Please indent your talk page responses on Wikipedia so that they can be easily distinguished between those of the editor to which you are responding.

(2) Please do not make major changes to the organizational structure, ignore the entire lengthy explanation given for the rather standard Wikipedia Bold Revert Discuss reversion process and respond with rather odd lines such as "My edits restored, since you did not present convincing arguments that counter mine."

(3) Please don't outright delete sections of the article out of the background and images such as the GRU image.

(4) Re the [[Nemmersdorf massacre, the image is not particularly central to the article such that it probably does not need to be included. In the one clause addressing this event, the article makes very clear that these were exaggerated by Nazi propaganda.

(5) The emigration restrictions for one member of the Bloc, the Soviet Union, that existed until 1990 were first implemented before 1945 and this is made clear in the rather blunt, simple and about-as-easy-as-possible to understand "Emigration Restrictions" section in which they are contained. They remained in effect throughout thereafter, as modified and discussed in the article.

If you would like to discuss a potential major change, please do so with reasons other than "there was no Eastern bloc in 1917", contrary to which no representation is made in the article.Mosedschurte (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Emigration from the Eastern Bloc/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Re B, I started this, so I'm biased, but I think I can safely say that it's pretty easy for this article: 1. It's suitably referenced (almost every line has inline citations to major works, except the last decline section for now) 2. It reasonably covers the topic - comprehensive coverage. 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) 12:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 12:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 14:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

pictures of dead people

it is entirely gut-wrenching, but is it truly appropriate to have this mans dead body on display, without any warning to the sensitive or the children?

i also wonder what his family would think of his picture being used here. Decora (talk) 03:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Strange sentence

Almost no emigration occurred from the Soviet Union in the 1950s and 1960s, except for ethnic Armenians returning to Armenia - how could they return to Armenia via emigration from the USSR if Armenia was inside the USSR?--MathFacts (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)