Talk:Council of People's Commissars of the Soviet Union

RFC - Council of People's Commissars of the Soviet Union: keep as a page or make a redirect?
There is a dispute between points of view on that page. The dispute has grown around the fact that there is already an article – Government of the Soviet Union, therefore there is no need to make an article about one period of the Soviet Government - Council of People's Commissars of the Soviet Union (1923–1946). I argue that the article is important, because it describes a significant part of the activities of the Government of Leninist and the early Stalinist Soviet Union. This article describes certain features of the Government of the Soviet Union, which were already foreign to the successor, Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union (Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union page was deleted and redirected to the Government of the Soviet Union too, I'm not the creator of that page). In the Russian Wikipedia, there is a separate article for the Council of People's Commissars and the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union. To not make this an edit war, I hope that Wikipedia community will review that problem and will make a subsequent decision. MarcusTraianus (talk) 12:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * none of what the original article described was foreign to its predecessor. The institution remained more or less unchanged from 1936 until 1989. --Politikk (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It is my impression that this article contains a fait amount of material that is not present in the redirect target, and that a plain redirect is thus not appropriate; it would at least have to be soem kind of merge. In any case, edit-warring is not how to resolve this. Wait for and/or ask for further input, if there's a deadlock here. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * See List of governments of the Soviet Union. It mentions everything in the sections "History", "Subordination", "Relations with republican authorities", "Administration of the people's..:", "Chairman of the Council" not needed since we have Premier of the Soviet Union (but I'm working on a short text), "People's Commissariats" is mentioned (in the "Ministries" section), Official publications is mentioned...

What Elmidae is not mentioned? --Politikk (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No point in consensus if you guys are not discussing just stating. You are obstructing development by behaving in this manner, confusing readers and acting profesionally. Tell of another government related article (on another country) which has more then three different articles on the same topic? Tell me. If you can't I'll revert again. --Politikk (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You do that, the next thing you will see is a report at WP:3RR. This is an RfC. Wait for input. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So instead of coming with constructive arguements that prove you're point you threaten me? I am right, you are wrong. Get over yourself. --Politikk (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * From Derek Watson's Molotov and the Soviet Government (pages 1-2).

"From the foundation of the USSR in 1924 until 1936, the Council of People's Commissars (Sovet Narodnykh Komissarov), conventionally abbreviated to its acronym Sovnarkom, and the Central Executive Committee of the Congress of Soviets (TsiK) were jointly regarded as the 'government' of the USSR. Under the Stalin Constitution of 1936 Sovnarkom alone was recognised as the 'government'. It was renamed the Council of Ministers in 1946. The Council of People's Commissars was formed on 26 October 1917 on the resolution proposed by L. B. Kamenev, the Bolshevik chairman of the Second Congress of Soviets. It consisted of Lenin as chairman, eleven departmental heads and a committee of three responsible for military and naval affairs. As well as distinguishing the new arrangements from 'bourgeois' governments, the use of the word 'commissariat' was intended to denote that the Molotov and Soviet Government Second Congress of Soviets was entrusting departmental administration to commissions and not to individuals. Yet the term 'commissar' was regarded as interchangeable with 'minister', and there seems little doubt that the Bolshevik leaders meant 'minister'. The role envisaged for Sovnarkom was to refashion the machinery of central government which it had inherited and get it working in the interests of the 'Workers' and Peasants' State'. Lenin, in particular, was anxious that Sovnarkom, a small body under his personal direction, should be invested with the effective power of government as the Bolsheviks consolidated their regime.4 Other leaders, both Left SR and Bolshevik, envisaged a more active role for VTsiK (the Central Executive Committee of the Congress of All-Russian Soviets) and were troubled by Sovnarkom's ascendancy. Relations between Sovnarkom and VTsiK were not clear. Decrees having 'general political significance' were supposed to pass through VTsiK, and Sovnarkom was to report to the senior body on a weekly basis."

We need to reverse course and stop blatant spreading of false information. There is not a single source or reference which says that these articles should not be one. I want this oppressive behavior of these users to stop, and let people who actually want to improve this encyclopaedia do it. --Politikk (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Let us look at the relevant Wikidata items and how the matter is handled in other languages.
 * Council of People's Commissars of the Soviet Union (Q2136): 16 languages
 * Council of Ministers of the USSR (Q2128): 25
 * Government of the Soviet Union (Q2148): 10

Perhaps of most relevance is such language as Ukrainian which has three interlinked articles, and Russian one, which aside from these three article on Council of People's Commissars, a lovely page which has links (many red) to various Council of People's Commissars for their respective Republics of the Soviet Union, each with its own story.
 * From this I conclude we should not merely retain all these pages, but work towards a more comprehensive coverage of all these topics.
 * Finally I would like to encourage participants in this discussion to refrain from exaggerated talk of "blatant spreading of false information" and "oppressive behavior", which seems to ave arisen simply because they hold a different viewpoint rather than anything more tangible. Leutha (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No its because of users like you. You don't have one single reference to back anything you say. Of course there are bunch of WPs who have copied the old model because most wikis out there copy... you guessed it, English Wikipedia! For fuck sake. You can even create an encyclopaedia based on sources or you're own ludicrous finding. If you like that way of thinking go to North Korea.
 * Either you listen to reliable sources by scholars or you listen to idiots who don't know shit. I mean, you're arguement is really "Oh, Russia WP does it so we should too" . Christ. The world is going to shit and people ask why. --Politikk (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

As previously, I would request that you refrain from profanities and insults. The issue here is the organisation of knowledge and I do not think anyone disputes the changes which took place in 1946-47 as regards the replacement of the Council of People's Commissars of the Soviet Union by the Council of Ministers of the USSR, even if the State Defense Committee effectively ran things to meet the exigencies of war. I am sorry that you find do not find it useful to gain insights from how people on Wikipedia in other languages go about covering this, particularly in Russian and Ukrainian. You may find my suggestion that there are more sources available about the subject matter in Russian, for example, a "ludicrous" finding, but I am not going to attempt to find sources to support the point. Perhaps looking at Template: State Institutes of the USSR would be interesting, as I certainly think that some sort of template like that we might find very useful. However, please do not assume that I am suggesting that we slavishly follow them, and please don't offer to pay my fare to Pyongyang. Leutha (talk) 01:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC) , its the closest thing we got. Thanks for that,. I looked your chart, and I suspect there was a confusion between Council of People's Commissars of the Soviet Union and Council of People's Commissars, which you unfortunately redirected before this discussion had run its course. I agree the pages are muddled, but I do not think that your approach is the best way forward. During their existence there was from time to time commissariats/ministries formed and dissolved, often arising from political jockeying. These structural issues should appear on the relevant pages of Council of People's Commissars of the Soviet Union and Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union. The page on Government of the Soviet Union should provide an overview, detailing the evolution of the government. I have seen you have been steaming ahead making a whole range of contributions, only some of which I have had a chance to look at. Gladdened by the above, might I encourage a more collaborative approach with fellow editors, more use of talk pages where you can outline what you see as the problems and the methods you would like to resolve them, as I sure this would help enabled a shared approach, rather than repeatedly finding ourselves at loggerheads. Leutha (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) We can either chose to have one good article or three bad ones. Alas, since the government system barely changed from Molotov chairmanship until Gorbachev's reforms in 1990, the article Council of People's Commissars and the Council of Ministers would explain the same thing, just a different time period. Alas, the Russian one about the Council of Ministers isn't good. It uses most of its time to summarise the results of five-year plans. Yes, the Council of Ministers was responsible for them, but that is clearly not the dominant theme of that article.
 * 2) Let's compare
 * 3) My friend, everything in this article has been copied. It says the same thing. What usefulness is there to have two articles on the very same topic. Splitting the govermnent articles into two articles won't help anyone.. In actuality it will make it worse because two articles will clearly the same thing and the reader will have a harder time comprehending what the Government of the Soviet Union actually was.
 * 4) Was I nice ? Because I did try! --Politikk (talk) 06:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We currently have List of Ministries of the Soviet Union. I think that is enough, but I have noticed that people's commissariats abolished before 1946 aren't included. I will gladly update that page, and create a propper list that showcases the development of the commissariats/ministries.
 * The aren't that many structural issues. The Molotov chairmanship created the modern Soviet government, and it remained unchanged more or less until 1991. We'll then have two articles saying pretty much the same things. I don't see how readers win there. I'm all for creating a proper third page (or fixing the "List of Ministries of the Soviet Union" article), but those two articles shouldn't be kept.
 * I also think you're reading into it too much. The Congress of Soviets of the Soviet Union and the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union should be two different articles because the bodies were completely different (in theory). In practice they did more or less the same. Saying yes. Not only is the Council of People's Commissars and the Council of Ministers the same, it has the same responsibilities, it worked the same and acted the same. If they are the same they should be the same.
 * As for Council of People's Commissars article it didn't make much sense. We had an article about Lenin's cabinet, the Council of People's Commissars article (which was about Lenin's first cabinet) and then we had this one, the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR.
 * Depends on cooperation. The right thing to do here is to create a redirect to the "Government of the Soviet Union". Everything else is WRONG. I will, however, do everything in my power to create an article (and other articles) to improve this subjects coverage on WP. I'm willing to do everything except letting this article stay as a separate article. Everything else, really, I ain't kidding. --Politikk (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I disagree: the Council of People's Commissars article should say what a Council of People's Commissars is, and how the concept developed through practical examples such as the Council of People's Commissars (Russia), the Council of People's Commissars (Ukraine), Council of People's Commissars (Far East) etc. with red-links for those pages yet to be developed. (Or we could have a section on the pages where the there is, as yet little info on the relevant Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. Each of them has their own story and is as important asa village like Loggerheads, Staffordshire. The idea that the Council of People's Commissars and the Council of Ministers the same thing is untenable. Although at a superficial level Alexander Nove does support your view in his An Economic History of the U.S.S.R. after saying that the change in language "had no significance beyond restoring a word formerly regarded as bourgeois" (p. 294), but lower down he discusses a change from how Sergo Ordzhonikidze acted as Commissar of Heavy industry, being a party leader directly in charge of operations. Nove continues, "Now the ministers were in reality non-political specialist heads of nationalized industries, with a party leader supervising them from the Kremlin. No doubt this change was due in part to the growing complexity and size of the economy" as well as the end of the period of trouble-shooting commissars. Thus we see that whilst Nove maintains that there was a sort of economic continuum, their social and political function changed. Perhaps I am most familiar with the People's Commissariat for Education in the early years. Aside from the complexities of their relationship with Proletkult, please also read the trial section of the page aboutSofia_Panina, particularly as regards the political role of Sofia_Panina#Trial as a representative of Narkompros. I feel this underlines the fact that the conceptualisation of the Commissars was significantly different particularly immediately after the Bolshevik seizure of power. This is why I see your proposal as very much mistaken. Leutha (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ? Untenable??? UNTENABLE?! You have to be kidding. Find one source which says otherwise. You're view is untenable.
 * The arguement is flawed. Yes, obviously, the economy became more complex since it grew and became larger. However, the government still functioned the same way. I mean, its like saying the Department of State of the US Government should be split because it has witnessed radical transformation over the years. You would never say yes to that.. To be honest, this is why I oppose this discussion. You are comming WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Nove even says so, but instead of actually accepting it you're reinterpreting his words to fit you're view. WHAT IS EVEN worse is that you're wrong. Plenty of politburo members served as ministers. Countless of people did during the Gorbachev administration.. First deputies were usually members, the same goes for the Gosplan head, then of course KGB and internal security ministries and sometimes here and there an ordinary minister. You are wrong. Instead of accepting you're wrong you're committing to fantasy. I will force a merger if this nonsense won't stop. You're position is untenable. Th
 * Of course we shouldn't have an article on the "Council of People's Commissars of Ukraine SSR".. Why? Because we barely have any information regarding it. The most logical for readers (and readers will benefit) is to use the term "Government of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic".
 * So... because "Proletkult" existed the People's Commissariat for Education deserves its own page rather then to be merged into Ministry of Education (Russia). We could then have enough information to improve that article. But instead we should have two because of "Proletkult"?.......


 * THIS DISCUSSION is a like Soviet show trial! Are the guys who are calling for a discussion willing to change their views? Nope. Are any other people participating? Nope. So how can a WP editor then remove original research and simplify information to the reader? Impossible, because the process has been hijacked by special interests such as you . Its no point for me being civil towards you if you clearly don't give a shit about the facts I give you. No fucking point at all actually. I mean, seriously, a bet hundreds of potential WP users quit because of behavior like this. Its a utter disgrace. --Politikk (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Again you resort to personal abuse and hyperbole rather than dealing with the issues raised. Civility is not an option, but constitutes one of the Five pillars of Wikipedia. If you are suggesting I (or anyone else, for that matter) have put original research on any page, then I would suggest that you express your criticism either by commenting on the talk page or using or one of the other suitable templates. You have chosen to ignore my suggestion as regards the page Council of People's Commissars], through which I had hoped we could find some common ground. Likewise, you fail to see that the example of Proletkult in relationship to the emergent Bolshevik state structure is one example of how rolling everything into a single amalgam creates a whole series of problems. Also you have not addressed the issue of maintaining the integrity of how Wikidata works through your misguided redirects.Leutha (talk) 09:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Wrong, you are not interested in finding solutions. Have you ever heard of a "History" section? If the Proletkult was so darn influential, it would surely be enough to write a history section about on the relevant article (UMinistry of Education (Russia)]]). That's common everywhere else on WP, but you, with no basis in facts claim that the Council of People's Commissars should be separate article just because. Do you have any references that prove that the Council of People's Commissars was widely different then the Council of Ministers? Do you have any proof? No. Do I? Yes, because nearly every god darn researcher and historian say it. Even worse for you, even Stalin the man agrees with me (the man who instituted it in the first place).
 * You accuse me of a lot of things. Maybe I don't write civil, but I am in the right. You're faking civility to get you're way. I for that matter say it like it is. When you are able to explain away why the majority of references,secondary sources and everything else agrees with my position then we can have a proper discussion. Since you have no fucking source to back you up, not one redeemable arguement based on actual sources you should leave this article alone, and let me improve it.
 * If you have any helpful suggestions tell me and I'll implement. I mean for fuck sake, I'm working my ass off. Its obviously I know more of this then you, and its obvious I have access to references (see "Government of the Soviet Union"). Do you think I just come up with things randomelly? Ah.. thats it, you think everything I've added to the "governmen tof the Soviet Union" page is a lie. That would of course explain you're position.--Politikk (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I am concerned that you are continuing with your incivility and seem more interested in discussing with a straw man than responding to what I say. I would suggest that rather than overworking you take a more considered approach, do not respond to posting until you feel you can do so without swearing and take time out to properly read Civility. Leutha (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That is a lie. I've given you references, explained the history and proven it was just a name change. You are committing the "straw man" arguement by committing original research. Simply put, if someone should be worried here its me. What is most important? Me being civil or making this encyclopaedia readable, easy to navigate and informative? The last one for sure. Every reference I've searched says its a name change (or that nothing changed). You say Proletkult is a reason (it is not, it of course warrants attention in a history section), you're saying the ministry system was less politicised (which is wrong)... And considering that in the USSR everything was politicised, how can that even be? YOu even have books written about how the modern Soviet system was created by Molotov's premiership (and it remained more or less unchanged since 1991). Books devoted to this subject. You have ignored those arguements, and instead formulated straw man arguements. Simply put, you are not cooperative and you refuse any development of this article which doesn't freeze it in time.
 * My behaviour, maybe its not charmful, but it is truthful. I follow what the references say, you follow the interpretation of the references (as you proved over with the Nove quote). You say "Nove agrees with you, but if I interpret him this way its obvious that Nove is wrong." THat mentality is bad mentality. Politikk (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The failure of all you to back any of you're arguments with secondary sources (or primary) will force me to redirect this article by the end of the week. You're edit warring and you're vandalism forces this. If any of you are interested in a proper discussion, yes please have it. For that to happen, find secondary references that back you're argument. The failure to do so proves that you three are committed to original research and pushing you're own POV instead of writing down what the facts say, the scholarly community write and put you're own interests before the interests of the reader. --Politikk (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The inability of all of you to not be able to build an arguement based on references, secondary sources worries me. It should worry everyone. IF YOU REALLY believe you are in the right, prove it. I for one invite you guys to read all the references I used at "Government of the Soviet Union". More are coming. I'll give you quotes if you need them. --Politikk (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you guys have moved a good deal further into minutiae here than I care to go; I won't comment any further on content issues. But please note that personal attacks and raging have rarely carried the day in such discussions. I think what would be useful is input from a few more editors. I'll drop a note on the related Wikiprojects. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Keep and dismiss all comments by Politikk who is blocked as a sockpuppet and has been pushing without success for this kind of change for some time. --MarioGom (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Mailing address ?
> Mailing address: Moscow, the Kremlin.

Who really needs such info 70 years later ?

--AliceBzh (talk) 04:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Merge article to Government of the Soviet Union?
Hi,

I would like to propose a merger of this article to the Government of the Soviet Union. I understand that a blatant sockpuppet has apparently done the same and failed. But as with everything else, just because he was an asshole and broke WP conventions does not mean that the user in question was wrong in everything!

The 1936 Constitution (and all Soviet constitutions, for that matter) are built on the principle of unified power. That means there is only one branch of government represented by the highest organ of state power. In this instance, the highest organ of state power was the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union for most of its existence. All central state organs were accountable, reported to it and were elected by it. That is, everything from the USSR Government to the Supreme Court of the Soviet Union. The 1936 Soviet Constitution stated until the transformation of the Council of People's Commissars that "The highest executive and administrative organ of state authority of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is the Council of People's Commissars of the U.S.S.R"... This was changed with the name change of this institution, to "The highest executive and administrative organ of state authority of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is the Council of Ministers of the U.S.S.R" This goes to show that these institutions are the same. They were both "The highest executive and administrative organ of state authority of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". Generally, I don't think the state of this article warrants a separate page and will mostly confuse the readers even more, maybe getting them to believe that this was somehow different from the "Government of the Soviet Union". That, of course, would be misleading and wrong.

I've nominated this for a merge because rejected my WP:BOLD move, which was to redirect this page to the "Government of the Soviet Union" article. The only way to move this article now is through a gentlemanly discussion.

On another note, the state of Soviet articles should be improved. For instance, the article Politics of the Soviet Union misleadingly states there was more than one branch of government in the USSR! TheUzbek (talk) 10:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Merge pr my proposal above. --TheUzbek (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Do not merge. Council of Ministers and Council of People's Commisars were different govermental structures with different inner logic. Soviets even adopted a law to change the Council of People's Commissars to the Council of Ministers (you can read law here). Moreover, when we are talking about documents, it was used with different name, and to avoid confusion, we need both articles.

My main argument about why both acrticles must stay: What is the Soviet government? Even for me, a Soviet researcher, it's not clear. Government is the Central Comittee? The Political Bureau? The Communist Party? The Council of People's Commissar? The power strcuture in Soviet Union was very complicated, and by merging acrticles we only intensify that confusion. By making these articles, we make Soviet power more comperhensible to the outside reader. MarcusTraianus (talk) 11:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Government in the USSR is formally defined in the constitution as the "The highest executive and administrative organ of state authority of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". THe Soviet constitution explicitly defines the the Council of People's COmmissars and the Council of Ministers as the "The Organs of Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". This is in no ways unclear.
 * The politburo and the central committee were party organs, and not government bodies.
 * "Council of Ministers and Council of People's Commisars were different govermental structures with different inner logic" - they did not. Instead of just writing an infactual statement I want you to prove this.
 * "Soviets even adopted a law to change the Council of People's Commissars to the Council of Ministers" .. Of course they did, and this legal document, if you read is a constitutional amendment. It ends with "Внести необходимые  изменения  в  соответствующие  статьи Конституции СССР", which means "Make the necessary changes to the relevant articles in the Constitution of the USSR."
 * "The power strcuture in Soviet Union was very complicated, and by merging acrticles we only intensify that confusion. By making these articles, we make Soviet power more comperhensible to the outside reader" ... In fact we do the opposite because people can't see the forest through the trees. If average readers think like you they would have no clue what is what since, as you admit, its not clear to you what the Soviet government was... TheUzbek (talk) 11:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Maybe for a technical user it is clear. For outside reader, who reads about the Soviet Union for the first time, it's not. And that's why we need to keep articles.
 * And again, for outside reader, who isn't familiar with the Soviet Union structure, party and state institution division isn't clear. It's something what one needs to learn about.
 * And my main agrument is that Government of the Soviet Union and Council of People's Commissars of the Soviet Union are different levels of generalization. Government is a unversal structure, that can be found in every political entity. When we need to specify what constituted Government of the Soviet Union during different ages, that's where Council of People's Commissars and Council of Ministers come in hand. That's why both articles should stay. MarcusTraianus (talk) 11:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't get you're point. If everything is in one article we can clearly state its historical evolution in the same place, and state what changed from an historical perspective (and what remained the same). You are making it difficult for Wikipedia to do that by splitting everything up.
 * The article "Government of the USSR" could clearly define the role the government had in the political system and the historical evolution of the government in two to three sentences. This article can't and will mostly say the same thing as the Government of the USSR, which makes this article redundant.
 * For instance
 * "The Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was the highest executive and administrative organ of the highest body of state authority, the All-Union Supreme Soviet. It was formed on 30 December 1922 and abolished on 26 December 1991. The government was headed by a chairman, most commonly referred to as the premier of the Soviet Union, and several deputy chairmen throughout its existence. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), as 'The leading and guiding force of Soviet society and the nucleus of its political system' per Article 6 of the state constitution, controlled the government by holding a two-thirds majority in the All-Union Supreme Soviet. The government underwent several name changes, and was known as the Council of People's Commissars from 1922 to 1946, the Council of Ministers from 1946 to 1991, the Cabinet of Ministers from January to August 1991 and the Committee on the Operational Management of the National Economy from August to December 1991."
 * It's that easy! TheUzbek (talk) 11:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * For me it doesn't make sense. Let's take another approach. For example, if we used the same logic, we should have deleted all Wehrmacht division articles and leave only Wehrmacht article. Because everything is described in the general article.


 * They are supplementary for each other. The Government article for those who want to get general knowledge about the Soviet Government, and Council of People's Comissars and Council of Ministers for those who want to know details. Not even to say that you want to delete an article that is on 19 Wikipedia projects, including German, French, Italian and Spanish. MarcusTraianus (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Divisions of the Wehrmacht is not the same as the Wehrmacht. Your comparison does not make sense either. The constitution explicitly states that "The highest executive and administrative organ of state authority of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is the Council of People's Commissars/Council of Ministers". The fact that that is your example showcases your lack of understanding of the subject. The Council of People's Commissars were not a division of the USSR Government; it was the Government! The Council of Ministers was not a division of the USSR Government; it was the Government!
 * To make your analogy make sense would state that I do not want the organs of the Council of People's Commissars/Council of Ministers to have separate organs (divisions of the Wehrmacht were the organs of the Wehrmacht). However, I do want the organs to have different pages. For instance, I want the "Presidium of the Government of the Soviet Union" to have a separate page; I want the "Premier of the Soviet Union" to have a separate page, I want the "Deputy Premier of the Soviet Union" to have a separate page. So yes, I want the internal organs of the government to have separate pages.
 * But I not want the article on the "Government of the Soviet Union", which has been explicitly defined by the constitution as the same structure, to have a different page. For instance, the HM Treasury does not have separate articles devoted to the 1800th century, the 19th century and the 2000th century despite the office changing drastically over the years (I mean, it was established before 1086). Why? Because it is the same institution which is defined by law.
 * This is what you fail to grasp. The Soviet Union states it plainly; the Council of People's Commissars and the Council of Ministers are the same, and they both are the "Government of the USSR". The Council of People's Commissars and the Council of Ministers were not different divisions; no, they were identical institutions - they were both officially the government of the USSR. The divisions of the Wehrmacht were always just divisions of the Wehrmacht! TheUzbek (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Sovnarkom of USSR a distinct body, should have its own article. --Soman (talk) 10:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And you're argument for that is? TheUzbek (talk) 08:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose and Snowball Close Proposal lodged by a banned WP:Sockpuppet. 2001:8003:9100:2C01:C1F2:AF01:8BF4:FE (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)