Talk:History of Russia/Archive 1

the U.S. Dept of State has some info on the history of Russia which is in the public domain and so freely available for reuse. To say that I'm not qualified to integrate it with the existing articles is an understatement. Koyaanis Qatsi

Why is Warsaw Pact part of the series? It was just an alliance, not an historical era. It also lacks a series table. --Jiang 09:45, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Furthermore, Tsar is about a position and title, and also does not belong. --Jiang 16:30, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I added a link to Peter the Great and the Russian Empire, which hadn't been worked on in more than a year and was linked only from Imperial Russia. Quite possibly its content should be merged into another article (perhaps into Peter the Great, but for now I figured I'd link it here so that people would actually see it. Isomorphic 04:39, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The article is not consistent with other acticles on the similar topics. Strange accents in Kievan Rus section. Drbug 11:00, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * That's not a neutrality dispute. --Jiang 11:03, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Change in "Mongol Invasion" Section
I made a change to this section, replacing Vladimir with Vladimir-Suzdal, however I am not altogether certain that this change is correct. I do find this portion of the article very confusing though, and if what I put was not right, could someone possibly make a distinction, or just be more clear about it? I find it particularly confusing because at the end of the section on Kievan Rus it states that:


 * the Mongol-dominated Vladimir-Suzdal and independent Novgorod Republic would establish the basis for the modern Russian nation.

and then no other mention of the principality is made for the rest of the article. --Ottovonguericke 03:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Lofty Icelandic knowledge
I've seen a quote here that attributes some lofty knowledge about Rus' to Icelanders and writers of Runic stones. I've never heard this before. Does anyone have a reference to this? Because if they do, I'd like to get it for my collection. The qoute is reproduced below.

The earliest Slavic state in the region was that of the Kievan Rus. Ancient Icelandic sagas and runestones call the Russian territory "Gardariki" (Land of cities), later on known by the names of Little Russia (=Ukraine) and Great Russia. According to these sagas the country was divided into three main parts: Holmgård (Novgorod), Könugård (Kiev) and Palteskja (Polatsk).

I'm fearful that this is romanticism about "Russian history" reaching new heights (in a field where romanticism already is pretty lofty). Can someone, anyone, please, as a favor to me, prove me wrong on this one? I'd be grateful. Genyo 15:20, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Go http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?p=gardariki+holmgard.


 * See also gardariki. &mdash; Monedula 19:00, 7 Sep 2004

(UTC)

I checked the first link and all I got was a search page with multiple listings, when I wanted an historical source page.

The second was only a Wikipedia redirect site.

Can someone seriously help me and give me an historical reference? Genyo 01:07, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * (2Genyo: the ability to use search engines is REALLY important, don't miss it. &mdash; Monedula 06:24, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC))


 * E.g., sagas: Hervorch.1-4 Mikkalai 01:51, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Also I suggest to search for "Garðaríki", if you want a really historical reference. Mikkalai 02:07, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ívarr inn víðfaðmi lagði þá undir sik allt Svíaveldi. Hann vann ok Danaveldi ok Kúrland, Saxland ok Eistland ok öll austrríki allt til Garðaríkis. Hann réð ok vestra Saxlandi ok vann hlut Englands; þat er kallat Norðumbraland.

Ivar the Wide-Grip then took control of the whole of Sweden. He also won Denmark, Kurland, Saxonia and Estonia and all the eastern lands as far as Gardariki. He also ruled western Saxonia and won part of England called Northumbria.

Mikkalai 02:22, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Start of Great Northern War
In the section on Peter the Great, this article currently states that:
 * His attack on the northern seaport at Archangel on the White Sea led to the Great Northern War (1700-1721) against Sweden.

Not only does the article on the Great Northern War say nothing about Archangel, it's my understanding (seemingly confirmed by the article on Arkhangelsk) that Archangel was and had been long in Russian hands at the time. Why would Peter attack his own, sole seaport, and why would that be a strike against Sweden? I was under the impression that Russia's participation in the GNW started with a campaign toward the Baltic Sea that culminated in the Battle of Narva. Could someone clarify and/or fix this peculiar statement in the article? &mdash; Jeff Q 23:10, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Founded in 1584 it was indeed Russia's leading port until the Great Northern War. The above was a typo. I'll expand that section in a moment. 172 01:01, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Punctuation myopia
I ask the people who keep moving the commas to "British style", with reverential references to the MoS, to please try to find a more constructive field for their efforts. How hard is it to respect the main/original author's choice of style, when that choice is of an internally consistent style in wide use? Are you guys sure you are "perfectly aware" of policy on this point? Because policy is not to make a big deal of such things, and not to provoke conflict about them. Please consider these passages, also from the MoS:

Remember that millions of people may have been taught to use a different form of English from yours, including different spellings, grammatical constructions and punctuation.

If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another.

If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article. --Bishonen | Talk 18:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * WP:MOS is Wikipedia policy, and I would ask that all editors respect it (by which I mean that when copyeditors copyedit to make an article consistent with it, that those revisions are accepted). There is a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style about whether the policy should be changed. Please go there if you have an opinion on the matter, and let this article comply with whatever the Manual of Style says, jguk 18:27, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * No, you are wrong. Policy states that if an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type. Unless you are ready to change every -ization to isation, every relevant or to our, every every relevant -er to -re, and still more of the letter s to the letter z, don't mess with the commas. Otherwise, the style will be inconsistent, having been changed from English of the American type to inchoate mix of English of no type at all. 172 20:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * No, you are wrong;) To quote from the Manual of Style:


 * "When punctuating quoted passages, include the mark of punctuation inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the mark of punctuation is part of the quotation. This is the style used in Australia, New Zealand, and Britain, for example. (A fuller treatment of the recommendations given here can be found in Fowler's Modern English Usage and other style guides for these countries, some of which vary in fine details.) For example, "Stop!" has the punctuation inside the quotation marks because the word "stop" is said with emphasis. However, when using "scare quotes", the comma goes outside.


 * Other examples:


 * Arthur said the situation was "deplorable". (The full stop (period) is not part of the quotation.)
 * Arthur said, "The situation is deplorable." (The full sentence is quoted; the period is part of the quotation.)
 * Arthur said that the situation "was the most deplorable he had seen in years." (Although the full sentence is not quoted, the sense of finality conveyed by the period is part of the quotation.)


 * Incidentally, on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style I am arguing that the policy should be changed so that one style is used consistently throughout an article with there being no exceptions. Maybe you'd like to come along and support that change. But at present the MOS is crystal clear - notwithstanding whether the rest of the article is in American English, that is how quotation marks should be dealt with. Until and unless that policy changes, this (and every other WP article) should conform with it. Kind regards, jguk 21:17, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * This is Wikipedia, where legalism does not work (hence the reverential references to the MoS in order to support an inchoate style that is incorrect for any type of English). See Ignore all rules. 172 21:21, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you think the MoS is an inchoate style that is incorrect for any type of English, maybe you'd be willing to support the proposal that the MoS is changed so that it supports any standard form of English in an article (provided it is used consistently), with there being no exceptions to this rule? If so, Ben (Neutrality) and I could do with your support! Kind regards, jguk 21:38, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I support it. Please feel free to quote me on that. 172 21:42, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Most European countries, countries of the Commonwealth, and former British colonies like Hong Kong, follow the same convention as the British, although Russia, some countries of East Europe, and Japan follow the American convention." (from American and British English differences, emphasis mine). Neutralitytalk 02:33, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * I really do not think we should be attributing a style of English to non-English-speaking countries and saying all articles on that country should be in that style of English. IMO articles on Russia could be in AmE, BrE, IndE, AusE, CanE, NZE or whatever. This one is consistently in AmE and there is no need to change that (other than for exceptions as listed in WP:MOS). Had it instead been written first in another form of standard English, then there would have been no need to change that either (subject to the same requirement to comply with the WP:MOS), jguk 07:35, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Error in 2nd paragraph
I doubt the 2nd paragraph should have this comment.

"Robin Balin was born in Russia, she has a sweet rack."

I'm kinda worried to edit a featured article myself.
 * It can stay so long as a photo is added. 172 01:08, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Obligatory
1. IN SOVIET RUSSIA, HISTORY WRITES YOU! 2. ? 3. AAH!!!! MOTHERLAND!!!

Project2501a 10:11, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Minor Note
Mikhail Bakunin did not "join forces" with Karl Marx. He and his followers were involved in the Intermational Working Man's Association, and thus was a contemporary of Marx's, but Marx was adamantly opposed to Bakunin's tactics.--Eric 12:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * True. The note was in reference to his work in the Intermational Working Man's Association, but I see now how one could infer from that that they did not have significant differences. 172 12:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Small Change
Just changed "moderate noble" as head of the provisional govnt to Prince Lvov and linked to the relevant article.

Peasant uprisings

 * The resulting repression that ended the last of the mid-century crises entailed the deaths of perhaps hundreds of thousands of peasants.

Isn't this number a bit overboard? To kill huge numbers of workforce wouldn't be very smart idea. Let's not forget that at these times russia didn't count hundreds of millions of population. By the way, are there any estimates of population of Russia throughout the history? Mikkalai 06:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I have a source for 100,000; but I'll remove the estimate if there are no objections, given that all of these estimates in the end are guesswork, no matter how educated the guesses are. 172 18:40, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Explanation for 172's reverts?
172, care to explan the reverts in this edit? My reasons for the changes were given in edit summaries. Paranoid 09:31, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a complte reversion-- just restoring some accurate wordings in order to maintain the same style throughout the text. 172 18:03, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, it wasn't, but I disagree about accuracy. For example, it is incorrect to say that people on fixed incomes were forced into prostitution and crime. This is simply not true. Many other statements you restored in that edit are similarly incorrect. Please explain briefly your arguments. Mine can be seen in the history (I can list them here if you need). Paranoid 19:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Wait, how is it incorrect? Those on fixed incomes also includes those who aren't getting paid, given underemployment and wage arrears. Should the wording be clarified to make it clear that we are dealing mostly with the newly impoverished/unemployed? 172 19:37, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * This is incorrect in that only a very insignificant fraction of people "on fixed incomes" (i.e. state employees) was forced into crime and prostitution. People who turned to prostitution and crime were mostly young lumpens without good job, without good education and without good prospects. And furthermore, I don't think increased crime and prostitution are important enough problems to be mentioned in that sentence. I don't have any stats handy, but I hope, once you see what I am complaining about, you will not need references to prove it. Paranoid 12:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * FYI the wording has been changed. 172 12:18, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Stalin pic
I intentionally avoided illustrating the article with pictures of leaders (note that there are no pictures of Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, Nicholas II, Brezhnev, Khrushchev, etc.) in order to show that we are not personalizing Russian history. There are a few exceptions. There is a portrait of Ivan the Terrible; but aside from filling space, it serves the purpose of offering a visual example of sixteenth century iconic art (same with Nevsky, but for an earlier period). There is one of Alexander III (unfortunately). I wanted to find a good photo illustrating the peasant life of the era, but could not find one to download; so, Alexander III had to fill the space at the time. (Please help me find a better pic for that section!) Lenin appears in the article. But that photo is quite famous; and I cannot think of another one that is more readily associated with the Russian Revolution. (Perhaps the one in which a crowd is fired upon-- the one that appears on the cover of Pipes' Russian Revolution may be better. Replace it if you that that that's the case.) Yeltsin and Gorbachev appear; but the pic is included in order to show a notable confrontation between the two following the August coup of direct relevance to the section on the emergence of the Russian SFSR as a rival power base to the USSR. However, the addition of the Stalin pic does not add much, and clutters up a part of the article already loaded with pics). Unlike all the others (expect that of Alexander III, which isn't the best possible photo to insert in that particular section), the picture of Stalin is just a random pic that tells us nothing else about the era or does not illustrate a particularly notable event. 172 19:34, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The same goes for Putin. First, the section already has a pic (one per section is enough-- otherwise the page is being cluttered up. Second, when a pic is added to an article about the history of a country (as opposed to a bio), it should be indicative of the era not for just who's standing in front of the photographer but also for what's going on in photo. For example, note these photos  Not only do we get to see what Putin looks like, but they tell us something about his style of leadership (first one) or the rise of the pro-Putin United Russia party (second one). 172 19:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that Stalin and Putin are extremly important personnages in the Russian history, being likely the 2 most known Russians worldwide, thus including their pics in this article is almost essential to me. I'd also like to see pics of more famous tsars (Peter the Great and Catherine, especially). And I think more pictures the better, visual medium is a big strenght of Wiki, can you point me to the agreed rule 'one pic per section'? Still, unless I receive some support here from other readers, I am willing to drop it - I have other articles to work on. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course Stalin and Putin are extremely important leaders in Russian history. But an even better supplement than a gallery of political leaders would be images also telling us something about the social and economic life of each era... I'm not sure if there is a rule of 'one pic per section,' but two pics in a single section make things appear cluttered, irrespective of whether or not there's a rule. 172 11:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * There is a great collection of color(!) photographs of Tsarist Russia available on Wikimedia Commons . Balcer 16:00, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

172 reverts good edits
I respect 172's sincere belief that he is the smartest and most knowledgeable person on Wikipedia, but I do not share that belief. I think that other people (myself included) can also contribute edits that improve the article. Sneaky reverts without explanations while marking edits minor is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. History monitoring to make sure all changes you disagree with are reverted is also contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia (we should strive for consensus that reflects opposing positions).

172 reverted a great deal of changes that I made while checking this article after it was featured. I always provided an explanation and I believe that the article became more factually correct as a result of my edits. 172 didn't bother to provide any explanation whatsoever, even though the onus to explain on someone who reverts is obviously greater.

It doesn't seem that 172 is capable of controlling his bias and it doesn't seem that requesting comments or arbitration would do much good, so I will just express my concerns here and probably not bother further. Everyone else, please keep an eye on 172 edits. Paranoid 11:30, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Which specific edits are you talking about? What kind of bias do you claim that I have? Earlier today you charged me with having a "religious bias" (which religion I have no idea). Frankly, your comments are beginning to strike me as a bit "paranoid." 172 12:13, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Look up the history. The second page would have my edits. You bias is simply inability to realise others may write something useful. I didn't accuse you of having religious bias, but the variant of the paragraph you are so intent on pushing. Paranoid 15:06, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That's bullshit. Large chunks of this article-- and just about every article to which I've contributed-- contain important text written by other articles. I have a reason for all the changes that I make. If you disagree with my edits, just revert me. I won't stop you; the differences between the versions aren't significant enough for me to care at this point... And if you want me to leave Wikipedia, start an Rcf or arbitration request. I'm sure that you'll get lots of support. After writing this article, I got a positive response from just a single user (Piotrus on my talk page), and attacks like the above from many users, so you'll probably be able to get some support. 172 17:28, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, come on. Don't play a victim, please. I don't want to oust you from Wikipedia, I just want you to have a little bit more respect to other people editing the article. I would have reverted (or reedited), but I was rather sure that you would again revert it back without an explanation and I did not have much patience for these kinda games. This article (just like every other article) can be improved and I would appreciate if you let other users work on that.


 * And if you want to revert someone's edit, please have the civility to give a reason in the edit summary. That would go far in making this article a friendlier place to hang out. Paranoid 19:01, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * On the Russia-related articles, I only engage in repeated reversions with users who obviously have nothing constructive to contribute(e.g., Genyo or Libertas). I respect you work, and I have even said so from time to time before... While your version is fine, I think that my version is slightly better in that it mentions the Soviet roots of organized crime today and, in the section on the creation of the USSR, better emphasizes the centralization of authority in Moscow. But I have a huge stack of ungraded papers on my desk, so I'll just pass on this point. Regards, 172 20:56, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Silverback's edits
On 172 vs. Silverback revert war: Hey, 172, Silverback clearly has a point on emigration restrictions in the FSU at the time. It's absurd to plainly remove this. If you think this can be said in a better way, go and improve it! Simply striking it from the article is a delusion, at best. Please, no flames. Irpen 17:02, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Irpen & Silverback. Not only the emigration, but even the foreign tourism was severely suppressed. A Soviet citizen wishing to travel to a foreign country faced a number of obstacles including having to get approval from his local Communist Party cell, reference letters from work, bureaucratic process of obtaining a special passport for foreign travels, etc. It was somewhat easier to travel to one of the Warsaw pact countries, harder to go to a 'capitalist' country. Many people had security clearances of some sort, they were completely forbidden from travelling.


 * It is a significant aspect of life in Soviet Union, and it should be mentioned in the article. See Iron Curtain ( one of alternate meanings of the term is the barrier that prevents people from moving across the division line between West and communist East ).


 * I've managed to look up some numbers. In 1948-1988 about 1,100,000 people emigrated from Soviet Union. 1,100,000/40 is about 25,000 people per year, close to emigration rate of Australia, although the population of Sovet Union was about 15 times bigger than that of Australia. About 80% of emigrants were Jews.


 * It may be interesting to find data about cost of border maintenance per mile of land border for different countries. Few countries ( with possible exceptions of China and North Korea ) have ever had such sophisticated and highly guarded borders.


 * On the other hand, I don't know how hard it was for a foreigner to travel or immigrate to Soviet Union.--Itinerant 18:49, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm reporting 172 on the 3RR violation, I tried to respond to his "objection" in good faith, and was going to ignore his violation, but his latest obsfuscation is totally lacking in good faith.--Silverback 17:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I did not violate the 3RR, and judging from my past experiences with Silverback, I suspect that he was well aware that I did not, but willing to play any tricks necessary to annoy anyone getting in the way of his dispute edits.

At any rate, to move on to something actually relevant to the article, as opposed to 3RR gamesmanship, Silverback's edits were original research or-- at best-- POV; they had to be reverted entirely or modified (which I did in my fourth edit). To summarize, the edits link political action to the state's awareness of its interest in sustaining a captive labor market (the Soviet state had the capacity to act as a rational economic actor?). Perhaps this is an interesting theory for a research paper, but not something for an encyclopedia article surveying over 1,000 years of Russian history, given the need to stay concise and the need to recognizing insights derived from other approaches to studying the USSR. (A variety of theoretical approaches are used to analyze state policy on emigration or immigration, used across cases as diverse as both the former USSR and the U.S. These approaches include class conflict, pluralism, realism, institutionalism, interest groups, and sources of state power, as they are in other areas of political action. I can elaborate if anyone is interested.) From these other approaches, we may derive possibly competing explanations. Were these policies as part of a broader pattern of restrictions on the freedom of movement? Were they derived from the exigencies of the international system, i.e. related to the Cold War? Unless Silverback has some evidence from primary sources demonstrating clearly the interests of the Soviet leadership with respect to immigration, their awareness of their interests, and their capacity to act on their interests (the last two out of the three are probably the most significant) in a way that supports his thesis, we merely have guesswork.

My edits circumvent the problem of asserting a causal relationship that we may not be able to defend by simply reporting on what the policies were, sufficient enough in an article as broadly focused as this one. 172 23:24, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * As an outside observer, the edits which were being fought over sound like they're calling the entire country of Russia a prison labor camp. There's no way I could consider that NPOV, since emmigration restrictions do not equal a country being a prison labor camp.  If you want to describe the emmigration restrictions at the time, do it without using phrases like "captive workforce".  And if you're going to throw around accusatory phrases like "allegedly" (which implies dispute and disbelief), then document them.  If you don't say who alleges something, you're just throwing around wild speculation, which makes it sound like unsubstantiated POV.  It's far better to say something was "called" or "claimed" to be such, along with who claimed it was that.  Best of luck.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 23:53, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I did not realize that Cortonin also posted here, so I copy my response originally composed elsewhere, apologies for any misunderstanding resulting from its response to a previous context. There is no way this is original research, noone seriously doubts that emigration was not just vigorously, but visciously suppressed.  Of course, in the USSR proper there were not the photo-opportunities available at the Berlin wall, but the policy and practice were the same, crewman jumping off of ships, athletes defecting, etc.  all are familiar images.


 * Emigration is a basic right, and it was the USSR not Russia. The USSR did kill people trying to escape.  Given the marxist emphasis on workers and labor, what else was the USSR from the time Stalin through early Gorbachev?  I know, just a different culture with its own quaint inscrutible ways.  After all, people are the mere private property of the leaders of "their" nation. Perhaps, the USSR was so large, that being denied the right to emigrate was only a minor limitation on one's options?  You perhaps did not know that papers were required for travel or even changing jobs within the USSR.--Silverback 00:58, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstand the intent of Marxism a bit. I'm aware of the paper requirements, and people used to sit over here comfortably in the U.S. and laugh at the barbaric and dictatorial communists with their "papers" required to use transportation or for changing jobs.  But guess what, the U.S. has this too now.  Try to drive, rent a car, take a plane, or get a job without ID in the U.S.  Heck, try to buy a car with cash without using ID.  While we can (and should) discuss and document the problems this caused in the USSR, and the abuses associated with that system, and with the emigration policies, the fact remains that this did not make it a prison labor camp.  Marxism was about power for the working/labor class, not about enslaving them.  Now it certainly appears the USSR had problems achieving this, but that still doesn't make the people a "captive workforce".  I know how tempting it is to strongly criticize a country which had policies like that which we find so offensive to what we consider basic human rights, but on Wikipedia we can describe the problems with such a system in a more neutral fashion (which actually makes the criticisms stronger, since it makes them seem like more mature and thoughtful criticisms to the reader).     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 06:47, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * One other thing that might be worth describing, which I've heard from Russians I know, is how corruption was a factor in emigration from the USSR. The most common way to get out of the USSR was to befriend someone, pay off someone, or pay off a friend, who works for the government, and can push your request through.  If someone pushed a request through, it was usually granted, but if no one pushed a request through, it was usually rejected or lost in a file drawer somewhere.  If you can find documentation of this it could make a nice element to a description of how life went for someone looking to emigrate.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 06:47, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * And no, I don't actually edit here. I just swung by the other day to see what was going on, and then thought I'd offer some NPOV advice on this issue.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 06:47, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * If they aren't allowed to leave then they are captives. What makes it not a gulag or labor camp, the availability of alcohol? --Silverback 11:58, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no need to debate the issue. Wikipedia editors have no business going beyond simply reporting the facts. This is sufficient: The reforms did not extend to loosening the tight control over migration into or out of the country; increases or decreases in the population as a result of immigration or emigration were insignificant. At this level we do not need to make inferences about the causes of Soviet political action and the relationship between emigration policies and the "captive labor market"; no one wants to read the theories of pseudonymous Wikipedia editors. Moreover, no one will be interested in the value judgments of pseudonymous Wikipedia editors (e.g., emigration is a basic right). 172 12:49, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the right to emigrate is in the UN charter, although my standards are a little higher and more defensible than the UN's, so perhaps should be more interesting, or educational at least.--Silverback 19:29, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we're with Wikipedia, not the UN, and Wikipedia lacks the authority to make these assertions. It's just too bad that we weren't around back then to pressure the Soviets to liberalize their emigration policies. But I doubt that they would've cared... We're an encyclopedia, so we should stick to reporting, not value judgments. 172 19:42, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Guys, don't you think that this edit war puts too much emphasis on the freedom of emigration? What we should really summarize, I think, is general situation with political freedoms and emigration is only a part of it? I suggested below in "Suggested changes to Khrushchev-Brezhnev Era chapter" to introduce a brief summary of the evolution of the situation with political freedoms in the country. I agree with 172 's consern that this should only be a summary and this should agree with the Soviet Union and other articles. So, let's look at all these articles. Not saying anything about the topic at all in the History of Russia makes the article incomplete at best. And, yes, there were by far more serious freedom oppressions than emigration. The way it looks now, makes it seem that the emigration restrictions stood out at the time, while in reality other more fundamental rights were clearly oppressed. Please contribute! And please, no flames. Irpen 20:33, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * The section is already long enough. If more detail is to be added, the stuff on emigration should be cut. After I got done writing this article, stuff keeps on getting added to the Soviet Union while everything else is going ignored. Right now, over half the content deals with just the past 80 years out of over 1,000 years of Russian history. If this trend keeps up the section on the Soviet Union in this article will become longer than the history of the Soviet Union article, which is supposed to be summarized here. I suggest that additional detail be added to politics of the Soviet Union or history of the Soviet Union. 172 22:04, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * In what I agree with you, is that if the stuff is more directly related to the Soviet Union article, the details should go there. However, the History of Russia should include just a brief summary of the most important developments for each period and things like Soviet space program and the situation with human rights are important enough to be mentioned. Without the emphasis on emigration, which is going into too much detail, the human rights situation deserves some space.


 * I don't see a problem in general with having more kilobytes per decade for the coverage of a more recent time. It is a general trend that a more recent time is better known and, hence, presented in greater detail, within common sense, of course.


 * The solution, I think, is to add this material first to the Soviet Union related articles. Once, after many edits, we settle on the content there, we can try to include a summary of agreed material for this article. The way, the emigration appears in the present version, however, looks out of context and presents emigration as a most significant human rights issue in Soviet Union which it wasn't.Irpen 23:00, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * What was the most significant human rights issue? Since the legitimacy of any government comes from the consent of the governed, even in a democracy, emigration may be the only escape for a minority.  All the more so for an oppressive oligarchy.  If you are going to argue that gulags or conscription were more serious human rights abuses, what do you think happened to those who tried to emigrate and weren't shot?  Any country with the right to emigrate at least preserves the apologia "Well they could have left, they consented by staying". --Silverback 21:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * What was the most significant human rights issue? certainly not an emigration. It is an issue, of course, but you have to talk about other things first. For example, a freedom to emigrate is related to a more general freedom of travel, which was NOT a freedom the Soviet people enjoy. But even that would be a less basic freedom compared to many others: freedom of speech, freedom to elect leaders by meaningful voting, freedom of religion, freedom from discrimination based on ethnicity (antisemitism is only one example) or based on your ancestors (having parents or close relatives repressed or abroad would put a citizen into a great disadvantage). So, 172 is right that there is no room to go into a detailed discussion in this article. What we need in this article, I think, is just a couple of sentences that the situation with human rights evolved in certain way but was still dismal by Western standards. On the other hand there is no comparison to the scale of oppression at the time of Gulag. Currently, with the emigration sticking out in the article, it looks odd at best. I hope, someone will improve this issue soon. I might try if I have time these days. Irpen 22:49, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Evidently the replacing of police terror did not extend to the border police or ship's officers. If there is room to mention reforms such a increased consumer goods and "intellectuals had more freedom than ever before.", then there is room to mention not just emigration, but the more "significant" human rights issues you mention.  I wonder if the "than ever before" is true, perhaps there were some intellectual flowerings under czarist rule.  If the human rights dicussion becomes extensive then it will be natural to spin off separate pages.--Silverback 02:46, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I take a liberty to assume that this discussion is finally coming to some meaningful conclusion as follows. A more detailed discussion about the situation with human rights should be welcomed in the history of the Soviet Union (1953-1985) article with a one-two sentence summary going here (only after the issues are settled with the discussion itself). Emigration as it looks now needs to be removed because currently it looks odd and misleading creating an impression that this was a main problem with human rights which it wasn't. The comment about judicial system replacing the police terror needs qualification, that the system itself was not an independent judiciary in the common meaning of this term. "..more freedom ever before" for now can change to "more freedom than before". I will change the article as per above and will be happy if someone finds the way to improve my changes. I hope my suggestion about mentioning the Space program will also be implemented by someone. This deserves at least a sentence in this article. Please, no flames. Irpen 04:57, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Suggested changes to Khrushchev-Brezhnev Era chapter
Two things obviously come to mind. Something more than a caption to the picture has to be said about the success of the Soviet space program. It had a huge international effect and it is, perhaps, the first thing that came to minds in the West, when talking and writing about Soviet Union at the time. For example, it had a major effect on the US investment in Science and Engineering in early sixties. Another thing the article needs is some discussion on the situation with political freedoms. Simply saying that police terror was replaced with judicial system (which was a joke when dealt with political cases)is not enough. Things have to be said that on one hand, the regime was clearly softening if compared with Stalinist terror, on the other hand, there were obvious restrictions on political freedoms not limited to foreign travel and emigration. Things could be said about changes between periods of relative tolerance followed by relative tightening of the regime. I might try to write something on this, but perhaps some more accomplished authors of this article could do a better job. Rather than seeing myself reverted without explanation by persistent watchdogs after spending hours on my version, I just want to bring this suggestion forward at this stage.Irpen 00:00, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Something can be added to any section, and this article is already 70K. Your suggestions would make this article go into a greater level of detail on these topics than politics of the Soviet Union and history of the Soviet Union (1953-1985), which are components of the history of Russia series. Of course, if the summary is longer than all the components it is summarizing, we do not have a good summary in our hands. 172 12:15, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I hadn't realized the 1953-1985 article existed, that is a better place for more detail. However the politics article is little more than a series of undetail stubs wikilinking elsewhere.  This article can be more summary oriented, given its broader scope, however it is still POV with its unbalanced references to glowing reforms.  Even in the 1953-1985, one can see that many of the "reforms" were actually oppressive.  The failed mergings into larger collective farms were probably not voluntary.--Silverback 02:55, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

the Chernobyl accident
There should be a mention of the Chernobyl accident in a couple of places. I am surprised that glowing notice of reforms is made, without mentioning problems with the political economy, during Breshnev's time that opted to build nuclear reactors to lower than western standards. And there should be a mention later when the accident itself occurred. Of course details should be saved for the apropo pages, but there should at least be mention, considering the international and intellectual importance of the accident and decisions.--Silverback 21:32, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bakunin
There is no mention to Bakunin's support of terrorism in the Wiki page about him. I didn't know this either. What I do know is he had some correspondence with Nechaiev, a known terrorist, but realised he was way misguided, and ended that relationship. So I'm changing it until someone comes up with some historical reference. Mr.Rocks 00:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Third Rome
Nikita, I looked at the source you quoted. Philotheus of Pskov indeed writes "росеское царство" but what he meant is still a subject of debate and Palamarchuk describes is as such in this very article. Just a couple of paragraphs below in your ref, Palamarchuk writes about the claim to accept Moscow as the Third Rome: "И также вовсе не совпадение, по нашему мнению, что возложение на себя "достоинства" Мосохова потомства совпало с первым отчетливым заявлением о готовности признать Москву Третьим Римом".

Additioanally, we can easily check what the mainstream historical thought of the issue is just by looking into Britannica's "Eastern Orthodoxy " article. A quote from Britannica:
 * 'In 1510 the monk Philotheus of Pskov addressed Vasily III as “tsar” (or emperor), saying: “Two Romes have fallen, but the third stands, and a fourth there will not be.” The meaning of the sentence was that the first Rome was heretical, the second—Byzantium—was under Turkish control, and the third was Moscow.'

Therefore, I will return Moscow to the article. With best regards, --Irpen 01:38, July 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * It is indeed true and easily checkable fact that most sources refer to the core of Philotheus' prophecy as "Moscow is the Third Rome". But this is no more that usual synecdoche---compare with "hand of Moscow" instead of "hand of Russia". What is important is what Philotheus himself writes (unfortunately, I was unable to find full text of his letter online, so no URLs): he declares that Ivan III's kingdom is a successor to the Eastern Empire. The point here is that it is country itself (however it was called at the time) rather than its capital that gets the title.


 * But I agree that these fine points are not relevant to the History of Russia and would only confuse the reader. Therefore, I remove this passage, save for short reference to the Third Rome. The purpose of this is twofold:


 * * duplication between History of Russia and Third Rome is avoided,


 * * reader is no longer misguded to think that Ivan the Third himself declared his kingdom New Rome, or at least favored such a view (which is not supported by historical evidence, as far as I know).


 * --NikitaDanilov

Imperial Russia section used as an example on the Help page
I have just changed the example of linking to a section of an article given in Help:Editing (in the Links, URLs section) as the previous example no longer works. The example now used is History of Russia. If this section is removed or the title of it is changed, please update the help page. Thryduulf 12:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

"Listen to this article" box blocking the text
On the brower I'm currently using, along with a handful of others on which I have also viewed this article, I'm noticing that the audio boxes cover the text. I don't know how to fix this problem, so I removed them. Early thanks to the editor who figures out how to reinsert them without this problem. 172 | Talk 02:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I've had the same problem, both in IE and Firefox browsers. I moved the "spoken" boxes down below in the article, next to the box with the link to Wikimedia.   Hoping this looks satisfactory for now - media to media :) - and then may be someone finds the way to clear the formatting issue and these boxes could be moved back on top, if necessary  -  Introvert   talk  02:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The initial version of article is a history of "Empire of evil", anti Russian lampoon
Dear authors of the "stable version", you state in the article the dark moments of Russian history only, a history of prosecutions and reprisals only. Why you in the same way do not state a history of England, France and Germany? Please do not privatize the article. Allow to improve this article according to books of famous Russian liberal historians of 19 century such as Vasily_Klyuchevsky and Sergey Solovyov. They are not nationalists, they are the scientists investigating huge amount of archeologic and annalistic material. Russia struggled against Golden Horde and nomads, mastered the North, tundra, Siberia, helped many countries, liberated Germany in 1813, very military supported France in 1914, rescued the Balkan and Caucasian Christians from a turkish genocide in 18-19 centuries, carried the basic burden of war against nazi Germany. Why that stuff you throw out it and filter? Russian relations with Poland are not unequivocal too. At 14-17 centuries Poland was an aggressor on Russian territories.

Ben-Velvel 03:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll concede that Westerners tend to look at Russian history from the angle of imperial expansion and the gradual centralization of the state, often without much reference to other angles, especially Russia's centuries of struggles of devastating foreign invasions. The English Wikipedia is written by a community of English-speaking editors with internet access, which means that somewhat of a Western ideological bent is going to be inevitable. I understand your perspective, but I'm afraid that my best reply is that the Western bias could be much worse. For example, before I started editing this article, it was practically denying that the Kievan Rus' had anything to do with Russian history and hardly mentioned any of the invasions from the West or the East. Compared to some of the other articles on the English Wikipedia, this article offers one of the more broad and neutral accounts of Russian history. 172 08:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear 172,

Information wants to be free. All information. And Russian point of view should be too. I am not communist or nationalist, I state views absolutely traditional for the Russian science which are not disputed by liberals. We live in an information society at last, information barriers and stereotypes fall, especially if they came from the period of the English-Russian opposition of the middle of 19 century. Today Russia slowly incorporates into the Western world. Therefore I want that Russian history has been shown more objectively for the West.

I quote the old version. “The impact of the Mongol invasion on the territories of Kievan Rus' was uneven."

About half of Russian population was lost during the Mongol invasion. It was catastrophic, almost all cities and advanced city culture have been destroyed. Construction from a stone has stopped on two hundred years.
 * Further detail can be added in the main article on Mongol invasion of Rus. The history of Russia article, however, is already one of Wikipedia's longest. 172 19:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Сitation: "Immigrants who left southern Russia to escape the Mongols gravitated mostly to the northeast, where the soil was better and the rivers more conducive to commercial development.”

It is a lie. Immigrants who left southern Russia to escape the Mongols gravitated in forest region between northern Volga and Oka. In new region of dwelling soils were POOR, the climate is COLDER and trading ways were under the control of a HORDE. The exit to sea has been lost.

Doubting gentlemen, please visit region of northern Volga and compare it to region of Dnepr (the Kievan Rus).
 * Of course the soil was better in southern Russia. I think that the setence meant that the soil was better compared to some other parts of the north; but I'll clarify it. 172 19:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Attacks of nomads tormented Russia after the end of Golden Horde also, till 18 century (Crimean Khanat, Nogay-Horde). In the middle of 17th century, 200 kilometers to the south of Moscow, there passed border between the Russian state and wild steppe. And protection of this border demanded huge efforts. No comparison with the western Europe. In 1571 the Crimean khan Devlet-Girey with hordes in 120 thousand horsemen devastated Moscow. Annually Russsian population of Frontier became a victim of attacks and tens thousand soldiers protected southern boundaries that was heavy burden for the state and slowed its social and economic development.
 * Again, each section is linked to a main article (such as Mongol invasion of Rus) offering further details. The information you for which you are looking may be found in those articles. 172 19:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

One more citation. “In 1859, there were more than 23 million serfs living under conditions frequently worse than those of the peasants of western Europe on 12th century manors.” The history is a science, instead of a political propaganda.

The serfdom in England occupies the period from 10 to 14 centuries. The serfdom in the central Europe occupies the period from 12-14 centuries to the end of 18 centuries, in many regions up to the middle of 19th century. The serfdom in Russia occupies the period from the beginning of 17th century up to the middle of 19th century.

The period of a serfdom in Russia is more shortly than in England and is much shorter than in the central Europe. But the serfdom comes to Russia later than to the western and the central Europe. The reason is a difference in social and economic development of various regions of Europe. More western regions (where more a temperate climate, more dense population and good sea communications) develop more quickly than east regions. In 16 century in Denmark peasants can be sold as cattle without an allotment. The Polish nobleman could kill the serf as a dog.

Yes, in 19th century Russia has a serfdom, but also England at this time has sins. Terrible famine in the British Ireland and the British India, millions victims of the Great Calamity in the British India. Forced labour for English children from poor families. Slave trade till 1827. A genocide of the Australian natives. Opium wars. And so on. All countries have different dark and light stages in the history.
 * The sentence did not state that Russian serfdom was worse than conditions on 12th century manors, but rather that sometimes conditions were particularly bad, which can be confirmed by many sources. 172 19:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Ben-Velvel 12:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC), editor of science-pop:), Saint Petersburg.

Just a word of advice-- be sure to use past tense when writing history. I noticed that your edits have been in the present tense. You clearly have a lot to contribute to Russia-related articles. I recommend getting a brief overview of stylistic conventions at WP:MOS and keeping track of Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board. 172 23:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok.

- The slogan of Nikolay I «Autocracy, Orthodoxy, and Nationalism» is translated incorrect. The third word “narodnost’” is correctly translated as “respect  to people”. The nationalism (in the western sense) in the Russian empire did not exist. In the passports and other official documents the Religion of person was specified, instead of a nationality
 * "Autocracy, Orthodoxy, and Nationalism" is the most common traslation that appears in Western sources. I was aware that it was rendered in many different ways, with there being no exact English translation for narodnost. Western writers have typically preferred "nationalism" knowing full well that they were constructing a parallel between Russia under Nicholas I and the rise of the different nationalisms in Western Europe contemporaneous. While comparative historians often feel somewhat more comfortable about using Western concepts to describe other parts of the world, I am am aware that some cultural historians specializing in 19th century Russia have their reservations. If you don't like the translation to "nationalism," I suggest changing it to "national spirt." 172 01:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

- Slavophiles were not nationalists, more likely followers of romantic German philosophy, opponents of bureaucracy and the callous state in the western style
 * You're right in that they did not think of themselves as nationalists, but there is some debate on that point, with Western historians offering lots of evidence of tendencies on their part that Westerners tend to associate with nationalism. 172 01:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

- “policy of Russification was carried out throughout the empire”. Alexander III's outlook it was close to philosophy of Slavophiles, but not to nationalism. In his reign Russia was not at war, has concluded the union with republican France and has received the French credits for development of the industry. Bloody Jewish pogroms in this reign have not happened.
 * It was a period of relative peace and stablity, but the text in the article is making reference to consolidating control over territory absorbed earlier into the empire. 172 01:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

- You many times used a word the nationalist and nationalism in relation to the Russian empire. It is incorrect. The empire was multinational formation. It not the national state. Different regions of empire had a different control system and different privileges. Finlands and moslems of Caucasus were not recruited up for military service. Finland had a full autonomy. In Baltic regions German aristocrats dominated, there already in 1818 the serfdom has been abolished.
 * I understand that the word has a much different set of connotations in the West. In English language word such as "national" and "nationalism" are going to refer to community and ideology, not necessarily state structures or legal entities. 172 01:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

- World War I. Do not simplify. Not having finished mobilization Russian army enter Germany to support the French armies, and suffers defeat. In 1916 armament of Russian armies improves. Russian armies battles against German, austro-hungarian, turkish armies on wide front from Baltic sea up to Transcaucasia and hold down up to half of military forces of the Central Powers. Military operations against Аustria-Hungary and Turkey were successful.
 * The article is already one of Wikipedia's longest covering more than a 1,000 years of Russian history. Every section will be lacking a lot Inevitably. I recommend working on the main article on Russia's role in the war. 172 01:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

- World War II. Till 1939 the USSR was in strong opposition to nazi Germany, supported republicans of Spain who struggled against German and Italian troops. However in 1938 Germany signed the Munich treaty together with the Western Powers and together with Poland divided Czechoslovakia. The Soviet government being afraid of a German attack to the USSR began diplomatic maneuvers. In 1939 Poland refused to participate in any measures of collective safety and then USSR signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Nazi Germany. On September, 17 1939 when German armies were in 150 kilometers from the Soviet border, the Soviet army invaded eastern portions of Poland.
 * You're quite correct above. However, most Wikipedia articles on Russia's role in World War II are going to be written from the perspective of Reaganite Cold Warriors who regard the Soviet Union as the "evil empire," Ukrainian nationalists, and other Eastern European nationalists; and nothing is going to change this perspective on the English Wikipedia. Many articles go as far as to imply that the Soviet Union was an even worse aggressor in the war than Nazi Germany. This article, actually, ofters one of the more balanced general surveys of the war to be found on Wikipedia. 172 01:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

- Boris Yeltsin was not the Russian nationalist. He has willingly given territories populated ethnic Russian if these territories were outside the Russian Federation.
 * I know that he was not. I don't think that the article is not describing him as a nationalist, but referring to the period when he was presenting himself as asserting the interests of Russia vis-a-vis the center and the other republics before independence from the Soviet Union. 172 01:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Ben-Velvel 00:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Revert
I just made this sweeping revert of Ben-Velvel's edits here I'm going to restore nearly all of them by the end of the day. In the meantime, however, I'll have to correct the English... I can't get around to doing so at the moment because in a few minutes I'll be leaving my computer. I'll restore the edits as soon as I return. 172 02:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Expansion durign reign of Ivan III
Noticed something potentially ambiguous: in the section on Ivan III, in the first paragraph it mentions that he "more than doubled his territories", while later on in the third paragraph it is stated that "Muscovy tripled in size under his rule". It looks like the same thing is stated twice, and in a somewhat confusing manner too. Would it make sense to remove one of these two? I'd do it myself, but I am not sure which one is more accurate. Ikh (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:1533-1896.jpg.gif
I don't understand why this article is a featured one since Image:1533-1896.jpg.gif has one very big flaw: it excludes Finland, which was conquered by Russia in 1809. Can anyone do anything about it (=modify the map, if it's possible, which I think not) or should we just either take it down or have someone make a new, correct map? -- TonyM ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!!  10:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * FInland was part of the Russian Empire, but unlike the Baltic States and Poland, it was never part of Russia. -- Petri Krohn 12:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Removing info that is historically correct
Sadly it seems that for some strange reasons information that besides territories of modern Ukraine and Belarus Russia also annexed territories of modern Lithuania and Poland is removed. A quick look at map of Partitions is enough to know that is neither Wilno nor Białowieża are part of Belarus or Ukraine. --Molobo 00:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

External review
external peer review
 * date = 3 August 2006
 * org = a self-identified Russian history expert.
 * comment = This article and the series was mentioned on the NPR radio show On Point.  A caller claiming to be an expert in the field commented that the history here contains factual errors, such as confusing Poland and Ukraine, a flavor of propaganda, and a lack of references, especially in the Russian Revolution era. http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2006/08/20060802_b_main.asp

This might be reason to de-feature this article. -- Beland 04:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It appears, from the links, that the concerns raised were about the series, particularly, the Russian Revolution article. The series itself is not featured, but the main article. 172 | Talk 19:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Bwhack 07:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
 * The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.
 * Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&amp;nbsp;mm.
 * Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
 * Per WP:MOS, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example,  ==The Biography==  would be changed to  ==Biography== .
 * Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
 * Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.
 * Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
 * article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “ All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
 * Temporal terms like “over the years”, “currently”, “now”, and “from time to time” often are too vague to be useful, but occasionally may be helpful. “I am now using a semi-bot to generate your peer review.”
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.

Wouldn't it be wise to add a timeline? Or is there one somewhere that I just don't know about?

Disturbing Defamation of Early History Section
Some total jackass has destroyed the Early History section, basically invoking a lot of 7th grade homo-bashing blather. I would edit it on my own, but I'm afraid there's quite a few more people around here who are far more knowledgable than me on this subject. Just thought I'd bring it to the group's attention.

SurfinAG 165.91.46.6 01:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Time Line
Wouldn't it be nice if there was a short timeline at the end of this article? I think there should be. What do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.41.46.11 (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC).