Talk:Soviet Russia (independent country in 1917—1922)

Name
The name is strange and it is not much used. The name of the country was R.S.F.S. R. If a separate article is needed for this period, something along Soviet Russia (1918-1922) would be much more encyclopedic. --Irpen 22:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the term is used only in ~350 books. Until the Soviet Union was created in 1922, the correct term was and is Bolshevist Russia.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I agree that such use in Poland is prevailing. But what is wrong with using the name of the country? --Irpen 22:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In Poland we don't generally use the term "Bolshevist Russia" which was used by my search; I thought you'd know that Polish language is not the same as the Russian language. And the name Soviet Union was not the official name until 1922. I'd again think that you'd know the Russian history better, but in case you forgot, there were quite a few states in Russia after the revolution, each trying to be the one. That Bolsheviks won and founded the SU does not erase their opponents of the years 1917-1922 from history.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I've always thought "Bolshevik Russia" (which redirects here) would sound less unusual. The words are exact synonyms, and the former is found in over ten times as many Wikipedia articles. Any reason not to move the article? —Michael Z. 2007-08-05 22:35 Z 


 * There are enough "articles about terms". This should be merged with Russian SFSR, because both are inadequate.  If History of Soviet Russia and the Soviet Union (1917-1927) is deemed big enough, then it should be split into two, but that's a separate issue. —Michael Z. 2007-08-05 22:38 Z 

But what's wrong with "The country name (Year1-Year2)" as the article name? The only reason why we have a separate article here is that post 1922 there have become a different (although related) state entity. This would be an article not about History but about an entity. --Irpen 22:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well now I'm confused, because the article Russian SFSR covers 1917 to 1991. Are we talking about one entity or two?  I understand that it changed from an independent country to a Republic of the USSR in 1922, but I would still suggest merging, because there is barely enough total material for two article sections, much less two articles.  When it grows up, then it can be split off. —Michael Z. 2007-08-05 22:54 Z 

I do not object to the merge. I do not object to two separate articles either. We may have the country articles separate from the History articles. But if we have separate articles for countries and histories I would like country articles to have good names. The name of the country was RSFSR. So was the name of the Soviet republic after 1922. We can disambiguate them by years is we are to have countries' articles. Current name is a misnomer. --Irpen 04:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You are arguing probably without carefully reading this short article. The article is about term, not about a country. And its text self-explains why it canot be redirected anywhere. `'Míkka 21:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, then, if it is about the term, the cats should be fixed to reflect that and this article should not be linked to from other articles where the Soviet Russia is referred to as a country. --Irpen 21:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the one article should be named "Russian SFSR". But "Bolshevik/Bolshevist Russia" are terms used to refer to that country.  And these terms don't have a complex history to warrant an independent article, like, for example "Ruthenia".  Can this grow into more than a dictionary entry?


 * So why not merge and redirect? The article merely needs a single sentence explaining that "Bolshevik Russia" refers to the government before the adoption of the constitution.  That about sums up the unique content of this article. —Michael Z. 2007-08-07 00:15 Z 
 * Disagreed. It needs all sentences which are in the current page, and on the other hand, there is no need to clutter "Russian SFSR" with all this stuff, which is already in a dreadful state, by the way. `'Míkka 01:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem with me either way. My only concern is to avoid links to this article from others, where Russia is listed as, say, participant of the conflict. The opposing sides in the Polish-Soviet War were Poland and Soviet Russia or R.S.F.S.R. but not some Bolshevist Russia, a term loved by some editors to a degree that they link here. At the same time, if one insists on having an "entity article" separate from the Soviet republic article, it should be under a different name. --Irpen 00:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Soviet Russia
While we're at it, please see talk:Soviet Russia. —Michael Z. 2007-08-07 00:51 Z 

Nitpicking
Bolshevist Russia is distinguished from Soviet Russia. ... Also, strictly speaking, they differ geographically: in 1917-1922: the Bolsheviks controlled a much smaller territory than that of the future Soviet Union.

This doesn't sound quite right. The second sentence implies that Soviet Russia was the USSR, when "strictly speaking" it was not. It is also a confusing sentence, because during 1917–22 Bolshevist Russia was Soviet Russia (right?).

Would the following be accurate? —Michael Z. 2007-08-07 02:39 Z 

"Also, strictly speaking, they differ geographically: Bolshevik-controlled territory fluctuated greatly during the Civil War, and was finally consolidated by the 1921 Peace of Riga with Poland, and 1925 treaty with Japan. The Russian Republic's boundaries remained more stable after the formation of the Soviet Union in 1922.

By the way, what were the dates of the declaration of the RSFSR and adoption of the 1918 constitution? —Michael Z. 2007-08-07 02:40 Z 

Disambig page
All three usages, misnomer or not, are different. Even misnomers are seen in many texts, hence people must be aware of the misnomers. We have complete wikipedian articles about notable misnomers. Calling Soviet Uniuon "Russia" is a very common and hence notable misnomer, to be covered in an encyclopedia. - 7-bubёn >t 15:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What is more, this usage must be eradicated from wikipedia (leaving it in verbatim quotations only), since the term is imprecise and hence unsuitable for encyclopedia. Therefore it is a disambig page. A brief look into "what links here" shows that it is used in wikipedia even in the context of Soviet Union, hence all three meanings, including misnomer require disambiguation. - 7-bubёn >t 15:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sem, let me introduce to the practical problem here. This used to be an article, and was linked as such in other articles. It was then turned into a disambiguation page, without anyone bothering to check if those articles where it is linked require an update. The basic content of the article will presumably be covered by the RSFSR article, which is also the main link in this here disambig. Now: since I'm the only one who seems to care about sorting links out per the WP:MOS, I'm also assessing that redirecting to the RSFSR article is the simplest and best way. The alternatives and misnomers, which are admittedly marginal, could perhaps be dealt with on the Soviet Russia (disambiguation) page (note how Soviet Russia also leads to the RSFSR). What I note from "what links here" is that the links either point to what is now the RSFSR article or should be corrected. Having tens of articles that link to disambig, and holding on to that disambig just because people make mistakes, doesn't help anyone. Dahn (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It was turned into a disambig page by me, because at the moment it seemed to me it was the only way to salvage the page, since it was all unreferenced original research (although plausible). I agree that the alternatives to RSFSR are marginal. Moreover, After looking at "what links here" I agree that fixing all of them would be hardly feasible. Therefore I suggest the following:
 * Write a small section about naming history in "RSFSR" page
 * P.S. As I see, some text is already there. Sorry, something went wrong with my reading. In any case, it must be expanded to include mentioning of the USSR called "Russia" & turn it into a section. And by the way, it must be explained somewhere why this RSFSR article is so small.
 * Modify the dabnote: "Bolshevik/Bolshevist/Soviet Russia redirect here. For other uses, see Soviet Russia (disambiguation)" to "RSFSR"
 * Merge this article into Soviet Russia (disambiguation)
 * And only then kill this article.
 * I hope my suggestion is in agreement with your intentions. - 7-bubёn >t 16:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge
This page should be merged with Soviet Russia (disambiguation), the two pages are basically the same thing. Charles Essie (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Soviet Russia (disambiguation) is a disambiguation page. Soviet Russia (unofficial name of state) is a separate article, see Russian edition. --TarzanASG (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support This article already acts as a disambiguation page. They could be merged under the name Soviet Russia. Charles Essie (talk) 02:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)