Jump to content

Talk:Leonid Brezhnev

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleLeonid Brezhnev has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 8, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 6, 2010Good article nomineeListed
October 5, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 5, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 14, 2011, October 14, 2014, and October 14, 2021.
Current status: Good article

Brezhnev (NPOV)

[edit]

Lately, I have noticed a concerning editing trend on the Leonid Brezhnev that seems designed to play up Brezhnev's successes as a statesman while significantly playing down his failures. For this reason,I have added the NPOV tag. Does anybody have any opposition to this? Emiya1980 (talk) 04:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that he was viewed as a statesman when he was alive and his reputation saw a decline only after his death. His reputation has seen a boost in the recent decades because his successors were not as influential as he was. On the contrary, look at George Herbert Walker Bush who was outshined by his successor Bill Clinton. Adding an NPOV template at the top of this GA article is obviously unwarranted. Capitals00 (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact the article currently states Brezhnev ”…is remembered for donning the mantle of a peacemaker and a common-sense statesman” and ”it can be said that the Soviet Union reached unprecedented and never-repeated levels of power, prestige, and internal calm under his rule” in Wikipedia’s voice is reason enough to question the article’s neutrality. Absent changes to the article and receiving other editors’ opinions on the matter, it is premature to remove the tag right now. Emiya1980 (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are the reasons that you have to dispute those sentences? Where is your rebuttal? Capitals00 (talk) 03:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
During his leadership, Brezhnev order the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, engaged in a massive military-buildup that accelerated the Cold War arms race, and approved the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Such actions are hardly the makings of a "peacemaker". Likewise, the widespread crackdown on existing Soviet freedoms under Brezhnev did not amount to a "period of internal calm." For other reasons why I don't think the Brezhnev Era was a golden age for the Soviet Union, read my comments in "No Strains on Soviet Economy During Brezhnev's Lifetime?" Emiya1980 (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming nobody but me and Capitals00 is going to add to this discussion, I am going to seek a third opinion sometime in the near future. If someone currently viewing this thread has thoughts on this subject, please take a moment to share them. Thank you. Emiya1980 (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is original research—your analysis is not relevant. The rebuttal that Capitals00 refers to should contain references to reliable sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least with regards to Brezhnev's record as a "peacemaker", the links I provided are backed up by plenty of secondary sources and are therefore not original research. I have also added a link to the Brezhnev article featuring material challenging the notion that Brezhnev's rule was "period fo internal calm" that are likewise backed up by sources. With regards to Brezhnev's flawed management of the economy, I've already listed plenty of excerpts from sources corroborating my position in a prior discussion thread and frankly do not feel like doing so again. Emiya1980 (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments are certainly not telling anything more than "Leonid Brezhnev made the USSR so powerful and could have caused a lot more destruction but I don't have a lot to cite here". If you are really looking forward to "challenging the notion" that is indeed "backed up by sources" then you are certainly at the wrong place. Wikipedia is not the place for bringing up your dispute over the historiography that concerns any subject. Wikipedia can only publish what has been concluded outside Wikipedia by the reliable sources. Capitals00 (talk) 02:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I previously stated, the links I provided cite plenty of sources which challenge the characterization of Brezhnev as "peacemaker" and the notion that he oversaw a period of stable prosperity in the Soviet Union. You are free to visit the links and look at them yourself. Seeing as how they're already listed, I am under no obligation to spoon-feed them to you.
In any event, there are too few editors participating in this thread to reach a consensus. Hence why I previously suggested seeking a third opinion. Until then, I am unwilling to consider removing the NPOV tag until the sentences I mentioned are no longer presented in Wikipedia's voice. Emiya1980 (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're casting aspersions in a tedious manner and frequently assume a borderline-battleground mentality, and this is the attitude you have taken out of the gate here (Lately, I have noticed a concerning editing trend). If I can be brutally honest for a moment, since I do believe you want to reach genuine consensuses: I hesitate to enter conversations on talk pages that you have started or are engaged in, because it often immediately seems like a tiresome proposition. I don't know a less fraught way to pose this, but perhaps a change in rhetorical stance would result in more editors taking the time to engage with your concerns. Remsense ‥  03:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense: No aspersions are being cast. As evidenced by the sentences I referenced, there is evidence of bias in the article. Such a concern has also been raised by another editor in at least one other discussion thread concerning this page. As a matter of fact, I also recently reverted an attempt by another editor to [play down Gorbachev's criticism of Brezhnev's policies.] So I don't think this concern is baseless.
Contrary to you characterization of me as having a "borderline-battleground mentality", I have already indicated a willingness to consider removing the tag if the sentences I pointed out are rewritten so as not to be presented in Wikipedia's voice. I don't think that's asking a lot. Emiya1980 (talk) 04:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just telling you how you often come off, and I am not the only one who feels this way. Take it or leave it. Remsense ‥  04:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any opinions relevant to this discussion or are you here just to critique my interactions with other editors?Emiya1980 (talk) 04:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I'm trying to give you some advice that might explain why you don't get the consensus establishing discussions you clearly want. For right now, I also don't feel like pulling any of my own teeth, but thanks for offering. Remsense ‥  04:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find this to be tedious. The source that the sentence cited quite frankly says, verbatim, He was the first Soviet leader who consciously and with pleasure donned the mantle of a peacemaker and a commonsense statesman, and not of a blustering revolutionary or of a domineering emperor. It doesn't matter if he wasn't a pacifist, one can declare themselves a 'peacemaker' and thus 'don the mantle of peacekeeper' and argue that invading a soverign nation is bringing peace and stability to it. Wikipedia represents what the sources say, not what you believe to be true or what you wish they would say. Likewise, I've removed the mention of "internal calm" because none of what that paragraph says can be found on the cited page. I'm removing the NPOV tag, and in regard to the statement I am unwilling to consider removing the NPOV tag, you improperly tagged the article in the first place. Template:POV#How_to_use which says to only use it when a serious issue of balance and the lack of a WP:Neutral point of view and An unbalanced or non-neutral article is one that does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources. A balanced article presents mainstream views as being mainstream, and minority views as being minority views. The personal views of Wikipedia editors or the public are irrelevant. If you present a source that contests the statement of the source saying he was donning the mantle of peacemaker, you're free to add it. But representing what the sources say in an article is not WP:NPOV violating. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 03:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Emiya1980 (talk) 03:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Capitals00: If you allow me to rewrite the aforementioned sentences as the opinions of certain historians instead of an established fact in Wikipedia's voice, I will remove the NPOV tag. Is that a fair compromise?Emiya1980 (talk) 04:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the heat this discussion has generated as well as the recent content disputes that have happened with regards to this page, I would recommend you to propose your major edits here. Capitals00 (talk) 03:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]