Talk:Leonid Brezhnev

1. Redirect Template:Dated maintenance category

Brezhnev (NPOV)

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)

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)

The fact the article currently states Brezhnev Template:Tq and Template:Tq 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)

What are the reasons that you have to dispute those sentences? Where is your rebuttal? Capitals00 (talk) 03:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

At least with regards to Brezhnev's record as a Template:Tq, 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 Template:Tq 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)

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)

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)

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 (Template:Xt). 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 ‥ 论 03:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Template:Ping 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 Template:Tq, 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)

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 ‥ 论 04:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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 ‥ 论 04:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I find this to be tedious. The source that the sentence cited quite frankly says, verbatim, Template:Tq. 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 Template:Tq, you improperly tagged the article in the first place. Template:POV#How_to_use which says to only use it when Template:Tq and Template:Tq. 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)

Fine. Emiya1980 (talk) 03:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Template:Ping 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)

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)

WP:NOHIDE-a-palooza

IAR and all that, but it's worth reminding oneself how clear WP:NOHIDE that collapsed lists are almost never a good solution for anything. I really do not think they do a good job here, and information should be presented in the article, some list article, or not at all. I don't see why these heads of state are an exception to best common design practices. Remsense ‥ 论 04:32, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Frankly, what constitutes "best common design practices" for a page's infobox is a matter of perspective which varies depending on the circumstances. As someone who has been significantly involved with this article going on at least 7 years, I think adding collapsible sections is one of the few feasible options for incorporating details in the infobox regarding Brezhnev's various lesser known posts and his membership in leading administrative bodies (i.e. the Politburo, the Secretariat, etc.) without flooding it with clutter.

If you have an alternative proposition for displaying such information in an accessible format that does not clutter the infobox, I am willing to discuss it with you. What I am unwilling to accommodate is unilaterally removing information that several editors including myself have devoted considerable time trying to compile for others' viewing.Emiya1980 (talk) 04:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Template:Talkquote

This is trivially true, and the guideline makes perfectly clear that circumstances are almost always against collapsed lists. They are bad both for many readers who are interested in what they contain, as well for many that are not. They are bad for users on mobile, and for readers with different needs accessibility-wise.

Like I stated above, I'm not against this information being presented to readers, but I would think it should go somewhere it actually belongs. The infobox is for key information at a glance, not to hold a surprise data dresser drawer. Tables or whatever could go in the article body, in their own list article, but I'm again asking for a positive argument why these articles are a compelling exception to the strong wording of the guideline, because "we worked hard on it" ain't it. Remsense ‥ 论 05:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I would argue that the complex and unique nature of of the Soviet political system justifies such an exception. Periods of time in the ruling CPSU's history are demarcated by sequentially listed Congresses which date from 1917 to 1990. Each individual Congress resulted in the promulgation of a new Politburo, Secretariat, and Central Committee which in turn resulted in various changes to their existing membership. The rise to power and ensuing tenure of all high-ranking Soviet officials (including Leonid Brezhnev) is illustrated not only by the individual offices they held but by when they joined the aforementioned bodies and how many iterations of them in which they held membership. The fact that each iteration of these bodies has been deemed significant enough by editors to have its own Wikipedia page further reinforces the argument for organizing them this way. Personally, I think incorporating such details in collapsible sections is the most organized way to convey such details in the infobox.

With that being said, I was not the one who originally came up with this organization scheme which has been in place for many years now. Even if you are convinced Wikipedia policy is on your side, I think you should get consensus from other editors first. Emiya1980 (talk) 06:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Let's think in the most general terms: would you consider the individual listings in each collapse (e.g. his service on the Dnipropetrovsk City Council, his status for the 26th CPSU Congress) to themselves be key facts about Brezhnev, akin to what editors generally consider on mature biographies? I might venture to say none of the entries are, save perhaps his chairmanship of the Council of Defence. That the Soviet Union was a riddle, wrapped etc., doesn't mean we have more reason to front-load technical details that don't help transient readers at a glance. If one is willing to accept that the plain meaning of WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE applies here, the data are simply misplaced at present; it seems unambiguous that they would be better served in a table appended to the article body. Remsense ‥ 论 07:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

While I would be open to having his more minor postings removed (i.e. the ones in Dnipropetrovsk), I still think the other listings about his offices and memberships should be included. They are relevant to understanding his political career in the Soviet political system. Emiya1980 (talk) 08:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Of course they're relevant, but they're not key facts best made accessible at a glance—the fact that we need to hide them would seem to concede this point by default. Remsense ‥ 论 08:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

At a minimum, I think the "Central Institution Membership" section and the information contained therein should remain in the infobox. In return for you conceding this issue, I will not oppose your removal of Brezhnev's lesser-known offices from the infobox so long as they are listed somewhere else in the article. If this compromise is still not acceptable to you, then seek a consensus with other editors. Assuming you obtain said consensus, I will accept the result. Emiya1980 (talk) 08:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Article review

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs (like the first paragraph in "Agricultural policy".) Would it be helpful to add citation needed tags? Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2025 (UTC)