Talk:Glasnost

Untitled

i am doing a report on glasnost in the soviet union and some more help would be greatly appriciated if you could please help me thank you which glasnost?

What's "perestroikaaa"? I don't know, but I changed it to read perestroika so that the link goes where we want it to.

There is a lot of opinion in this article.

Sections

I don't think the Objectives section needs to be separate from the Glasnost in USSR and in Russia section. There's more about the objectives in the first section. If no one objects, I will change it. -Athaler 16:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Front Image

Is the front image really that relevant? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.40.132.53 (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

If you're talking about the destroyer, I agree. There may be some relevance, but it's not obvious right now. -Athaler 16:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering about it too. It seems to better illustrate the end of the Cold War than glasnost. Anyway, the article could use at least one image. Maybe a portrait of Gorbachev from the period? None of the images on commons really seem appropriate (undated, not contemporary, or include other politicians). Perestroika has an excellent image for that article. Was glasnost ever used in slogan? --Jtir 22:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this is about, but the cartoon is interesting — and probably under copyright. --Jtir 23:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Found some posters dated 1987 and 1988 — presumably also under copyright. --Jtir 23:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

{{Non-free poster}} claims fair use when the image is low resolution and is used to illustrate the subject at hand.

I translated "смелее, товарищ! гласность- наша сила!" as "Be Bold, Comrade! Openness- Our Strength!"
using http://babelfish.altavista.com/, http://www.multitran.ru, and some guesswork, so it could probably be improved.

--Jtir 21:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

"Neutrality" and "accuracy" tags

The article gives false impression that all political upheaval in late Soviet Union was thanks to glasnost. This is a biased, incomplete, and is some places false view.

The whole section "Effects" does not belong to this page, because these "effects" were result of the total political situation in the country, which cannot be captured by a couple of slogans invented by Gorbachev. The section "Effects" must be merged into the corresponding historical part, where each effect must be carefully (and with references) attributed to the whole spectrum of causes. `'Míkka>t 17:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, the article is completely unreferences, and I have an impression that this is someone's personal view on the events, rather than taken from opinions of reputable politologists. `'Míkka>t 17:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Example of nonsense (one of many): "Relaxation of censorship resulted in the Communist Party losing its grip on the media. " This apparently smart, but de-facto meaningless, phrase exposes complete lack of understanding of what it was about censorship/Party/media in the Soviet Union. `'Míkka>t 18:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is a good reference for this, <ref name=ScottChapter7>{{cite book|last=Shane|first=Scott|title=Dismantling Utopia: How Information Ended the Soviet Union|year=1994|publisher=Ivan R. Dee|location=Chicago|isbn=1-56663-048-7|pages=182 to 211|chapter=A Normal Country: The Pop Culture Explosion|quote=...market forces had taken over publishing...}}</ref>

Even through all of this talk, I do not see the reason why a "Neutrality" tag should be displayed on this page. Though the accuracy is a bit off course, I dont see the other tag. Correct me if I am wrong by pointing out a better reason why it should be there.--HCV= 01:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)--

The problem of this article, and particularly of the section under discussion, is that it does not keep to just facts. It should talk only of what is known to have happened, e.g. what publications were made available, who talked of what, who didn't talk of what, what talk happened in response, etc. Instead of that, we have conclusions on what cannot be checked, termed with weasel words. Not facts, but opinions. For example: 'This began to undermine the faith of the public in the Soviet system.' Any surveys? Surveys in 1980, surveys in 1988? Unavailable or suspected biased? Then we can't have any source. Boris Strugatsky, for example, reports, that, when publishing previously illegal fiction books was made lawful, the public suddenly lost any interest in what was so deliciously forbidden before (see here: «Времена переменились, и ранее запрещенное сделалось разрешенным. И -- о смех богов! -- сделавшись разрешенным, запрещенное сразу же стало всем безразлично»).

So, instead of telling live and exact facts about what censorship looked like in the late 1980s, this article promotes opinions, whose kind is, by the way, very typical for the English Wikipedia: those are historical simplifications, 'validated' by very generic premises instead of real facts, and thus lacking concreteness (this is why the 'weasel words' like 'the faith of the public (of whom exactly?)' are used in such articles). Ironically, the very methods of promoting opinions coincide in Wikipedia with the methods that were/are used by State Propogandas, including the Soviet Propoganda.

I could, for example, say that 'the public' (i.e. those few who care) had no faith in the Soviet System even back in the 1970s, and my opinion is just as unvalidated as the opinion of Scott Shane. - 92.100.182.4 (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Grammar

I just did a quick sweep on grammar and punctuation. Hope nobody minds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.149.105 (talk) 11:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

Surely, claiming that soviet Government has killed 25-60 mln soviet people is neutral and needs only bullshit to become a fact. Only liberal point of view is neutral because liberal media informs us. We can accuse anybody in any crimes. It is not neutral to point to the opposite statements, even when they are made by official researcher. --Javalenok (talk) 11:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Effect of glasnost

It is clear to me that Gorbachev, from a peasant background, rather than a Bolshevik background, was himself relatively uninformed regarding Soviet history, most notably the occupation of the Baltic states. Thus he was blindsided by the legitimate claims of independence that they made. Not sure I can find a decent source for this. The closest is <ref name=ScottMR>{{cite book|last=Shane|first=Scott|title=Dismantling Utopia: How Information Ended the Soviet Union|year=1994|publisher=Ivan R. Dee|location=Chicago|isbn=1-56663-048-7|pages=138 to 140|chapter=The Press and the Restoration of History|quote=...the long-suppressed secret protocols to the [[Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact]]}}</ref> User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Translation

Every translation I've ever seen on Glasnost has defined the term as being 'openness' not 'publicity'. Whoever put 'publicity' down as an accurate English definition of Glasnost should justify their translation. 184.76.56.97 (talk)JSJR 10182013 —Preceding undated comment added 10:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

According to https://dictionary.com/browse/glasnost, "First recorded in 1980-85, glasnost is from the Russian word glásnost' literally, publicity (taken to mean openness)". Developer45 (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Glasnost/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Glasnost has a history starting at least from Alexander II - debate on the reforms

Last edited at 23:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 16:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

"previously suppressed events such as the first manned moon landing by the United States"

not only is this unsourced but this https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/apollo-moon-khrushchev/ interview with the son of nikita khruschev says that it was in Pravda:

q- How widely was the news of the moon landing disseminated in the Soviet Union in advance of the event?

a- "Of course, you cannot have people land on the moon and just say nothing. It was published in all the newspapers. But if you remember [back then] when Americans spoke of the first man in space, they were always talking of "the first American in space" [not Yuri Gagarin]. The same feeling was prevalent in Russia. There were small articles when Apollo 11 was launched. Actually, there was a small article on the first page of Pravda and then three columns on page five. I looked it up again."

if this was false information i would suggest removing the entire paragraph until you can properly factcheck it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.61.206 (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)