Talk:Boris Yeltsin

New Inbox Image

I am starting this section to propose that the present infobox image be replaced with the following picture. As noted in WP:Image Use Policy,"images should be uploaded at high resolution whether or not this seems 'necessary' for the use immediately contemplate." Here, the current image's resolution is significantly compromised due to how exceedingly tiny it is. By comparison, the proposed image is larger and thereby provides a more detailed view of the subject. Any thoughts? Emiya1980 (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed new image for Yeltsin article.

• Query: I'm a bit confused, because the argument advanced above seems inconsistent with what I am seeing in the files themselves: the image used in the article's infobox (as of the moment of this post) is actually several times larger in terms of image resolution than the one attached to this thread. Was a mistake made with regard to the image posted for discussion here? In any event, the photos are more or less of identical encyclopedic utility aside from that factor, for what that is worth in further discussion. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: You may be case with regards to the images’ resolution . However, when used in the article’s infobox, Yeltsin appears significantly smaller in the current image than the one being proposed. Since an image’s utility to viewed is only as good as how visible it is to most viewers. An image providing a close-up view of the matter being discussed is more useful than an image which features the article‘s subject in a significantly less prominent position but otherwise has slightly higher resolution. Here, the new image provides a close-up view of Yeltsin with little to no loss in resolution. Consequently, for the purposes of the article, it offers the best of both worlds in terms of finding an appropriate balance between resolution and visibility.Emiya1980 (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)u

Emiya, I'm afraid your argument still does not track, at least if I am understanding it correctly: you are aware that any image of any resolution can be set to any size relative to the full page--at least as a technical matter? Therefore I am confused as to why you are suggesting that the lower resolution image should be employed for the purposes of "better resolution". I do notice that the image you are recommending here is ever-so-slightly closer-cropped (and I really do mean slight)--is this what you are talking about? If so, this is a different matter from image size and image resolution, which, contrary to your RfC prompt, are larger in the image presently used in the article than the one which you are proposing. I really do think the difference between the two images in marginal, but it's worth noting two things about the argument you have advanced in favour of your preferred image: 1) the portion of the image use policy you site concerns preferences with regard to uploading images of higher resolution, and says nothing about which images should be employed within articles in terms of how close-cropped an image is, and 2) to the extent that a higher resolution is preferable, that would argue for the image presently in the article, not the one you propose.

So, if what you are actually arguing for is a closer-cropped image, I think you should strike through your original prompt and replace it with a new one saying something to the effect of "I am proposing we use the image shown to the right, because it is a little more cropped on Yelstin and I believe this makes for a better use in this circumstance." before anyone else responds and the matter gets more complicated by the inaccurate wording and policy reference. Although, again, I'm seeing very little difference between the two and I think you and the editor who reverted you should have been able to resolve this short of RfC: a little discussion may have gone a long way here. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

(@Doomer1557:) I apologize for inaccurately framing my argument, Snow Rise. Yes, you are correct. What I am proposing is the use of a more closely cropped image of Boris Yeltsin. Since the present image is of higher resolution than my earlier suggestion, would you or any other editors be opposed to using a more closely cropped version of it such as the image below?Emiya1980 (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

2nd proposal

(@Emiya1980:) Ok. 'Doomer1557' ( talk) 20:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Awesome--works for me. :) Since the original two editors disputing the edit in question are now on the same page, and since the only respondent so far (yours truly) has no objections to that resolution, I think this matter is resolved. I'll wait half an hour to make sure neither of you have objections and then I will remove the RfC tag: the difference between the edits is so slight and the result so uncontroversial that I do not think we need a formal close here. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

"Vladimir Yeltsin" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Vladimir Yeltsin. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 3#Vladimir Yeltsin until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

This POV needs clean up

This article has POV in it. Here is an example of a heavily biased paragraph, "Yelstin succeeded in the unconstitutional, illegal, and contested dissolution of the USSR. The breakup of the Soviet Union could happened earlier in 1991 when, Soviet citizenry voted on this issue. In the only independent referendum in Soviet history, a super majority of people across the nation voted overwhelmingly to remain in the union and preserve its government. This should have stopped the nationalistic and treacherous parties in the union but the victory was only temporary."

Can someone please clean this up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.10.100.224 (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

"Conservatism"

@Caustic3: Where in that source is Yeltsin described as being aligned with conservatism? The only mention of conservatism it seems is this paragraph: Yeltsin says he never really fit into the pampered and collegial fraternity of the Politburo. His colleagues mocked as cheap ambition his predilection for unannounced forays into the understocked grocery stores and his rides on the overcrowded subways. He clashed repeatedly with the Politburo's archconservative, Yegor K. Ligachev. Yeltsin speculates that Gorbachev kept him around for political balance. With the prickly, impetuous Yeltsin to his left, the conservative Ligachev to his right, Gorbachev himself seemed the omniscient centrist. If anything, it seems to contradict this. Mellk (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Not to mention that Yeltsin is often associated with liberalism or neo-liberalism, so removing this does not seem correct. Mellk (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I believe you and I are trying to say the same thing but in different ways. Yeltsin's position is conservative in the context of Soviet Russia. Liberalism not only has many definitions in the dictionary form but also in the connotative meaning. Liberalism can mean classical liberalism which in the year 2021 we could call conservative since it argues for free markets, etc. The reason I say Yeltsin is conservative is because he was a traditionalist not to mention a man who became fond of the U.S. way of life. Since 1980 the United States has largely become a conservative nation, one that champions traditional family values, faith, and small government. This ideology is reflected upon in Ronald Reagan and I would never use the word liberal to describe Reagan. Ronald Reagan was a pitchman of traditional values (nuclear family, faith based life, and anti-socialist.) Socialism and Leninist values are considered left and radical since they are such a departure of small government. Yeltsin deviated from Leninist and socialist doctrines by imploding the union and more importantly he began to support the Russian Orthodox Church. The church is a deeply conservative entity that has always been focused on traditionalism. The church and conservatism even go back to 1917 during the Revolution. Bolshevik ideology such as public ownership of land and decriminalization of homosexuality disgusted the church. Yeltsin and his successor Putin share this view on social issues. Both are social conservatives and believe the government has no business in economic affairs (pun intended). In America the word liberal in any sense reflects some left leaning position. Yeltsin was not on the political left, nor a centrist. He was firmly conservative. That is why he sought and received aid from U.S. President Bill Clinton. Clinton was a Democrat but he was hardly a friend to the left. Clinton abhorred social welfare, and tight regulations on financial enterprises. He also preached the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman. Yeltsin was the same. Liberalism is a term that could refer to both the left and the right. Conservative on the other hand is a term that is only used to refer to the political right. I classify Yeltsin as a conservative and an anti-socialist and Leninist. Caustic3 (talk) 00:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

We have a Reliable Source in the article which explicitly describes Yeltsin as an adherent of "liberal Russian nationalism". Yeltsin favoured free enterprise, a privatised economy, and a move towards something resembling liberal democratic governance. These are all liberal positions, as the term liberalism is understood in an international sense. Confusion arises over the fact that in the U.S. specifically, a country fundamentally built on liberal principles, the word liberal has in recent decades come to be used generically for what otherwise might be better labelled "left-wing", as you note. (Ironically, of course, many self-described U.S. "liberals" now espouse views that, in an international context, are pretty non-liberal, like emphasising state ownership and identity politics over individual liberty). We must not only follow the Reliable Sources, but also avoid imposing very U.S.-centric uses of the word on other parts of the world. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

"President Yeltsin's" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect President Yeltsin's and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 8#President Yeltsin's until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. feminist (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Download size is ENORMOUS! 850MB! Please fix!

Hi,

I just tried to save this page to my flash drive so I could read it in full later and also refer back to it, and the download was going to be 850 MB, according to my download manager. I skimmed the page, found there is at least one video (Boris and Bill Clinton 'share a laugh') and looking at the source code for the page I saw that there are various webm files listed in that section. When I then ran a count of how many times webm appeared in the source code, it was 61.

Presumably the page's code is written such that it's attempting to supply me with all or a good number of those videos - I don't want them! (Especially not when I have around 500 MB left before I run out of data allowance.)

Could someone sort out the code or editing (it's beyond me, currently) so that the videos aren't part of the download for the page? I'm fairly sure OGGs don't download automatically, do they? Anyway, this is excessive, at 850 MB - I can just imagine school kids running into trouble, too, with their teachers and the admin, if the security settings on their school intranet even allow them to download the page, considering what comes with it.

TIA heaps to the 'rescuer'!

Mathsgirl (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, to download a page, I would recommend to click the built-in Download as PDF option on the sidebar (H:PDFD for more details). There is only one video on this page. Regards. Mellk (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Boris Yeltsin 4 April 1996.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Diversity of sources needed in Reception and Legacy section.

At this point in time, every single one of the contributions to this section, are from american / NY sources, including one ex-russian american immigrant.

diverse as usual, WikiP.

How about someone commenting on which money influxed-in, or what kinds of impacts of rapid investment had in both immediate new business terms, as-well-as political self-conceptualization / how successful & unsuccessful it was on ex-USSR citizens' concepts of self, or something else psychological / psycho-political?

or pff... i dunno,.. other stuff, confidence in Moscow, uncertainty out in the country, etc? 120.19.133.148 (talk) 22:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

New photo for infobox

There is a new photo with high resolution here File:Boris Yeltsin Kremlin.ru.jpg. I propose to set it as a main image in infobox. FlorianH76 (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The Soviet Union didn't collapse because of Yeltsin.

User:Mellk Why are you restoring the paragraph ‘This section needs additional citations for verification. ’ Use verified sources. Why are you inserting an unverified sentence?

There are claims that Yeltsin forcibly dismantled the Soviet Union, but many experts deny this. Experts point out that the most immediate event that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union was the 1991 Ukrainian independence referendum.

According to Brian D Taylor, the 1991 Soviet coup attempt that failed, most of the republics adopted declarations of independence, the most important of which was that of Ukraine on 24 August. By the end of September, eight republics had declared independence: Belarus, Moldova, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Tajikistan and Armenia. These declarations of independence were largely symbolic and did not mean withdrawal from the Union. Negotiations on the union continued for several months, but in the end, in the 1991 Ukrainian independence referendum, more than 90 per cent of Ukrainians voted for independence. Almost all observers agreed that serious federal discussions were impossible without Ukraine's participation. On 6 December, shortly after Ukraine's independence referendum, the Supreme Soviet of Ukraine adopted a new military oath pledging loyalty to Ukraine. On 13 December, Leonid Kravchuk proclaimed himself Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and declared that the Ukrainian Armed Forces would be formed from Soviet troops stationed in Ukraine.

According to Mark Kramer, Boris Yeltsin often expressed his willingness to accept the independence of the Baltic states and Georgia and Moldova. But he wanted to preserve the Union. What deprived Boris Yeltsin of this option was the surge of independence sentiment in Ukraine after the 1991 Soviet coup attempt. The Ukrainian referendum on independence in 1991 resulted in an overwhelming vote for independence. For Yeltsin, the only way to preserve the Soviet Union was to use massive force against Ukraine.  However, Yeltsin chose not to do this and instead recognised the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

According to John B Dunlop, Boris Yeltsin had agreed with Gorbachev to stay in the Union, but the condition of staying in the Union was that Ukraine should not secede from the Union. Yeltsin tried to maintain the Union, but gave up when 90% voted for independence in the 1991 Ukrainian independence referendum.

According to Adrian Karatnycky, It may have been Russia and Boris Yeltsin who thwarted a coup and brought down the Soviet Communist Party, but it was Leonid Kravchuk and Ukraine that ultimately brought down the Soviet empire. Ukraine's rejection of Mikhail Gorbachev's Union Treaty led to the immediate collapse of the Soviet Union.

According to Peter J. Potichnyj, Boris Yeltsin and Mikhail Gorbachev consistently sabotaged Ukraine's independence. On December 1, 1991, the results of the Ukrainian referendum showed that more than 90 percent of the electorate voted for independence. Because the referendum was conducted in an open and democratic manner, it convinced Russia and world leaders that the Soviet system was no longer viable or sustainable.

According to Taras Kuzio, in the period between the declaration of independence in August 1991 and the independence referendum in December 1991, Boris Yeltsin and Mikhail Gorbachev tried to keep Ukraine within the Soviet Union. Yeltsin's intention was to keep Ukraine within the Soviet Union, but when the 1991 Ukrainian independence referendum resulted in an overwhelming 90 per cent vote in favour, Yeltsin was unable to implement his plan to keep the country within the Soviet Union.

According to Mark Kramer (2022), even after the failed coup of August 1991, Boris Yeltsin hoped to preserve the union linking Russia and Ukraine with Belarus, Kazakhstan and other Central Asian republics. By the autumn of 1991, however, it was clear that the majority of Ukrainians would vote for full independence on 1 December. Yeltsin realised that it would be impossible to maintain the Soviet Union after the 1991 Ukrainian independence referendum, and eventually joined the Belovezha agreements and the Alma-Ata protocol.

According to Laura Blaj, the Ukrainian Communist Party rejected the Soviet reforms of Gorbachev and Yeltsin. This was a decisive factor in Ukraine's overwhelmingly positive vote. The Communist conservatives were allied with Ukrainian nationalists, and the result of the Ukrainian referendum on December 1, 1991, led directly to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Anti-Soviet1991 (talk) 11:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The policy is WP:DUE, we do not need eight paragraphs for what is essentially the same viewpoint. If you wish, then this can be cut down to one sentence. Instead of restoring your changes, please follow WP:BRD. Mellk (talk) 11:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've never broken WP:DUE. Anti-Soviet1991 (talk) 11:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. Please see WP:CONSENSUS instead of restoring your changes. Mellk (talk) 11:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I request that you provide evidence that I have ignored WP:DUE. Anti-Soviet1991 (talk) 11:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no valid reason to have eight paragraphs about one viewpoint on his role in the collapse of the Soviet Union under the heading "President of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic", which should be about his career. Your edit makes this so nearly the whole section is about this rather than his career. This is not WP:DUE. This does not belong in this section and you simply copy-pasted this from your edit to dissolution of the Soviet Union. If anything, this should only be briefly mentioned in the legacy section. Mellk (talk) 11:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

If you also wish to delete the unsourced text, then you can do so, but please do not use a misleading edit summary to delete this and re-add disputed content. Mellk (talk) 11:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

If so, please be the first to correct it in line with Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Anti-Soviet1991 (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

There is also WP:ONUS, as I mentioned in the other talk page. Since there is no good reason to duplicate the discussion, let us use one talk page. Mellk (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

So does that mean that if I simply lower the weight of the sentence, there's no problem? Anti-Soviet1991 (talk) 11:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest to only include one sentence or a small paragraph in the legacy section that says that some scholars believe that the immediate reason for collapse was due to the independence referendum, rather than Yeltsin, is that fair? We can work on exact wording in this discussion. Mellk (talk) 11:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)