This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello. What is the copyright status of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia? Who wrote it, exactly -- was it an official publication of the Soviet government? Any information about the status of Soviet-era copyrights in general, and the GSE in particular, would be very helpful. Thanks for your help, Wile E. Heresiarch 17:39, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
What about the translation copyrights? If the orginal was not coprighted, can its translation be copyrighted? And if so, can the Russian text be retranslated and released into PD in the second translation? How much difference must be between first and second translations, so that the second is not accussed of being a rip-off the first? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:49, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Not that I see many people copying more than "what is needed for personal research" or "quotes for reference" - it is more interesting as a concept which might be applicable elsewhere.
To what extent would the above rules apply to other "official publications of no longer extant states"? The present governments of former Communist states which remain extant probably retain the copyrights of Communist-era publication (or would advise) - but what about eg Czechoslovakia? Jackiespeel 17:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
All articles which related to Bolshevik leaders who were purged were changed, Trotsky, Bukharin, Zinoviev. Fred Bauder 21:54, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
I've just translated the article to Japanese wikipedia, but the publication date and the volume number of each edition of the Encyclopedia are different from the Russian Wiki, and some other sources (Here I picked up from Encarta and some American uni's library catalog(?)).
This article (English wiki)
[1]Russian
and, http://web.library.emory.edu/subjects/humanities/history/CCCP/Guide.html
Does anybody have any info on this? Can anybody confirm which publication data and which volume number are true? Hans castorp81 16:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
I've got the 3rd edition of БСЭ. It has 31 volumes, numbered from 1 to 30. There are two volumes with number 24: '24-I' (roman 1) and '24-II' (roman 2). The first one is the 'regular' alphabetic volume with articles from Собаки (Dogs) to Струна (String). The second one is titled CCCР (USSR), and it is all about the country, its geography, history, science, social life, government bodies, ideology, politics, every one of the 15 Soviet republics, and so on. Volumes 24-I and 24-II are both of full size: 607 and 575 pages respectively. 217.114.151.228 14:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I fill the the original name for the ASE and correct the english translation Azeri to Azerbaijani since it is more suitable. Azeri has a little different meaning which is disputed in fact.-- Araks 11:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
If caught possesing an unrevised copy, one could have faced several years of imprisonment.
There could have been no official law saying that, so there is no way to know that "one could have faced" such a thing. From what I know about Soviet reality, it seems unlikely - revisions in party ideology and evaluations of specific political figures changed many times during Soviet history, but nobody was prosecuted for the mere possession of official state-published materials reflecting earlier dogma. I have inherited a copy of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia from my own grandfather, and his copy has the "original" Beria article. He was never imprisoned, as far as I know. :-) -- 91.148.159.4 ( talk) 15:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The series formerly in Ealing Central Library is no longer on general access. Jackiespeel ( talk) 19:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
needs help. Whoever's watching this, please address if you can. Or I'll do it later. -- Y not? 19:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I cited the source: (Richard Pipes, (1995), Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime, New York: Vintage Books, Random House Inc., ISBN 0-394-50242-6, page 297). Please cite your source.). Please cite your secondary sources if it tells something different, instead of removing content you do not like. Biophys ( talk) 03:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
"При Совете Министров СССР имеются (1971) следующие Г. у.: архивное; геодезии и картографии; гидрометеорологической службы; микробиологической промышленности; по иностранному туризму; по охране государственных тайн в печати и др."
"I cited my source (Richard Pipes, (1995), Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime, New York: Vintage Books, Random House Inc., ISBN 0-394-50242-6, page 297). Please cite your source."
Can we dial down the heat, please?
Is the issue that we're saying Pipes does not mention Glavlit? In that case the appropriate action is to tag the Glavlit sentence as requiring a source. It's not question of WP:OR. If a publication is subject to censorship while it claims to end other censorship, that is useful and informative
Also, while one can infer Glavlit is mentioned in PasswordUsername's passage with reference to the "protection of state secrets," what is stated is only that the function reports to the Council of Ministers. Moreover, there is no statement the GSE is reviewed by those engaged in the "protection of state secrets." Uncivil charges of idiocy are not helpful here. (
Vecrumba
TALK 05:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
(od) I've entered alternate content for now regarding censorship leaving out the issue of whether the GSE self-mentions censorship by a department of the same organ the GSE reports to (Council of Ministers). I trust you will find that an improvement. (As for civility, not using "idiot" in the first place avoids any miscommunication and misperception, no?) As Pipes is not available online and I don't have it in print, I can't support or dispute what Pipes contends with regard to Glavlit and the GSE. Vecrumba TALK 21:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I added communist propaganda category to this article, but User:PasswordUsername reverted my edit [10]. Great Soviet Encyclopedia was written from a communist viewpoint. It was not any scholarly encyclopedia, but simply propaganda. Your article itself says The Great Soviet Encyclopedia had a strong pro-communist bias. Then why these two categories were removed? BTW I have a reliable source as per wiki guideline which says the purpose of Great Soviet Encyclopedia was propaganda. [11] -- Joklolk ( talk) 10:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Here's another ref to support the inclusion of the cat [12] radek ( talk) 11:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
And here [13]. BTW, even though today the term "propaganda" has a negative connotation, the Soviets (and the Nazis for that matter) did not see it that way and freely admitted that they were engaging in propaganda (i.e. political persuasion). radek ( talk) 11:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The Great Soviet Encyclopedia was certainly biased and presented material in a manner that did not create the impression of conflict with the ideology of the state, but none of this is the same as calling the factual material stated in the encyclopedia a piece of "propaganda." Neither of the refs given by Radeksz actually even attempt to discuss the Soviet encyclopedia as a propagandistic piece -- "Great Soviet Encyclopedia" and propaganda do not even occur in one sentence anywhere in the provided links. Hence, "Great Soviet encyclopedia = communist propaganda" is WP:OR and should be removed. PasswordUsername ( talk) 17:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Years ago I had the opportunity to read the English translation at a university library (see, http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/). It was amusing to observe that the article on Boston, Massachusetts (where I lived at the time) showed a picture of the "State Bank" near a paragraph indicating Boston's importance as a financial center. The picture was actually of the 225 Franklin Street building of the State Street Bank and Trust, which is a private bank, not a "State" bank ( gosbank) at all.
Finding errors in an encyclopedia is something that stirs the heart of anyone who has done even the least bit of work on Wikipedia. There must have been other curious errors of that sort, as the Great Soviet encyclopedia is huge and I viewed only a small part of it. I believe that a gold mine of errors awaits someone with access and with the gumption to wade through the English translation. A small list of errors could be a fine addition to this article. The research involved wouldn't be tremendously original, would it? Snezzy ( talk) 17:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Xx236 ( talk) 07:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Xx236 ( talk) 08:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Basic Library Research Skills - Evaluating Reference Sources of the Southern Utah University gives an example of a biased and outdated source - the GSE article "American aggression in Vietnam": [17]
Xx236 ( talk) 08:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
...someone studying Stalinist culture might use the GSE as a primary source (as a product of the culture)...
Some foreigners believe that US (in fact sometimes Canadian) TV series are a source describing the life in the USA and don't accept the real USA. The same the GSE presents the life in the SU and the outside world. A number of forigners emigrated to the SU and died young there or were exported as spies (it's better to construct the communism in the USA than in Siberia). Xx236 ( talk) 08:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
There was a discussion in 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard%2FArchive_34#Russian_scholarship_from_Soviet-era
One of the editors was a sock puppet of Jacob Peters and has been blocked indefinitely, the same as Jacob Peters himself. Xx236 ( talk) 09:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition informs about many critics (Notable commentaries on the Eleventh Edition) and today opinions, this article doesn't. Xx236 ( talk) 09:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
GSE interprets events from a Communist viewpoint.
The silent supression of alternative viewpoints or interpretations constitutes bias.
Xx236 ( talk) 08:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
"Basic Library Research Skills - Evaluating Reference Sources of the Southern Utah University gives an example of a biased and outdated source - the GSE article "American aggression in Vietnam": [17]"
This is really an unencyclopedic inclusion for a criticism section.
@Xx236, no one would accuse me of being pro-Soviet, so consider that you confuse what the GSE is described by its editors as to its intentions versus it not being complete because it doesn't document the Soviet underbelly. The article as it stood did not indicate that that the GSE was unbiased.
VєсrumЬа ►
TALK 19:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Xx236 ( talk) 07:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
There's no good reason for the POV tag. My original expansions of the article as to what the GSE has stated within itself and what its editors have stated were probably sufficient regarding the GSE promoting the Soviet way. There's no dispute that history served politics in Soviet life and as reflected in Soviet reference works, and that the GSE is not reliable for versions of history created to serve the aims of the Soviet regime. I've reviewed the article and don't see any blatant alleged "pot shots" and am removing the tag. VєсrumЬа ► TALK 14:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
The table should inform about Attempts and Editions. Xx236 ( talk) 08:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Was the GSE one or rather three? The infobox misinforms. Xx236 ( talk) 08:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
The section informs about the 2nd and 3rd editions, nothing about the 1st one. Xx236 ( talk) 06:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
There was no Marxist-Leninist theory in 1949, only the Stalinist one. Xx236 ( talk) 08:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
"Marxist-Leninist theory" is Stalinism, because the term "Marxism-Leninism" originated with Joseph Stalin. Benjamin5152414 ( talk) 16:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Great Soviet Encyclopedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Great Soviet Encylopaedia. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC 678 15:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello. What is the copyright status of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia? Who wrote it, exactly -- was it an official publication of the Soviet government? Any information about the status of Soviet-era copyrights in general, and the GSE in particular, would be very helpful. Thanks for your help, Wile E. Heresiarch 17:39, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
What about the translation copyrights? If the orginal was not coprighted, can its translation be copyrighted? And if so, can the Russian text be retranslated and released into PD in the second translation? How much difference must be between first and second translations, so that the second is not accussed of being a rip-off the first? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:49, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Not that I see many people copying more than "what is needed for personal research" or "quotes for reference" - it is more interesting as a concept which might be applicable elsewhere.
To what extent would the above rules apply to other "official publications of no longer extant states"? The present governments of former Communist states which remain extant probably retain the copyrights of Communist-era publication (or would advise) - but what about eg Czechoslovakia? Jackiespeel 17:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
All articles which related to Bolshevik leaders who were purged were changed, Trotsky, Bukharin, Zinoviev. Fred Bauder 21:54, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
I've just translated the article to Japanese wikipedia, but the publication date and the volume number of each edition of the Encyclopedia are different from the Russian Wiki, and some other sources (Here I picked up from Encarta and some American uni's library catalog(?)).
This article (English wiki)
[1]Russian
and, http://web.library.emory.edu/subjects/humanities/history/CCCP/Guide.html
Does anybody have any info on this? Can anybody confirm which publication data and which volume number are true? Hans castorp81 16:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
I've got the 3rd edition of БСЭ. It has 31 volumes, numbered from 1 to 30. There are two volumes with number 24: '24-I' (roman 1) and '24-II' (roman 2). The first one is the 'regular' alphabetic volume with articles from Собаки (Dogs) to Струна (String). The second one is titled CCCР (USSR), and it is all about the country, its geography, history, science, social life, government bodies, ideology, politics, every one of the 15 Soviet republics, and so on. Volumes 24-I and 24-II are both of full size: 607 and 575 pages respectively. 217.114.151.228 14:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I fill the the original name for the ASE and correct the english translation Azeri to Azerbaijani since it is more suitable. Azeri has a little different meaning which is disputed in fact.-- Araks 11:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
If caught possesing an unrevised copy, one could have faced several years of imprisonment.
There could have been no official law saying that, so there is no way to know that "one could have faced" such a thing. From what I know about Soviet reality, it seems unlikely - revisions in party ideology and evaluations of specific political figures changed many times during Soviet history, but nobody was prosecuted for the mere possession of official state-published materials reflecting earlier dogma. I have inherited a copy of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia from my own grandfather, and his copy has the "original" Beria article. He was never imprisoned, as far as I know. :-) -- 91.148.159.4 ( talk) 15:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The series formerly in Ealing Central Library is no longer on general access. Jackiespeel ( talk) 19:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
needs help. Whoever's watching this, please address if you can. Or I'll do it later. -- Y not? 19:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I cited the source: (Richard Pipes, (1995), Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime, New York: Vintage Books, Random House Inc., ISBN 0-394-50242-6, page 297). Please cite your source.). Please cite your secondary sources if it tells something different, instead of removing content you do not like. Biophys ( talk) 03:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
"При Совете Министров СССР имеются (1971) следующие Г. у.: архивное; геодезии и картографии; гидрометеорологической службы; микробиологической промышленности; по иностранному туризму; по охране государственных тайн в печати и др."
"I cited my source (Richard Pipes, (1995), Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime, New York: Vintage Books, Random House Inc., ISBN 0-394-50242-6, page 297). Please cite your source."
Can we dial down the heat, please?
Is the issue that we're saying Pipes does not mention Glavlit? In that case the appropriate action is to tag the Glavlit sentence as requiring a source. It's not question of WP:OR. If a publication is subject to censorship while it claims to end other censorship, that is useful and informative
Also, while one can infer Glavlit is mentioned in PasswordUsername's passage with reference to the "protection of state secrets," what is stated is only that the function reports to the Council of Ministers. Moreover, there is no statement the GSE is reviewed by those engaged in the "protection of state secrets." Uncivil charges of idiocy are not helpful here. (
Vecrumba
TALK 05:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
(od) I've entered alternate content for now regarding censorship leaving out the issue of whether the GSE self-mentions censorship by a department of the same organ the GSE reports to (Council of Ministers). I trust you will find that an improvement. (As for civility, not using "idiot" in the first place avoids any miscommunication and misperception, no?) As Pipes is not available online and I don't have it in print, I can't support or dispute what Pipes contends with regard to Glavlit and the GSE. Vecrumba TALK 21:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I added communist propaganda category to this article, but User:PasswordUsername reverted my edit [10]. Great Soviet Encyclopedia was written from a communist viewpoint. It was not any scholarly encyclopedia, but simply propaganda. Your article itself says The Great Soviet Encyclopedia had a strong pro-communist bias. Then why these two categories were removed? BTW I have a reliable source as per wiki guideline which says the purpose of Great Soviet Encyclopedia was propaganda. [11] -- Joklolk ( talk) 10:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Here's another ref to support the inclusion of the cat [12] radek ( talk) 11:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
And here [13]. BTW, even though today the term "propaganda" has a negative connotation, the Soviets (and the Nazis for that matter) did not see it that way and freely admitted that they were engaging in propaganda (i.e. political persuasion). radek ( talk) 11:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The Great Soviet Encyclopedia was certainly biased and presented material in a manner that did not create the impression of conflict with the ideology of the state, but none of this is the same as calling the factual material stated in the encyclopedia a piece of "propaganda." Neither of the refs given by Radeksz actually even attempt to discuss the Soviet encyclopedia as a propagandistic piece -- "Great Soviet Encyclopedia" and propaganda do not even occur in one sentence anywhere in the provided links. Hence, "Great Soviet encyclopedia = communist propaganda" is WP:OR and should be removed. PasswordUsername ( talk) 17:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Years ago I had the opportunity to read the English translation at a university library (see, http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/). It was amusing to observe that the article on Boston, Massachusetts (where I lived at the time) showed a picture of the "State Bank" near a paragraph indicating Boston's importance as a financial center. The picture was actually of the 225 Franklin Street building of the State Street Bank and Trust, which is a private bank, not a "State" bank ( gosbank) at all.
Finding errors in an encyclopedia is something that stirs the heart of anyone who has done even the least bit of work on Wikipedia. There must have been other curious errors of that sort, as the Great Soviet encyclopedia is huge and I viewed only a small part of it. I believe that a gold mine of errors awaits someone with access and with the gumption to wade through the English translation. A small list of errors could be a fine addition to this article. The research involved wouldn't be tremendously original, would it? Snezzy ( talk) 17:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Xx236 ( talk) 07:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Xx236 ( talk) 08:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Basic Library Research Skills - Evaluating Reference Sources of the Southern Utah University gives an example of a biased and outdated source - the GSE article "American aggression in Vietnam": [17]
Xx236 ( talk) 08:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
...someone studying Stalinist culture might use the GSE as a primary source (as a product of the culture)...
Some foreigners believe that US (in fact sometimes Canadian) TV series are a source describing the life in the USA and don't accept the real USA. The same the GSE presents the life in the SU and the outside world. A number of forigners emigrated to the SU and died young there or were exported as spies (it's better to construct the communism in the USA than in Siberia). Xx236 ( talk) 08:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
There was a discussion in 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard%2FArchive_34#Russian_scholarship_from_Soviet-era
One of the editors was a sock puppet of Jacob Peters and has been blocked indefinitely, the same as Jacob Peters himself. Xx236 ( talk) 09:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition informs about many critics (Notable commentaries on the Eleventh Edition) and today opinions, this article doesn't. Xx236 ( talk) 09:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
GSE interprets events from a Communist viewpoint.
The silent supression of alternative viewpoints or interpretations constitutes bias.
Xx236 ( talk) 08:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
"Basic Library Research Skills - Evaluating Reference Sources of the Southern Utah University gives an example of a biased and outdated source - the GSE article "American aggression in Vietnam": [17]"
This is really an unencyclopedic inclusion for a criticism section.
@Xx236, no one would accuse me of being pro-Soviet, so consider that you confuse what the GSE is described by its editors as to its intentions versus it not being complete because it doesn't document the Soviet underbelly. The article as it stood did not indicate that that the GSE was unbiased.
VєсrumЬа ►
TALK 19:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Xx236 ( talk) 07:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
There's no good reason for the POV tag. My original expansions of the article as to what the GSE has stated within itself and what its editors have stated were probably sufficient regarding the GSE promoting the Soviet way. There's no dispute that history served politics in Soviet life and as reflected in Soviet reference works, and that the GSE is not reliable for versions of history created to serve the aims of the Soviet regime. I've reviewed the article and don't see any blatant alleged "pot shots" and am removing the tag. VєсrumЬа ► TALK 14:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
The table should inform about Attempts and Editions. Xx236 ( talk) 08:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Was the GSE one or rather three? The infobox misinforms. Xx236 ( talk) 08:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
The section informs about the 2nd and 3rd editions, nothing about the 1st one. Xx236 ( talk) 06:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
There was no Marxist-Leninist theory in 1949, only the Stalinist one. Xx236 ( talk) 08:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
"Marxist-Leninist theory" is Stalinism, because the term "Marxism-Leninism" originated with Joseph Stalin. Benjamin5152414 ( talk) 16:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Great Soviet Encyclopedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Great Soviet Encylopaedia. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC 678 15:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)