Talk:Vyacheslav Molotov

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vyacheslav Molotov article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 12 months

Vyacheslav Molotov 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 18, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
November 24, 2024	Good article reassessment	Kept

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 9, 2017.

Current status: Good article

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Socialism High‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Soviet Union: Russia / History Top‑importance

	Soviet Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Russia portal This article is supported by WikiProject Russia (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.

International relations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Zinnober9 engaging in non-constructive behavior

Zinnober9 reverted my edit, which would have been fine, but they then brought a patently and obviously false charge of vandalism against me that cannot be sustained in any reading of my edit. This suggests that Zinnober9 is biased and is engaging with ulterior motives. 203.192.209.6 (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Special:Diff/1208748242 vandalism? No. Is it supported by the provided reference? Also no. It's a fine sentiment and I can see why you would put it there, but without a reference to support it (somewhere in the body of the text) we can't be adding superlatives like "greatest" so I can also see why it was removed. Please assume good faith and don't immediately assume that anyone who has a different opinion that you is somehow biased or out to get you. Primefac (talk) 07:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IP:

I do not appreciate your making these claims of me and my character based on our one and only interaction prior to your posting this. Other than your reply on your IP's talk page (which you posted immediately prior to this) you made no attempt to discuss with me any issues between us before you made these claims of me here. I would have appreciated a chat on your (or my) talk page with us each replying at least once prior to this public thread being started so that we might have worked things out before sharing our disagreement publicly.

While I admit I was in error in choosing to leave the warning message that I left on your talk page instead of leaving a message stating I'd reverted you for lack of a reliable source. Sorry for that; I've struck the warning message as a gesture of good faith. As for my revert, I was correct in reverting as the use of a puffery statement without any clearly understood, Reliably Sourced reference to support the claim is a generally a remove on sight issue as puffery is not permitted phrasing (unless it is part of a reliably sourced quote).

"Anderson" is not a valid, reliable source because it is not clear who Anderson is, or what the sourced work reference is. If that is fixable, and meets reliable sourcing criteria, I won't have any objections.

Best wishes, Zinnober9 (talk) 05:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am very confused. Have you actually read the article before engaging in this? The Anderson reference that so puzzles you was not originated by me, but was already present in the article.

What you are reverting is not addition of new content/"puffery" but simply surfacing (already referenced) material from the body of the article into the lead. If you have any concerns regarding the citations in the pre-existing content then let's talk about that, otherwise I don't see any grounds to oppose this material being significant enough to mention in the lead. 203.192.209.6 (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as for working things out, you opened our interaction by slapping a vandalism notice so I really don't see how I was the escalating party here. Nevertheless, you apologised and struck out your notice, and I appreciate that. 203.192.209.6 (talk) 00:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are outlined below:

There is uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs and the entire "Portrayals in media" section
There is at least one large block quotes used in the article from secondary sources. This creates copyright concerns, and in my opinion this information should be summarised instead. The block quote of what Stalin said is also quite large and should probably be reduced as well.

Is anyone willing to address the above concerns, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 03:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Vyacheslav Molotov

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Closing as keep: initial objections to GA status have now been addressed and retracted. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs and the "Portrayals in media" section. There are also lots of large block quotes of secondary sources which should be summarised and used as prose instead. Z1720 (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think this meets the GA standards at the moment, but it's not the worst that I've seen. I think all the (remaining?) block quotes are quotations from primary documents (though they are quoted in secondary sources), which is generally forgivable (it's a textbook FUR when they are quotations of or about the article's subject) if not necessarily best practice. Most of the uncited material is short paragraphs, which makes me wonder if they are simply meant to be covered by the citation of the following paragraph? If anybody does want to pick this up, I don't expect it would be a huge job. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delist~~ @Chiswick Chap: fixed some of the block quotes, but the article still has lots of uncited prose. Z1720 (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As UndercoverClassicist says, very little wrong here, I think. I've paraphrased some (more) blockquotes, cleared the cn items, and added a ref or two. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Uncited statements have been resolved. No further concerns. Z1720 (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.