text:
Ben Jonson

Benjamin Jonson (c. 11 June 1572) was an English playwright and poet. Jonson's artistry exerted a lasting influence on English poetry and stage comedy. He popularised the comedy of humours; he is best known for the satirical plays Every Man in His Humour (1598), Volpone, or The Fox (c. 1606), The Alchemist (1610) and Bartholomew Fair (1614) and for his lyric and epigrammatic poetry. He is regarded as "the second most important English dramatist, after William Shakespeare, during the reign of James I."

Jonson was a classically educated, well-read and cultured man of the English Renaissance with an appetite for controversy (personal and political, artistic and intellectual) whose cultural influence was of unparalleled breadth upon the playwrights and the poets of the Jacobean era (1603–1625) and of the Caroline era (1625–1642).

Early life
In midlife, Jonson said his paternal grandfather, who "served King Henry and was a gentleman", was a member of the extended Johnston family of Annandale in the Dumfries and Galloway, a genealogy that is attested by the three spindles (rhombi) in the Jonson family coat of arms: one spindle is a diamond-shaped heraldic device used by the Johnston family. His ancestors spelt the family name with a letter "t" (Johnstone or Johnstoun). While the spelling had eventually changed to the more common "Johnson", the playwright's own particular preference became "Jonson".

Jonson's father lost his property, was imprisoned, and, as a Protestant, suffered forfeiture under Queen Mary. Becoming a clergyman upon his release, he died a month before his son's birth. His widow married a master bricklayer two years later. Jonson attended school in St Martin's Lane in London. Later, a family friend paid for his studies at Westminster School, where the antiquarian, historian, topographer and officer of arms William Camden (1551–1623) was one of his masters. The pupil and master became friends, and the intellectual influence of Camden's broad-ranging scholarship upon Jonson's art and literary style remained notable, until Camden's death in 1623. At Westminster School he met the Welsh poet Hugh Holland, with whom he established an "enduring relationship". Both of them would write preliminary poems for William Shakespeare's First Folio (1623).

On leaving Westminster School in 1589, Jonson attended St John's College, Cambridge, to continue his book learning. However, because of his unwilled apprenticeship to his bricklayer stepfather, he returned after a month. According to the churchman and historian Thomas Fuller (1608–61), Jonson at this time built a garden wall in Lincoln's Inn. After having been an apprentice bricklayer, Jonson went to the Netherlands and volunteered to soldier with the English regiments of Sir Francis Vere (1560–1609) in Flanders. England was allied with the Dutch in their fight for independence as well as the ongoing war with Spain.

The Hawthornden Manuscripts (1619), of the conversations between Ben Jonson and the poet William Drummond of Hawthornden (1585–1649), report that, when in Flanders, Jonson engaged, fought and killed an enemy soldier in single combat, and took for trophies the weapons of the vanquished soldier.

Johnson is reputed to have visited the antiquary Sir Robert Cotton at a residence of his in Chester early in the 17th century.

After his military activity on the Continent, Jonson returned to England and worked as an actor and as a playwright. As an actor, he was the protagonist "Hieronimo" (Geronimo) in the play The Spanish Tragedy (c. 1586), by Thomas Kyd (1558–94), the first revenge tragedy in English literature. By 1597, he was a working playwright employed by Philip Henslowe, the leading producer for the English public theatre; by the next year, the production of Every Man in His Humour (1598) had established Jonson's reputation as a dramatist.

Jonson described his wife to William Drummond as "a shrew, yet honest". The identity of Jonson's wife is obscure, though she sometimes is identified as "Ann Lewis", the woman who married a Benjamin Jonson in 1594, at the church of St Magnus-the-Martyr, near London Bridge.

The registers of St Martin-in-the-Fields record that Mary Jonson, their eldest daughter, died in November 1593, at six months of age. A decade later, in 1603, Benjamin Jonson, their eldest son, died of bubonic plague when he was seven years old, upon which Jonson wrote the elegiac "On My First Sonne" (1603). A second son, also named Benjamin Jonson, died in 1635.

During that period, Jonson and his wife lived separate lives for five years; Jonson enjoyed the residential hospitality of his patrons, Esme Stuart, 3rd Duke of Lennox and 7th Seigneur d'Aubigny and Sir Robert Townshend.

Career
By summer 1597, Jonson had a fixed engagement in the Admiral's Men, then performing under Philip Henslowe's management at The Rose. John Aubrey reports, on uncertain authority, that Jonson was not successful as an actor; whatever his skills as an actor, he was more valuable to the company as a writer.

By this time Jonson had begun to write original plays for the Admiral's Men; in 1598 he was mentioned by Francis Meres in his Palladis Tamia as one of "the best for tragedy." None of his early tragedies survive, however. An undated comedy, The Case is Altered, may be his earliest surviving play.

In 1597, a play which he co-wrote with Thomas Nashe, The Isle of Dogs, was suppressed after causing great offence. Arrest warrants for Jonson and Nashe were issued by Queen Elizabeth I's so-called interrogator, Richard Topcliffe. Jonson was jailed in Marshalsea Prison and charged with "Leude and mutynous behaviour", while Nashe managed to escape to Great Yarmouth. Two of the actors, Gabriel Spenser and Robert Shaw, were also imprisoned. A year later, Jonson was again briefly imprisoned, this time in Newgate Prison, for killing Gabriel Spenser in a duel on 22 September 1598 in Hogsden Fields (today part of Hoxton). Tried on a charge of manslaughter, Jonson pleaded guilty but was released by benefit of clergy, a legal ploy through which he gained leniency by reciting a brief Bible verse (the neck-verse), forfeiting his "goods and chattels" and being branded with the so-called Tyburn T on his left thumb.

While in jail Jonson converted to Catholicism, possibly through the influence of fellow-prisoner Father Thomas Wright, a Jesuit priest.

In 1598 Jonson produced his first great success, Every Man in His Humour, capitalising on the vogue for humorous plays which George Chapman had begun with An Humorous Day's Mirth. William Shakespeare was among the first actors to be cast. Jonson followed this in 1599 with Every Man out of His Humour, a pedantic attempt to imitate Aristophanes. It is not known whether this was a success on stage, but when published it proved popular and went through several editions.

Jonson's other work for the theatre in the last years of Elizabeth I's reign was marked by fighting and controversy. Cynthia's Revels was produced by the Children of the Chapel Royal at Blackfriars Theatre in 1600. It satirised both John Marston, who Jonson believed had accused him of lustfulness in Histriomastix, and Thomas Dekker. Jonson attacked the two poets again in Poetaster (1601). Dekker responded with Satiromastix, subtitled "the untrussing of the humorous poet". The final scene of this play, while certainly not to be taken at face value as a portrait of Jonson, offers a caricature that is recognisable from Drummond's report – boasting about himself and condemning other poets, criticising performances of his plays and calling attention to himself in any available way.

This "War of the Theatres" appears to have ended with reconciliation on all sides. Jonson collaborated with Dekker on a pageant welcoming James I to England in 1603 although Drummond reports that Jonson called Dekker a rogue. Marston dedicated The Malcontent to Jonson and the two collaborated with Chapman on Eastward Ho!, a 1605 play whose anti-Scottish sentiment briefly landed both Jonson and Chapman in jail.

Royal patronage
At the beginning of the English reign of James VI and I in 1603 Jonson joined other poets and playwrights in welcoming the new king. Jonson quickly adapted himself to the additional demand for masques and entertainments introduced with the new reign and fostered by both the king and his consort Anne of Denmark. In addition to his popularity on the public stage and in the royal hall, he enjoyed the patronage of aristocrats such as Elizabeth Sidney (daughter of Sir Philip Sidney) and Lady Mary Wroth. This connection with the Sidney family provided the impetus for one of Jonson's most famous lyrics, the country house poem To Penshurst.

In February 1603 John Manningham reported that Jonson was living on Robert Townsend, son of Sir Roger Townshend, and "scorns the world." Perhaps this explains why his trouble with English authorities continued. That same year he was questioned by the Privy Council about Sejanus, a politically themed play about corruption in the Roman Empire. He was again in trouble for topical allusions in a play, now lost, in which he took part. Shortly after his release from a brief spell of imprisonment imposed to mark the authorities' displeasure at the work, in the second week of October 1605, he was present at a supper party attended by most of the Gunpowder Plot conspirators. After the plot's discovery, he appears to have avoided further imprisonment; he volunteered what he knew of the affair to the investigator Robert Cecil and the Privy Council. Father Thomas Wright, who heard Fawkes's confession, was known to Jonson from prison in 1598 and Cecil may have directed him to bring the priest before the council, as a witness. At the same time, Jonson pursued a more prestigious career, writing masques for James's court. The Satyr (1603) and The Masque of Blackness (1605) are two of about two dozen masques which Jonson wrote for James or for Queen Anne, some of them performed at Apethorpe Palace when the King was in residence. The Masque of Blackness was praised by Algernon Charles Swinburne as the consummate example of this now-extinct genre, which mingled speech, dancing and spectacle.

On many of these projects, he collaborated, not always peacefully, with designer Inigo Jones. For example, Jones designed the scenery for Jonson's masque Oberon, the Faery Prince performed at Whitehall on 1 January 1611 in which Prince Henry, eldest son of James I, appeared in the title role. Perhaps partly as a result of this new career, Jonson gave up writing plays for the public theatres for a decade. He later told Drummond that he had made less than two hundred pounds on all his plays together.

In 1616 Jonson received a yearly pension of 100 marks (about £60), leading some to identify him as England's first Poet Laureate. This sign of royal favour may have encouraged him to publish the first volume of the folio-collected edition of his works that year. Other volumes followed in 1640–41 and 1692. (See: Ben Jonson folios)

On 8 July 1618 Jonson set out from Bishopsgate in London to walk to Edinburgh, arriving in Scotland's capital on 17 September. For the most part he followed the Great North Road, and was treated to lavish and enthusiastic welcomes in both towns and country houses. On his arrival he lodged initially with John Stuart, a cousin of King James, in Leith, and was made an honorary burgess of Edinburgh at a dinner laid on by the city on 26 September. He stayed in Scotland until late January 1619, and the best-remembered hospitality he enjoyed was that of the Scottish poet, William Drummond of Hawthornden, sited on the River Esk. Drummond undertook to record as much of Jonson's conversation as he could in his diary, and thus recorded aspects of Jonson's personality that would otherwise have been less clearly seen. Jonson delivers his opinions, in Drummond's terse reporting, in an expansive and even magisterial mood. Drummond noted he was "a great lover and praiser of himself, a contemner and scorner of others".

On returning to England, he was awarded an honorary Master of Arts degree from Oxford University.

The period between 1605 and 1620 may be viewed as Jonson's heyday. By 1616 he had produced all the plays on which his present reputation as a dramatist is based, including the tragedy Catiline (acted and printed 1611), which achieved limited success and the comedies Volpone (acted 1605 and printed in 1607), Epicoene, or the Silent Woman (1609), The Alchemist (1610), Bartholomew Fair (1614) and The Devil Is an Ass (1616). The Alchemist and Volpone were immediately successful. Of Epicoene, Jonson told Drummond of a satirical verse which reported that the play's subtitle was appropriate since its audience had refused to applaud the play (i.e., remained silent). Yet Epicoene, along with Bartholomew Fair and (to a lesser extent) The Devil is an Ass have in modern times achieved a certain degree of recognition. While his life during this period was apparently more settled than it had been in the 1590s, his financial security was still not assured.

Religion
Jonson recounted that his father had been a prosperous Protestant landowner until the reign of "Bloody Mary" and had suffered imprisonment and the forfeiture of his wealth during that monarch's attempt to restore England to Catholicism. On Elizabeth's accession, he had been freed and had been able to travel to London to become a clergyman. (All that is known of Jonson's father, who died a month before his son was born, comes from the poet's own narrative.) Jonson's elementary education was in a small church school attached to St Martin-in-the-Fields parish, and at the age of about seven he secured a place at Westminster School, then part of Westminster Abbey.

Notwithstanding this emphatically Protestant grounding, Jonson maintained an interest in Catholic doctrine throughout his adult life and, at a particularly perilous time while a religious war with Spain was widely expected and persecution of Catholics was intensifying, he converted to the faith. This took place in October 1598, while Jonson was on remand in Newgate Gaol charged with manslaughter. Jonson's biographer Ian Donaldson is among those who suggest that the conversion was instigated by Father Thomas Wright, a Jesuit priest who had resigned from the order over his acceptance of Queen Elizabeth's right to rule in England. Wright, although placed under house arrest on the orders of Lord Burghley, was permitted to minister to the inmates of London prisons. It may have been that Jonson, fearing that his trial would go against him, was seeking the unequivocal absolution that Catholicism could offer if he were sentenced to death. Alternatively, he could have been looking to personal advantage from accepting conversion since Father Wright's protector, the Earl of Essex, was among those who might hope to rise to influence after the succession of a new monarch. Jonson's conversion came at a weighty time in affairs of state; the royal succession, from the childless Elizabeth, had not been settled and Essex's Catholic allies were hopeful that a sympathetic ruler might attain the throne.

Conviction, and certainly not expedience alone, sustained Jonson's faith during the troublesome twelve years he remained a Catholic. His stance received attention beyond the low-level intolerance to which most followers of that faith were exposed. The first draft of his play Sejanus His Fall was banned for "popery", and did not re-appear until some offending passages were cut. In January 1606 he (with Anne, his wife) appeared before the Consistory Court in London to answer a charge of recusancy, with Jonson alone additionally accused of allowing his fame as a Catholic to "seduce" citizens to the cause. This was a serious matter (the Gunpowder Plot was still fresh in people's minds) but he explained that his failure to take communion was only because he had not found sound theological endorsement for the practice, and by paying a fine of thirteen shillings (156 pence) he escaped the more serious penalties at the authorities' disposal. His habit was to slip outside during the sacrament, a common routine at the time—indeed it was one followed by the royal consort, Queen Anne of Denmark, herself—to show political loyalty while not offending the conscience. Leading church figures, including John Overall, Dean of St Paul's, were tasked with winning Jonson back to Protestantism, but these overtures were resisted.

In May 1610 Henry IV of France was assassinated, purportedly in the name of the Pope; he had been a Catholic monarch respected in England for tolerance towards Protestants, and his murder seems to have been the immediate cause of Jonson's decision to rejoin the Church of England. He did this in flamboyant style, pointedly drinking a full chalice of communion wine at the eucharist to demonstrate his renunciation of the Catholic rite, in which the priest alone drinks the wine. The exact date of the ceremony is unknown. However, his interest in Catholic belief and practice remained with him until his death.

Decline and death
Jonson's productivity began to decline in the 1620s, but he remained well-known. In that time, the Sons of Ben or the "Tribe of Ben", those younger poets such as Robert Herrick, Richard Lovelace, and Sir John Suckling who took their bearing in verse from Jonson, rose to prominence. However, a series of setbacks drained his strength and damaged his reputation. He resumed writing regular plays in the 1620s, but these are not considered among his best. They are of significant interest, however, for their portrayal of Charles I's England. The Staple of News, for example, offers a remarkable look at the earliest stage of English journalism. The lukewarm reception given that play was, however, nothing compared to the dismal failure of The New Inn; the cold reception given this play prompted Jonson to write a poem condemning his audience (An Ode to Himself), which in turn prompted Thomas Carew, one of the "Tribe of Ben", to respond in a poem that asks Jonson to recognise his own decline.

The principal factor in Jonson's partial eclipse was, however, the death of James and the accession of King Charles I in 1625. Jonson felt neglected by the new court. A decisive quarrel with Jones harmed his career as a writer of court masques, although he continued to entertain the court on an irregular basis. For his part, Charles displayed a certain degree of care for the great poet of his father's day: he increased Jonson's annual pension to £100 and included a tierce of wine and beer.

Despite the strokes that he suffered in the 1620s, Jonson continued to write. At his death in 1637 he seems to have been working on another play, The Sad Shepherd. Though only two acts are extant, this represents a remarkable new direction for Jonson: a move into pastoral drama. During the early 1630s, he also conducted a correspondence with James Howell, who warned him about disfavour at court in the wake of his dispute with Jones.

Jonson died on or around 16 August 1637, and his funeral was held the next day. It was attended by "all or the greatest part of the nobility then in town". He is buried in the north aisle of the nave in Westminster Abbey, with the inscription "O Rare Ben Johnson [sic]" set in the slab over his grave. John Aubrey, in a more meticulous record than usual, notes that a passer-by, John Young of Great Milton, Oxfordshire, saw the bare grave marker and on impulse paid a workman eighteen pence to make the inscription. Another theory suggests that the tribute came from William Davenant, Jonson's successor as Poet Laureate (and card-playing companion of Young), as the same phrase appears on Davenant's nearby gravestone, but essayist Leigh Hunt contends that Davenant's wording represented no more than Young's coinage, cheaply re-used. The fact that Jonson was buried in an upright position was an indication of his reduced circumstances at the time of his death, although it has also been written that he asked for a grave exactly 18 inches square from the monarch and received an upright grave to fit in the requested space.

It has been pointed out that the inscription could be read "Orare Ben Jonson" (pray for Ben Jonson), possibly in an allusion to Jonson's acceptance of Catholic doctrine during his lifetime (although he had returned to the Church of England); the carving shows a distinct space between "O" and "rare".

A monument to Jonson was erected in about 1723 by the Earl of Oxford and is in the eastern aisle of Westminster Abbey's Poets' Corner. It includes a portrait medallion and the same inscription as on the gravestone. It seems Jonson was to have had a monument erected by subscription soon after his death but the English Civil War intervened.

Drama
Apart from two tragedies, Sejanus and Catiline, that largely failed to impress Renaissance audiences, Jonson's work for the public theatres was in comedy. These plays vary in some respects. The minor early plays, particularly those written for boy players, present somewhat looser plots and less-developed characters than those written later, for adult companies. Already in the plays which were his salvos in the Poets' War, he displays the keen eye for absurdity and hypocrisy that marks his best-known plays; in these early efforts, however, the plot mostly takes second place to a variety of incident and comic set-pieces. They are, also, notably ill-tempered. Thomas Davies called Poetaster "a contemptible mixture of the serio-comic, where the names of Augustus Caesar, Maecenas, Virgil, Horace, Ovid and Tibullus, are all sacrificed upon the altar of private resentment". Another early comedy in a different vein, The Case is Altered, is markedly similar to Shakespeare's romantic comedies in its foreign setting, emphasis on genial wit and love-plot. Henslowe's diary indicates that Jonson had a hand in numerous other plays, including many in genres such as English history with which he is not otherwise associated.

The comedies of his middle career, from Eastward Hoe to The Devil Is an Ass are for the most part city comedy, with a London setting, themes of trickery and money, and a distinct moral ambiguity, despite Jonson's professed aim in the Prologue to Volpone to "mix profit with your pleasure". His late plays or "dotages", particularly The Magnetic Lady and The Sad Shepherd, exhibit signs of an accommodation with the romantic tendencies of Elizabethan comedy.

Within this general progression, however, Jonson's comic style remained constant and easily recognisable. He announces his programme in the prologue to the folio version of Every Man in His Humour: he promises to represent "deeds, and language, such as men do use". He planned to write comedies that revived the classical premises of Elizabethan dramatic theory—or rather, since all but the loosest English comedies could claim some descent from Plautus and Terence, he intended to apply those premises with rigour. This commitment entailed negations: after The Case is Altered, Jonson eschewed distant locations, noble characters, romantic plots and other staples of Elizabethan comedy, focusing instead on the satiric and realistic inheritance of new comedy. He set his plays in contemporary settings, peopled them with recognisable types, and set them to actions that, if not strictly realistic, involved everyday motives such as greed and jealousy. In accordance with the temper of his age, he was often so broad in his characterisation that many of his most famous scenes border on the farcical (as William Congreve, for example, judged Epicoene). He was more diligent in adhering to the classical unities than many of his peers—although as Margaret Cavendish noted, the unity of action in the major comedies was rather compromised by Jonson's abundance of incident. To this classical model, Jonson applied the two features of his style which save his classical imitations from mere pedantry: the vividness with which he depicted the lives of his characters and the intricacy of his plots. Coleridge, for instance, claimed that The Alchemist had one of the three most perfect plots in literature.

Poetry
Jonson's poetry, like his drama, is informed by his classical learning. Some of his better-known poems are close translations of Greek or Roman models; all display the careful attention to form and style that often came naturally to those trained in classics in the humanist manner. Jonson largely avoided the debates about rhyme and meter that had consumed Elizabethan classicists such as Thomas Campion and Gabriel Harvey. Accepting both rhyme and stress, Jonson used them to mimic the classical qualities of simplicity, restraint and precision.

"Epigrams" (published in the 1616 folio) is an entry in a genre that was popular among late-Elizabethan and Jacobean audiences, although Jonson was perhaps the only poet of his time to work in its full classical range. The epigrams explore various attitudes, most from the satiric stock of the day: complaints against women, courtiers and spies abound. The condemnatory poems are short and anonymous; Jonson's epigrams of praise, including a famous poem to Camden and lines to Lucy Harington, are longer and are mostly addressed to specific individuals. Although it is included among the epigrams, "On My First Sonne" is neither satirical nor very short; the poem, intensely personal and deeply felt, typifies a genre that would come to be called "lyric poetry." It is possible that the spelling of 'son' as 'Sonne' is meant to allude to the sonnet form, with which it shares some features. A few other so-called epigrams share this quality. Jonson's poems of "The Forest" also appeared in the first folio. Most of the fifteen poems are addressed to Jonson's aristocratic supporters, but the most famous are his country-house poem "To Penshurst" and the poem "To Celia" ("Come, my Celia, let us prove") that appears also in Volpone.

Underwood, published in the expanded folio of 1640, is a larger and more heterogeneous group of poems. It contains A Celebration of Charis, Jonson's most extended effort at love poetry; various religious pieces; encomiastic poems including the poem to Shakespeare and a sonnet on Mary Wroth; the Execration against Vulcan and others. The 1640 volume also contains three elegies which have often been ascribed to Donne (one of them appeared in Donne's posthumous collected poems).

Relationship with Shakespeare

There are many legends about Jonson's rivalry with Shakespeare. William Drummond reports that during their conversation, Jonson scoffed at two apparent absurdities in Shakespeare's plays: a nonsensical line in Julius Caesar and the setting of The Winter's Tale on the non-existent seacoast of Bohemia. Drummond also reported Jonson as saying that Shakespeare "wanted art" (i.e., lacked skill).

In "De Shakespeare Nostrat" in Timber, which was published posthumously and reflects his lifetime of practical experience, Jonson offers a fuller and more conciliatory comment. He recalls being told by certain actors that Shakespeare never blotted (i.e., crossed out) a line when he wrote. His own claimed response was "Would he had blotted a thousand!" However, Jonson explains, "Hee was (indeed) honest, and of an open, and free nature: had an excellent Phantsie; brave notions and gentle expressions: wherein hee flow'd with that facility, that sometime it was necessary he should be stopp'd". Jonson concludes that "there was ever more in him to be praised than to be pardoned." When Shakespeare died, he said, "He was not of an age, but for all time."

Thomas Fuller relates stories of Jonson and Shakespeare engaging in debates in the Mermaid Tavern; Fuller imagines conversations in which Shakespeare would run rings around the more learned but more ponderous Jonson. That the two men knew each other personally is beyond doubt, not only because of the tone of Jonson's references to him but because Shakespeare's company produced a number of Jonson's plays, at least two of which (Every Man in His Humour and Sejanus His Fall) Shakespeare certainly acted in. However, it is now impossible to tell how much personal communication they had, and tales of their friendship cannot be substantiated.

Jonson's most influential and revealing commentary on Shakespeare is the second of the two poems that he contributed to the prefatory verse that opens Shakespeare's First Folio. This poem, "To the Memory of My Beloved the Author, Mr. William Shakespeare and What He Hath Left Us", did a good deal to create the traditional view of Shakespeare as a poet who, despite "small Latine, and lesse Greeke", had a natural genius. The poem has traditionally been thought to exemplify the contrast which Jonson perceived between himself, the disciplined and erudite classicist, scornful of ignorance and sceptical of the masses, and Shakespeare, represented in the poem as a kind of natural wonder whose genius was not subject to any rules except those of the audiences for which he wrote. But the poem itself qualifies this view:
 * Yet must I not give Nature all: Thy Art,
 * My gentle Shakespeare, must enjoy a part.

Some view this elegy as a conventional exercise, but others see it as a heartfelt tribute to the "Sweet Swan of Avon", the "Soul of the Age!" It has been argued that Jonson helped to edit the First Folio, and he may have been inspired to write this poem by reading his fellow playwright's works, a number of which had been previously either unpublished or available in less satisfactory versions, in a relatively complete form.

Reception and influence
Jonson was a towering literary figure, and his influence was enormous for he has been described as "One of the most vigorous minds that ever added to the strength of English literature". Before the English Civil War, the "Tribe of Ben" touted his importance, and during the Restoration Jonson's satirical comedies and his theory and practice of "humour characters" (which are often misunderstood; see William Congreve's letters for clarification) was extremely influential, providing the blueprint for many Restoration comedies. John Aubrey wrote of Jonson in Brief Lives. By 1700, Jonson's status began to decline. In the Romantic era, Jonson suffered the fate of being unfairly compared and contrasted to Shakespeare, as the taste for Jonson's type of satirical comedy decreased. Jonson was at times greatly appreciated by the Romantics, but overall he was denigrated for not writing in a Shakespearean vein.

In 2012, after more than two decades of research, Cambridge University Press published the first new edition of Jonson's complete works for 60 years.

Drama
As G. E. Bentley notes in Shakespeare and Jonson: Their Reputations in the Seventeenth Century Compared, Jonson's reputation was in some respects equal to Shakespeare's in the 17th century. After the English theatres were reopened on the Restoration of Charles II, Jonson's work, along with Shakespeare's and Fletcher's, formed the initial core of the Restoration repertory. It was not until after 1710 that Shakespeare's plays (ordinarily in heavily revised forms) were more frequently performed than those of his Renaissance contemporaries. Many critics since the 18th century have ranked Jonson below only Shakespeare among English Renaissance dramatists. Critical judgment has tended to emphasise the very qualities that Jonson himself lauds in his prefaces, in Timber, and in his scattered prefaces and dedications: the realism and propriety of his language, the bite of his satire, and the care with which he plotted his comedies.

For some critics, the temptation to contrast Jonson (representing art or craft) with Shakespeare (representing nature, or untutored genius) has seemed natural; Jonson himself may be said to have initiated this interpretation in the second folio, and Samuel Butler drew the same comparison in his commonplace book later in the century.

At the Restoration, this sensed difference became a kind of critical dogma. Charles de Saint-Évremond placed Jonson's comedies above all else in English drama, and Charles Gildon called Jonson the father of English comedy. John Dryden offered a more common assessment in the "Essay of Dramatic Poesie," in which his Avatar Neander compares Shakespeare to Homer and Jonson to Virgil: the former represented profound creativity, the latter polished artifice. But "artifice" was in the 17th century almost synonymous with "art"; Jonson, for instance, used "artificer" as a synonym for "artist" (Discoveries, 33). For Lewis Theobald, too, Jonson "ow[ed] all his Excellence to his Art," in contrast to Shakespeare, the natural genius. Nicholas Rowe, to whom may be traced the legend that Jonson owed the production of Every Man in his Humour to Shakespeare's intercession, likewise attributed Jonson's excellence to learning, which did not raise him quite to the level of genius. A consensus formed: Jonson was the first English poet to understand classical precepts with any accuracy, and he was the first to apply those precepts successfully to contemporary life. But there were also more negative spins on Jonson's learned art; for instance, in the 1750s, Edward Young casually remarked on the way in which Jonson's learning worked, like Samson's strength, to his own detriment. Earlier, Aphra Behn, writing in defence of female playwrights, had pointed to Jonson as a writer whose learning did not make him popular; unsurprisingly, she compares him unfavourably to Shakespeare. Particularly in the tragedies, with their lengthy speeches abstracted from Sallust and Cicero, Augustan critics saw a writer whose learning had swamped his aesthetic judgment.

In this period, Alexander Pope is exceptional in that he noted the tendency to exaggeration in these competing critical portraits: "It is ever the nature of Parties to be in extremes; and nothing is so probable, as that because Ben Jonson had much the most learning, it was said on the one hand that Shakespear had none at all; and because Shakespear had much the most wit and fancy, it was retorted on the other, that Jonson wanted both." For the most part, the 18th century consensus remained committed to the division that Pope doubted; as late as the 1750s, Sarah Fielding could put a brief recapitulation of this analysis in the mouth of a "man of sense" encountered by David Simple.

Though his stature declined during the 18th century, Jonson was still read and commented on throughout the century, generally in the kind of comparative and dismissive terms just described. Heinrich Wilhelm von Gerstenberg translated parts of Peter Whalley's edition into German in 1765. Shortly before the Romantic revolution, Edward Capell offered an almost unqualified rejection of Jonson as a dramatic poet, who (he writes) "has very poor pretensions to the high place he holds among the English Bards, as there is no original manner to distinguish him and the tedious sameness visible in his plots indicates a defect of Genius." The disastrous failures of productions of Volpone and Epicoene in the early 1770s no doubt bolstered a widespread sense that Jonson had at last grown too antiquated for the contemporary public; if he still attracted enthusiasts such as Earl Camden and William Gifford, he all but disappeared from the stage in the last quarter of the century.

The romantic revolution in criticism brought about an overall decline in the critical estimation of Jonson. Hazlitt refers dismissively to Jonson's "laborious caution." Coleridge, while more respectful, describes Jonson as psychologically superficial: "He was a very accurately observing man; but he cared only to observe what was open to, and likely to impress, the senses." Coleridge placed Jonson second only to Shakespeare; other romantic critics were less approving. The early 19th century was the great age for recovering Renaissance drama. Jonson, whose reputation had survived, appears to have been less interesting to some readers than writers such as Thomas Middleton or John Heywood, who were in some senses "discoveries" of the 19th century. Moreover, the emphasis which the romantic writers placed on imagination, and their concomitant tendency to distrust studied art, lowered Jonson's status, if it also sharpened their awareness of the difference traditionally noted between Jonson and Shakespeare. This trend was by no means universal, however; William Gifford, Jonson's first editor of the 19th century, did a great deal to defend Jonson's reputation during this period of general decline. In the next era, Swinburne, who was more interested in Jonson than most Victorians, wrote, "The flowers of his growing have every quality but one which belongs to the rarest and finest among flowers: they have colour, form, variety, fertility, vigour: the one thing they want is fragrance" – by "fragrance," Swinburne means spontaneity.

In the 20th century, Jonson's body of work has been subject to a more varied set of analyses, broadly consistent with the interests and programmes of modern literary criticism. In an essay printed in The Sacred Wood, T. S. Eliot attempted to repudiate the charge that Jonson was an arid classicist by analysing the role of imagination in his dialogue. Eliot was appreciative of Jonson's overall conception and his "surface", a view consonant with the modernist reaction against Romantic criticism, which tended to denigrate playwrights who did not concentrate on representations of psychological depth. Around mid-century, a number of critics and scholars followed Eliot's lead, producing detailed studies of Jonson's verbal style. At the same time, study of Elizabethan themes and conventions, such as those by E. E. Stoll and M. C. Bradbrook, provided a more vivid sense of how Jonson's work was shaped by the expectations of his time.

The proliferation of new critical perspectives after mid-century touched on Jonson inconsistently. Jonas Barish was the leading figure among critics who appreciated Jonson's artistry. On the other hand, Jonson received less attention from the new critics than did some other playwrights and his work was not of programmatic interest to psychoanalytic critics. But Jonson's career eventually made him a focal point for the revived sociopolitical criticism. Jonson's works, particularly his masques and pageants, offer significant information regarding the relations of literary production and political power, as do his contacts with and poems for aristocratic patrons; moreover, his career at the centre of London's emerging literary world has been seen as exemplifying the development of a fully commodified literary culture. In this respect he is seen as a transitional figure, an author whose skills and ambition led him to a leading role both in the declining culture of patronage and in the rising culture of mass media.

Poetry
Jonson has been called "the first poet laureate". If Jonson's reputation as a playwright has traditionally been linked to Shakespeare, his reputation as a poet has, since the early 20th century, been linked to that of John Donne. In this comparison, Jonson represents the cavalier strain of poetry, emphasising grace and clarity of expression; Donne, by contrast, epitomised the metaphysical school of poetry, with its reliance on strained, baroque metaphors and often vague phrasing. Since the critics who made this comparison (Herbert Grierson for example), were to varying extents rediscovering Donne, this comparison often worked to the detriment of Jonson's reputation.

In his time Jonson was at least as influential as Donne. In 1623, historian Edmund Bolton named him the best and most polished English poet. That this judgment was widely shared is indicated by the admitted influence he had on younger poets. The grounds for describing Jonson as the "father" of cavalier poets are clear: many of the cavalier poets described themselves as his "sons" or his "tribe". For some of this tribe, the connection was as much social as poetic; Herrick described meetings at "the Sun, the Dog, the Triple Tunne". All of them, including those like Herrick whose accomplishments in verse are generally regarded as superior to Jonson's, took inspiration from Jonson's revival of classical forms and themes, his subtle melodies, and his disciplined use of wit. In these respects, Jonson may be regarded as among the most important figures in the prehistory of English neoclassicism. Popular Culture - His "Queen and Huntress" was used, in slightly amended form, by Mike Oldfield on side 4 of his multi Album set, Incantations.The lyrics can be found on his website, confirming its the same poem.

The best of Jonson's lyrics have remained current since his time; periodically, they experience a brief vogue, as after the publication of Peter Whalley's edition of 1756. Jonson's poetry continues to interest scholars for the light which it sheds on English literary history, such as politics, systems of patronage and intellectual attitudes. For the general reader, Jonson's reputation rests on a few lyrics that, though brief, are surpassed for grace and precision by very few Renaissance poems: "On My First Sonne"; "To Celia"; "To Penshurst"; and the epitaph on Salomon Pavy, a boy player abducted from his parents who acted in Jonson's plays.

Plays

 * A Tale of a Tub, comedy (c. 1596 revised performed 1633; printed 1640)
 * The Isle of Dogs, comedy (1597, with Thomas Nashe; lost)
 * The Case is Altered, comedy (c. 1597–98; printed 1609), possibly with Henry Porter and Anthony Munday
 * Every Man in His Humour, comedy (performed 1598; printed 1601)
 * Every Man out of His Humour, comedy (performed 1599; printed 1600)
 * Cynthia's Revels (performed 1600; printed 1601)
 * The Poetaster, comedy (performed 1601; printed 1602)
 * Sejanus His Fall, tragedy (performed 1603; printed 1605)
 * Eastward Ho, comedy (performed and printed 1605), a collaboration with John Marston and George Chapman
 * Volpone, comedy (c. 1605–06; printed 1607)
 * Epicoene, or the Silent Woman, comedy (performed 1609; printed 1616)
 * The Alchemist, comedy (performed 1610; printed 1612)
 * Catiline His Conspiracy, tragedy (performed and printed 1611)
 * Bartholomew Fair, comedy (performed 31 October 1614; printed 1631)
 * The Devil is an Ass, comedy (performed 1616; printed 1631)
 * The Staple of News, comedy (completed by Feb. 1626; printed 1631)
 * The New Inn, or The Light Heart, comedy (licensed 19 January 1629; printed 1631)
 * The Magnetic Lady, or Humours Reconciled, comedy (licensed 12 October 1632; printed 1641)
 * The Sad Shepherd, pastoral (c. 1637, printed 1641), unfinished
 * Mortimer His Fall, history (printed 1641), a fragment

Masques

 * The Coronation Triumph, or The King's Entertainment (performed 15 March 1604; printed 1604); with Thomas Dekker
 * A Private Entertainment of the King and Queen on May-Day (The Penates) (1 May 1604; printed 1616)
 * The Entertainment of the Queen and Prince Henry at Althorp (The Satyr) (25 June 1603; printed 1604)
 * The Masque of Blackness (6 January 1605; printed 1608)
 * Hymenaei (5 January 1606; printed 1606)
 * The Entertainment of the Kings of Great Britain and Denmark (The Hours) (24 July 1606; printed 1616)
 * The Masque of Beauty (10 January 1608; printed 1608)
 * The Masque of Queens (2 February 1609; printed 1609)
 * The Hue and Cry After Cupid, or The Masque at Lord Haddington's Marriage (9 February 1608; printed c. 1608)
 * The Entertainment at Britain's Burse (11 April 1609; lost, rediscovered 1997)
 * The Speeches at Prince Henry's Barriers, or The Lady of the Lake (6 January 1610; printed 1616)
 * Oberon, the Faery Prince (1 January 1611; printed 1616)
 * Love Freed from Ignorance and Folly (3 February 1611; printed 1616)
 * Love Restored (6 January 1612; printed 1616)
 * A Challenge at Tilt, at a Marriage (27 December 1613/1 January 1614; printed 1616)
 * The Irish Masque at Court (29 December 1613; printed 1616)
 * Mercury Vindicated from the Alchemists (6 January 1615; printed 1616)
 * The Golden Age Restored (1 January 1616; printed 1616)
 * Christmas, His Masque (Christmas 1616; printed 1641)
 * The Vision of Delight (6 January 1617; printed 1641)
 * Lovers Made Men, or The Masque of Lethe, or The Masque at Lord Hay's (22 February 1617; printed 1617)
 * Pleasure Reconciled to Virtue (6 January 1618; printed 1641) The masque was a failure; Jonson revised it by placing the anti-masque first, turning it into:
 * For the Honour of Wales (17 February 1618; printed 1641)
 * News from the New World Discovered in the Moon (7 January 1620: printed 1641)
 * The Entertainment at Blackfriars, or The Newcastle Entertainment (May 1620?; MS)
 * Pan's Anniversary, or The Shepherd's Holy-Day (19 June 1620?; printed 1641)
 * The Gypsies Metamorphosed (3 and 5 August 1621; printed 1640)
 * The Masque of Augurs (6 January 1622; printed 1622)
 * Time Vindicated to Himself and to His Honours (19 January 1623; printed 1623)
 * Neptune's Triumph for the Return of Albion (26 January 1624; printed 1624)
 * The Masque of Owls at Kenilworth (19 August 1624; printed 1641)
 * The Fortunate Isles and Their Union (9 January 1625; printed 1625)
 * Love's Triumph Through Callipolis (9 January 1631; printed 1631)
 * Chloridia: Rites to Chloris and Her Nymphs (22 February 1631; printed 1631)
 * The King's Entertainment at Welbeck in Nottinghamshire (21 May 1633; printed 1641)
 * Love's Welcome at Bolsover (30 July 1634; printed 1641)

Other works

 * Epigrams (1612)
 * The Forest (1616), including To Penshurst
 * On My First Sonne (1616), elegy
 * A Discourse of Love (1618)
 * Barclay's Argenis, translated by Jonson (1623)
 * The Execration against Vulcan (1640)
 * Horace's Art of Poetry, translated by Jonson (1640), with a commendatory verse by Edward Herbert
 * Underwood (1640)
 * English Grammar (1640)
 * Timber, or Discoveries made upon men and matter, as they have flowed out of his daily readings, or had their reflux to his peculiar notion of the times, (London, 1641) a commonplace book
 * To Celia (Drink to Me Only With Thine Eyes), poem

It is in Jonson's Timber, or Discoveries... that he famously quipped on the manner in which language became a measure of the speaker or writer:

"Language most shows a man: Speak, that I may see thee. It springs out of the most retired and inmost parts of us, and is the image of the parent of it, the mind. No glass renders a man’s form or likeness so true as his speech. Nay, it is likened to a man; and as we consider feature and composition in a man, so words in language; in the greatness, aptness, sound structure, and harmony of it."

- Ben Jonson, 1640 (posthumous)

As with other English Renaissance dramatists, a portion of Ben Jonson's literary output has not survived. In addition to The Isle of Dogs (1597), the records suggest these lost plays as wholly or partially Jonson's work: Richard Crookback (1602); Hot Anger Soon Cold (1598), with Porter and Henry Chettle; Page of Plymouth (1599), with Dekker; and Robert II, King of Scots (1599), with Chettle and Dekker. Several of Jonson's masques and entertainments also are not extant: The Entertainment at Merchant Taylors (1607); The Entertainment at Salisbury House for James I (1608); and The May Lord (1613–19).

Finally, there are questionable or borderline attributions. Jonson may have had a hand in Rollo, Duke of Normandy, or The Bloody Brother, a play in the canon of John Fletcher and his collaborators. The comedy The Widow was printed in 1652 as the work of Thomas Middleton, Fletcher and Jonson, though scholars have been intensely sceptical about Jonson's presence in the play. A few attributions of anonymous plays, such as The London Prodigal, have been ventured by individual researchers, but have met with cool responses.

Biographies of Ben Jonson

 * Ben Jonson: His Life and Work by Rosalind Miles (Routledge, London 1986)
 * Ben Jonson: His Craft and Art by Rosalind Miles (Routledge, London 2017)
 * Ben Jonson: A Literary Life by W. David Kay (Macmillan, Basingstoke 1995)
 * Ben Jonson: A Life by David Riggs (1989)
 * Ben Jonson: A Life by Ian Donaldson (2011)

title: Ben Jonson


text:
Talk:Joel Marangella

Restoring the article that has been completely changed over a period of time.
Looking at the history of this article, i realized that this article was intended for Joel Bray Marangella (Check history, 2006 version). Due to the lack of sources, the content was challenged and removed over the years. The 2006 version is almost correct. I agree that the article has some POV issues and missing sources. I would like to rewrite this article and remove the present content that is not at all related to him.Serv181920 (talk) 09:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 8 December 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Joel Marangella → Joel Bray Marangella – This article was intended for Joel Bray Marangella. Check 2006 version of this article. Over a period of time the unsourced content was challenged and removed and the article was taken by someone else with a similar name. Serv181920 (talk) 09:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

 * , If Joel Marangella and Joel Bray Marangella are two different people, what is the valid reason to move Joel Marangella to Joel Bray Marangella, or if that's just one person, which one from the two names is Common Name? ─  The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  09:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. It doesn't make any sense to move this article about the musician to Joel Bray Marangella because that is not the musician's name. It's probably best to write a new article at Joel Bray Marangella right over the redirect, unless you are claiming Joel Bray Marangella is the WP:Primary topic and his middle name is not commonly used. Station1 (talk) 10:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, Joel Bray Marangella is the WP:Primary topic
 * The oldest edit that says that he is an oboist, seems to be 12:53, 19 March 2009 by User:Nrswanson. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * But also edits of page Joel Bray Marangella 08:53, 8 December 2020 and 08:42, 8 December 2020 by User:Serv181920 (info by Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC))

 * That's correct. That was about a year and a half after the former article about Joel Bray Marangella was merged and redirected. That article had been created in 2001 under the title Joel Bray Marangella and moved to Joel Marangella in 2006. Station1 (talk) 10:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * But please confirm my impression that Joel Marangella the American oboist was not the same man as Joel Bray Marangella the leader of the Orthodox Baha'is. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * @, Both are different persons. (written by User:Serv181920)
 * From Joel Marangella I have split off the edits from the oldest to 14:02, 20 March 2009 by Cuñado (about the Baha'i leader), to page Joel Bray Marangella (which currently redirects to Baháʼí divisions). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Web search found this obituary :: which of these 2 men does it refer to? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the same person who claimed to be a guardian of the Orthodox Baha'i Faith. And the article was primarily written for him. Please check this.Serv181920 (talk) 13:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I recommend that you either update this version of Joel Bray Marangella with reliable sources or that you write a brand new sourced article over that redirect. At the moment, this article about the musician is the only one on WP, and it appears to me, based on a quick Google search, that Joel Bray Marangella works as WP:NATURAL disambiguation and that he would not be the primary topic. That could be better determined, however, after a new article has been around for a couple of months. Station1 (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, Noted. Thanks.Serv181920 (talk) 07:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Joel Marangella


text:
Wikipedia:PHP script automatic wikification

Automatic wikification is a feature that was implemented for a time in the old Wikipedia Phase II software. It is no longer available in the new Phase III software, due to concerns raised by some users and developers, though there is some discussion about reintroducing it.

This is a description of how the feature worked under the old Phase II software:

The "working title" is automatic wikification, but it could also be wikification assistance. The key element is a new button on the edit pages, right after Save and Preview. It only appears for logged-in members, as not to confuse newcomers (this setting can, of course, be changed).

Basically, what it does is to change HTML tags to wiki tags where possible, and to alter the article source in ways the wikipedia community (with the possible exception of 24;) seems to have more or less agreed upon. Hitting the button produces the altered article source and its preview. It does not alter the article in the database! You will have to hit Save to commit the change, as usual. That way, you can check the alterations, revert some, or hit the back button in case the article got messed up.

Currently, the function is as follows:
 * <b>, <i>, <h2>, <h3> and <h4> tags are replaced with the matching wiki codes
 * Some [[broken] links are fixed
 * Links to the talk page of that very article are removed
 * Self links (like this) are removed
 * Multiple links from that very article to the same page are removed; only the first of these links stays
 * Plural links are converted to links (I know some of you don't like this; I'll leave it in for now, can be taken out later)
 * The page title is marked bold if it occurs in the first line and if there are no bold marks already in place in this line. So, a manually set bold title will prevent any change
 * nowiki and pre tags, as well as their contents, stay untouched

All of this can be changed; it should be expanded. Please add functions to include within this feature below. The feature will go online with the next software update. --Magnus Manske, Monday, April 8, 2002

There is an offline tool that converts HTML to wikipedia markup, called html2wikipedia. You can download the tool from http://www.dwheeler.com/html2wikipedia (it's designed to be used on Unix-like systems).

ja:Wikipedia:PHPスクリプト 自動ウィキ化


text:
Representative money

Representative money or receipt money is any medium of exchange, printed or digital, that represents something of value, but has little or no value of its own (intrinsic value). Unlike some forms of fiat money (which may have no commodity backing), genuine representative money must have something of intrinsic value supporting the face value.

More specifically, the term representative money has been used variously to mean:
 * A claim on a commodity, for example gold and silver certificates. In this sense it may be called "commodity-backed money".
 * Any type of money that has face value greater than its value as material substance. Used in this sense, most types of fiat money are a type of representative money.

There is no concrete evidence that the clay tokens used as an accounting tool to keep track of warehouse stores in ancient Mesopotamia were also used as representative money. However, the idea has been suggested.

In 1895 economist Joseph Shield Nicholson wrote that credit expansion and contraction was in fact the expansion and contraction of representative money.

In 1934 economist William Howard Steiner wrote that the term was used "at one time to signify that a certain amount of bullion was stored in the Treasury while the equivalent paper in circulation" represented the bullion.

title: Representative money


text:
Talk:Republics of the Soviet Union

Karelo-Finnish SSR
I found a source saying a republic i ahve never heard of. I think it must have joined another republic later on as i ahve only seen one source for thsi 16th repuiblic: Karelo-Finnish S.S.R.

http://www.russiannewsnetwork.com/soviet1.html <- source

 * I found several references to this, but named Karelo-Finnish A.S.S.R. I remember A standig for autonomous. As far as I learned during schooltime these ASSR's were parts of SSR's having some special status for preserving ethnic minorities. (I'm not sure though. Obviously, this is more than 13 years ago.) -- JeLuF

hmm well i'll jsut ignore thsi one for now. Teh ones mentioned are the ones taht i always see mentioned. - fonzy

 * It was incorporated as ASSR into Russian SFSR in 1956. See Karelo-Finnish SSR for more detail. Andris 10:31, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

Kalmykia
Removed Kalmykia from the list. As you can read in the article on Kalmykia it was an ASSR, part of Russia, but not an SSR. See for reference also: http://www.fotw.net/flags/su-_list.html -- JeLuF

Slovakia
Wasnt there briefly a Slovak and/or Czechoslovak Soviet Socialist Repbulic?

 * Yes there was (called CSSR), but it had nothing to do with USSR and so it doesn't belong to this article.—Kami888

 * CSSR stands for Czechoslovak Socialist Republic; there never was a "Soviet" Czechoslovakia. Kpalion 16:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Mongolia
wasn't Mongolia a part of de U.S.S.R??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.212.121.204 (talk • contribs).
 * No, it was not.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 18:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

History, See Also
I came here in hopes of reading about the Bolshevik Revolution, Lenin's new economy, Trotsky, Stalin acsent to power, the Gulag, the farming collectives etc... I was deeply disappointed This article is far from complete. I realise that there allready is an article about the bolshevic revolution and one on russian history. There should atleast be a see also reference to these two. I will be working on this article in the next few weeks to make it complete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaanatakan (talk • contribs).
 * You are more than welcome to make whatever additions you feel will improve this article.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 00:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Abkhazia
Wasn't Abkhazia a seperate Soviet republic until 1931? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.157.44.34 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Not really. There was an ostensibly independent Abkhazian SSR from 31 March 1921 until 16 December 1921, which was not part of the USSR.  In December 1921 it was incorporated into Georgia under a "special union-treaty", which was ratified in February 1922.  Officially, this established Abkhazia and Georgia as equal partners in a Soviet Republic, and lasted until the creation of the TSFSR and USSR later that year.  In 1931, Abkhazia was demoted to an autonomous republic within the Georgian SSR, but wasn't itself a Union Republic before. -David Schaich Talk/Contrib 22:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Tuva
Tuvinian People's Republic was not a part od the USSR until 1944, yet the picture provided doesn't reveal that fact

Just a naming trivia
Sorry, just a personal trivia (maybe you should add it on the article, if you think): people born in Soviet Republics had their names written (I mean, on the passports or ID cards) in Russian cyrillic or native languages (like Azerbaijani, Ukrainian...)? or maybe both? or maybe...it depends from republic to republic?

Russian, it was all done in Russian, the native languages where strongly not encouraged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.154.19.180 (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Why...
...was the evolution map changed to show the Uzbek SSR and Turkmen SSR outside of the Soviet Union's borders? Moscow never considered them to be. See here for a map of Soviet Central Asia from 1922. -- Clevelander 02:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, in fact they were outside the Soviet Union until 1925. The map you've shown isn't correct.
 * http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5246/Soviet.html
 * http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/su-kh.html
 * Stalin himself said: "Bukhara and Khorezm, not being Socialist, but only People's Soviet Republics, may, perhaps, remain outside of the union until their natural development converts them into Socialist Republics"
 * Look it up, they really were not part of USSR. I won't reverse changes now, I hope you do it yourself.
 * Besides that, your map is wrong cause it has Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Armenia as separate republics in 1929, while they were part of TSFSR until 1936.

 * I looked it up. Of course they didn't consider themselves part of the USSR but they were internationally as well as by Moscow.  My map comes from a credible source too.

 * I will fix the detail on the TSFSR though. -- Clevelander 16:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

 * If we're going to talk about international recognition, then some countries didn't recognize the Soviet Union until well into 1930s, so what? Bukhara and Khorzem were not part of USSR, as a matter of fact, and Moscow recognized their independence until 1925. I also added another source just for confirmation. And a quote: "Bolshevik Russia hesitated to acknowledge the formation of a new state, but eventually signed an agreement with it on 13 September 1920. In this agreement, Russia acknowledged the independence of the Khorezm Peoples Republic. Military, political, and economic agreements, which were concluded at that time, promised aid to the Khorezm Republic from Bolshevik Russia."

 * Well, now I'm convinced. The borders shall be changed. -- Clevelander 16:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks :) also another source just in case you are still having doubts - http://www.progetto-uzbekistan.it/english/storia.HTM

Abkhazia
You can not use biased sources of well known separatist agitators like Chirikba (1992 he called for “digging the graves for all Georgians”) and Lakoba (who is participating in Separatist elections this February). Also the web site about “flags” is not reliable source or has any credentials to support such bold and highly disputed statement. When using sources for such statements which involve controversy and confrontation as well as historical accuracy, its wise and more productive to use neutral sources from either scholars or primary sources in historic documents. Please remove the sources by the radicals of separatist ideology and consult more neutral sources which will somehow give us assurance that the claim is reasonable. Thanks a lot. Ldingley 16:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I added a link to this EU sponsored webpage:
 * http://www.rrc.ge/admn/url12subpirx.php?idstruc=57&idcat=2&lng_3=en
 * But I am interested in seeing sources that dispute the existence of the Abkhazian SSR (no irony, I really am). sephia karta 15:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You may especially find useful these documents by the Georgian SSR resp. on the recognition of the independence of the Abkhazian SSR in 1921 and on the inclusion of the Abkhazian SSR as the Abkhazian ASSR in 1931:
 * http://www.rrc.ge/admn/url12subpirx.php?idstruc=48&idcat=1&lng_3=en
 * http://www.rrc.ge/admn/url12subpirx.php?idstruc=52&idcat=1&lng_3=en

sephia karta 16:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Soviet Mountain Republic
What about the Soviet Mountain Republic and other short-lived republics. They should also be mentioned in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.149.205.42 (talk • contribs).
 * Soviet Mountain Republic was never a republic of the USSR; it was an autonomous republic within the Russian SFSR.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Then shouldn't it be called Soviet Mountain Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * "Mountain Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic", actually (without the first "Soviet"). "Soviet Mountain Republic", however, is for some reason the name that's most commonly used in the English academic works.  I'll make some adjustments.  Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That's why I was a bit confused because it was called a republic when in fact it was an autonomous republic within the federated Russian republic.  Thanks for the addition to the SMR article. 24.149.197.132

NPOV
there is a conflicting perspective regarding the Baltic states, the alternative POV says the states were occupied by USSR until 1991, the status of the Soviet Republics was never recognized de jure by the Western democracies. Therefore the title is a POV by itself. Any suggestions welcome to make the article in compliance with WP:NPOV policies. Thanks!--Termer 00:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

PS. All of them were socialist republics ; had their own Communist parties this is some kind of a joke or fantasy it seems. The USSR was a totalitarian unitarian state, the "republics" and "own Communist parties" existed only on paper and were administrative regions at best. This article misleads the reader big time I'm sorry to say! something needs to be done about it ASAP.--Termer 00:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The map illustrating the article says it all "Soviet Union Administrative Divisions", that's what the article should be called as well and then the content should be adjusted accordingly. The folklore part All of them were socialist republics etc. needs to go into the "histories garbage bin" -(a term from Soviet histography) --Termer 15:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC).

 * Had their own communist parties is patently erraneous: Russi had no special section of 'KPSS 88.196.10.209 10:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't get it. In what way is Republics of the Soviet Union not a descriptive title? sephia karta  15:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Taken as descriptive, it would imply these administrative units were Republics. This is non-factual; therefore it's not descriptive. ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 16:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * For Wikipedia purposes, "factual" means "backed up by sources". The thread you yourself are backing says that the "republic existed only on paper", hence the sources exist, ergo the statement is factual and the title is descriptive.  Furthermore, the map's caption ("Soviet Union administrative divisions") is factually incorrect as the republics were constituent members of the Union, and not its administrative divisions (oblasts, krais, autonomous okrugs, and ASSRs were top-level administrative divisions of the Soviet Republics).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * constituent members? The constitution of the USSR was a fictional literature that had nothing to do with the facts of life. And not to worry, the article is going to be rewritten according to sources that can be taken seriously to end up this fantasy piece on WP --Termer 21:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That the Constitution of the USSR defined the entities as "Soviet Republics" is a sourceable fact. That numerous academic sources referred to the entities as "Republics" is a sourceable fact.  That the Constitution of the USSR was filled with lies and (pardon the pun) constituted a piece of "fictional literature" is an opinion, and a rather biased at that.  Before attempting any re-write, I strongly urge you to review (and apply in practice) the WP:SOURCES, WP:RS, and, above all, the WP:NPOV policies of Wikipedia.  There is room in the article for any opinions that can be backed up with good sources, but one must make sure not to give any of those opinions any undue prominence.  If opinions can't be sourced, stick with the facts, and remember that Wikipedia is not about truth, it's about verifiability.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestions Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?). I consider this article very low priority that's why I take my time until the current fairy tale is going to be rewritten according to the facts. And I'm sorry to point out that I really can't take seriously opinions like the soviet constitution was anything more than a fiction on paper. If it's biased? no, its a fact! It was a fictional constitution that in the reality was a totalitarian regime ruled not by law. --Termer 01:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, Termer! I still think you should thoroughly read the policies and guidelines mentioned above.  I, in turn, should point out that for the purposes of writing a Wikipedia article, it matters very little what you, me, or any other editor personally thinks about the topic at hand.  What matters is facts, facts, and more facts.  That the Constitution of the USSR was a "fictional" document is an opinion (and so, of course, would be the opposite statement that this Constitution was, say, "true to life").  Facts would include the assertion that the Soviet Constitution proclaimed the Republics to be socialist entities, each having certain rights.  A statement that, for example, such and such source described the Constitution as a fictional document full of lies, and that this statement is supported by such and such organizations based on such and such evidence would also be a fact.  In other words, when in describing the subject one ventures outside the realm of facts into the realm of opinions, one must convert said opinions to facts by extensively sourcing them, remembering that exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and never basing the articles on personal experience or viewpoints (which is exactly what makes articles biased).  To achieve NPOV, one should make an effort to shed light on all existing opinions that can be sourced in accordance with WP:SOURCE and WP:RS, without giving any of those opinions undue prominence by presenting them in a more favorable light.  We are not here to promote opinions or raise awareness, we are here to describe and reference facts.  I hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point Ëzhiki, the article should be factual based on sources not like the current fairy tale that doesn't ref to any source and is based on someones opinion. The socialist republic being the statement that is the most misleading--Termer 13:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's one statement that's easily sourced by the Constitution (yes, I know, currently it is not sourced at all, which will need to be fixed). Any alternate viewpoints should equally be sourced.  Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Everything is cool other than, I'm sorry to point out: the Soviet Constitution can't be looked at as a reliable source by itself.--Termer 14:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am no big fan of the Soviet Constitution myself, but as per WP:RS, it is a reliable source and hence should be treated as such. It is, of course, by no means the only reliable source that can be used for this article.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Ëzhiki that's exactly what I meant, per WP:RS the Soviet Constitution can't be considered a reliable source by itself because it's not factual or trustworthy. It should be common knowledge that the Soviet Constitution had very little to do with the facts of reality.--Termer 15:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Termer, for Wikipedia puproses a "reliable" source is not one that contains truth (whether it does or not is itself a matter of opinion, which you are free to express privately, but not base whole articles on it), it is the one that is verifiable. A reliable source is one "that can be regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" (as per WP:RS).  Whatever your personal view of the matter is, you can't deny that the Soviet Constitution did deal with the subject at hand and that it is a trustworthy and an authoritative source as far as the Soviet viewpoint is concerned.  You may not like that viewpoint or you may want to challenge it, but you cannot challenge the fact that the Constitution is a good source suitable to illustrate this particular opinion.  If you are planning to add alternative opinions (which is the right thing to do in order to achieve the NPOV), you will need to find other reliable sources supporting that alternative point of view.  I hope I am not confusing you to death with all this, but understanding how NPOV works is vital if we are to produce balanced articles instead of propaganda sheets where cliques of editors revert-war between two poorly-sourced pieces of prose reflecting opposite opinions.  This article very much needs improvement, but replacing one POV with another would not be an improvement at all.  What's more, an opinion (in this case your statement that the Soviet Constitution is not factual or trustworthy) can never be declared "common knowledge", only facts can.  No opinion can ever be a fact, only a sourced statement of an opinion can be (i.e., that someone holds a particular opinion is a fact, providing that this statement can be sourced, but the opinion itself is not a fact).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ëzhiki thats all cool! there is no need to explain me that! And I've never suggested to replace a POV with another. I'm suggesting to rewrite the article according to WP:NPOV. For example: All of them were socialist republics is very misleading etc. thanks--Termer 17:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Great then :) All of them were socialist republics, however, is not at all misleading as long as one adds according to the Constitution of the USSR.  Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What if one would also mention the occupations? Would you agree that "... all of them, including the occupied territories, were SSRs according to the Constitution" is NPOV? ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 19:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "According to Constitution" is not NPOV by itself, nor does it make the statement it references NPOV; it is merely an attribution for/verification of one of the viewpoints. NPOV can only be achieved when all prominent viewpoints on the subject are presented and sourced.  The statement you supplied above is incredibly biased in that it does not attribute the term "occupied territories" to anything but merely voices an opinion of the author (you).  That "the Republics were SSRs according to the Constitution" is a well-referenced statement; that the "Republics included occupied territories" is not.  NPOV would be saying that the "Republics were SSRs ; however, according to  some of them were considered occupied territories".  This way both viewpoints would be fairly presented and well-sourced; as for the final conclusion, it would be drawn by readers, not imposed by Wikipedia editors.  Our job is to present and describe facts and existing points of view, not to push opinions on readers or to present opinions as facts.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good once after according to the Constitution of the USSR comes a sourced and refd citation that explains what the Constitution of the USSR was all about in reality.--Termer 17:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, that kind of explanation would belong in the Constitution of the Soviet Union article, not here. This is an article about the Republics, not about the Constitution.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats your opinion I don't share.--Termer 20:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not just my opinion, that's a good practice which keeps focus on the subject being discussed, not jumps from one related topic to another, thus confusing readers. Facts and sourced opinions about republics should be in the article about the republics, facts and sourced opinions about the Constitution should be in the article about the Constitution, and facts and sourced opinions about the Soviet Union itself should be in the article about the Soviet Union.  If you need to cross-reference topics, that's what they invented hyperlinks for :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

nice try! thats called keeping the focus on the POV, not on the subject, that's exactly why the neutrality of this article is disputed. The NPOV policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly.--Termer 21:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Within a topic—my point exactly! "Constitution of the USSR" is not within the topic of "Republics of the USSR"; it is a related subject that has its own article.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if you want to put it that way, I have no problem with for example - the Baltic Socialist Republics were Republics of the Soviet Union according to the Constitution of the USSR. At the same time: according to the European court of human rights, the USA, the EU, the Soviet Baltic Republics were just occupied countries/states by the USSR. And of course it should not be forgotten that according to the Soviet Constitution article 15 the sovereignty of each Union republic was limited and that the USSR safeguarded the sovereign rights of the Union republics that during the era of Stalin were virtually non-existent. (The Government and Politics of the Soviet Union By Leonard Bertram Schapiro)--Termer 22:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * PS."Constitution of the USSR" is not within the topic of "Republics of the USSR" is still just an opinion. Of course I'm not saying that the article here needs an in depth coverage of the constitution like the main article could...--Termer 23:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I find the structure and spirit of your example above perfectly acceptable and NPOV-compliant. As for the Constitution, I also see nothing wrong in providing a brief (one or two sentences) overview of its aspects directly related with the topic at hand.  A more in-depth criticism of the Constitution, occupation, and Soviet Union in general should go to the corresponding articles; otherwise the flow and the logic of the article would be compromised.  Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats it then. I'll get to work and rewrite the header ASAP. Thanks!--Termer 00:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So...in what sense is the title POV, or in other words, what would you propose? Regards, Bogdan 02:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It's all up here what it was all about and a consensus has been reached, sorry for not getting to the article just yet. But I'll remove/replace the tag for now and rewrite the article according to the agreement ASAP. It's a very low priority I think, therefore I'm going to take my time with this. Thanks! --Termer 07:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

What happened to all of the Coats of arms of the republics. They have changed. Yeltsinfan (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Federative?
Why was the Russian SFSR refered to as such? What made it "federative," and why weren't any of the other republics considered federative? 98.221.133.96 (talk) 13:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Russian Republic was declared to be a "federation of the Soviet national republics" (a "free union of free nations") in January 1918. This declaration later became a part of the Constitution of the RSFSR, and the country was considered to be federative from then on.  Does this help?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Russian SFSR like Russian Federation nowadays consist of a number of nominally autonomous republics that are formed according to major territories inhabited by the indigenous peoples of Russia.(for ex Mari ASSR/Mari El, Tatar ASSR/Tatarstan etc.) Unlike the Native Sovereign Nations within the United States have sovereign immunity with their own laws, codes, etc. and are not federal subjects of the US, the autonomous republics were/are direct federal subjects of Russia, that was one of the republics of USSR by itself.

 * "The other" republics of the Soviet Union did not have major federal or autonomous subjects within their territories, that's why they were not called federal or "federative"--Termer (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * According to Autonomous republics of the Soviet Union, four "other" republics did have ASSRs, why wouldn't these republics be considered federative as well? I think the article should clarify what is meant by being federative.  98.221.133.96 (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Having 1 or 2 autonomous republics within some other Soviet Republics doesn't necessarily make them federations or it was chosen not to name these as such. And explaining here what exactly Federation means would not be exactly necessary either since the term has it's own article on WP.--Termer (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not so much what federation means, but why the other republics weren't federative in contrast to the Russian SFSR, since some of them did have a federative quality in containing ASSRs within their borders. I guess they weren't named as such, that's why only Russia got the "F" in SFSR. 98.221.133.96 (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's precisely the point I tried to convey in my original response and Termer continued to develop. None of other SSRs were ever declared to be federative.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

according to the Article 76 of the 1977 Soviet Constitution?
Well, the Soviet Constitution is not a WP:RS exactly, so the subject needs to be redefined right from the beginning according to reliable, third-party, published sources. I'll see what I can do, meanwhile anybody feel free to help out. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 02:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Haven't we been through this already (just two sections above this one)? The Constitution paragraph shows the official Soviet view, while the following paragraph shows an alternative view.  What seems to be the problem, again?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:19, June 9, 2009 (UTC)

the official Soviet view may be added to any articles according to WP:YESPOV. Wikipedia articles however, should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources. And there is no problem, currently the book by Hough, Jerry F (1997) defines the subject rather well.--Termer (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I missed that edit. Carry on :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:00, June 9, 2009 (UTC)

Successor?
noticed another thing in the article. The table in the article claims that Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania were successors of the ESSR, LSSR. This is factually incorrect. Please see for example 'Estonia By David James Smith, p. 20': ...longer established states simply restored pre-war diplomatic links rather than recognising a new, post soviet 'Thirrd Republic' as a successor to the ESSR founded in 1940. So either Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania should be removed from the Successor lists or  "Successor" section should be renamed to something that is in sync with sources out there. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 04:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The Baltics (again)
Can't we just say in the intro something along the lines of
 * that the people of Lith/Lat/Est consider the Soviet presence an occupation and that
 * the Russians (et al) considered the Soviet presence a legitimate takeover

without claiming the "correctness" of the two sides. A Russian is keenly aware of the common Estonian viewpoint and vice versa, and the fact that there are two very loud differing POVs is not obscure enough as to warrant justification with sources. It is like citing that the India and Pakistan have differences over Kashmir. The only reason why certain US-based editors feel the need to cite sources on the issue is because the USA took a political stand.

This, along with certain Westerners' ignorance of the Great Patriotic War/WWII difference shows a profound misunderstanding of the way things occur in the area of the former Soviet Union. 118.90.6.70 (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Please read the article and it's sources. Not 'Lith/Lat/Est consider the Soviet presence an occupation' but so do the European Court of Human Rights[3], the United Nations Human Rights Council [4],[6] the United States,[7] and the European Union,[8]. and The Russian government and state officials, however, maintain that the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states was legitimate. Is there anything that's not clear enough about those facts?--Termer (talk) 02:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I did read the sources and I do have problems. [5] and [6] are great examples of my initial objection, but can be used to show the differing viewpoints. [8] merely represents the opinion of the legislators at the time the motion was passed, and the resolution was pushed by those who have a POV. [3] is coloured by Baltic membership of the EU (amongst other things). [7] (BTW broken link but PDF copy here) doesn't even pretend to be neutral on the issue. [4] doesn't load (for me) at all :D It is obvious that they all reflect POVs, and using the organization's name to turn the opinion into a fact is not a good thing.
 * My intention was to put across the idea that it is clear that there are two opposing opinions. Both sides of course claim that their pov is the truth.
 * The main problem I have is that it attempts to make a statement of the "truth" (sorry, I couldn't find a suitable word) of the situation, and in that sense takes a stand on the aforementioned differences of opinion. The attempt at making a statement of the truth is shown by the words in the two sentences: "According to..." vs "[The Russians] maintain...".
 * I suggest that the intro of that paragraph is a sentence describing the two povs, then the next two sentences describing the two viewpoints, for example,
 * The legitimacy of the Soviet presence 1940–1991 is a topic which is contested between Lith/Lat/Est and Russia. [Sentence describing how Lith/Lat/Est consider it to be an unlawful occupation.] [Another sentence describing how Russia considers it to be a legitimate takeover.]
 * (IMO the article Political status of Taiwan is particularly well written.) 118.90.6.70 (talk) 06:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All those questions have been already addressed in my response above. Please do not return to make the same points over again. The only thing needing a comment perhaps, there is no hint of any statement of the "truth" anywhere. The text clearly says "according to"...--Termer (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Confusing statement
Can anybody please rework and clarify the following statement found beneath the Soviet republics table:

 * due to the international justice an independent state, not belonged to the Soviet Union, which however had a status of the Soviet republic formally during the Soviet occupation

Thank you. Pristino (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Republic Numbers
The republics are numbered 1 to 15 on the table that includes population. What does the number refer to? Bevo74 (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be the order in which they gained independence. Unmake (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of Transnistria
Should it be included as a successor to the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic alongside Moldova? It is a de facto sovereign state.  [  Soffredo  ]   08:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Republics of the Soviet Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070929120952/http://newsfromrussia.com/cis/2005/05/03/59549.html to http://newsfromrussia.com/cis/2005/05/03/59549.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Numbers in topmost map
Please add legend to equate numbers to the republics — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.81.20 (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2019 (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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Flag of Kirghiz ASSR (1920-25).svg

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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Flag of Altai Republic.svg

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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Warsaw Pact Logo.svg

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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Flag of Turkestan ASSR (1919-1921).svg

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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Flag of Mountain ASSR (1921-1924).svg

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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Emblem of the Mountain ASSR.svg

SFSR
SFSR redirects here, but this page doesn't even say what SFSR stands for.

The advice in [] is 'Normally, we try to make sure that all "inbound redirects" other than misspellings or other obvious close variants of the article title are mentioned in the first couple of paragraphs of the article or section to which the redirect goes. It will often be appropriate to bold the redirected term, though insignificant or minor redirects can skip this'. Since SFSR is used repeatedly on this page, I assume it is not considered a minor redirect.

Could someone please explain what SFSR stands for in this article?

(I assume "F" is "federal", "R" is "republic" and one of the "S"s is "Soviet" or "socialist", and perhaps the other "S" is the other of those two...) LachlanA (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

 * Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. The only republics of the USSR that had such a name was Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and the shorter-lived Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic (with "socialist" and "soviet" switched until 1930s in general). Mellk (talk) 02:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

 * SFSR should be redirected to the Russian Federation. SFSR is an acronym for official naming of certain soviet republics. During the Soviet period the Russian SFSR was also known as today's Russian Federation or Russia (informally, Rossiya to be precise). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Years of membership of Bukhara and Khorezm
The section Temporary Union Republics of the Soviet Union gives the years of membership of the Bukharan People's Soviet Republic and Khorezm People's Soviet Republic as 1920–1924. That cannot be correct: the USSR was only formed on 30 December 1922. I think the date of accession for the Khorezm PSR was 20 October 1923 and for the Bukharan PSR 19 September 1924, followed by a reorganization in which they ceased to exist on 27 October 1924. Are there sources to which this can be cited? --Lambiam 13:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Republics of the Soviet Union


text:
Wikipedia talk:PHP script automatic wikification

Multiple links from that very article to the same page are removed; only the first of these links stays
 * Magnus, I don't think I like this. In longer articles, it can be very helpful to have a second link later on, so the reader doesn't have to go scurrying back up the page until she finds the first one. And, of course, this could hurt talk pages something fierce! Brion VIBBER, Monday, April 8, 2002
 * You're right. I'll take it out tonight. Actually, the reason I put this in was one of 24's articles, where s/he was linking to the same article 3 or 4 times, within the first few paragraphs, each time with a different link title. --Magnus Manske, Tuesday, April 9, 2002

When is this going to go live? -- Timwi 20:32 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * I second that - it sounds like a very useful feature. Nanobug 21:06, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)