Talk:Glasnost: Difference between revisions

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

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