Talk:List of leaders of the Soviet Union

	List of leaders of the Soviet Union is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on July 18, 2011.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 3, 2010 Featured list candidate Not promoted January 11, 2011 Featured list candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured list

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

This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Soviet Union: Russia / History Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Russia (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. Socialism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Russian & Soviet / Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989) Cold War Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Lists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Can someone update this table with the following information? I tried, but failed.

Georgy Malenkov was "Senior Secretary" from 5 March 1953 to 14 March 1953

Khruschev was "Senior Secretary" from 14 March 1953 to 13 Sep 1953.

Brezhnev was the "President of the Supreme Soviet" from 16 June 1977 to 10 Nov 1982.

Gorby was "Chairman of the Supreme Soviet" from 25 May 1989 to 15 March 1990.

Malenkov was NOT First Secretary. Please see Talk:Georgy Malenkov#First Secretary?. Avia 08:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to add Malenkov to the timeline graph?AndyL 11:26, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

While the table lists people in chronological order. The graph is in reverse chronological order. Can someone fix this?

Actually, I see the graph as being sideways. I'm going to try to make a new one in a day or two. Also, the table is very confusing to me. I wish we could put braces (curly brackets) or something around the multiple offices to make it more accesible. 68.161.30.236 01:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone and made this:

It's not one of the editable CG ones, so I didn't want to add it to the article without a little discussion. Dyfsunctional 15:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and put it in. 68.161.33.242 02:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Before Stalin it was Molotov Soviet premier. Also there were such premiers as Rykov and Kosygin.--Nixer 20:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not about the Premier of the Soviet Union but its leaders, i.e. the men who were in the top of power. Molotov, Rykov, Kosygin were not the top leader at their time. Avia 08:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what does the upper half of the graph indicate?--Nixer 18:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should add the third position to the graph.--Nixer 20:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the premier ministers, I think it is not necessary, since after Lenin that post was no longer most powerful. Avia 08:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Concil.--Nixer 14:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet was the official head of state of the Soviet Union, that post had never meant top power. Maybe, you do not remember the men who held that post before Brezhnev, e.g. Kalinin :-) Avia 07:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Top power was the mattert of personal authority.--Nixer 20:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it appropriate to include countries which were existing independent states before being annexed by the USSR in a list of states that replaced the Soviet Union (i.e. the Baltics)? Unigolyn 05:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

only the states that turned SSR then joined the USSR replaced the USSR.

In the image Nikita Khrushchev misspelled as Krushchev. In fact threre is not k sound, but the phoneme just as in 'hope' or 'home'.--Nixer 18:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who was it who changed the listings under the supreme ruler box? I do not believe Malenkov lost power until '55 and i know breznev was apart of a troikas until c.'68. And Stalin clearly wasnt leader in 1934, there was the long power struggle. Vital Component, 2:32 est. oct 24, 06

This article contradicts President of the Soviet Union.

Here: "... Lenin, Stalin, Malenkov and Khrushchev preferred the post of the premier, while Brezhnev and his successors preferred that of the president."

There: "The President of the Soviet Union was the Head of State of the USSR from 15 March 1990 to 25 December 1991. Mikhail Gorbachev was the first and only person to occupy the office."

What is true? An office cannot be created in 1990, and have someone preferring it in the seventies.

--User:Krator (t c) 23:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

as president in Brezhnev case is meant Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet that is equivalent to position president in other countries. --Li-sung 17:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer -- no. :)

Chairman was not a president for a simple reason. "A president" was called "Presidium of the Supreme Council". _Collectively_ you can call is a "president-like entity". Chairman of such Presidium was per se no more than speaker of the parliament in modern democratic countries. Of course, that is unless it was same person as General Secretary :))

Egh0st (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth to mention this property of the USSR/Russia leaders' sequence Lenin-Stalin-Khrushchev-Brezhnev-Andropov-Chernenko-Gorbachev-Yeltsin-Putin-Medvedev?92.39.161.221 (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brezhnev's table needs correction :) Egh0st (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A common mistake pretty much everyone makes. Soviet history is not that straightforward as it seems :) You forget that Khruschev wasn't a sole leader initially, it was him and Zhukov. Egh0st (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence is puzzling.

"Under the Constitution of the Soviet Union, the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars was the head of government and the Chairman of the Central Executive Committee of the All-Russian Congress of Soviets was the head of state."

Why would the head of state of the Soviet Union be chairman of a committee of the All-Russian Congress of Soviets? --Tyrannophobe (talk) 02:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks for your copyedit. :D And second; its because the Soviet Union was founded until 1922, the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic was the forunner of the Soviet Union. It was turned into a socialist republic after the RSFSR had taken over Georgia, Kazakhsthan, Armenia and so on.. Do you get my point? I've added this information into the article now! :D --TIAYN (talk) 06:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, me wrong, this article is about the USSR and not the RSFSR and the USSR; i keep forgetting that. --TIAYN (talk) 10:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's my wording above, and I'm not happy with it. I'm not sure if 'testing' is the right term, especially. Any thoughts? --Tyrannophobe (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced it with; "never tried out"... Does that sound better? --TIAYN (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is terribly muddled and needs a proper overhaul, or even better removal.

• Lenin and his entourage created the USSR around themselves, establishing the Council of People's Commissars in 1917, a full five years before the USSR was set up. The first sentence is quite misleading. The Council of Ministers (Soviet Union) wasn't set up until 1946.
  • See 1977 Soviet Constitution
• "The office of the Council of Ministers was the equivalent to the office of Prime Minister" - It is hard to understand what is meant by this!
  • Changed to; "The office of the chairman of the CoM was the equivalent to the office of the Prime Minsiter".
• "The office of the leader of the Soviet Union: if this is referring to the title of an office it should have the Russian translation by it.
  • Fixed.

All in all the first paragraph and the summary should better be removed so that the article becomes precisely what it sets out to be: a list, rather than a inadequate summary of certian points in the history of the Soviet Union.Harrypotter (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are able to write a short review of my work, but not to discuss the future of the commissariat articles! --TIAYN (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do the picture tags say things like: "Old man in a white shirt with black tie" instead of the names of the people in the picture? 62.12.14.28 (talk) 11:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The tags are supposed to describe the images. I know, the descriptions are really BAD. --TIAYN (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain Leader vs Premier vs General Secretary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.188.56 (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was the dictator. Lenin, Stalin, Khruschev and Brezhnev. They didn't NEED no stinking titles, although they were called "VZOD". The Premier was the Prime Minister, which was a subordinate position to the VZOD, except when he wanted the job for himself. From 1964 to sometime in the 1970s, Brezhnev and Kosygn were equals. The General Secretary was head of the party. If you were head of the party you were head of the country. That went all the way from the October Revolution to the Christmas collapse 80 years laterEricl (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Premier was the second highest political office in the USSR, and was in control over the state bureaucracy and the General Secretary was the leader of the party. Because of a lack of formal rules in the USSR (which is the reason why Stalin came to power), you did not need to hold a specific office to be considered the leader of the USSR .. For instance, in his later years, Stalin ruled the country through is post as Premier (the post of general secretary was even abolished in 1952).. Lenin and Malenkov also ruled the country through the office of premier, and Gorbachev, from 1990 until the USSr's dissolution through the post of President.. In short, the leader of the Soviet Union was the person with majority support in the Politburo of the CPSU. --TIAYN (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that removing a comment from a talk page is rude!00:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Was there a line of succession, like in the USA? If someone died while in office, who was the next in line to take over until a new person can be officially sworn in? -G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.22.224 (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC) +[reply]

The head of the funeral commission. In truth, no one cared. In 1924 and 1953, no one knew who was really next in line. Rhyskov was sort of elected, but in fact Stalin was grabbing power before Lenin had kicked the bucket. In 1953, Malenkov was the designated successor, but Khruschev grabbed power in the party then the collective leadership had Beria shot. They all deserved to die.19:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC) (I put it back, as this is the talk page)

There was no formal line of succession in the USSR (the communist countries of Cuba, China, Laos and Vietnam are introducing these into their systems now, which shows you the extent of the problem).. A successor was appointed by the members of the Politburo, either through votes or consensus. --TIAYN (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to change this because it's in the introductory paragraph, but I'm not sure if "equivalent to a First World prime minister" is the best wording. Perhaps "capitalist countries" or "Western countries" would be better. This is because the term "First World" exists today only in contrast to "Third World", with the "Second World" rarely referred to. The terms are now used almost entirely to refer to economic development, rather than political affiliation. In the context of this article it refers to the structure of government, and FWIW some Third World countries had prime ministers and the United States has only the President.

I don't want to make the change per WP:BOLD; I think it should be considered by others. Is it better to replace "First World" with "capitalist" or "Western"? Roches (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of leaders of the Soviet Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131107050501/http://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/552670 to http://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/552670

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Lenin CL Colour.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• 3-konstantin-ustinovich-chernenko-768x901.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should Gorbachev be considered to serve two terms as leader due to the August Coup as during his house arrest Yanavev is considered by this page to be a leader of the Soviet Union? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LARobson1998 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Могила политика Геннадия Янаева.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Konstantin Chernenko (retouched).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Yuri Andropov - Soviet Life, August 1983.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should Khrushchev be included as a member of the post-Stalin troika after assuming a key position in the leadership after Beria’s removal? Emiya1980 (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC) @Doomer1557: @Dhtwiki: @CapLiber: @Skjoldbro:[reply]

I see you pinging people, including me; but I only knew by seeing this edit, without being pinged. Per Template:Reply to, "The notification will work successfully only if you sign your post in the same edit in which you use this template." Dhtwiki (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. @CapLiber: @Skjoldbro: Emiya1980 (talk) 06:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources mention that the triumvirate consisted of Khrushchev-Malenkov-Beria from the very beginning. I'm not sure what Troikas should be in the article. When Troika is mentioned, they usually mean Stalin-Zinoviev-Kamenev. In other cases, this term is usually not used, since the number of officials will exceed three. 'Doomer1557' ( talk) 07:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomer1557: When I included Khrushchev among the troikas listed in this article, it wasn’t my intent to indicate he was part of the Beria-Malenkov-Molotov troika which followed Stalin's death. Rather, I sought to show that he effectively took Beria’s place in that troika upon bringing about his removal. Under such circumstances, its members would not rise above three. Assuming you are opposed to the addition of a Khrushchev-Malenkov-Molotov troika because I gave no citations, would your opinion change if I provided a list of sources corroborating its existence? Emiya1980 (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Emiya1980: There is information that initially the troika consisted of Malenkov-Khrushchev-Bulganin. There are many versions, so it makes no sense to accept one. In general, I think that the Troika should not be mentioned, because the only one with strong sources is Stalin-Kamenev-Zinoviev. It is also the most famous. As a Russian, I have not heard of the Troikas Brezhnev-Kosygin-Podgorny and Chernenko-Gromyko-Ustinov. Troikas are also not mentioned on the Russian Wikipedia. 'Doomer1557' ( talk) 19:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doomer1557 Sources are provided for all the triumvirates. Why do you say that Stalin-Kamenev-Zinoviev is the only one with strong sources? Emiya1980 (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No (Summoned by bot) – we need to follow what the reliable sources say, and most reliable sources discussing Soviet troikas do not include Khruschev among them. While a WP:CHERRYPICKed search such as this one turns up one reference^[1] in the top ten that lists Malenkov, Khrushchev, Molotov as a troika. However, an unbiased-search like this one which is not cherry-picked, turns up no mention of Khrushchev in the result snippets in the first 50 results. To answer the question: "would your opinion change if I provided a list of sources corroborating its existence?": Yes, I would change my mind if you included your search method and it was unbiased and the sources represented the majority view; but No, if you either failed to provide your search method or you used a biased search (such as searching for "Khrushchev AND troika") because your list of references could represent a tiny minority of views of reliable sources on the topic, and those must be ignored in articles per WP:NPOV. Mathglot (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: I think you would be stymying the quality of this discussion by prejudging my sources' quality based solely on how I found them. Regardless of the method used to find it, the reliability of a renowned scholarly work would remain the same. A better method would be to review the quality of my sources on their own merits and to objectively determine whether their evidence backs up my claim. Is that an acceptable compromise? Emiya1980 (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not acceptable, as it is against policy. So as not to burden the tally section with endless back and forth, I've responded below. Mathglot (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emiya1980, in your comment above, you are confusing reliability of sources, which is part of the core Wikipedia policy on Verifiability, with another core policy, that of neutrality in articles. I am not prejudging the quality of your sources. You said,

Regardless of the method used to find it, the reliability of a renowned scholarly work would remain the same.

That is exactly right; they would. Let's say I grant you in advance, that all of your sources are high quality, all of them are highly reliable, and every one of them backs up your claims; so no compromise needed on your part. The reliability of the work remains the same irrespective of how you found it. Okay, are we in agreement so far? Now to the part that you seem not to understand, which has to do with neutrality of the article based on majority/minority views. What doesn't remain the same depending on how you found those sources, is the validity of your argument. You said,

A better method would be to review the quality of my sources on their own merits and to objectively determine whether their evidence backs up my claim. Is that an acceptable compromise?

It's not a better method, and it's not acceptable because it goes against Wikpedia's policy of WP:DUEWEIGHT. Depending on the method you used to find your sources, your argument may either be valid, or may fall apart as a violation of WP:NPOV's principle of due weight.

At first glance, based on the searches I did earlier and linked above, your claims appear not to be held by a majority of reliable sources on the topic, nor even by a significant minority of sources. According to Wikipedia's policy of due weight, they must therefore be excluded from the article. A WP:CHERRYPICKed search can always turn up evidence for a tiny minority view, you simply have to include search terms for that view, and you will find it. The key point you seem to be missing, is that a reliable view is not sufficient for inclusion in an article; it must also be a majority or significant minority view. If it is not, it must be excluded. The searches I linked above support the latter conclusion. In order to overturn that conclusion, you would need to provide evidence that the view you hold is either a majority view, or the view of a significant minority. So far, you haven't done that. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mathglot I have reviewed the WP:NPOV page. You are correct in saying that the viewpoints published in Wikipedia articles should be presented in "in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." With that being said, your argument that I need to prove this by showing how I found these sources is not supported by Wikipedia's guidelines. The page you frequently reference, WP:CHERRYPICK, is merely an essay which contains the opinions of one or more editors but does not speak for the entire Wikipedia community. As far as I can tell while looking at the WP:NPOV page, the closest thing to a hard-and-fast rule for determining whether a viewpoint is held by the majority/minority of reliable source is as follows:

Based on this test, you can judge whether the viewpoint I am presenting represents a majority or significant minority view based on (1) the reliability of the sources containing it (as explained on this page) and (2) the proportion which such sources make up the body of published work on the subject. I am willing not only to provide my sources but to quote how they support the view that Khrushchev formed a troika alongside Malenkov and Molotov after Beria's removal. If you think I have not provided enough reliable sources to back up this viewpoint, present your own list of verifiable sources and show how they represent views held by the majority that refute it. Point out to me one place in the guidelines (NOT an advisory opinion) which prohibits us from reaching a consensus this way. Emiya1980 (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although I've explained it twice, you seem to still miss the point. You don't have to supply your sources or quote how they support the view that Khrushchev formed a troika alongside Malenkov and Molotov; I believe you have the sources, I believe the sources say what you claim they say. Furthermore, the only source added to this discussion that supports your point of view, is the one that I added myself. This is not a "battle of the reliable sources" and I don't have to present any sources that refute your point of view, as the WP:BURDEN is on you to prove your thesis. I cannot prove a negative: no historian will add to his page about Soviet history, "...and by the way, Montezuma of Mexico was not part of any of the Soviet troikas." You can only prove a positive, that he was part of one. The onus is on you to prove your point, and you have not done so. This is my last comment at this Rfc, so I'll try to state this as clearly as I can: I assert the following:

• Based on the data provided above, the position that Khrushchev was part of a troika is supported by only a tiny minority of reliable sources on the topic, therefore per WP:UNDUE this view and these sources cannot be mentioned in the article at all.

I have performed numerous searches that support this assertion; the sources that I am seeing that support your position are around 1 or 2 in 50. Two of these searches are linked above, which you've failed to address now, twice. You keep giving your opinion here about why K. should be included in the troika, based on this or that reliable source you've found; please just stop, I've already told you I believe you can find them. What you need to do, is show some data that demonstrate that your view is a majority or a significant minority view, and that the data from the links above is somehow incorrect or unrepresentative. You haven't done that so far, the data stands in stark opposition to your claims, and you haven't provided anything of substance to believe otherwise.

I feel like we're going around in circles and I'm repeating the same points over and over. I apologize if I haven't been clear thus far, and perhaps it's best to leave this to other editors to weigh in, so I'll bow out quietly now. If you can come up with some data to prove your point, I'll be happy for you, but I have nothing new to add; please don't ping me. Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mathglot It is you that is missing the point. Before I even have the chance to make an argument as to why a viewpoint should be included, you set arbitrary limits on how I can go about doing so. As I said before, WP:CHERRYPICK is NOT a part of Wikipedia's guidelines (a point you conveniently failed to address in your last post). Therefore, the evidence I provide is not conditional on me providing search result "data" which suits your specifications. Some of my sources happen to be books which I own so there is no "search data" available for them. Moreover, the sources I did research online were originally found at least a year ago so it would be highly impractical for me to go back and pinpoint the search terms I used when first locating them (assuming the logs have not already been deleted in my web history by now).

Please stop trying to pass off your own preferences as Wikipedia policy. There is no basis for them to dictate others' thoughts on this matter. Emiya1980 (talk) 00:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Konstantin Chernenko (retouched).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Konstantín Chernenko - Tapa Diario Clarín.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I just had an idea for adding two columns to the table of leaders. These would be “Heads of state” and “Heads of government”, showing who served as Chairman of the Presidium and Premier during the leader’s rule. Should I add this? Thanks LivingInTwilight (talk) 05:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it’s been about 2 days since I posted this with no reply, so I’m just going to go ahead and add the columns. Feel free to revert the edit should you consider it unhelpful. Thanks LivingInTwilight (talk) 07:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Konstantin Chernenko (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Konstantin Chernenko Portrait.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of the leaders are from Russia, for example Joseph Stalin was from Georgia. Is the usage of this template correct here? Mr. PouLS (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• CroppedStalin1943 (2).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone who has knowledge on how to edit these types of tables fix the error image on the Joseph Stalin column cause I can't. Amebrahtu1997 (talk) 06:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have put back the old image. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Konstantin Chernenko Portrait-BW.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Черненко Константин Устинович, партийный билет (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Yuri Andropov - Soviet Life, August 1983.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]