Talk:Q130280

Current claims on territory's sovereignty and it not being a republic of the Soviet Union at the beginning is problematic. Without additional clarifying claims or qualifers it's misleading. First of all, as the soviet republic was created with the purpose of being in composition of the Soviet Union then it probably isn't wrong to consider it as republic of the Soviet Union for its entire existence. Instead of interprating certain dates in an unintelligibly strict way, it may be more adequate to list different dates that are important in course of establishing the soviet republic as inception dates using some appropriate qualifers. Though, I'm not sure if given dates are noteworthy enough to be listed in any broader context as Wikipedias doesn't seem to put weight on these dates in its infoboxes. Secondly, even if current dates for republic of the Soviet Union can be considered using additional qualifers, then it necessarily doesn't follow that terrtiory was a sovereign state before given dates. It usually isn't considered sovereign as related events follow issuing an ultimatum in 1939 and consequently territorial changes in 1940 are generally considered illegal in perspective of international law. So claiming there was a new short-lived sovereign state in midst of all the turmoil is rather dubious. If there are reliable sources which argument that there was sovereignty then these souces should be given and appropriate qualifers should be added. However, currently without knowing if there are such sources, I believe this claim should be simply removed, along with dates that are used to make straightforward claims on subjects that aren't straightforward. Also, even though we can specify and add further qualifers, then it probably works only up to a point. It's better to describe complex concepts, including interpreations of some dates, at Wikipedia instead. 90.191.81.65 07:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

You sounds logical but formally it was created (announced) at 21 July, and what was it until 8 August? Probably "sovereign state" is not the correct item for this period, I must admit. We (here in Wikidata) should not regard only Wikipedia use (and of course, not only infoboxes, which are regarded by someone as a design trash) but we should model the history as exact as we can. --Infovarius (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what it was if that sort of distinction is applied. Then we might argue as well that it really didn't exist before it's incorporation into the union. Though, I think that this transformation through incorporation distinction is a result of overinterpreation. Similar to countries, establishing of this territory may be considered a process, and similarly it isn't unusual that there is a certain gap between proclamation and point of time when an entity can be considered what it claims to be. Among other criteria this later point of time may be when some formal criteria applies, like a formal incorporation or recognition by certain ammount of parties. The same way as country may be considered one before it has established itself fully or up to point, we may consider this entity as republic of the Soviet Union before its formal incorporation as being a republic of the Soviet Union is the reason why it was called into existence. Here we could omit this dubious periodization and underlying interpreation, and instead say what given dates are exactly about, or at least as exactly as statements/qualifers allow. For instance, using statement is subject of (P805) under inception (P571), 21 July would be a "proclamation" and 8 August would be, perhaps, an "accession". Maybe there is a clearer way to do it, e.g. by introducing new item entitled "accession into the Soviet Union". Or, still, maybe we should admit that Wikidata isn't a good place to "model the history" very exactly, and go to Wikipedia and describe things there in depth. 90.191.81.65 08:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)