Talk:Article 58

Old talk

If it was the RSFSR penal code, then what legal grounds were there for arrests in other R's, from the Baltics to Uzbekistan? --Humus sapiens|Talk 01:25, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Their penal codes had articles of similar content. A quick Google search turns up article 59 in Latvian SSR code and article 66 in Belarussian SSR code. Andris 17:23, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • It would be good if you added something along these lines into the article. Mikkalai 19:59, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • OK, I added a sentence. I can't find text of any of them on the web, though, just mentions about people convicted, with notes about similarity to article 58 in RSFSR. Andris 04:22, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Interestingly, I remember having read that up to a certain time RSFSR penal code was used in Estonian SSR' as well. This was definitely the case with repressions during the first Soviet occupation 1940-41, ESSR code was composed later (on the basis of RSFSR code). Interesting legality the Soviets had... --Constanz - Talk 07:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

In Soviet Union there was ONE penal code and article 58 is article of SOVIET penal code, not RSFSR penal code. Francesco

No, there was RSFSR code during Stalin's times, also used in other countries under soviet rule. (Solzhenitsyn writes this way)--Constanz - Talk 07:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Article 58 was split when the law was revised in the early 1960s (see Anti-Soviet agitation). §58-10 became §70 of the new RSFSR Criminal Code. This §70 defined a maximum of 7 years of imprisonment followed by at most five years of internal exile. The version from the Ukrainian Criminal Code is available online; the RSFSR version was identical (I haven't found it online, but it is reprinted (in translation) in Loeber, D.A.: Urheberrecht in der Sowjetunion: Einführung und Quellen, 2nd ed.; Alfred Metzner Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 1981. No ISBN. In German). Also in the 1960s, a new article 190(1) on the "dissemination of known falsehoods that defame the Soviet political and social system" was introduced in the RSFSR Criminal Code; it specified a maximum punishment of imprisonment for up to three years, or penal labour of up to one year, or a fine of up to 100 rubles. (Source: Loeber; Ukrainian version also mentioned at the extlk given above.) Lupo 14:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Also see Nikiforov, B. S.: Fundamental Principles of Soviet Criminal Law, in The Modern Law Review 23(1), pp. 31-42; January 1960. states that the RSFSR §70 and the UkrSSR §62 were implementations of an identical §7 of the Union-wide "Fundamentals of Criminal Law" of 1958. Lupo 08:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Espionage Act of 1917

How is the Espionage Act of 1917 compared to the Article 58 (RSFSR Penal Code) probably nobody knows? Unlike espionage act that was challenged in courts, the Article 58 was never questioned and used purely and mostly for political purpose rather than national security. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Bizarre Editorial Scribbles

Somebody has entered: "58-14 were "saboteurs")[citation needed]."

Um, that is a citation, seems to me.

Subsequently, I see a longer scribble, saying that the whole article lacks citations.

At the bottom of the entry, there are two footnotes, one to "extracts" the other a box to the full text, of article 58.

These solve the imaginary problem, shurely? Could somebody remove the scribbles perhaps?

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 11:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Obscure title

This article has a really obscure title that does not explain what the article is trying to be encyclopedic about and restricts to being little more than documentation of a particular law. The title makes it almost impossible to understand what is really being written about. If it was some other name, like "Counter-revolutionary laws of the Soviet Union", or "Enemy of the workers (Soviet penal code)" one would be much clearer what the article is about and much easier to include other similar law from other Soviet jurisdictions. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 09:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I know I'm necro-ing this post, but I think this is a good idea - by looking at the title it's hard to surmise anything about the page, especially given its historical significance(causing many counter-revolutionaries and intellectuals to be sentenced to death) and place in the larger context of Soviet Russia. Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, in its historical significance it is best known just like this: "Article 58" . In fact, it was the original title, but someone decided it is an "obscure title". There are many things you will never guess from title: Kukerpillid, Five and a Half Love Stories in a Vilnius Apartment, Sameby, Kyrkstad, Krulik, Cheder metukan Virtanen type. Endless. --Altenmann >talk 17:37, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Removing 1 drop of water from a lake on a rainy day doesn't make it any less a lake, I guess - but! I think Cameron Dewe's suggestions makes sense, and would only aid to ease confusion - "Sameby" is only titled Sameby because that's the common name for that subject, as is "Five and a Half..." or "Kyrkstad." Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Of course, your point has merit too - "Article 58" is more vague than "Article 58 of the RSFSR Penal Code," and there is a limit to how much rewording the title can undergo, until the subject matter completely changes. Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

@Monkeysmashingkeyboards: Naming the article Article 58 makes it even more obscure. One of the criteria for the title of an article is that it should use a commonly recognizable name, not just a common name. Recognizability is the criterion, not "commonness". I don't think the naming policy has been properly followed. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 03:07, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

If a person is not familiar with any subject area, they will recognize nothing. Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with. Someone reasonably familiar with Stalinism knows the number "58", as well as number "1937". Now, pray tell me looking at the title DONT CLICK! what the heck is R v Sullivan or Unit 731? --Altenmann >talk 07:05, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@Altenmann: Fair point. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Citations

I see that some sections lack citations. Would links to The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn suffice? 2600:6C48:7A7F:70B4:692B:19DC:1E24:3F0C (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 20 September 2025

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: moved. (non-admin closure) veko. (user | talk | contribs) he/him 02:38, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

---

Article 58 of the RSFSR Penal Code → Article 58 – Per WP:COMMONNAME: it is a nearly universal reference and there are no other notable Articles 58s --Altenmann >talk 17:42, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:56, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Rename - Current title isn't very informative for someone who isn't familiar with the subject matter Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Rename WP:COMMONNAME ɴɪᴋᴏʟᴀɪᴠᴇᴋᴛᴏᴠɪᴄʜ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/ᴄᴏɴᴛʀɪʙ) 13:11, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

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