Talk:Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union

Sources on Psychological Punishment of Clergy Missing

The article claims: "Many Orthodox (along with peoples of other faiths) were also subjected to psychological punishment or torture and mind control experimentation in order to force them give up their religious convictions (see Piteşti prison)." The footnotes and the Pitesti prison are however referring to Romania, not the SU. If the sentence is to stay, other sources are necessary. In general the section on the persecutions needs more sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.92.94.145 (talk) 11:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Dubious cite for Criticism of atheism ...

The lead sentence that says..."Criticism of atheism was strictly forbidden and sometimes lead to imprisonment.[3]" uses http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/resources/sermons/calciu_christ_calling.htm as it's cite. This is very dubious and from a POV and unreliable source. The source is a sermon, littered with biblical allusions. We can't have that in there. There must be better cites available for this claim. The Soviets imprisoned many people for many arbitrary reasons. Ttiotsw 21:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you actually arguing that victims of persecution are to be regarded as unreliable sources of testimony regarding their own persecution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.211.133.118 (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This specific source is not good. Sure, we can use testimonies of prosecution victims, but they should be published in sources that satisfy WP:Verifiability. There are plenty of them.Biophys (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a firm grasp on the normal wiki method of discussion => edit yet, but it is clear that both Ttiotsw and Biophys' comments are completely accurate. This is an unacceptable source. Not only is it POV, but the sermon references a few young kids quoted in a magazine as the source of the priest's statement. Certainly not reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjunsi (talk • contribs) 21:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Anti-religious campaign section

This entire article is peppered with unsourced controversial claims, but the Anti-religious campaign section is just terrible. There are dozens of claims in this section that provide no source and cannot even be verified with casual research on google. There are only two sources in the entire section, and one of them is a dead link. The writing style also conveys a clear bias. Phrases like "scathingly satirical" are the author's subjective opinion and do not belong in an encyclopedia. The term pro-Darwin is also clearly biased and it misrepresents the issue, making evolution by natural selection as described by Darwin appear to be merely one side of the scientific debate between creation and evolution. The term usage of 'pro-Darwin' alone indicates the original author's agenda.

Most of the source tags have been on here since April of 2007, leaving a significant section of exaggerated claims unsourced for nearly two years. If no one can give me a good reason to leave this information here, and if there are no reliable sources are added within a few weeks from this message, I am going to revise or delete this entire section. Two years of biased wikipedia user-opinions purporting to be fact is long enough. Arjunsi (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Title of piece

I just wonder if the article should be retitled "Persecution of Orthodox Christians in the Soviet Union". At several points the word Orthodox is mentioned at one point other faiths are mentioned. However, the article gives no indication that significant numbers of non-orthodox Christians, such as Baptists (including Georgi Vins)suffered persecution under the Soviet regime. Ferrislindsay (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Ferrislindsay (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Additions to Piece

I've added quite a bit of material to this piece, and created several affiliated pages. I did my best in order to avoid removing content except if I mention it in the part that I add. Much of the content from the old article has been placed inside the paragraphs that I wrote, or has been placed on the affiliated pages that give a longer discussion, which I created in order to limit space on this page. I also added scholarly citations for the criticism of atheism and a number of other claims in the piece. God Bless, - Reesorville, Reesorville (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

AI Barmenkov

Someone has contributed to the piece and added information referenced to AI Barmenkov, one of the deputy CRA chairmen under Brezhnev. I thank whoever has made the effort to do this, but there is an important question in that: why is this source being treated as credible enough to stand on its own? I'm only loosely familiar with him, but I am under the impression he was a soviet propagandist and several things that have been referenced (not all though) are directly contradicted by academic sources. God Bless, Reesorville (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC) After fifteen days there was no response to this, and so I've now adjusted Barmenkov's information as I thought fit. God Bless, Reesorville (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sentences like "Barmenkov even misconstrued (a common tactic by atheist propagandists in the USSR" are ridiculously POV. The changes will be reverted. Attempts to portray the Orthodox Church as a victim amount to post-1990 revisionism. This is ironic given the warm relations between Pimen and other leaders of the church with the Russian Soviet Government. The portrayal of the church as an innocent bystander during the Russian Revolution is a falsification of history, as the Church's treasonous activity against the Russian government is well-documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.230.178 (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality problems

The premise that Christians were persecuted in the Soviet Russia is highly tendentious and oversimplified. The reality was much more complex, characterized at times by mutual hostility between state and church as well as cooperation. The article should analyze relations between the two sides and the experience of Christians rather than approaching the issue in such a politicized, propagandistic manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.230.178 (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't wish to start an edit war. I'll let you write what you want to write, although I don't agree with what you have written. The church as a body certainly had many members who took up arms against the bolsheviks, and I didn't delete what you wrote about the church's controls pre-1917, but unless you can supply some evidence that what the scholarly authors I'm quoting are wrong by using other academic sources (and not official soviet sources), then I don't think you should be deleting what I wrote and replacing it with that. Why are you referencing deputy chairman Barmenkov and the Soviet encyclopia as authoritative sources on Christians in Russia and deleting what I paraphrase from Anderson or Pospielovsky who are both tenured academics? The article presents some material on the cooperation and hostility between church hierarchy and state. Please have a nice day. God Bless,Reesorville (talk) 07:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Note that unless the alleged neutrality problems are explained here, I will remove the tags. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

They're gone. Anyone who disagrees, let us talk. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 15:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments

1. Many changes (see this diff) were made by IP of banned User:Jacob Peters. They should be reverted. Any objections? Biophys (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
2. Why this article was unilaterally renamed? The current subject can be better described as "persecution" (also per WP:Common name) rather than as "treatment". Biophys (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Not an accurate portrayal of Christian persecution in the Soviet Union pre-1928/29

This article seems to have been written under the assumption that Christianity in the Soviet Union was limited to the Orthodox Church. This is plainly not true: not only was there a significant number of Catholics (thanks in no small part to Catherine II, who welcomed the Jesuits as educators and refused to enforce Dominus ac Redemptor in her domains. There were also a number of Evangelical sects (mostly imported from Germany), more or less collectively known under the name of "Shtundists," as well as a number of home-grown sects, with the Molokans, Doukhobors, Skoptsy, and Tolstoyans being merely the best-known.

With the exception primarily of the Skoptsy, many of these sects were rather well-tolerated until the Five Year Plans began. Let's not forget the 1919 decree allowing for religiously-based conscientious objection to military service, and putting the evaluation of these CO claims in the hands of religious representatives themselves.

Undoubtedly, there were fierce attacks on the ROC (and the Catholics). But remember, both churches were heavily institutionalized, strongly centralized, and quite wealthy. They were, more than anything, a potential rival power base to the Bolsheviks. And indeed, these churches were heavily persecuted. But though they of course included the vast majority of Christians in Russia, they were not the only Christian movement. Attacks on religion generally, rather than on specific (albeit quite large) religious movements that, due to their unique organizational characteristics, represented a threat to power did not come about until, at the earliest, the mid-1920s with the decline in influence of Vladimir Bonch-Bruevich, and did not really pick up steam until after the 1929 congress of the League of the Godless revealed deep-seated impatience with Yaroslavsky's culturalist faction.

Barring significant objection, I will be heavily editing the first section of the article over the next week or so so that it reflects a broader picture of the experiences of Russian Christians in the first decade after the revolutions. I'm happy to discuss any problems or issues anyone might raise. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 16-0 and Super Bowl XLIV Champions) 16:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

This is very interesting. I think you should leap into it. Only thing that occurs to me: you obviously know a lot about this, but can you easily find references to substantiate the additions? Secondly, the article is already I think too long and would be helped by pictures and illustrations. So maybe some content could be refactored rather than new content simply added on top. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I could probably find references once I got around to it. I'm fairly familiar with the literature, it's just a matter of finding the specific pages on which specific points are discussed, and waiting for ILL to deliver some books that I don't have immediate access to. I don't know that the article is too long; if anything, it needs to be expanded to include a discussion of Marx's interpretation of the sociological function of religion and why that led the Bolsheviks to a rather schizophrenic approach to countering it as advocates of divergent solutions competed for influence in the anti-religious and general bureaucracy. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 16-0 and Super Bowl XLIV Champions) 17:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union

Requesting page be locked. Article Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union has more than 3 reverts by an anonymous IP address...Posting a URL as a source to their commentary that I can not locate anywhere else nor find in published and or peer reviewed sources..

Here is the content added.

According to the Russian Orthodox Church's Patriarch Pimen, "I must say with a full sense of responsibility that there has not been a single instance of anyone having been tried or detained for his religious beliefs in the Soviet Union. Moreover, Soviet laws do not provide for punishment for "religious beliefs". Believe it or not - religion is a personal matter in the Soviet Union. [1]
This comment appears to be posted on an unreliable and unverifiable source.
Diffs

• 1. [2]
• 2. [3]
• 3. [4]
• 4. [5]

Since this IP continues to post this comment even after it has been repeatedly removed. I request that the page be locked out from anonymous editing for a duration of time set by administrations discretion. LoveMonkey (talk) 01:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Due to the IP edit warring the article has been semiprotected for one month. If you can find any reliable source to establish that Patriarch Pimen I actually made this statement about religious persecution why not offer it here for discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Pimen's statement is found in several Russian sources: p.51 of this book and p.129 here. Unless you have something proving that the statement is not authentic, then there are no grounds for removing it. LoveMonkey's recent edits are problematic, as he only posts those sources that support his views; some of the sources have nothing to do with the historical setting, but are about the 19th and 21st centuries rather than the USSR. There's also this comprehensive book about the Russian Orthodox Church proving that there wasn't persecution of that institution, but that in the early years of the Soviet period elements of the church waged war against the country by joining with the Denikin and Kolchak regimes.

I doubt that those editing the article have any personal experience with Russia. Concerning myself, my cousin is a bishop in that part of the world, and he entered seminary around 1980 and is also a veteran of the Soviet Army. So these allegations of "persecution" are not appreciated by Russians and their neighbors.

Much of what's on this article consist of outright fabrications and should be removed. Citing the unreliable source Yakovlev, this article claims that 100k priests were executed. But this source here proves that Yakovlev fabricated the claims as part of his anti-Soviet campaign.

It's because of articles like this why Wikipedia is such a joke: it is written by amateurs with no social life and who have zero qualifications. In articles throughout this site, I find dubious research methods and unreliable sources. This is to be expected, as it would be unlikely that an academic would waste his time with something he wouldn't get paid for.

---

Pimen's statement is undue weight it contradicts the veneration of the new-martyrs under atheism by the Russian Orthodox church. [6]

Is this an attempt to start saying Pimen was KGB by way of the Furov report? [7] Pimen's statement does not over ride nor counter Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev's since as far as I can tell Hilarion was never accused of being KGB.

"I come from a country where for many decades church buildings were used for ungodly purposes. Many houses of worship were completely destroyed, others were converted into ‘museums of atheism’, and still others were redesigned and given over to secular institutions. This was one of the features of so-called ‘militant atheism’, which reigned in my country for seven decades and was dethroned only relatively recently." [8]

If no one was persecuted then there would be no one to venerate.

[9], [10], [11] The Pravoslav website has nothing to do with the Russian Orthodox church IN RUSSIA. Its lying and this anonymous person here, well thank God, they are standing up and speaking for all of Russia and the Russian Orthodox church..Someone should stop the Russian Orthodox church [12] and the New York Times [13], and Time Magazine [14] for spreading lies..

• 1. personal experience isn't considered valid sourcing.
• 2. Here are films showing churches being destroyed [15], [16]

so lets address these. LoveMonkey (talk) 22:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Your use of KGB as a slur is not acceptable for a civil discussion on this subject. Even if this characterizations about Pimen were true, it wouldn't serve to compromise his already good reputation. He was the leader of his church, and his words provide overwhelming evidence that there was not persecution of Christians of the USSR, but that there was extensive tolerance of them and also cooperation between state and church. Here's President Brezhnev meeting with Pimen and other church leaders [17]

You cite Christopher Andrew's book about the discredited Mitrokhin archive for pushing your points, but this cannot be accepted as a reliable source. Andrew's book has been extensively criticized and the authenticity of its contents have been disproven.

What exactly is your point by citing Bishop Hilarion? It's interesting to note that he is a Soviet Army veteran and that attended seminary during the 1980s. So how exactly was he persecuted for his religious beliefs? And what makes him more of an authority about religious life in Russia than Pimen?

You refer to the Christ the Savior Cathedral. But the construction projects done where the church had been placed had were not motivated by religious reasons, but by economic ones. The structure of the church contained tons of gold, and funds were needed to help develop the country. It's explained in this book here [18]75.51.167.249 (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I did not create the Furov report nor write the book I used as a source. [19]

If Pimen spoke as a pro-KGB person in the 80s he would have covered for any brutality the KGB were accused of. But you can't see that. That's called being pro or for, stop claiming insult, your comments on your feelings do nothing to refute the sources given. And you are really into hyperbole here saying things like "his words provide overwhelming evidence that there was not persecution of Christians of the USSR, but that there was extensive tolerance of them and also cooperation between state and church".. WHAT? Words do what? As if Pimen in the 80s had access to the current evidence provided here? Pimen's words don't undo the pictures and letters and video as evidence to contrary that's been posted. Pimen's words are also not policy here at wiki.

An administrator has already posted the complaint [weight]. Your calling all of these contrary sources liars that's not an effective way of contributing here to wiki. Holocaust denies opinions are not treated as equal to, the evidence given to support the holocaust. I can see however that you won't address say the New York Times article or the other sources though, to you they're made up. On Bishop Hilarion how is what you said about him, refute what he said? You know it doesn't, as he was speaking of somethings that happened in Russia's past not his own. But you keep commenting here like that. As for your comment "And what makes him more of an authority about religious life in Russia than Pimen?"

I will state the obvious since you are unable to see it. Bishop Hilarion (Alfeyev)'s job is speaking for the Orthodox church in the here and now on behave of the whole church including Kirill. Hilarion (Alfeyev) is doing that while not under Soviet rule and threat of the KGB. And the KGB as a force is supposed to be at an end in Russia (as of 1991) so thats the difference, as far as I can tell 1) Hilarion (Alfeyev) speaks for the church and says that a persecution happened (I provided that, you ignore it), 2) Hilarion (Alfeyev) is not someone said to have been compromised by the KGB (unlike Pimen which again I provided a source).

And your comment on the rebuilding of Christ the Savoir also contradicts what the reason that the church was destroyed by Stalin and his purpose the Palace of the Soviets that would have taken lots and lots of that tons of gold, and funds to create as what you say is revisionist in hindsight and not what was said at the time of demolition,[20] your POV is not considered a valid enough of a source to try and deny the mass graves and documents I have provided here that tell a different story. You are here edit warring and exhibiting [mentality], [bad faith]. [is not a soapbox] for you to come here and post subjective and obscure one offs and claim they refute all of the up to date scholarly and current data, sources already given in the article (and actually more than what is required). Tell me where these additional 2 sources get it wrong for example; 21,626,000 people perished during the Soviet [21] and this one here says 12,000,000 [22]. AND THESE ARE DESCRIBED AS ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS NOT SIMPLY RUSSIAN CITIZENS. But then with people going around claiming they speak for Russia as Russians and that these sources ALL OF THEM are liars doesn't really help to get out the truth so people can understand for themselves. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Pimen was not a KGB official, and there would be nothing wrong with that even if he were. The Russian Orthodox Church, as you know, was not banned in the Soviet period. In fact, the Church openly cooperated with many political campaigns during the Soviet period. This is described in this book (p.320):

"The Church takes an active part in the activities of the Soviet Peace Fund, to which it renders financial assistance. Its hierarchs, the clergy and laity are members of commissions for assistance to the Soviet Peace Fund...Many prominent hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church earned high government awards for their patriotic activities in defense of peace: Patriarch Aleksiy (Simansky) received four Orders of the Red Banner of Labour; Patriarch Pimen, two orders of the Red Banner of Labour and one Order of Friendship between peoples..."

75.51.167.249 (talk) 04:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

So your entire argument boils down to.. All of the sources (they are peer reviewed by the way) are lies and only you know the truth. Is this how you get people to agree with you? You also are misrepresenting what I have posted. I never said that Pimen was a KGB agent I said he was pro-KGB or compromised by the KGB. Since the KGB is no more that whole paradigm no longer relates to things in the here and now. Do tell wasn't Putin in the KGB? LoveMonkey (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Pospielovsky's book was NOT peer-reviewed, it was published by a non-academic publisher He bypassed the process of peer review because there would be no way that his book would have been published the way it is by an academic press. I showed below that the scholarly community received his work with strong criticism. 75.51.167.249 (talk) 04:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Which book or books are you speaking of by Pospielovsky? LoveMonkey (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Myth of the persecution of the church in Russia

This book "Миф о гонении церквии в СССР" by a Russian historian refutes the entire premise of this article. Why does this article still exist?75.51.167.249 (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is what the Patriarch of Russia Kirill I of Moscow says..

"After the 1917 Revolution, the Church was almost eliminated. Scores of thousands of priests, bishops, monks and nuns and hundreds of thousands of the faithful were subjected to repression and most of them were shot to death. Their only guilt was that they did not conform to the ideological standards established by the state. They were ideologically hostile to the regime. No religious community in the world experienced such suffering, as it was actually genocide, the elimination of Orthodox people in Russia, in the former Soviet Union." [23] LoveMonkey (talk) 02:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

That's funny: Kirill himself was educated at a theological seminary in Leningrad prior to the start of his career in the church during the 1960s. How can he then talk about the elimination of the church?

Kirill's claim that the people were persecuted on religious grounds is false. The book I showed above documents how a Russian Orthodox priest went on to lead punitive detachments under Kolchak's regime that slaughtered innocent peasants. Scholarly works on the church also demonstrate church leaders' extensive collaboration with the White Guard forces. So it is incorrect to suggest that the church was overall a neutral bystander during the revolution.

Here is Kirill's background, by the way. For these exact same reasons, you have objected to the use of Pimen's words in this article. How come Kirill's words can be used, but not those of Pimen?

Kirill graduated with honors from Leningrad Spiritual Academy in 1969. In 1970, he earned his master's degree, and after several minor positions was appointed a personal secretary to Mitropolit Nikodim, chief of the external church relations. Since that moment, Kirill became the face of the Orthodox Church in all foreign trips to Western Europe. According to vlasti.net website, Kirill's colleagues and competitors linked all his travels to his work for the Soviet KGB where he was known by nickname "Mikhailov."In 1975, at a forum in Nairobi, he defended the Soviet Union and downplayed dissidents' letters by making historic claims that people of faith were not persecuted and there were no human rights abuses based on religion in the Soviet Union. 75.51.167.249 (talk) 04:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

So according to you Kirill now also is a liar and this is per your comment "Kirill's claim that the people were persecuted on religious grounds is false." So everyone is a liar but you and your sources? Since the KGB is no more that whole paradigm no longer relates to things in the here and now. Kirill (as Patriarch) is in the here and now. I really have to keep stating to you the obvious. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Since policy evolved from blanket persecution to infiltration and isolating certain groups, it's not hard to find contemporary church leaders from the post-Khrushchev era especially with glowing remarks about the state. Thinking that such comments undo decades of history is just as absurd as pretending the "patriotic" churches in China represent all Christians, but since that is now and this is history, it's harder to ignore. InformedContent (talk) 22:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

LoveMonkey, your remark makes no sense. I proved that that Kirill is not credible because he can't get his story straight: he used to say that there was no religious persecution, but now he claims that there is. But it's hard to take him seriously when he went to seminary during the 1960s and began his church career shortly after.75.51.167.249 (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Kirill is the Russian Patriarch and you are? So many people you are calling liars. Again was Putin KGB? LoveMonkey (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Pospielovsky

The article is almost entirely based on the work of Pospielovsky, who is not a reliable source and not reflective of a consensus on the topic. He takes a firmly pro-church approach, uses dubious sources, and gets many facts wrong.

Russian Review, Vol. 49, No. 3, (Jul., 1990), pp. 371-373

Pospielovsky is a traditionalist historian with a strong commitment to his Orthodox faith...the lack of an objective tone frequently detracts from the book's persuasiveness.His single-minded focus on Orthodoxy also leads him to exaggerate the relative difficulties of his church. For example, speaking of restrictions on the churches, he says, "Even in such a basically Russian and historically Orthodox region as Rostov-on-Don, the Orthodox are one of the most disadvantaged groups... in the religious sector of the population" (p. 205). By contrast, Christel Lane, whose fine sociological examination of many of Pospielovsky's issues is mysteriously omitted from Pospielovsky's bibliographyc, laims that the Orthodox Church "receive[s] distinctly more favorable treatment than other religious organizations" (Christian Religion in the Soviet Union [Albany, NY, 1978], p. 33; also relevant is her The Rites of Rulers... The Soviet Case [Cambridge, England, 1981]). The statement about Rostov-on-Don is based on an erroneous interpretation of the statistics in his tables, as well.

Slavic Review, Vol. 47, No. 4 (Winter, 1988), p. 753

He then takes up the issue of Soviet antireligious practice from the 1920s to the 1980s. Here he relies mainly upon samizdat documents and some often overlooked eye-witness accounts from Russian emigres.

International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 64, No. 2 (Spring,1988), pp. 303-304

He does not make any pretence of neutrality; he is on the side of the believers. Anti-religious struggle, Pospielovsky emphasizes, is central to communist thought from Marx to the present Soviet leaders. He sometimes seems to exaggerate the priority which the rulers have given to anti-religious policy when this conflicts with other objectives. It is misleading, for example, to say that Lenin made atheism 'the immediate political task of the party' (p. 18); he was much more concerned with winning and holding power, and appealed for support to religious minorities such as the Muslims

The American Historical Review, Vol. 95, No. 3 (Jun., 1990), pp. 874-875

The work is permeated with an attitude of suffused indignation. Sources he likes he uses uncritically (for example, in volume 1, pages 34-36, he draws on a most suspicious "secret report" of Lenin), and seldom if ever does he question a samizdat claim. When it suits his purposes he will use figures that he knows are inflated (for example, he cites the state's absurd claim that in 1959 there were twenty-two thousand Russian Orthodox churches, so that he can say that by 1964 the state had closed fifteen thousand). And, although I have no evidence to support me, I get very uncomfortable with the Furov document (volume 1).

75.51.167.249 (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Again and you are? As Dimitry Pospielovsky (born 1935) (Russian: Дмитрий Поспеловский, Dmitry Pospelovsky) is a historian, a professor emeritus of history at the University of Western Ontario. Everyone has critics his works are peer reviewed. What you posted does not mean his work is invalidated. ::::Wikipedia IS NOT THE PLACE to attack and attempt to dis-credit academia. Is there a book or books that say Pospielovsky is wrong and this right about any of this? By your standard anything with a critical remark made toward it is now not credible. I am not here posting my opinion I am posting information with acceptable and credible sources. To the best of my ability. LoveMonkey (talk) 01:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

You're not engaged in any kind of serious discussion about the quality of the article, but are instead hurling nasty insults at me, which is unacceptable. You're treating Pospielovsky as some kind of oracle, but the books cited in this article by him were NOT peer-reviewed or published by an academic press.

I showed above that Pospielovsky is far from representative of a consensus on the subject of this article. As I suspected, he uncritically treats "samizdat" and emigre sources as containing facts set in stone and omits a lot of material that do not fit his views. He himself identifies as Russian Orthodox and is considered in the scholarly literature above as not neutral. Pospielovsky can and should be used as a source in this article. However, the stuff he describes must be thoroughly attributed in the article rather than being presented as facts. 75.51.167.249 (talk) 02:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

No.. Here is one of his books here used in the article [24] the publisher is Macmillan and the origin and or where it was peer reviewed was the University of Michigan. People don't have time for this kind of things. Wikipedia is not a place for people with an axe to grind nor is it a soapbox. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Pospielovsky is a scholar writing for a reputable publisher and therefore the book meets rs. Note that rs means we can rely on the facts, not necessarily that the interpretation is definitive. However we are supposed to use the best sources available and this book fails for several reasons. First, it was not published by an academic publisher, and therefore would not have undergone extensive review and fact-checking before publication. It is from a general publisher, St. Martin's Press. While St. Martin Press' textbook division was merged into the academic publisher Palgrave Macmillan in 2000, it does not mean that it was published by the academic division. The University of Michigan was not involved in the publication. They have an extensive library of all kinds of books which Google books then scans.

The other issue is that he did not have access to material that became available after the end of Communism.

Scholars of course frequently refer to this book, which involved extensive research. But they are able to weigh the various claims and determine what is still worthy. In particular, it references many samizdat publications.

However, complaining about the source is not helpful, because Wikipedia policy accepts it as a source. The way forward is to identify more recently, scholarly writing.

TFD (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright so clarification. One the Pospielovsky can stay or not? Since on one hand your saying he meets the criteria but then say "However we are supposed to use the best sources available and this book fails for several reasons." I have included recent books in the bibliography I contributed to the article. Those newer sources also use Pospielovsky. As far as I know they don't refute him per se. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The source can stay, unless more recent scholarship refutes it. The IP made good points about the limitations of the source, but it is up to him to find better sources. TFD (talk) 07:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)