Talk:August Uprising

Hi

So what kind of information are you all looking for when it comes to Russian History?

66.85.43.78 20:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Bela Kun?

Does anyone have access to the French-language source that cites a role by Bela Kun in the suppression of this uprising? He is mentioned nowhere further in this article, nor is his role in this incident noted in the main "Bela Kun" article. So either his role was unimportant, and his name should be removed; or it was important, and should be expanded, both here and in the "Bela Kun" article.

For now, I will assume the former, and remove his name.

Besides, how likely can it be? The Bolsheviks triumphed here, while otherwise Kun has a perfect record for screwing up anything he touched! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doprendek (talk • contribs) 19:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

== Rewriting of history ==

This article amounts to gross rewriting of history, characteristic of the nationalist agitation that came with the post-1991 regimes in the Soviet Union. This subject has already been thoroughly analyzed by Russian scholars during the 1970s, most notably in Trifonov's article "The Smashing of the Menshevik-Kulak Revolt in Georgia in 1924" in the Voprosy istorii scholarly journal.

To start, contrary to what this article states, the anti-Soviet revolt in 1924 did not involve large numbers of casualties or even participants, as it lasted for only a few days. Trifonov's scholarly article describes clashes in the town of Ozurgety: "On August 29 the rebels laid siege to the town of Ozurgety. Their detachment, numbering some 200, took the station of Suspa...The rebels plundered cooperatives, requistitioned horses and provisions from the peasants, and drafted the population by force into their detachments."

Concerning repression, the Soviet authorities limited themselves to executing a handful of the ringleaders of the revolt, while permitting the rank-and-file participants to return safely to their homes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.230.178 (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Trifonov's article, which you are copy-pasting here, was authored by a Soviet historian and published in 1977 and is not supposed to be neutral on the issue. The very beginning of the article speaks of itself [1]:

Organized with the assistance of international imperialism and the leaders of the Second International, the Menshevikkulak revolt in Georgia in August and September 1924 was the last major outbreak of armed counterrevolution in the Transcaucasus, a vain attempt to split the Soviet system from within and to tear Georgia from the united fraternal family of peoples of the USSR.

Your "rewrite"—including elimination of any mention of Russian role in the 1921-24 events in Georgia, downplaying the independence of Georgia in the 1918-1921 period and characterization of the 1921 Red Army invasion of Georgia as something occurring at the request of Georgian people—reminds me very much of the modern Russian nationalist agitation and nostalgia about the irretrievably lost past.--Kober^Talk 02:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Trifonov was a long-time Professor at Leningrad University and wrote an article for a scholarly journal Voprosy istorii specifically on this subject. His work is entirely based on primary sources, including contemporary newspapers, government officials, and even the Mensheviks themselves. He established himself as an authority on the rebellion, as his article is by far the most comprehensive account of what happened. All of the other sources in this article make just very cursory, superficial references to the rebellion, without having done their own original research. Your insistence on excluding this source actually violates NPOV policy. This cannot stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.230.178 (talk) 04:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the sources used, for example, what does Amy Knight's biography about Beria have to do specifically with the August 1924 clashes? She did not specifically research the subject the way Trifonov did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.230.178 (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I've already explained that Trifonov's article can only be used as an example of Soviet propaganda. You cannot copy-paste it here as if it was the only and the most neutral treatment of the subject in question. It is not the source which presents the 1924 events in a neutral manner. A quick look at his terminology and manner of writing is illustrative of this. His Soviet-era credentials proves nothing. Regarding Amy Knight, you will have to prove why this author should go. Beria played a critical role in suppressing the uprising.--Kober^Talk 21:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Trifonov did not write a political pamphlet, but an academic article for a scholarly journal. So it's not an example of propaganda. He makes many reasonable arguments, such as how the anti-Soviet bandits had scarce popular support, and he cites convincing evidence to support them. Whether Trifonov is neutral or not is not relevant, because all historians have their own points of view, as the whole point of their jobs is to research primary sources and use them to argue about historical events. And every western historian who has written about Russia relies on the secondary works of Russian historians, including scholars trained during the Soviet power, for their information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.83.4.153 (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

And you are wrong about Beria. Trifonov states very clearly that the key leaders who extinguished the bandit revolt were G. Ordzhonikidze, M. Tskhakaia, F. Makharadze, and M. Orakhelashvili. Other important figures were E. Kviring. The primary source accounts of these men are the most important sources of information about what actually happened. This makes references to a biography of Beria totally inappropriate, as Knight did not do original research on the August 1924 bandit revolt, but focuses particularly on the life of a single man. Beria was a relatively unimportant figure during the Russian Civil War.

You are just wasting my time. Please refer to WP:SOURCE and WP:NPOV to understand how Wikipedia works in such cases.--Kober^Talk 04:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Basically, you argue that the above source cannot be used because its findings challenge your biases. You insult the distinguished scholar Trifonov as publishing "Soviet propaganda". This is not a valid justification, and the changes will stay. Trifonov was a prominent Russian historian who wrote a comprehensive article about this specific specific topic in Russia's prestigious academic journal Voprosy Istorii. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.230.178 (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's rules state:

"All articles must adhere to the Neutral point of view policy (NPOV), fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view". Your insistence on deleting my additions violate this rule. Trifonov's account of the conflict represents a prominent interpretation of the August 1924 anti-Soviet events in Georgia

Wikipedia's rules also state that "academic, peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources." Trifonov meets the criteria, as he was a noteworthy Russian historian from Leningrad University. And Voprosy Istorii has long been Russia's leading academic journal for history. With his article about the August 1924 anti-Soviet events, Trifonov established himself as an expert on the topic.