Jump to content

Talk:Anti-religious campaign during the Russian Civil War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 75.51.167.249 (talk) at 03:19, 12 October 2012 (→‎Some problems). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconSocialism Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSoviet Union Start‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

USSR in 1917?

How can there be a USSR campaign that wrapped up before the USSR was even formed (1922)? 216.8.168.199 (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh so the Russian Revolution of 1917 did not happen in 1917 it happened 5 years after that, since according to your standard here the Russian Revolution of 1917 does not mark the beginning of the USSR? So the USSR wasn't founded by Lenin after the Revolution in 1917? I mean your saying that the Red forces could not have had campaigns until after they had campaigns in the civil war right? Again why do people have to point out to you the obvious. So the Congress of Soviets that was a lie until 1922 they were hallucinations to themselves and told each other that they can't have campaigns until 1922. As the Red Terror wasn't an campaign either carried out by the Soviet. From what you are saying Vladimir Lenin was a Soviet until like maybe 1922? LoveMonkey (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic article

For the most part, all this article does is take contents of Pospelovsky's work and present them as though they are facts of history. Pospelovsky is not in any way reflective of a consensus on this topic. His claims need to be properly attributed wherever appropriate.

For example, on what sources are these allegations based? I will assume that they are derived from pro-Christian primary sources.

This order to seize property was carried out with ruthless violence by Red soldiers. They often opened fire on crowds that surrounded churches in an attempt to defend them and on religious processions in protest against Church persecution. Thousands were killed in this way, especially in the spring of 1918. Shooting down of religious processions are well documented in Voronezh, Shatsk (Tambov province), and Tula (where thirteen were killed and many wounded, including Bishop Kornilii).75.51.167.249 (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
75.51.167.249, can you explain the [[1]] of section starting at line 139? Piandcompany (talk) 00:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No sources are cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.167.249 (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This can be solved by instead adding a citation needed tag instead of removal of the content. Piandcompany (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The material is problematic in that there is no attribution to the allegations. The way that it is written comes across as sensationalisc, with talk about drunken orgies. Even if sources were cited, it would be inappropriate because the text is clearly derived from primary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.167.249 (talk) 01:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion does not count here. Please post a citation tag and then after a month or so if no source is provided you can then remove the content. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lies in the article

This article claims:

Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev was the first bishop killed by the Bolsheviks on January 25, 1918. He had consistently opposed the revolution, and he was severely beaten as well as tortured before being shot outside of the Monastery of the Caves. He prayed for the Lord's forgiveness before being shot and blessed his executors; asking the Lord to forgive them.[1]

This incident had nothing to do with the Bolsheviks or the Russian government. The scholar Arno Mayer in his book The Furies says that the Metropolitan's death was undirected and "unrelated to any grand design or campaign."

So the incident above does not really fit the concept of religious persecution. 75.51.167.249 (talk) 05:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What book does Arno Mayer say that in? Where specifically is that comment "unrelated to any grand design or campaign." from? LoveMonkey (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ioakim, Archbishop of Nizhni Novgorod

Pospielovsky's sources are wrong. The fact is that he was killed by unidentified bandits. So I"m removing this part

Получив возможность выехать из Нижнего Новгорода окончательно, Преосвященный Иоаким отправился в Крым, к своему сыну. В 1921 году, в доме под Севастополем, где Владыка проживал, он погиб от рук неизвестных бандитов.[2]75.51.167.249 (talk) 07:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a noted scholar says something and then is sourced, just because you don't like it doesn't mean you can remove it. Provide a source in English that supports your contention. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some problems

This article is full of stuff such as

In Voronezh, seven nuns who had prayed for a White victory were boiled in a cauldron of tar

There is no page number specified. There is no attribution of this claim's source. And basic things like dates and specific locations are missing. Why is this?75.51.167.249 (talk) 07:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It says Page 11 doesn't it [3]. Well...............As so now Professor Dimitry Pospielovsky is a liar also. [4] WOW it must be so easy to validate your way of thinking in that anything opposed to it is a lie. Also you can't come on here and start DELETING sourced information. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? I did not in any way question Pospielovsky's character, and did not call him a "liar". Rather, I questioned the quality of his work: the sources he uses i.e. pro-church primary sources have proven to be unreliable. 75.51.167.249 (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Pospielovsky pp. 9-10