Talk:Anti-religious campaign during the Russian Civil War

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)

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 not a Soviet until like maybe 1922? LoveMonkey (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

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)

75.51.167.249, can you explain the [[1]] of section starting at line 139? Piandcompany (talk) 00:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

No sources are cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.167.249 (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

References

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)

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)

This topic is covered extensively in Russian, but not in English. So I don't have to provide an English language source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.167.249 (talk) 03:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

No this is an English Wiki you can not write articles in Russian and post them here. I want you to know I despise the fact that we are bickering, as if you are Russian then we are..... at the least not to be fighting each other. YOU KNOW THAT. I would like to gather what you know and make a section in the article here under the title Criticisms. You have posted A. G. Kuptsov but I have not way to confirm who he is. I would like to maybe start with an article here on him and then include him here in this article or the main article Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union. You calling our Priests liars is beyond upsetting however I am of a skeptical mind and would and so desire to know all of the data as I am uncomfortable shutting anyone out least of all a patriot. If you continue to fight and not compromise you can see what they will result in. Instead come here and work to give your side of it and we can include that, BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF CENSURING AND OR DELETING SOURCED MATERIAL. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Just so we are clear if your person Kuptsov is a bogus pamphleteer (like say Tony Alamo)and not a scholar with credentials like a history professor at a University you will no chance at people taking his word over the Soviet archives and you are here editwarring and wasting people's time. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

How did you come to that conclusion? Who called him a "bogus pamphleteer"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.167.249 (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Please provide clarification on who A. G. Kuptsov is. Editors on the Russian wiki say A. G. Kupstov is a nutjob and no academic or anyone creditable at all. [3] WHY ARE THEY SAYING THAT? LoveMonkey (talk) 01:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Your opinions about the literature are not very interesting.75.51.167.249 (talk) 02:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Stop wasting time and dodging the request. Please provide credentials on who A. G. Kuptsov is. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

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)

It says Page 11 doesn't it [4]. Well...............As so now Professor Dimitry Pospielovsky is a liar also. [5] 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)

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. Pospielovsky was not alive during the period he wrote about, so he has to get his information from other places. And where does he get his information from? He gets it from pro-church propaganda published during the revolution.75.51.167.249 (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

No excuse me, and you are? But again that's obvious but it still has to be pointed out to you that you are no scholar and if you are please create an account, log in and we'll go from there. The source has the page number. You have provided no scholar or scholars that states what you stated about Pospielovsky. NONE. As he is a college Professor I think questioning his intelligence is beyond the pale so what other motive would he have to re-use, repeat "pro-church propaganda published during the revolution?" So that doesn't make him a liar by repeating lies? Again obvious but not to you that he and Kirill and Christopher Andrew and the New York Times and Time Magazine and Hilarion (Alfeyev) and Yakovlev your list is growing so large so fast soon it will include everyone in the world but you. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Pospielovsky is not a reliable source. He himself is a staunch Russian Orthodox partisan pursuing an agenda of insulting the Russian government. He gets the facts wrong, uses dubious sources, and omits sources that contradict his agenda.

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. Here is the scholarly community's view of his work:

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). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.167.249 (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

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 invalided. ::::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. LoveMonkey (talk) 01:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Pospielovsky's book was not peer-reviewed or published by an academic press... Rather, it was issued by a commercial publisher and even contains a lot of grammatical and typographical errors. Pospielovsky bypassed the process of peer review because his work is unscientific. And the scholarly literature above proves that Pospielovsky's work is deeply flawed. 75.51.167.249 (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

No.. Here is one of his books here used in the article [6] 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. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstand. Macmillan is not an academic publisher, and the book was not peer-reviewed by the University of Michigan. Rather, Google Books got a copy of the book from a library of the University of Michigan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.167.249 (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

No your comment "Macmillan is not an academic publisher" is wrong here is Macmillan/St Martin's online (St Martin is owned by Macmillan[7]) page saying exactly the opposite of what you are saying

• http://www.palgrave.com/aboutus/martins.asp

"Founded in 1952, St Martin's Press is one of the ten largest general publishers in the United States and an important publisher of trade, mass market, college and scholarly titles."'

Macmillan is one of the biggest academic publishers in existence.[8]

Here is their public education book division for example.

• http://www.macmillanmh.com/

And Dimitry Pospielovsky books published by St. Martin/Macmillan.

• http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?qwork=6232857

LoveMonkey (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

"Google Books got a copy of the book from a library of the University of Michigan." Why would the University of Michigan provide a book to Google that is not credible source material? At least without a disclaimer. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Изъятие церковных ценностей в России в 1922 году [9] LoveMonkey (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Protected

I have fully protected this article two weeks due to the edit war. If editors disagree on whether Dimitry Pospielovsky is a trustworthy source, consider taking it to the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Other steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. If agreement is reached, this protection can be lifted. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the issue of Pospielovsky is largely a sideshow. The issue isn't whether the article should trust him completely, the issue is whether an anonymous IP can hold hostage a serious subject and deny that there was anti-religious persecution in Soviet Russia/the Soviet Union. My experience in dealing with such fanatics is that there is very little common ground to be discovered. InformedContent (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Most likely there are many sources available on this religious persecution. Though the IP is editing aggressively, he has made some valid points on the talk page. See the bolded items in his comment above, which are academic reviews of Pospielovsky. Anybody with a bit of time could probably locate more sources that discuss these events. This means that the sensational items don't need to be exclusively sourced to Pospielovsky. Those editors who can read Russian could certainly be helpful. Now that admins are watching this article, it is unlikely that any side will be able to win purely by edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 14:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

More mixed and unclear messages from sources at Wikipedia. According to The Four Deuces from the WP:RS verifiability chat board Pospielovsky is considered a reliable source [10], [11] that's after the IP comments above. Since the page is protected I'd like to add the bibliography I created for the article Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union here. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• A lot of good work here! However, I am looking at these changes and can tell that page was POV-pushed in a wrong direction, instead of actual improvement. Not to challenge any particular sources, but just for starters, the newer version tells: "The vast majority of the Russian Orthodox clerics sympathized with the Whites, and many actively supported them." Not exactly. For example, Tikhon of Moscow actually made a lot of effort for the Church to remain neutral, and only later was forced to take an anti-Bolshevik position. What exactly Tikhon did is not really described in this article. The page mentioned many different episodes, but it does not provide a coherent description of all most important events in chronological order... My very best wishes (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Page protection

Other admins should feel free to modify my protection as necessary. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Move

There was only one Russian Civil War that involved anti-religious campaign. No need for years. My very best wishes (talk) 01:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

More about the title

As anti-Jewish pogroms were a feature of the Russian Civil War, perhaps there was more than one anti-religious campaign. I think the title has been substantially removed, but I am not sure that it may need to be rephrased to something like Religion in the Russian Civil War so that we can have a more rounded view? Leutha (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Article relies too heavily on one source

I added the tag because this article relies heavily on Pospielovsky, yet does not mention this man once in the article itself. I have a feeling that this article may need a complete rewrite as well because as the above section notes, there's no mention of the Jewish pogroms and the Tsarist persecution of Muslims. If the article is going to be about anti-religious campaigns, it should be inclusive of all faiths. Otherwise, this article should be renamed to Opposition to the Orthodox Church during the Russian Civil War because that seems to be what it's currently largely about.

Particular concerns:

The second source is a link to wikisource, but it's a dead link. Googling the name of the source finds this, which is allegedly a letter written by some Russian Orthodox offical. Can someone vouch this source as being reliable? Here is the text that the cite is supporting:

In the beginning of the USSR, a campaign began to be done to make the state atheist by removing the influence of all religion, and the Russian Orthodox church especially, from Soviet society from the earliest days after the revolution in 1917, continuing until the fall of the USSR in 1991. The initial anti-religious campaign after the revolution focused especially against the Orthodox church and it was characterized by brutal terror tactics that killed thousands accompanied by legislation meant to deprive the Church of its capacity to function.

This contradicts another part of the article which states that the Soviet Union was supportive of Muslims practicing Islam.

In November 1917, following the collapse of the tsarist government, a council of the Russian Orthodox church reestablished the patriarchate (it had been abolished under Peter the Great in 1721[3]) and elected Metropolitan Tikhon of Moscow (Vassily I. Bellavin[4]) as patriarch 11 days following the storming of the Winter Palace[5] (only two more councils would occur for the remainder of Soviet history, one in 1945 and the other in 1971[6]) Tikhon refused to take sides in the civil war,[7] although the official propaganda presented him as well as the Church as standing in support of the whites, and killed clergy in massive numbers allegedly for this reason.

The last sentence is clearly a violation of NPOV, presenting the position of Davis (the cite) as though it is fact, and then alleging that "official propaganda" says otherwise. There is no citation for this declaration of what the "official propaganda" has said. There are sources that disagree with this. From here:

Issuing a decree was one thing, but disestablishing the church in practice was another. In places Orthodox feeling ran high and there were instances in which congregations clashed with Bolsheviks over the control of church property. Popular support for Orthodoxy was significantly undermined, however, in late 1921 when its leader, Patriarch Tikhon, refused to sell off church valuables to raise foreign currency needed to feed famine victims, of whom there were millions. This was the context in which some 45 priests were executed for organising resistance to Trotsky’s campaign to seize wealth from the church. This harsh policy has to be seen in the context of a famine emergency, not as a malicious attack on the church.

This information is cited to the book Godless Communists: Atheism and Society in Soviet Russia, 1917-1932 (ISBN 978-0875805955), on pp.54-57.

Based on this, I think it would be a good idea to provide details on the fact that there are different views amongst reliable sources as to what exactly was going on, rather than presenting only one source and not even mentioning it.

The article states:

During the Russian Civil War, the red army massacred large numbers of clergy and believers often on grounds of alleged support for the Whites; much of these killings were not officially instigated from the top, but were done on the initiative of local units of soldiers.[8] In later years, the church would declare that the excommunication was a misunderstanding based on the belief that these killings were officially instigated (however, they were never officially repudiated either).[9] Later Soviet authors would claim central responsibility for these actions, however, including Yaroslavsky (who was a participant in these killings) who justified the campaign by claiming that the church was fighting against them.

For the statement sourced to [8], I would like to see what the source actually says. If it gives an numerical estimates rather than merely saying "large numbers", I'd prefer that would be used instead. This article doesn't appear to have any mention of a death toll so that sort of information would be helpful. The other issue is that it uses the weasel word "alleged" rather than describing the positions of various parties directly. The next sentence it talks about excommunication but there is zero context to understand just what excommunication is being talk about. In fact, what is being referenced here is mentioned in another source used in the article:

After the October Revolution, in January 1918, the Patriarch of the Orthodox Church, Tikhon, issued a message to the faithful, in which he denounced the Bolsheviks as “monsters of the human race” and excommunicated all who should support the Revolution.

With this information, I'm not sure if it's WP:NPOV to say that "Tikhon refused to take sides in the civil war". We should instead list the reliable sources that disagree with each other on this issue. In addition, this source is saying that the killings were perpetrated "by the Tsar’s troops" against "the St. Petersburg workers".

The final sentence isn't cited at all. It says "later Soviet authors" but doesn't name them or provide any sort of time frame to pin them down. It mentions Yaroslavsky but doesn't wikilink to his article. The sources of that article should be of use here.

From there, it gives a list of "atrocities", all from one source: Pospielovsky. I'm not sure if this is appropriate for a Wikipedia article, and all of this substantial quoting from a single source may be a copyright violation.

Moving down a bit, we come across this:

Lenin's decree on the separation of church and state on January 23, 1918 (Julian calendar) deprived the formerly official church of its status of legal person,[37] the right to own property[29] or to teach religion in both state and private schools[38][39] or to any group of minors.

Source [29] is broken. Source [38], Article Two of the Soviet Union's Constitution, is not being presented accurately and does not say what it's being used to support. It states:

13. For the purpose of securing to the workers real freedom of conscience, the church is to be separated from the state and the school from the church, and the right of religious and anti-religous propaganda is accorded to every citizen.

This is the only mention of schools in the article, and it says nothing about teaching religion in schools.

Beyond this, there are other problems such as the fact that there is little to no background information.

Please share your thoughts on what else needs to be edited in this article. I'll start by trying to fix some of the things I've highlighted but if there's anything else let me know.--JasonMacker (talk) 06:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for checking things out in such depth. As you can see I share these concerns about the balance of the article. I agree that the title is too expansive. Indeed, as you point out, the position as regards Islam is barely mentioned and already the article has been tagged as too long. However I also feel that part of the problem might arise from the way that the article is geared to focus on one side of the issue - opposition to the ROC, rather than looking at the ROC as such. So perhaps a new title might be Russian Orthodox Church during the Russian Civil War.Leutha (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anti-religious campaign during the Russian Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090816211643/http://www.regels.org/humanright.htm to http://www.regels.org/humanright.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Citation cleanup

I went ahead and cleaned up the citations to a short-footnote version, so the reference list wasn't completely cluttered. Went ahead and added ISBNs and formatted the citations to the updated Wikipedia style. Several references left for whoever wishes to tackle this next that need searching for archive link, as well as fixing [citation needed] and [verification needed] statements throughout. Other general cleanup, copyediting, and trimming is required, among other issues. Overall, did the best I could with such an outdated citation list. PoliticsIsExciting (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)