This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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 article claims:
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)
References
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)
This article is full of stuff such as
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)
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:
LoveMonkey ( talk) 01:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
Other admins should feel free to modify my protection as necessary. Tom Harrison Talk 11:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
This contradicts another part of the article which states that the Soviet Union was supportive of Muslims practicing Islam.
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
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)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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 article claims:
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)
References
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)
This article is full of stuff such as
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)
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:
LoveMonkey ( talk) 01:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
Other admins should feel free to modify my protection as necessary. Tom Harrison Talk 11:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
This contradicts another part of the article which states that the Soviet Union was supportive of Muslims practicing Islam.
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
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)