This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is nothing more than a SHAMELESS PIECE OF PRO-SOVIET PROPAGANDA based almost exclusively on sources that are pro-Soviet and anti-White (either willingly or, in some cases, perhaps unwillingly). In particular, the "Kolchakists on trial" paper REALLY takes the cake, being a transcript of one of them commie show trials where the defendant is always guilty no matter what (the key phrase in that rag being "Almost all the material for the prosecution was taken from declarations by the defendants themselves" -- those "declarations" no doubt having been obtained under torture or under threat of death, as was common practice under the Bolshies). Besides this, almost all other sources cited in this article are clearly biased toward the Red side: e.g. the Serge and Marik books are openly pro-Communist, and the two Yandex entries are taken from the Large Soviet Encyclopedia, which was published in the Soviet Union under the communist regime and therefore representing only the Red POV. In fact, any source that was officially published in the Soviet territory from 1917 to 1985 (such as Kondufor) can only represent the Soviet POV (due to Communist Party censorship of the media) and therefore AUTOMATICALLY violates BOTH WP:RS and WP:NPOV. According to Wikipedia policy, such sources are UNACCEPTABLE and must be red
Additionally, while Tsvetkov is admittedly an unbiased and reliable source, the article uses only cherry-picked and out-of-context quotes from that particular source in order to prove its thesis, and ignores those parts that contradict it. It is true that Tsvetkov does quote Kornilov as authorizing the shootings of Red prisoners and saying "The more terror, the better"; but right after that he quotes Kornilov saying "We do not make war against the wounded". Also, other quotes from this source do not bear out the article: for instance, Tsvetkov discusses at some length an incident where some Red artillerymen whom Kornilov's forces took prisoner were given a fair trial by military tribunal and ACQUITTED because they were "serving [the Reds] under duress and [also] intentionally laid their fire inaccurately" (they were allowed to enlist in the Volunteer Army and reportedly fought well against the Reds). And while Tsvetkov mentions Kornilov's forces executing a civilian who was allied with the Reds, he makes clear that the civilian in question was executed not so much for his political beliefs as for raping the local rich people's wives and daughters. In fact, Tsvetkov makes it clear that many of the "white terror" murders (other than the shootings of prisoners) were in fact reprisals rather than officially sanctioned repressive measures, and that the shootings of prisoners were often dictated by military necessity.
Furthermore, the article quotes Hartmann as recounting "a particularly brutal massacre", but in fact that particular source says nothing of the sort -- instead, it discusses at some length a property dispute having to do with the Sovs' nationalization policy which ended up in the British courts. Therefore, this source is irrelevant to the article, and the claim that was falsely attributed to it must be removed as well. 67.169.177.176 ( talk) 06:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
What's the matter kid? The Red Terror page is also based on biased source that are fiercely Anti-Red and Pro-White, may I remind you. So why are you so upset anyway, are you upset that Reds have retaliated in kind? 188.25.37.242 ( talk) 19:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
This article is a sad joke; it's not like it is even necessary to exaggerate the history of the various anti-Bolshevik forces' crimes to have an intelligent article, but the sources here are heavily to absurdly pro-Bolshevik and give absolutely hysterical accounts. The numbers and anecdotes cited are complete fabrications for the most part, and this article is in dire need of attention from some expert with sources at hand who is not an ideological fanatic. The immediate anonymous user above me serves as a perfect illustration of why this article needs attention; this is more of a retaliation for articles about communist atrocities (where Wikipedia articles present some false "balance" about views), rather than an article that has real historical or factual merit. InformedContent ( talk) 04:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
The earlier commentator is obviously right in saying that any Soviet source "automatically violates BOTH
WP:RS and
WP:NPOV". There may have been some good historical work done in the Communist period, but it can not be accepted on an issue like this as an unbiased source without independent verification. Similarly, Victor Serge though he wrote in the West was a Bolshevik in the Civil War, so is hardly unbiased. Western histories need to be consulted and much more work needs to be done before the tags can be removed.
cwmacdougall 14:38, 20 October 2012
To take a comparable example, we now know that the Nazi reports on Katyn were essentially correct, but we would not use a Nazi source for a Katyn article, at least not without further investigation and support. It is wrong to use Communist sources for alleged White Army activities. The tags must stay until further work is done. cwmacdougall 21:55, 20 October 2012
The attempted quotation by Mr 75.51.167.249 of the appalling defence of Red Terror by Russian "Historian" Yu. I. Korbalev shows very clearly why this anonymous author's editing can not be trusted, why the entire article needs rewriting and why it requires tags until this happens. cwmacdougall 3:42, 22 October 2012
As discussed above, the anonymous unregistered author of most of this article very clearly violates WP:RS and WP:NPOV. When checked many of the sources turn out to be misquoted. Many are by Communists writing under conditions of political censorship. Some are by active participants on the Red side with their own axes to grind. The author has revealed his own bias by attempting to insert a defence of Red vs White terrorism. He repeatedly refused to accept warning tags. But I wonder if tags are sufficient; perhaps the best course is to delete it and start fresh. cwmacdougall 3:24, 23 October 2012
Read the above criticisms. It is clear that you are often using Soviet sources written under conditions of political censorship or partisan Bolshevik sources; neither can not be trusted for such a political subject. There are examples of you misquoting authors. And the quotation from a later author defending Red Terror has no place at all; it is not at all the same as the French Revolution Terror article example (which is not well written, but at least balanced). You must treat NPOV seriously. If you persist in your repeated biased editing I will delete all the text. cwmacdougall 9:18, 23 October 2012
What in this article is not factually accurate? Darkness Shines ( talk) 01:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
The use of Victor Serge as a source was discussed above. I agree that this man is a good and vivid writer who could be useful in adding colour to an article about the Red side, but he was a Bolshevik propagandist during and after the Civil War, and not an academic historian. Therefore he is not a reliable source for factual information, and I have deleted the quotation that used him as a source. cwmacdougall 12:31, 2 November October 2012
This indicates to me that you are not familiar with the contents of the article or the sources. NONE of the cited sources were published in the Soviet period. Please, carefully familiarize yourself with the content before rushing to make edits based on false information. The cited sources are:
Again, this indicates to me that you are not familiar with the details of this topic. Note that the term "White Terror" DID NOT originate during the Russian revolution and is not specifically defined as mass killings carried out by the forces of the White Army leaders Kolchak and Denikin. The term "White Terror" has been used in many conflicts, particularly in France beginning with the Great French Revolution the late 18th century and many other conflicts in the 19th century: Royalists were so impressed by this coalition that they took few pains to distinguish between old revolutionaries and Bonapartists when they unleashed White Terror after Bonaparte's second fall. p.15 Therefore, your definition of White Terror as being specifically limited to the White Guards' repressions in 1918-1920 is ahistorical and out of touch with mainstream historiography.
The definition of White Terror for the Russian revolution of 1917-1921 is fairly broad, and involved most anti-Soviet units and foreign interventionists, including the White armies of Denikin+Kolchak, the short-lived SR regimes like Komuch, and foreign interventionists like Poland and the the Czechoslovaks. The Ukrainian separatists of Petlyura and the so-called Central Rada were practitioners of White Terror, as this historian describes.
The same source provides its definition of White Terror: (p.95) "White Terror is a conditional term that includes events taking place at various stages of the White Movement and the petit-bourgeois democracy. It includes the terror of the White Finns, Czechs, White Poles, Germans, as they apply to large areas of Russia. The White Terror includes categories of individual terror and counter-revolutionary measures, that is, any action of suspected terrorism against the Soviet regime in the Soviet Republic. The first information of the White Terror about the mass White Terror can be logically said to be around April-June 1918. This period was characterized as the beginning of a new front stage of the Civil War, and therefore, as a new round of mutual bitterness. Above all in this period was the bloody suppression of the socialist revolution in Finland and its coverage in the Soviet press."
Therefore, cwmcdougall, your edits, which in fact amount to mass deletions, are not justified. EverlastingGaze ( talk) 02:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Mr Gaze is refusing to accept even the most minor obvious edits to "his" precious article, while writing long tedious ineffective defences. Briefly I made the following reasonable changes:
1 - The contentious opening references to what "historians emphasize" is based solely on the arguments of three Soviet "historians"; there is no evidence it is believed by reputable historians elsewhere, so the claim should only be "some Soviet historians argue".
2 - Victor Serge was never an academic historian and he was a Bolshevik propagandist. He is obviously not an acceptable source. It is like citing Goebbels in an article on Churchill.
3 - Communists may think of "White" as being all their opponents, but Whites certainly don't, nor is that the generally accepted usage. The article should be restricted to terror by the White Army and occasionally actions by their allies. The Czech legions acted independently, and sometimes against the Whites (betraying Kolchak to the Reds for example). The Poles and the Ukrainian nationalists were certainly not in any way White forces, even by analogy with French Revolution usage.
So far I have only done the most obvious simple edits. If we have to argue like this on every little point then it is best to delete everything and start fresh. cwmacdougall 7:40, 4 November 2012
EverlastingGaze ( talk) 10:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Mr Gaze, can you not accept any amendments to this article? You do not own it, and it needs a thousand amendments to be remotely acceptable on neutral point of view and reliable source grounds. I have only just begun. cwmacdougall 11:02, 5 November 2012
Approach things from a neutral point of view rather than imitating a Cheka show trial and we will have something to discuss. cwmacdougall 19:11, 5 November 2012
I have filed a complaint on the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. cwmacdougall 19:19, 5 November 2012
I've fully protected the article for one week because of the protracted edit-warring among multiple editors. Work out your differences amicably (focusing on content, not conduct), and use the dispute resolution mechanisms available to you, if needed.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
EverlastingGaze, my attempt at obtaining mediation having failed to attract interest either way, it looks like we are on our own, with occasional contributions from others. We could continue edit warring, or I could copy your style and introduce sourced but biased pro-White text, but I think it best if we can produce a neutral balanced article, don't you? We all know that the Civil War was a brutal and desperate fight for power between various groups, with terror by all sides; there is no need to have a biased unbalanced indictment against one side.
Looking at some points of dispute:
1 - Definition. I know you have found sources with wider definitions of "White Terror", but do they really use "White" in a broader way for "terror" than for "forces"? Logically in plain English I don't see how terror by anti-White forces can be included in "White Terror".
2 - Victor Serge. InformedContent, others, and I are very clear that he is not an acceptable source for factual information, as he was a paid Red propagandist during the Civil War and an unrepentant revolutionary thereafter, and never an academic historian. And he is really not necessary; his few additional examples of white terror added little.
3 - Biased language. The Red forces had no obvious greater claim to legitimacy than the White, so it is wrong to describe the former as a "Government" unless you also use that term for Kolchak's regime, which equally claimed that title.
4 - Dates for sources. Dates of first publication for sources would help in their assessment, my next task; without rehashing that inconclusive argument, some of us do think it matters whether a source is Soviet or post-Soviet.
cwmacdougall 9:46, 14 November 2012
Just looked at Graves. Personally I think what an American had to say against the Whites is probably an acceptable, relatively neutral, source. But the previous paragraph citing what an associate of Semyenov said under Stalinist interrogation, probably under torture, is obviously not acceptable; may well be true, as by all accounts Semyenov was pretty nasty, but not a reliable source. Anyway, not needed, the point has already been made. cwmacdougall 1:25, 17 November 2012
NPOV says "we edit articles so that all the major participants will be able to look at the resulting text, and agree that their views are presented accurately and as completely as the context permits" - that is precisely what you are not doing. You are cherry picking sources that agree with you and ignoring those that don't; that is contrary to the policy.
You are also using clearly unreliable sources, contrary to the reliable source policy. If you objected to what an American officer wrote about the Reds I probably would not complain, as one might expect him to have an anti-Red bias, but what he says he directly observed about the Whites is unlikely to reflect a bias; that is why I accepted him, while what a Red propagandist has to say about the Whites is quite likely to be pure propaganda, and therefore unreliable. Similarly a statement made under torture or threat of torture is inherently likely to be unreliable, hence my latest deletion.
This is getting tiresome. So far I have only made obvious clearly required amendments. Soon I will be looking at more complex issues; are you capable civilised discussion about them? Stop trying to write propaganda and we will have something to discuss and can make progress on this article. cwmacdougall 10:56, 17 November 2012
We need to try to reach a consensus on the definition of "White Terror". A definition that includes terror by anti-White forces, rather than just by White forces, appears contrary to the Plain English policy. Yet EveralstingGaze has cited a source that is that peculiar.
1 - Could anyone provide more information about Professor I. Ratkovsky to confirm he is a reliable source? Internal evidence suggests otherwise, with talk of "petit-bourgeois" whatever that is, when more commonly the Whites and Poles are accused of being aristocratic or aristocratic led movements.
2 - Can anyone provide other sources for this strange wide definition? Any in English, as this is partly a question of Plain English?
3 - I will look for definition sources too.
cwmacdougall 11:50, 18 November 2012
How about removing the stuff on the Czechoslovak legion which doesn't really belong here? Volunteer Marek 18:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
So amazing to see actual how the American propagandists wanted to modify this page for serve their favours, like how they spreaded false propaganda and rumors against Saddam Hussein's regime 16 years ago. Meliodas Sama ( talk) 05:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
When I was here in 2020, there was an outlying upper estimate of 300,000 for the death toll of the White Terror in Russia. It was sourced from Vadim Ehrlichman's Population Losses in the 20th Century, though only had a link to a website which included a table, assumedly from the text. Anyways, Ehrlichman's estimate for the Red Terror is fairly high, at 1.2 million, and, so, I'd doubt that his citation of 300,000 for the White Terror is a case of a creatively revised Russian history. I found another source for the citation here, [10] https://reason.com/2019/09/02/hard-lessons-from-the-russian-civil-war/. Daydreamdays2 ( talk) 00:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
they apparently just attacked anybody in all of russia, randomly, if this whole entry is to be taken seriously. 199.7.158.59 ( talk) 15:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is nothing more than a SHAMELESS PIECE OF PRO-SOVIET PROPAGANDA based almost exclusively on sources that are pro-Soviet and anti-White (either willingly or, in some cases, perhaps unwillingly). In particular, the "Kolchakists on trial" paper REALLY takes the cake, being a transcript of one of them commie show trials where the defendant is always guilty no matter what (the key phrase in that rag being "Almost all the material for the prosecution was taken from declarations by the defendants themselves" -- those "declarations" no doubt having been obtained under torture or under threat of death, as was common practice under the Bolshies). Besides this, almost all other sources cited in this article are clearly biased toward the Red side: e.g. the Serge and Marik books are openly pro-Communist, and the two Yandex entries are taken from the Large Soviet Encyclopedia, which was published in the Soviet Union under the communist regime and therefore representing only the Red POV. In fact, any source that was officially published in the Soviet territory from 1917 to 1985 (such as Kondufor) can only represent the Soviet POV (due to Communist Party censorship of the media) and therefore AUTOMATICALLY violates BOTH WP:RS and WP:NPOV. According to Wikipedia policy, such sources are UNACCEPTABLE and must be red
Additionally, while Tsvetkov is admittedly an unbiased and reliable source, the article uses only cherry-picked and out-of-context quotes from that particular source in order to prove its thesis, and ignores those parts that contradict it. It is true that Tsvetkov does quote Kornilov as authorizing the shootings of Red prisoners and saying "The more terror, the better"; but right after that he quotes Kornilov saying "We do not make war against the wounded". Also, other quotes from this source do not bear out the article: for instance, Tsvetkov discusses at some length an incident where some Red artillerymen whom Kornilov's forces took prisoner were given a fair trial by military tribunal and ACQUITTED because they were "serving [the Reds] under duress and [also] intentionally laid their fire inaccurately" (they were allowed to enlist in the Volunteer Army and reportedly fought well against the Reds). And while Tsvetkov mentions Kornilov's forces executing a civilian who was allied with the Reds, he makes clear that the civilian in question was executed not so much for his political beliefs as for raping the local rich people's wives and daughters. In fact, Tsvetkov makes it clear that many of the "white terror" murders (other than the shootings of prisoners) were in fact reprisals rather than officially sanctioned repressive measures, and that the shootings of prisoners were often dictated by military necessity.
Furthermore, the article quotes Hartmann as recounting "a particularly brutal massacre", but in fact that particular source says nothing of the sort -- instead, it discusses at some length a property dispute having to do with the Sovs' nationalization policy which ended up in the British courts. Therefore, this source is irrelevant to the article, and the claim that was falsely attributed to it must be removed as well. 67.169.177.176 ( talk) 06:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
What's the matter kid? The Red Terror page is also based on biased source that are fiercely Anti-Red and Pro-White, may I remind you. So why are you so upset anyway, are you upset that Reds have retaliated in kind? 188.25.37.242 ( talk) 19:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
This article is a sad joke; it's not like it is even necessary to exaggerate the history of the various anti-Bolshevik forces' crimes to have an intelligent article, but the sources here are heavily to absurdly pro-Bolshevik and give absolutely hysterical accounts. The numbers and anecdotes cited are complete fabrications for the most part, and this article is in dire need of attention from some expert with sources at hand who is not an ideological fanatic. The immediate anonymous user above me serves as a perfect illustration of why this article needs attention; this is more of a retaliation for articles about communist atrocities (where Wikipedia articles present some false "balance" about views), rather than an article that has real historical or factual merit. InformedContent ( talk) 04:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
The earlier commentator is obviously right in saying that any Soviet source "automatically violates BOTH
WP:RS and
WP:NPOV". There may have been some good historical work done in the Communist period, but it can not be accepted on an issue like this as an unbiased source without independent verification. Similarly, Victor Serge though he wrote in the West was a Bolshevik in the Civil War, so is hardly unbiased. Western histories need to be consulted and much more work needs to be done before the tags can be removed.
cwmacdougall 14:38, 20 October 2012
To take a comparable example, we now know that the Nazi reports on Katyn were essentially correct, but we would not use a Nazi source for a Katyn article, at least not without further investigation and support. It is wrong to use Communist sources for alleged White Army activities. The tags must stay until further work is done. cwmacdougall 21:55, 20 October 2012
The attempted quotation by Mr 75.51.167.249 of the appalling defence of Red Terror by Russian "Historian" Yu. I. Korbalev shows very clearly why this anonymous author's editing can not be trusted, why the entire article needs rewriting and why it requires tags until this happens. cwmacdougall 3:42, 22 October 2012
As discussed above, the anonymous unregistered author of most of this article very clearly violates WP:RS and WP:NPOV. When checked many of the sources turn out to be misquoted. Many are by Communists writing under conditions of political censorship. Some are by active participants on the Red side with their own axes to grind. The author has revealed his own bias by attempting to insert a defence of Red vs White terrorism. He repeatedly refused to accept warning tags. But I wonder if tags are sufficient; perhaps the best course is to delete it and start fresh. cwmacdougall 3:24, 23 October 2012
Read the above criticisms. It is clear that you are often using Soviet sources written under conditions of political censorship or partisan Bolshevik sources; neither can not be trusted for such a political subject. There are examples of you misquoting authors. And the quotation from a later author defending Red Terror has no place at all; it is not at all the same as the French Revolution Terror article example (which is not well written, but at least balanced). You must treat NPOV seriously. If you persist in your repeated biased editing I will delete all the text. cwmacdougall 9:18, 23 October 2012
What in this article is not factually accurate? Darkness Shines ( talk) 01:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
The use of Victor Serge as a source was discussed above. I agree that this man is a good and vivid writer who could be useful in adding colour to an article about the Red side, but he was a Bolshevik propagandist during and after the Civil War, and not an academic historian. Therefore he is not a reliable source for factual information, and I have deleted the quotation that used him as a source. cwmacdougall 12:31, 2 November October 2012
This indicates to me that you are not familiar with the contents of the article or the sources. NONE of the cited sources were published in the Soviet period. Please, carefully familiarize yourself with the content before rushing to make edits based on false information. The cited sources are:
Again, this indicates to me that you are not familiar with the details of this topic. Note that the term "White Terror" DID NOT originate during the Russian revolution and is not specifically defined as mass killings carried out by the forces of the White Army leaders Kolchak and Denikin. The term "White Terror" has been used in many conflicts, particularly in France beginning with the Great French Revolution the late 18th century and many other conflicts in the 19th century: Royalists were so impressed by this coalition that they took few pains to distinguish between old revolutionaries and Bonapartists when they unleashed White Terror after Bonaparte's second fall. p.15 Therefore, your definition of White Terror as being specifically limited to the White Guards' repressions in 1918-1920 is ahistorical and out of touch with mainstream historiography.
The definition of White Terror for the Russian revolution of 1917-1921 is fairly broad, and involved most anti-Soviet units and foreign interventionists, including the White armies of Denikin+Kolchak, the short-lived SR regimes like Komuch, and foreign interventionists like Poland and the the Czechoslovaks. The Ukrainian separatists of Petlyura and the so-called Central Rada were practitioners of White Terror, as this historian describes.
The same source provides its definition of White Terror: (p.95) "White Terror is a conditional term that includes events taking place at various stages of the White Movement and the petit-bourgeois democracy. It includes the terror of the White Finns, Czechs, White Poles, Germans, as they apply to large areas of Russia. The White Terror includes categories of individual terror and counter-revolutionary measures, that is, any action of suspected terrorism against the Soviet regime in the Soviet Republic. The first information of the White Terror about the mass White Terror can be logically said to be around April-June 1918. This period was characterized as the beginning of a new front stage of the Civil War, and therefore, as a new round of mutual bitterness. Above all in this period was the bloody suppression of the socialist revolution in Finland and its coverage in the Soviet press."
Therefore, cwmcdougall, your edits, which in fact amount to mass deletions, are not justified. EverlastingGaze ( talk) 02:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Mr Gaze is refusing to accept even the most minor obvious edits to "his" precious article, while writing long tedious ineffective defences. Briefly I made the following reasonable changes:
1 - The contentious opening references to what "historians emphasize" is based solely on the arguments of three Soviet "historians"; there is no evidence it is believed by reputable historians elsewhere, so the claim should only be "some Soviet historians argue".
2 - Victor Serge was never an academic historian and he was a Bolshevik propagandist. He is obviously not an acceptable source. It is like citing Goebbels in an article on Churchill.
3 - Communists may think of "White" as being all their opponents, but Whites certainly don't, nor is that the generally accepted usage. The article should be restricted to terror by the White Army and occasionally actions by their allies. The Czech legions acted independently, and sometimes against the Whites (betraying Kolchak to the Reds for example). The Poles and the Ukrainian nationalists were certainly not in any way White forces, even by analogy with French Revolution usage.
So far I have only done the most obvious simple edits. If we have to argue like this on every little point then it is best to delete everything and start fresh. cwmacdougall 7:40, 4 November 2012
EverlastingGaze ( talk) 10:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Mr Gaze, can you not accept any amendments to this article? You do not own it, and it needs a thousand amendments to be remotely acceptable on neutral point of view and reliable source grounds. I have only just begun. cwmacdougall 11:02, 5 November 2012
Approach things from a neutral point of view rather than imitating a Cheka show trial and we will have something to discuss. cwmacdougall 19:11, 5 November 2012
I have filed a complaint on the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. cwmacdougall 19:19, 5 November 2012
I've fully protected the article for one week because of the protracted edit-warring among multiple editors. Work out your differences amicably (focusing on content, not conduct), and use the dispute resolution mechanisms available to you, if needed.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
EverlastingGaze, my attempt at obtaining mediation having failed to attract interest either way, it looks like we are on our own, with occasional contributions from others. We could continue edit warring, or I could copy your style and introduce sourced but biased pro-White text, but I think it best if we can produce a neutral balanced article, don't you? We all know that the Civil War was a brutal and desperate fight for power between various groups, with terror by all sides; there is no need to have a biased unbalanced indictment against one side.
Looking at some points of dispute:
1 - Definition. I know you have found sources with wider definitions of "White Terror", but do they really use "White" in a broader way for "terror" than for "forces"? Logically in plain English I don't see how terror by anti-White forces can be included in "White Terror".
2 - Victor Serge. InformedContent, others, and I are very clear that he is not an acceptable source for factual information, as he was a paid Red propagandist during the Civil War and an unrepentant revolutionary thereafter, and never an academic historian. And he is really not necessary; his few additional examples of white terror added little.
3 - Biased language. The Red forces had no obvious greater claim to legitimacy than the White, so it is wrong to describe the former as a "Government" unless you also use that term for Kolchak's regime, which equally claimed that title.
4 - Dates for sources. Dates of first publication for sources would help in their assessment, my next task; without rehashing that inconclusive argument, some of us do think it matters whether a source is Soviet or post-Soviet.
cwmacdougall 9:46, 14 November 2012
Just looked at Graves. Personally I think what an American had to say against the Whites is probably an acceptable, relatively neutral, source. But the previous paragraph citing what an associate of Semyenov said under Stalinist interrogation, probably under torture, is obviously not acceptable; may well be true, as by all accounts Semyenov was pretty nasty, but not a reliable source. Anyway, not needed, the point has already been made. cwmacdougall 1:25, 17 November 2012
NPOV says "we edit articles so that all the major participants will be able to look at the resulting text, and agree that their views are presented accurately and as completely as the context permits" - that is precisely what you are not doing. You are cherry picking sources that agree with you and ignoring those that don't; that is contrary to the policy.
You are also using clearly unreliable sources, contrary to the reliable source policy. If you objected to what an American officer wrote about the Reds I probably would not complain, as one might expect him to have an anti-Red bias, but what he says he directly observed about the Whites is unlikely to reflect a bias; that is why I accepted him, while what a Red propagandist has to say about the Whites is quite likely to be pure propaganda, and therefore unreliable. Similarly a statement made under torture or threat of torture is inherently likely to be unreliable, hence my latest deletion.
This is getting tiresome. So far I have only made obvious clearly required amendments. Soon I will be looking at more complex issues; are you capable civilised discussion about them? Stop trying to write propaganda and we will have something to discuss and can make progress on this article. cwmacdougall 10:56, 17 November 2012
We need to try to reach a consensus on the definition of "White Terror". A definition that includes terror by anti-White forces, rather than just by White forces, appears contrary to the Plain English policy. Yet EveralstingGaze has cited a source that is that peculiar.
1 - Could anyone provide more information about Professor I. Ratkovsky to confirm he is a reliable source? Internal evidence suggests otherwise, with talk of "petit-bourgeois" whatever that is, when more commonly the Whites and Poles are accused of being aristocratic or aristocratic led movements.
2 - Can anyone provide other sources for this strange wide definition? Any in English, as this is partly a question of Plain English?
3 - I will look for definition sources too.
cwmacdougall 11:50, 18 November 2012
How about removing the stuff on the Czechoslovak legion which doesn't really belong here? Volunteer Marek 18:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
So amazing to see actual how the American propagandists wanted to modify this page for serve their favours, like how they spreaded false propaganda and rumors against Saddam Hussein's regime 16 years ago. Meliodas Sama ( talk) 05:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
When I was here in 2020, there was an outlying upper estimate of 300,000 for the death toll of the White Terror in Russia. It was sourced from Vadim Ehrlichman's Population Losses in the 20th Century, though only had a link to a website which included a table, assumedly from the text. Anyways, Ehrlichman's estimate for the Red Terror is fairly high, at 1.2 million, and, so, I'd doubt that his citation of 300,000 for the White Terror is a case of a creatively revised Russian history. I found another source for the citation here, [10] https://reason.com/2019/09/02/hard-lessons-from-the-russian-civil-war/. Daydreamdays2 ( talk) 00:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
they apparently just attacked anybody in all of russia, randomly, if this whole entry is to be taken seriously. 199.7.158.59 ( talk) 15:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)