Jump to content

Talk:Russian Civil War/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

End date

Isn’t the end date 16 June 1923? That was the end of the Yakut revolt and wasn’t that the final episode of the Russian Civil War? Charles Essie (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@DemocraticSocialism, EkoGraf, Gaidash, Jaan, Mikkalai, and Nukedoom: Would you like to weigh in as you were involved in past discussions about this issue? Charles Essie (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
@Charles Essie: It was agreed through compromise more than a year ago that the date be set (based on two sources) to be November 7, 1917 – October 25, 1922/June 16, 1923 (Revolt again Soviet rule continued in Central Asia until 1934). Two end dates were set since both dates are cited as the final endings of the Russian Civil War. Someone removed the second end date as well as one of the sources and the small note regarding the continued revolt in Central Asia. I will restore this since it was done contrary to the established compromise. If someone wants to remove it he best first achieve consensus on the removal since this was the accepted version for almost a year. If there are more of those who insist on one end date than in my opinion it should be the second that is cited (tied to the Yakut revolt). In that case, as a new compromise, we can add an asterix linked to the notes that other sources cited 1922 as the end date and that there was a continued revolt until 1934. EkoGraf (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
DemocraticSocialism Even though I technically believe that the Russian Civil War technically ended in 1934, I would be fine with the end date being June 16, 1923, with the (Revolt against Soviet rule continued in Central Asia in 1934) being tacked on at the end.
I agree. Charles Essie (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Ukraine in the name of a piece of article ?

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

Read please this fragment of article

Under Soviet pressure, the Volunteer Army embarked on the epic Ice March from Yekaterinodar to Kuban on 22 February 1918, where they joined with the Kuban Cossacks to mount an abortive assault on Yekaterinodar.[35] The Soviets recaptured Rostov on the next day.[36] Gen. Kornilov was killed in the fighting on 13 April, and Gen. Denikin took over command. Fighting off its pursuers without respite, the army succeeded in breaking its way through back towards the Don, where the Cossack uprising against Bolsheviks had started.

The Baku Soviet Commune was established on 13 April. Germany landed its Caucasus Expedition troops in Poti on 8 June. The Ottoman Army of Islam (in coalition with Azerbaijan) drove them out of Baku on 26 July 1918. Subsequently, the Dashanaks, Right SRs and Mensheviks started negotiations with Gen. Dunsterville, the commander of the British troops in Persia. The Bolsheviks and their Left SR allies were opposed to it, but on 25 July the majority of the Soviet voted to call in the British and the Bolsheviks resigned. The Baku Soviet Commune ended its existence and was replaced by the Central Caspian Dictatorship.

In June 1918 the Volunteer Army, numbering some 9,000 men, started its second Kuban campaign. Yekaterinodar was encircled on 1 August and fell on the 3rd. In September–October, heavy fighting took place at Armavir and Stavropol. On 13 October Gen. Kazanovich's division took Armavir, and on 1 November Gen. Pyotr Wrangel secured Stavropol. This time Red forces had no escape, and by the beginning of 1919 the whole Northern Caucasus was controlled by the Volunteer Army.

In October Gen. Alekseev, the leader of the White armies in southern Russia, died of a heart attack. An agreement was reached between Denikin, head of the Volunteer Army, and Pyotr Krasnov, Ataman of the Don Cossacks, which united their forces under the sole command of Denikin. The Armed Forces of South Russia were thus created.

Thank you that have read.

Question: What in the text is connected with modern Ukraine? Anything. There are no bases the Russian history to attach to the modern country of Ukraine

Bohdan Bondar (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Detailed infobox

This version of the infobox is divided into 3 parts because of the complex nature of the war, for examplee White Army and Ukraine were not allies to say at least, but they are on the same side in the current version of the infobox. Although infobox IS a brief summary of information, it should still give you a proper view of the conflict. For an example of the "obscenely large infobox" see Template:Syrian Civil War infobox. User:CapLiber (talk) | 18:38, 10/11/2018 (UTC)

Yes, that example is obscenely large. It disrupts the formatting of the page all the way through the first section on my monitor. Not a great argument in favor. Trying to cram the whole article into the infobox is unwarranted, especially when it contains information not sourced and discussed in the body. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Infobox commanders section

Infobox is not meant to depict finer aspects of "balance of power in the Soviet State", that would belong text part of this or some other article. Point of infobox is to provide relatively quick overview. Collapsible sections really only should be used then there are no other options available, so there is no reason why they would be necessary for commanders, and as far as I am aware they are not used in commander section of any other English wikipedia military conflict article. Anyway here solution with Soviets is quite straightforward: Head of State, Minister of Defense (People's Commissar for Military and Naval Affairs), and Commander-in-Chiefs of Red Army.--Staberinde (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Vladimir Lenin was Head of Government, not Head of State. Head of State of the Russian SFSR was held by Yakov Sverdlov, Mikhail Vladimirsky (Briefly) and Mikhail Kalinin, successively. Shouldn't the Heads of State be represented in some fashion? At least Sverdlov and Kalinin, since Vladimirsky was technically only an interim leader for a few weeks. Salociin (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, right, meant "head of government" there indeed. I don't think infobox should be overloaded with politicians, that said I am not completely opposed to Sverdlovs inclusion, as an argument could be made that he was one of the major political figures after Lenin. I see no point in Kalinin though, as far as I know his actual influence was quite limited.--Staberinde (talk) 11:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. The entire infobox for this particular conflict seems to be one of the most hotly contested across the entire wiki. I've probably seen the format changed from two columns to three columns a half dozen times or so just over the last two years. I suppose it's because of the complexity of this particular conflict and the many differing and conflicting views on how to present the best overview from many POVs. Salociin (talk) 04:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Russian Civil War is basically an ideal example of a conflict that doesn't fit well into a box. No matter what approach you take, it is still going to be a cross oversimplification. Additionally those infoboxes often get so ridiculously large that they basically defeat the purpose of infobox, which should be short "at glance" summary.--Staberinde (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Civil War

Did any Russians compete in any other civil wars Jameshough1122 (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC) Um I think so they could have been employed as mercenaries — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:CA80:C660:B48B:8B22:C517:C479 (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

hmmm.....

We should talk about belligerent of this war..... Like "did Poland fight with Allied countries?" I think we have to discuss about those belligerents are not suited. Who made those 3 sections of belligerents? -- 웬디러비 (talk) 08:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Ciations Style Inconsistent

I've added the template noting that citation style is inconsistent. When a single source is cited multiple times, lengthy quotations from that source are added in the citation using old and often broken syntax for the SFN template. I've made a brief pass at fixing it though I believe it needs a lot more help. TripleShortOfACycle (talk - contribs) 10:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

White Army Strength and Casualties and losses

How is it possible for 1,023,000 (peak)[m] army to suffer 1,500,000 loss? If this number includes civilians, it should be separated. Same if it incudes losses from terror, both Red_Terror and White_Terror_(Russia)

Numbers may differ from 120 000 to 2 000 000, so add links for said numbers.

I will mark the numbers with [citation needed]

double listing in the belligerent box

The box "belligerents" contains Left SRs, Green Army and Makhnovia two times. Couldn't we delete one of the two? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:68FF:DD00:D459:6E:F9E3:2E78 (talk) 09:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Free territory

On the free territory, I don't think the info box should have four sides present as it would be to cluttered however the Free territory essentially was alone from 1920-1921, in which it held the entirety of Ukraine roughly 15% of the population. Des Vallee (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

End of war

Most sources say the war ended in 1925, with violence continuing until 1934. (Westerhaley (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC))

About infobox

Freikorps and Bermontians don't really make much sense in the 3rd column as they spent large part of their existence fighting against independence movements in Baltics, they would be more fitting in 2nd column. Greens weren't really "anarchist" and in fact should be in 3rd column as they fought against both Reds and Whites. Sweden, Hungary etc. weren't really that important as presented currently. Red Latvian riflemen were part of Red Army, not some separate entity.--Staberinde (talk) 10:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

"Russian-Soviet War" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Russian-Soviet War and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 3#Russian-Soviet War until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 17:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

"Territorial Changes"

It is not correct to label everything as "cessions" - for instance, "cessions to bolshevik states" does not make sense, as it implies that before the Civil War these bolshevik states existed and as a result of the war, they were ceded territory, which isn't true. Furthermore, territorial CESSIONS are result of a peace or armistice, which in this context didn't happen, it was a civil war after all. That paragraph is entirely wrong, and I don't think there is a need to explain point by point why. Then, in "cessions to national separatists" - Cession of Grand Duchy to Finland? This does not make any sense. This should be "Grand Duchy of Finland given independence. And the exact same with the whole part of national separatism.

To sum up, the whole section needs to be redone, at least from my perspective. Wario2 (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Merged information

A recent deletion discussion about the article "Left-wing uprisings against the Bolsheviks" resulted in it being redirected to a section of this article. Reasoning was that the scope of the former article was entirely synthetic, with no source linking together any of these various, disparate and often opposing movements.

An IP editor that took issue with this redirect then decided to clumsily merge the entire contents of that article into this one, resulting in a rather scattered and unbalanced background section. As a result, C.J. Griffin has tagged the article for POV. So I just wanted to open a discussion here as to what to do about this section. How we can rectify this issue, cut out the stuff that's not needed, while leaving in what is necessary context. -- Grnrchst (talk) 13:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

“SAM and MANPAT Systems” in “Weapons”

It does not seem correct to state that the Red Army, late in the war, utilised SAM and MANPAT Systems. Especially given that the articles linked both reference primarily the modern senses of the initialisms: larger, stationary surface-to-air missile systems such as the soviet era S-300, or smaller man-portable systems such as the Javelin. This passage should either be massively clarified with regards to what the original author meant (possibly early Anti-Air artillery?) or removed entirely as misleading. Note that at the time of the civil war, guided missile systems were entirely impossible, and unguided rockets saw only extremely limited military use. Acul933 (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Bolshevik vs Communist

I am curious what the delineation is between those two terms and when it would be deemed correct that the Bolsheviks transitioned into the Communist Party. 23:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The Bolsheviks were a faction of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. In 1918, after taking power, the Bolsheviks renamed their party the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks). Ideologically, they were communists (small "c") all along; but they were only Communists (big "C") from 1918 onward. Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 02:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Incomplete sentence

In the "repression" section, in the paragraph starting "On August 30...", the first sentence describes the Kaplan assassination attempt. And then, there is clearly something missing. The next sentence starts mid-sentence and the next sentence after that refers to a term that hasn't been introduced. This is really messy. Can someone please clean this up? Thanks! --95.89.78.72 (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 23 August 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. See snow close by another editor at Talk:Wagner Group rebellion#Requested move 23 August 2023. Station1 (talk) 23:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Russian Civil War → First Russian Civil War – The second civil war already happened. 89.122.39.11 (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. Killuminator (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Orphaned references in Russian Civil War

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Russian Civil War's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "caven":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The removing of the infobox

There was zero consideration with the members when the infobox was heavily reduced. I find this unappealing to me as a reader of Wikipedia because it removes the aspect of it being a massive conflict. Nusciii (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Casualties as percentage of population

In most other conflicts of this scale, the casualty figure is put into context by citing what percentage of the total population it represents. We don't have that here. This is an oversight I will fix. Just putting it out here.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_Civil_War/Archive_2&oldid=1261207867"