Talk:Kronstadt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): Russian and Soviet military history task force

kotlin.ru - more information about Kronshtadt on English and Russian

wheres the english version or section on that site? -max rspct 13:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV wording

I realize that the words were originally there, but they seem to have been removed with good intent and I think it was a good idea. However, this change was reverted, but I don't see why. Making articles NPOV is always a good thing. Can we keep the version without the POV adjectives please? -- Rediahs 08:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

As you please. I just think the epithets in question reflect certain hard facts rather than somebody's point of view. I don't see how anyone can argue that suppression of the rebellion was not ruthless and destruction of one of the major Neoclassical cathedrals was not barbarous. --Ghirla | talk 08:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe so, but do they contribute anything to the article either? Just because they are nearly universally true doesn't mean there's a good reason for them to be there, when they could be considered POV. I will go ahead and remove them again if that's all right. -- Rediahs 08:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The traditional way to handle POV issues is to add quotes by leading participants and historians that reflect these differences of opinion. For example, Emma Goldman called the Bolsheviks' actions "a frightful massacre", while Leon Trotsky defended them as "necessary". Ahasuerus 15:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a passer by here, but after reading this article I could not help but notice the language included an unsettling amount pride and is expressed with a too heavily slanted POV. Examples: “... St Andrew Cathedral (1817), formerly Kronstadt's pride and beauty, was ...” “pride and beauty” is unnecessary. “...barbarously destroyed by the Communists...” “barbarously” is most definitely unnecessary. “...one of the most venerated Russian saints...” I think his status in the Rus Orth Church could somehow be expressed more objectively. It can, at times, read like a tourism pamphlet. Eebmore 14:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Max Rspct Vandalism

I would also like to add the line, "The older St Andrew Cathedral (1817), formerly Kronstadt's pride and beauty, was barbarously destroyed by the Communists in 1932" is outrageiously subjective. "barbarously destroyed"? How about, just plainly: was destoryed, while we are at it, make the statment a bit more accurate: Was destoried in the civil war.

---

Ah, what a surprise, another page on Kronstadt where Max rspct constantly vandalises other people's posts and reverses them.

Whilst we are 'discussing' things, you have the presumption to 'correct' someone's post mentioning a riot by sneering that it was a 'rebellion' or 'uprising' - typical POV stuff from you of course, since in almost every History it is known as the Kronstadt MUTINY, just like the Spithead Mutiny, or the Kiel Mutiny, or any other uprising by a Navy against it's command.

You rail against authoritarianism with your Anarchist POV, and yet you are a consistant authoritarian on here, constantly editing out or reversing the posts of others.

A quick search at http://print.google.com finds 172 pages that refer to "Kronstadt uprising", 211 pages that mention "Kronstadt rebellion", 129 pages that use "Kronstadt revolt" and 108 pages that reference "Kronstadt mutiny". All four terms seem to be used more or less interchangeably by non-anarchist authors. Ahasuerus 21:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

---

I removed the reference to the rebellion being led by White Guards, as the source that was linked to was blatantly POV (Trotskyist) and the "Kronstadt rebellion" article has information to the opposite effect. Everyone agrees that the sailors rebelled, not everyone agrees who their leaders may or may not have been... XbenX 02:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree to that.

-G

---

I replaced "until the fall of communism in 1989" with "until the fall of Communism in 1989" to denote that this must be a reference to the state party rather than communism in general. Further editing to this end may be necessary --Dean Sayers 01:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)