Talk:Left-wing uprisings against the Bolsheviks

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

Change the Title, Remove Unrelated Sections[edit]

This page would be better titled the Russian counter-revolution as it covers the start of that period from the establishment of the CHEKA in late 1917 through to the first large use of it in April and May 1918 in Petrograd and Moscow. It puts the cart before the horse to have Left and anarchist 'rebellions' when it was the SR's who were disenfranchised and the anarchists who were being shot by Chekists ' while trying to escape'. Lets call a spade a bloody shovel here. The Leninist counter-revolution provoked rebellions. Rebellions don't just happen for the fun of it. Change the title and turn the sequence of events around. The timeline is already well established elsewhere on more settled pages. ( signed pro2 ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Someone is editing this page trying to give it an anarchist POV. For example:Reply[reply]

-renaming the article and any words in the article from "Left SR Revolt" to "third russian revolution", or from "revolt" or "uprisings" to "revolutions". Academic journal articles overwhelmingly refer to this event as the "Left SR Revolt" or "Left SR Uprising" (check Google Scholar and see for yourself), both of which are neutral titles because they accurately describe the scale (that it was more or less a putsch supported by at most a couple thousand people, and not a widespread social revolution) and do not necessarily make a moral judgment (for example the "Dutch Revolt", "Bear Flag Revolt" are not necessarily viewed as politically biased names against their leaders). Zero academic articles use the name "third Russian revolution" to refer to this event, just check Google Scholar. Also, zero anarchist sources listed as sources even refer to the left SR uprising as "the third Russian revolution", instead they refer to the Kronstadt rebellion as the "third Russian revolution".

-adding the paragraph on the Workers Opposition, a group of Bolsheviks that supported the crushing of the Left SR revolt. The workers opposition paragraph is likely added by someone who is confused after reading anarchist literature, which promotes various oppositions that did not have anything to do with each other at the time. Besides the paragraph on the workers opposition is also somewhat inaccurate: Lenin banned factions as a temporary measure in 1921 but insisted that the anti-Bolshevik Uprisings Led by the SRs" or if you want them to sound more revolutionary without being inaccurate: "Other Socialist Revolutionary Led Uprisings against the Bolsheviks".

-For historical reference, before this page was moved to here it was in the "Anarchist Philosophy" section, and was much much worse than you see here now, with the phrase "and anarchists" thrown in every second sentence in a grossly inaccurate way. Please anarchists, question authority also when it comes from an anarchist promoted source, we know from history how the unscrupulous love to hide under virtuous labels.

Statistics: Google Scholar References referring to this event by following titles:

"Left SR Revolt": 9

"Left SR Uprising": 13

"Third Russian Revolution": Zero (hits refer to 1989, there are also anarchist references that use this in relation to Kronstadt, not to the Left SR Revolt)

"Russian Revolution of 1918": Zero (a search turns up hits with this phrase but all of them refer to a book written by Rosa Luxemburg in 1918 called "The Russian Revolution" or to the October Revolution of 1917, none of them refer to the Left SR Revolt)

"July Revolution 1918": Zero

These subjects mean a lot to anarchists, and their viewpoint should be included, but the elements that are not facts but interpretations should be included in the articles on anarchist philosophy. This includes the idea that the Left SR Revolt, Kronstadt rebellion, The Workers Opposition, and Makhno's Insurgent Army are a continuous chain of events with the same anarchist leadership, when this is not the case - Workers Opposition supported crushing all the others of those, The Left SR Revolt and Kronstadt Rebellion were led both by the SRs, but the SR's were not nominally anarchist and the SR's have never been shown to have supported the Makhnoists. The difference between the Workers Opposition and the Left SR Revolt, is like the difference between radical abolitionists within the Republican Party and the rebelling democrats during the US Civil War - they would not like to be listed as being on the same side just because both have some differences with the Republican leadership. ( (talk) 04:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

still change the article title; plus some extra context that would be helpful[edit]

The only source that claims all of these events are part of a continuous revolution appears to be Wikipedia itself, which would violate "no original research" rule. If there is this interpretation out there in anarchist literature, please cite it. As far as I can tell, this interpretation is being based on the fact that multiple of these episodes are covered in the same work by anarchist authors such as Avrich. They may cover various leftist oppositions to the Bolsheviks as is their scope of interest, but they don't link them as a continuous revolution. If someone does say this specifically, cite them rather than having Wikipedia itself being the only source making this interpretation.

It would be better to retitle the article, something like "left-wing rebellions against the Bolsheviks", as that is an accurate inclusive title of the information presented. Calling the whole thing of the left sr uprising, anarchist terrorist attacks, makhnos insurgent peasant army, kronstadt rebellion, the tambov rebellion, and the workers opposition as all "the third Russian revolution", is like saying that the Whiskey rebellion, Shays rebellion, and Aaron Burr's alleged plot to take over Mexico are alltogether "the second American revolution". Some of these rebellions may have been supported by local majorities, and you can see some similar demands being raised, but the list includes an unrelated item. And also, a rebellion supported by a local majority does not prove there was majority support for it. To name some non-communist historians who say that evidence shows the Bolsheviks were supported by the majority in the revolution and the civil war, look at Rabinowich and E.H. Carr. Even famed anticommunist writer Solzhenitsyn has denounced claims by less honest anticommunists such as Pipes that the Bolsheviks were a minority supported coup, and insists the majority is responsible for supporting it.

If there is a citation other than wikipedia itself naming the Third Russian Revolution as being all of these events, maybe that should be a subsection of the article near the end if this name and interpretation originate much later. Maybe we can work on incorporating some of the points raised in the criticism section into the main historical part of the article, and then instead have a section at the end that discusses the interpretation as "the third russian revolution" and whether it is continuous, and whether it is a revolution.

I think it is ok to, for an encyclopedia article, call all the actors revolutionaries who considered themselves to be such. The encyclopedia should list rebellions that did not succeed as revolutions if:

  • they were broad based instead of scattered minority supported rebellions,
  • secondarily, if there are sources that call them revolutions. If they don't quite fit the first condition they should be listed with the reference of who refers to them as this and the lack of broad popular support should be pointed out.

For example, various coup leaders lacking broad support have called their coups "revolutions". If they carry out a social transformation afterward, that qualifies them even if they didn't have majority support. But if they didn't succeed and are also not demonstrated to have majority support, it is more of a rebellion, revolt, uprising, failed coup, or putsch.

Another thing, to make the article more balanced. Since various kill totals of the Bolsheviks are listed, to put in proper context it should also be listed the amount of deaths and intensity of the Civil War, which would have been the Bolsheviks reason to commit atrocities - to win the war as fast as possible and prevent a higher amount of atrocities if the Whites could fight longer or win. Think would you like to read an article about the US civil war that listed individual atrocities and suppression of free speech by the north and left this kind of context out (that a victory of the Union would have resulted in the emancipation of slavery, that the south was getting aid from Britain, that the south counterinvaded the north, that the south had plans to expand slavery militarily into the Caribbean and Latin America, that the faster they beat the south the less deaths and slavery there would be).

Specifically, some context that should be present:

  • 14 of the biggest capitalist countries invaded with armies to support the whites, and financed and armed rebellions.
  • The section that talks about the constituent assembly should have some context on the circumstances of its earlier dissolution, or maybe earlier in the background section. It was elected on basis of universal suffrage, but based on old voting lists made before the left-right SR split. The SRs were voted the majority of the seats, but the Right SRs took those seats, preventing the Left SRs who were the ones with more support from holding them. This means that while the majority supported the soviet Bolshevik-Left SR soviet government, the constituent assembly reflected the opposite. On refusing to accept the authority of the soviet government, it was dissolved. After this, calls for return to the constituent assembly were viewed by the Bolsheviks as a White demand for a minority trying to take power by force using a democratic guise. In practice uprisings supporting the constituent assembly led to pro-tsarist white generals taking swaths of territory.
  • The Bolsheviks viewed these other forces (blue, green, and black armies) as helping the Whites, because they fought against the Reds at the same time the Whites were.
  • There should be more on kronstadt and tambov rebellions, though they have their own separate articles maybe a couple paragraphs on them would be appropriate since kronstadt was the largest battle of the civil war and alongside the left sr revolt and tambov rebellion was the most important politically of all of these in terms of effects, plus it is what is usually referred to in anarchist sources by the term "third russian revolution". The part on the kronstadt rebellion should mention their main demands including free elections of all socialist parties to soviets, and mention it was instigated on a ruse by the White SR Petrichenko. Also, both russian mensheviks and SRs who were not there published materials claiming that they were the leaders of the kronstadt uprising.
  • The mention of the Makhnos insurgent army while not relevant for the article when a previous version seemed to be mainly about the left SR revolt, is relevant for the general category of left wing uprisings against the bolsheviks during this time period and deserves at least a paragraph. Also there were other Russian anarchists who supported Makhno, though not all did. It should say Makhno said he supported local soviets, but not the central government elected by local soviets.
  • For rebellions that had demands for free election of all socialist parties, it should be mentioned that they were going to overthrow and suppress the main popularly supported socialist party, the Communist(Bolshevik) Party, which was elected through the soviets less than four years previous, in order to do so.
  • The Caucasian Mensheviks from Georgia especially should be mentioned, as they were another socialist party that opposed the Bolsheviks. The soviet Menshevik government served as a conduit for german and later british military support to the Whites. The red army forcefully took over this area as part of defeating white bases in the civil war, and the Menshevik party was banned mainly for their support to this group.

Maybe the paragraph on the workers opposition would make more sense being included if it said: "some similar demands were raised by the Workers Opposition faction of the Bolshevik party, though they supported crushing these rebellions" and then say which are those similar demands. The similarity of demands is relevant, showing both a social background for the basis for them, and showing that it was possible to raise these demands without resorting to the violence of the listed rebellions. The rebellions actually had the opposite effect of the intent of their demands, by increasing the necessity of the government to resort to more and more dictatorial methods to suppress them.

The Workers Opposition was dissolved as a faction at the same time all factions were dissolved to ensure stability in the context of the post-war devastation and instability, the way it appears now suggests they were singled out. Maybe the part on the workers opposition could be near the end in the discussion of effects.

Also, listed as effects is the creation of the USSR. I would see the immediate effects instead as being:

  • cause - effect
  • Rebellions calling for restoring constituent assembly - bolsheviks exclude mensheviks and SRs from soviets
  • Left SR Revolt - left srs leave coalition government, leaving communist party(bolsheviks) as only ruling party
  • tambov and kronstadt revolts - NEP, ban on factions within communist party(bolsheviks)
  • caucasian menshevik support to whites - leading to soviet occupation of the caucasus, banning of the menshevik party

A year after all this is over, the formation of the USSR happens. This was probably part of Lenin's general plan to voluntarily unite areas after granting right of self determination. You could argue the revolts played a role in the formation of the USSR if they increased the level of threat to disunity. Or you could argue that the defeat of Makhno and the caucasian mensheviks was what led to those territories being bolshevised and able to join the USSR later.( (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]


Something weird going on with the references, can't figure it out. Some people have tried using the ref tags but it is only giving superscript links that don't appear at the bottom of the page. Till we get some help on this, for now I am just going to keep using non link textual parenthetical references to references added below. ( (talk) 01:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Certain references offered by are not references at all or are highly dubious[edit], some of your additions are good; thanks for helping improve the article. I have issue with these:

[ ] This returns a bunch of hits that are mostly from scrapers which have copied the text "third russian revolution" from wikipedia itself without actual sources. The references that are to actual history refer to Kronstadt 1921 specifically (anarchist) or 1990-1993. You must provide some source other than an anarchist propaganda page or a google search that does not reveal what you claim it does. However, the term "Third Revolution" was used by anarchists during the civil war, though they were not the majority or sole component of the uprisings that are the subject of the article. The socialist revolutionaries rather than attempting to calling for a third revolution were attempting to return to the february 1917 revolution. Calling the article the "third revolution" would make sense only if it covered the anarchists and not SRs and other groups. Because the anarchists are a minority supported group, this should referenced in the interior of the article, or a new article referring only to the anarchists exploits during the time could be made with the title "Third Revolution (Russia 1918-1921)"


All hits here refer to the Russian October revolution of 1917 and are just using an approximate date. Again, google search used as a reference is dishonest especially when it reveals the opposite of what you say it does.


The first hit here is wikipedia itself and the other three hits are scrapers which have copied previous versions of the wikipedia article, which has never used a reference for this.

If you don't know what scrapers are, they are programs that copy content from other pages and use them to generate spam to clog up search engines with less useful links. They combine content others have made with advertising to profit by reducing the usefulness of the internet.


This is another search used as a reference. It is more honest than the three cited above because it does lead to some cites which celebrate these people, which are pretty much all anarchist propaganda sites. The point of my question about citation needed was that the sentence says "these rebellions" which appears to refer to the subject of the whole article, implying that these anarchists are most celebrated even by other factions which were not anarchist. I was doubting this is true even within anarchists because I hear much more about Makhno from anarchists than any other figure from this time. It would probably be more informational and less propagandistic to instead of having a sentence saying these are the most celebrated, write a sentence or two about each saying what they did.


the * is r - because the site is blacklisted and I can't even use the link to describe why it is bad.

This page is not an academic reference or trustable site, instead it reads like a conspiracy theory propaganda page. Some of the facts in it are true, and others are highly dubious and unsourced. It cites no reference for the claim that the Left SRs viewed the Bolsheviks as a german proxy, and it contradicts the cited academic article on the Left SRs as Don Quixotes, which says that at the time they claimed their goals were to shock the errant bolsheviks to their senses. It is more accurate to say they thought the bolsheviks were giving up too much territory to Germany than to say they accused the bolsheviks of being german agents. If this accusation was really made at the time, we need a real source for it. As just one more example of the extreme dishonesty used by this site as part of its antisocialist propaganda:

"A similar problem became evident after the National Socialist German Workers' Party (and its leader) was obliterated through the efforts of its earlier ally, the Union of Soviet Socialist Repubics (and others). Soviet Socialists went on to kill more than twice as many people as had been killed by German National Socialists."

Most people killed by Stalin were before and during WW2. The site uses one of the highest estimates (with no source) for the estimate of people killed by stalin (60 m), the smallest possible estimates of deaths caused by hitler (21 million), and then implies that 40 million were killed after the end of ww2 in the soviet union. This is just sloppy and shows the general propagandistic bent of the site, and why it shouldnt be a reference for this kind of fact. Another example of the extreme propagandistic bent of the site:

"In September 1917, General Lavr Kornilov, the recently appointed Commander-in-Chief of the Russian army, denounced Lenin and his 'German spies,' and declared that they should be hanged. He was dismissed from office by Alexander Kerensky."

It doesn't mention that Kornilov led a military putsch that was tacitly supported by Kerensky, who did not mobilize defense against it which was left up to the Bolsheviks to stop the coup. Instead, this Doctor of Symbology, Rex Curry, as part of his rant about a "New World Order" distorts history, reflecting his own interpretation, where he seems to imply, ridiculously, that even Kerensky is part of the conspiracy to help Lenin. Such a big error is the mark of an amateur dabbler, not a researched source. Just one more:

"Lenin supported imperialism. In the late 18th century, the newly independent Second Polish Republic began securing its eastern territories annexed by Russia in the partitions of Poland. That was part of the Soviet socialist excuse for the Polish-Soviet War in 1919."

Actually, Poland invaded Soviet Russia first, even after Lenin had granted unconditional capitalist independence to Poland. The reference to the late 18th century is a mystery, as there is no explanation for something that would have to be a big stretch even if someone did try to explain it.

Anyway, please do some more research on some of these things, and don't just throw in random links as references that were the first thing to come up in a search. You need to look at it and find if it is trustworthy, if it has sources, or if it is just a scraper using old wikitext or someones propagandistic interpretation. For an example of an anarchist sympathetic author who is honest and trustworthy, look at Paul Avrich. He is known for trying to be objective in the sense that he includes information and arguments that are unfavorable to anarchists in his serious academic quality works rather than trying to just create undiluted pro anarchist propaganda.

Also, RexCurry appears to be blacklisted...

( (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Right SR and Menshevik support to Kaledin Uprising and related bans are highly relevant to subject[edit]

Mikkalai, The article includes uprisings that involved left wing parties from the time of the october revolution until these uprisings stopped and the groups that led them were suppressed. The Kaledin uprising is the first one of these. The article already includes things of this sort that were not under slogans of a "third revolution" like constituent assembly supporting revolts. ( (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

PS By the way thanks Mikkalai for adding the reflist tag and getting peoples references to show up, I didn't know how to do that. I will try to get around to changing the citations I was using into that format at some point.( (talk) 00:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Article Title should be accurate and inclusive, rather than an interpretation referring to a slogan used by just one of the groups involved[edit]

Left Wing Rebellions Against the Bolsheviks would be the most accurate title including all these events, because it includes Mensheviks, Left SRs, Right SRs, and anarchists.

Third Russian Revolution is a worse term because it only refers to a slogan used by anarchists and during the Kronstadt revolt, and does not include the constituent assembly supporting revolts or revolts led by Left or Right SRs or Mensheviks.

I have tried to add information about the use of this slogan integrated into the article, but there are many arguments against use of it as a title to describe all these events, including statements above on this talk page.

If you have arguments to the contrary, please state them here rather than only editing things to your perspective without discussing the reasoning. Most editors are also making good edits, so if we work together the article can become more accurate. ( (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

"nominally socialist parties" etc.[edit]

How about claims like "nominally socialist parties" etc. Who were the real socialist parties then? Bolsheviks?!?!

"nominally socialist" refers to the Left Socialist Revolutionary Party, the (right) Socialist Revolutionary Party, and the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (Menshevik). I separated with an extra comma and "and also" for the anarchists because though they were generally leftist anarchists some don't like the word socialism because of its government implications. The reason Mensheviks are nominally socialist is because their party name is socialist but they were ideologically pro capitalism because of their interpretation of Marxist theory where they viewed socialism to not be possible in Russia at the time.( (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
On second thought I think you are correct in raising this criticism. I changed it to "left wing groups" rather than "nominally socialist parties" because the nominally socialist makes more sense describing the Mensheviks than the other two, and something like that should be explained within the main part of the article if at all, rather than having a confusing general label.-( (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

"in support of the White Movement". What do you think the White Movement was? Right wing parties or all the people who were'nt Bolsheviks???

The White Movement was specifically the pro tsarist generals, their White Armies, and the Kadets and others who supported them, which at times included the Socialist Revolutionary Party and Mensheviks. Not all the rebellions were in support of the whites, and it is detailed in the article which ones were and weren't. The distinction is made in the article where the Bolsheviks argue that some of the non pro white rebellions in practice helped the whites by fighting against the bolsheviks at the same time the whites were.( (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

"The Bolshevik Party came to power in the October Revolution". The Bolshevik Party or Soviets didn't have any power in the Soviet Russia never - all the power was in hands of one man - Lenin, later Stalin. And don't use all the time the Bolshevik-Stalinist term "October Revolution". Of course it wasn't a revolution, but a putsch or coup d'etat by fascists who called themselves the Bosheviks.

This is clearly your interpretation based on propaganda you have read. Lenin was obviously the main leader of the Bolsheviks, he had won that position by winning arguments and getting the majority to vote for him and his policies. He did not control the whole party or win on every issue, for just one example he lost several votes in the central committee during the arguments over signing the Brest-Litovsk treaty. It is true he was the most powerful and preeminent leader but it is ahistorical to say there was any one man rule like in the Stalin era. Even the Stalin era didn't have full one man rule until the later part of it after he had purged the Left and Right oppositions. Saying just because Lenin-- a leader of a party that won over half the votes in soviet elections controlled by other parties and then got the position of head of government-- was able to personally order things done makes him a single person dictator, is like saying the same thing about a President of the United States, who usually gets his position by majority vote. Also the term "october revolution" is necessary because the article discusses events that relate to both revolutions of 1917, the february and october revolutions, and just saying russian revolution of 1917 would confuse the article. "October revolution" is used by mainstream capitalist historians to distinguish between the february and october revolutions. Again, look at E.H. Carr, Alexander Rabinowich, or Alexander Solzhenitsyn, capitalist historians who show that the Bolsheviks were supported by the majority. Also, the idea that the bolsheviks are "fascists" is clearly your interpretation, and which you should be commended for not thinking you can honestly add inline into the article.( (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
If the article referred to the real soviet historiography term, "The Great October Socialist Revolution" then I could see where you were coming from. ( (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
No, you are wrong, in the USSR there was a collective management, the role of which was played by the Politburo or the Soviet government, some kind of Kamenev, Trotsky or Lunacharsky had exactly the same opportunities as Lenin, there were no dictators in the USSR except Stalin Цйфыву (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All the article is written not by neutral or real life point of view, but by Soviet-Bolshevik-Stalinist-Marxist point of view. But the Soviet Union was a criminal state, and Bolshevism is a criminal ideology!!!, an ideology against people, and against the working class.

This is clearly your opinion.( (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

"In August 30, 1918 Lenin survived an attempted assassination by Fanny Kaplan leaving a bullet in his neck. This contributed to the strokes(6) that prevented him from removing Stalin." Fanny Kaplan was a stalinist then :)

Provide some proof before you make extraordinary claims. The main capitalist histories say she is a Socialist Revolutionary. There was no such thing as "stalinism" at this time as Stalin was still a relatively minor leader.( (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

"anti-Bolshevik". All normal people were anti-Bolshevik!

Who is normal is clearly your opinion, coming from within the context of what society you live in today, and not what was going on at the time then. Since the majority supported the Bolsheviks, then it would be just as easy to interpret their position as normal.( (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

"pro-white SR Stepan Petrichenko". Why he was a "pro-white"? Because he wasn't at the side of Bolsheviks??? Maybe Makhno was a "pro-white" too??? In the real life they were the pro-black - Petrichenko was an anarcho-syndicalist, and Makhno was an anarcho-communist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Petrichenko, like many others during this time, changed his views more than once. Stepan Petrichenko, according to the anarchist historian Paul Avrich, had tried to join the White Army a few months before the Kronstadt Rebellion started, then he had an agent of the white general Wrangel come to Kronstadt and organize to send aid to it, then after the rebellion his men joined the whites in an agreement with Wrangel which claimed to aim for free elections but secretly planned to create a dictatorship. In the views of the majority of participants, the kronstadt mutiny itself wasnt aimed at being pro white, but it happened to be instigated by a guy who was.( (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

This is a half-truth of Bolshevik point of view: "The Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine led by Nestor Makhno took control of part of the Ukraine countryside. Makhno sometimes fought against the whites and sometimes against the Bolsheviks at the same time the Whites were. He said he supported local soviets but was opposed to any overall government elected by the local soviets. The Makhnoists formed an overall government over the area they controlled, used forced conscription, banned all opposition parties, and had a secret police. The Bolsheviks viewed the Makhnoists as unreliable allies and took over after the Whites were defeated."

Read the anarchist Paul Avrich who is frank about these un-anarchist tendencies of the renowned anarchist' leader Makhno.( (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

The "Soviet historigraphy" is wrong and criminal, as for example Third Reich historigraphy is wrong and criminal.

-- (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article does not rely on soviet historiography. The changes you are trying to make clearly come from a very biased perspective of someone who has only read anarchist historiography, and only the most biased, propagandistic anarchist historiography purposefully ignoring the honest writers. Really you will need to read a variety of sources to be able to get through to the truth of such complex historical events. The events are clearly important enough to warrant a more thorough look, please check out some of these sources.( (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Yes, rename the article[edit]

That was not a "revolution" but simply an "uprising" and the failed one. This aricle should be renamed.Biophys (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course it was a revolution. The "October Revolution" wasn't a revolution but a putsch.-- (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Bolsheviks were voted an absolute majority of the soviets, which were at the time of the vote controlled by other parties the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionary Party. The organized seizure of power coincided with the vote, which gave them a democratic mandate to do so. The organized seizure of power was carried out to prevent the other provisional government from using dictatorial methods to suppress the decision of the democratic soviets. Just because one component part of the revolution is an organized coup, that doesnt mean the whole revolution is an organized coup, and to say so is either dishonest or based on a very partial reading of the history. You would have to ignore not only the soviet vote but the whole series of unarmed and armed demonstrations of increasing size in all the major cities demanding that the soviets take power, and the widespread independent seizures of factories by workers and military mutinies with similar goals.
The kind of claim you are making is similar to if someone said the American Revolution wasn't a revolution just because the main battle was fought by an army, ignoring the popular support and other violent and nonviolent struggles during it. Or if someone said the French Revolution wasn't a revolution because the Jacobin coup occurred during it, ignoring the popular support and mass demonstrations.
The wikipedia article on revolution that you cite gives information directly contrary to your position, citing scholars who say the october revolution was a revolution, and saying that a failed revolution needs to include mass support. So far the article citations say the opposite of what you are saying, not a single person has offered evidence that the majority supported these rebellions, so they are clearly not a revolution. You won't find it but reel free to look for such evidence and if it is from a trustworthy source like a peer review journal or work by historians then bring it.( (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

No, don't rename the article![edit]

-- (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There doesn't need to be other hits for "Left Wing Rebellions Against the Bolsheviks". It is an accurate term because for failed uprisings they were supported by too small a minority to be called a "revolution", and we are trying to describe all of the uprisings led against the period of Bolshevist Russia who were led by left wing groups. Again, the google search for "Third Russian Revolution" does not prove what you say it does: it returns hits that are scrapes from previous unsourced wiki content, pages referring specifically to the Kronstadt Rebellion, anarchist terrorist activities, and not the whole series of events or parties involved. ( (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Some other possible ways to title it that would be equivalent: "Left Wing Uprisings against the Bolsheviks", "Left Wing Rebellions in Bolshevik Russia", "Left Wing Uprisings in Soviet Russia".( (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Plagiarism in Tyumen revolt part[edit]

We can do this article without resorting to plagiarism. I noticed an addition made by someone copying a paragraph almost word for word from a source without using quotation marks to indicate such. This may be an innocent mistake or done to spite the elitist anti-plagiarism rules, but copying content without attribution might lead to your work being removed. If it was you, try copy the citations into the article or if you need help, put the citations into this talk page and maybe someone else will work on it. Its not actually that hard to avoid plagiarism, just read the information you want to include and then write it in your own words, with anything more than a couple of words that are the same as the original requiring quotation marks and a citation. -( (talk) 05:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Article subheadings, organization[edit]

I tried adding subheadings to some of the parts of the article, especially the longest section near the end, to improve readability. The article is currently mostly ordered chronologically, which I think is the best way to describe these complex events. The alternative way would be to group rebellions by political leadership, like SRs, Left SRs, Mensheviks, Anarchists. The problem with the second way is that many of the revolts would be joined by several factions and it might be more confusing to try to follow the order of events, bans, splits, reinstatements, etc if it was done in that way. What do other people think? -( (talk) 05:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

article name[edit]

The article should be renamed "left wing uprisings in soviet russia", and "third russian revolution" should be a subheading. the reason is, "third russian revolution" is an anarchist propaganda term and is agreed to by no one other than anarchists to label all these events, and is inaccurate in terms of the definition of a revolution. the way it is currently stated makes no sense, saying "third russian revolution" is "also known as" left wing rebellions against the bolsheviks, because it isnt known by that as a term, instead that is the accurate description of what it is. for example, there are a number of other wikipedia articles with titles like "x uprisings" or "x rebellions", like 1991 iraq uprisings that refer to groups of uprisings that are somewhat connected. also, there are articles titled "opposition to x", like opposition to the vietnam war, that cover oppositional movements in a certain time period that are not united under a single banner. since the russian revolution is of interest to all leftists, it is appropriate that there be an article specifically about the opposition to the soviet government at the time that focuses on leftist groups, but this article shouldnt have as its primary title the anarchist propaganda term.-( (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Agreed.--Anonymous44 (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Workers' Opposition[edit]

Given that my removal of this section was undone by User:Volunteer Marek, does anybody want to explain how the Workers' Opposition can be considered an 'uprising against the Bolsheviks'? That seems a very strange description for a factional dispute within the Bolshevik party itself. As it stands, its inclusion on that list is absurd. GreatGodOm (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm in complete agreement, it's absurd to include an internal party faction that didn't participate in any "uprising". I have removed the section, as it was completely uncited anyway. Grnrchst (talk) 12:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Left-wing uprisings against the Bolsheviks. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:12, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Infobox overkill[edit]

I just noticed that @Skrattar du Fölora du has vastly expanded the Infobox beyond what it previously displayed, resulting in the "Belligerents" sections specifically becoming a bit garbled. This infobox section already needed work in its shorter form but now it has reached a stage where management and clarification are desperately required. Right now, it seems to imply that every single faction listed in the right side of the infobox were all on the same side, fighting in the same conflict. For example: it implies that Ukrainian anarchists were on the same side as the Ukrainian People's Republic, which they opposed since its inception (only very briefly forming a truce with them in 1919). It also lists factions of the Bolshevik Party, such as the Workers' Opposition, which didn't participate in any "uprising" (instead just internally opposing Bolshevik party policy) for some reason. It even verges on flat out inaccuracy, with its listing of the Party of Revolutionary Communism, Party of Narodnik Communists and Universalists in the anti-Bolshevik side, despite them all being explicitly pro-Bolshevik in orientation (the former two having split from the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries specifically to oppose the Left SR uprising).

So I wanted to open a discussion for how better to structure the infobox, how to keep it all notable to the subject, etc. Hopefully Skrattar can clarify the additions that they made so we can work closer towards forming a consensus. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update: I went ahead and removed the most obviously egregious entries and I'm now wondering how best to divide up the rest of the section. I'm thinking the best way currently would be to divide it into the following sections: 1) Supporters of the Russian Constituent Assembly (such as the Socialist-Revolutionary Party); 2) Left-wing nationalists that sought autonomy or independence from Russia (such as the Ukrainian People's Republic, First Republic of Armenia, etc.); 3) Anarchists; 4) Green armies; 5) Left Socialist-Revolutionaries; 6) Baltic Fleet. But even then, it might be too much. I also don't know whether the Bolshevik Party factions should be included in the infobox, as I'm not sure I'd call their activities part of any "uprising" (the Workers' Opposition even condemned the Kronstadt rebellion). --Grnrchst (talk) 13:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that I went overboard on the infobox and for that I apologize. In hindsight I should have simply added infomation on those groups to the "Other revolts" section. And no I never meant to imply anything historically inaccurate, like how you said I put the Ukrainian People's Republic and Free Territory on the same side. Yes I did put them on the same side on the info box, but that was only because they were both 1. left-wing and 2. working against the Bolsheviks. I for the record I never added any members of the Bolshevik opposition to the belligerents section, if this was somewhere else in the article then I wasn't the one who added them. Finally I will fully admit that I simply thought it said the SR Combat Organization was dissolved in 1921, not 1911, that's my bad and I'm sorry. Skrattar du Fölora du (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's no bother, thanks for explaining your motivations. I have since reorganized the infobox, do you have any thoughts on its current state? Grnrchst (talk) 12:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Overreliance on one source[edit]

The majority of the references in the section on the constituent assembly are from E.H Carr. it's hound be noted that Carr tends to only use official Soviet approved sources and has been criticized for having a pro-Soviet slant in his writing. Supplementation of this article with sources of a different perspective may be needed (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]