Talk:1920 Georgian coup attempt

Recent changes

ValenShephard, it is clear for me that you trying to change the description given by the sources to that of your own preference. (1) The cited sources characterize the events as an attempted coup; in this case, 'uprising' is a POV term attempted to bring the article more in line with the pro-Soviet POV; (2) There were no "demonstrations" on May 3, but armed attacks on government buildings. This is also given in the sources; (3) "Sovietization" was the term used by the Bolshevik leadership and it is perfectly suited here, when we are discussing their plans for Georgia; (4) Those guys were members of the Bolshevik part. So, WTF is "Bolshevik aligned fighters"?; (5) "were court-martialed and shot" has exactly the same meaning and is better English than "executed by military tribunal." So what do you actually want? --Kober^Talk 17:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I changed what you were complaining about. Mostly the article used too much POV and I used some as well in editing it, but I've removed it now. You have to compromise. Shot is emotive and not very academic language, thats why I changed it. Bolshevik aligned fighters means exactly what it says, fighters who support the bolsheviks. They would not all have been members of the party, some would have been recruited from around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs) 17:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

"Would have been" is not an argument. The sources cited in the article identify them as members of the Bolshevik party. I agree on Shot, but you changed a lot of things without any reason. You have still to respond to my reasoning regarding "demonstrations", "sovietization", " Coup attempt ", etc. See (1), (2) , (3) in my previous post. All these info come from the credible sources. They cannot be dismissed just because you find the article "too much POV". Either provide explanations for your changes and respond with your own sources, or you are going to be reverted. Some unspecificed notices regarding "too much POV" is not convincing at all. --Kober^Talk 17:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I did answer to your worries because I reverted them. Coup attempt like I said is an emotive language. 'Taking power' is a compromise because it means the same but is not as emotive as coup. You cannot keep the article as you originally wrote it just because you have an anti-soviet point of view. The article as it stands now is fine, its aligned too much in either direction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs) 17:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not now "fine" just because you like it. How on earth is "Coup attempt" "an emotive language"? This is how the sources describe it. Look how many articles use "Coup attempt" in the title. Again I'm using SOURCES, while you are just brining some unspecified grudges. You failed to provide even a signle sound reasoning for your changes of sourced information. You are being "too emotional" in purging everything everything you deem "too emotional". --Kober^Talk 17:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

And please don't be cynical. Reverts are not an answer as you wrote in your previous post.--Kober^Talk 17:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Coup is emotive because it implies a kind of mostly selfish desire for power, which even if true, which it probably was with the bolsheviks, is not truely neutral. I agreed with you on most things, I compromised by removing most of what I changed and balancing out some POV language like pretend, which presumes alot. I didnt touch Coup attempt in the title, so that should be good enough for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs) 17:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

on another note, you are making personal attacks and insults. You are acting too aggressively with these issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs) 17:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Where do you see personal attacks and insults on my part? Again "too emotional" is not an argument. Look at this, please. Besides, the SOURCES describe the events as a failed coup. I'm getting tired of repeating myself. --Kober^Talk 17:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I didnt say emotional I said emotive, which is different. Emotive means to create certain emotions, and this is POV. If a word creates a certain emotion then it has a POV if a word is neutral and doesnt create either positive or negative meanings, then it is better. Also, all your sources cannot be verified by me, so you cant throw them around as if they are very powerful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs) 17:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine.. how about changing all Wikipedia articles mentioning the words "coup" and "coup d'etat"?--Kober^Talk 18:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

No need to change all, most of what is called a coup really is carried out by a small elite already within positions of power, which is the real definition of a coup. Some of them are not coups, but the taking of power by someone outside of the government they are overthrowing and with some kind of support. The reason I dont think this is a coup is because it was not carried out from within the government or already existing non-bolshevik political elite. like the russian revolution, which some call a coup, but most modern historians agree that it is something between a true uprising and a coup. This is because it was popularly supported but was lead by an elite. By the way I do not support or like the bolsheviks or soviet communism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs) 18:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Now these are your own definitions for which you have not provided sources. Please refer to WP:OR for that matter. --Kober^Talk 15:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

They are available in Google Books and most of the libraries around the world. I can give you exact citations if you want. Ah, wait... So you don't like them because they are "western"? So, what do you want to be cited? Bolshevik pamphlets? Btw, there a nice book by Alexander Kvashonkin called "The Sovietization of Transcaucasia through the correspondence of the Bolshevik leadership,

1920-1922". I'd also recommend you to obtain a copy of it. --Kober^Talk 18:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This is getting stupid, if you want an example of a personal attack, its what you just wrote. I simply mentioned that they are all western because that would mean its not very neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs) 18:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

So you just edited what you said to me, so it looks less aggressive? Well done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs) 18:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack. I just asked you if you wanted Bolshevik pamphlets to be cited in the article for the sake of neutrality since you find western sources not neutral and myself an aggressive anti-Soviet editor. Clear now? --Kober^Talk 18:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Bias article

This article has become even more bias and POV than when it was first written. The editor is on a mission to uphold its anti soviet view without ANY compromise over the use of language. For example he is saying that 'disorder' somehow means attacks on government buildings. He is adamant in his POV statements not to compromise over the use of the word 'Coup' which carries with it assumptions that are much more balanced by the use of attempt to take power, which means the same, but is not inherantly critical. I am not intent on trying to battle with this very aggressive and bis editor, so some further discussion here from thrid party sources would be useful. What the article simply needs is more neutrality and more sources that can be checked online and are not simply from western books and articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs) 17:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice try, but you are being "too emotional". I asked you several times to provide valid reasoning for the changes you have introduced in the SOURCED text, but you failed. I maintained many of your changes, but most of your arguments don't hold any water. --Kober^Talk 17:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You should have read above when I said I didnt defend my original changes because I agreed with you. The only thing I am trying to defend is the use of POV language. Lets make it simple: from the point of view of the bolsheviks they would call what they did something silly like a revolution or uprising or liberation, and the government which is being overthrown would call it a coup. They each call it differently because they have differnet points of view, coup is a negative word, so because of that, you have to balance between uprising etc and coup. and that is simply 'attempt to take power' —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs) 18:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

...which I maintained in the lead. But you had changed any mention of coup to uprising in the text which I, of course, reverted. I also corrected several grammar mistakes and rectified blatantly pro-Bolshevik qualifications of the events, but retained many things you suggested. No need to victimize yourself. --Kober^Talk 18:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Useless arguments

I think we should agree to remove all of these arguments, because very little of them are constructive. what do you think? ValenShephard 18:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

dreary typical anti communist counterfactual

There was no Soviet Union in 1920. There were soviets of course, so the term sovietization is not anachronistic. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks like someone is on a crusade here to move the founding of the USSR back to cover their polemics. This is a very clear violation of WP:POV plus whatever else the persistence merits. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

small change, not a matter of opinion

The lead paragraph now contains the words

persuaded the Red leadership to deter their plans for Georgia’s sovietization and recognize Georgia

I suppose this should read "defer" instead of "deter", but I will leave the edit to others. --Oaklandguy (talk) 00:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)