Talk:Kronstadt rebellion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleKronstadt rebellion has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2021Good article nomineeListed
April 21, 2021Peer reviewReviewed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 1, 2023, and March 18, 2023.
Current status: Good article

Resources[edit]

Hand-drawn map from Berkman's account of Kronstadt

Dropping some resources here, in case I don't have a chance to process them

  • Kronstadt stories in the Bulletin of the Russian Information Bureau in the U.S., April 23, 1921
  • Berkman's account
    Originals: Internet Archive, HathiTrust via Yale OCLC 43147802
    Transcriptions/formatting from: wikisource:The Kronstadt Rebellion (very bad machine translation), Dana Ward, Marxists.org
    Contains English translation of the Petropavlovsk resolution
  • Facsimile of the Petropavlovsk resolution
image copyright research
  • Kronstadt uprising/mutiny: Кроншта́дтское восста́ние, Кронштадтский мяте́ж
  • Kronstadt: Кронштадт, Кронштадтского
  • Petropavlovsk (Петропавловск), Sevastopol (Севастополь)
  • Oranienbaum (Ораниенбаум), Sestroretsk (Сестрорецк)

Viktor & Karl Bulla

Credited to "Bulla"

Soldiers

Ships

  • Ship docked with various bridges: "Kronstadt. The Civil War. The Kronstadt rebellion. The uprising of the battleship "Petropavlovsk" and battleship "Sevastopol" sailors was the cause of the Kronstadt rebellion. Reproduction. Photo ITAR-TASS"
  • Soldiers stand in line on a ship: "Soldiers of the Red Army rally on board Russian battleship Petropavlovsk after suppressing the Kronstadt Rebellion; Source: ЦГАКФД"

1917

Misc

Unsorted

czar 19:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pollack's The Kronstadt Rebellion (1959)[edit]

Not worth citing this book:

This monograph unfortunately fails to do justice to this important and controversial subject. Scarcely longer than a graduate term paper, it draws on a very limited range of materials and adds nothing to our knowledge or understanding of the events with which it is concerned.
— https://www.jstor.org/stable/1033017

czar 21:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citation work update[edit]

Hey @Czar: following from our previous discussion a while back, I finally got around to converting the Avrich citations, so now all of the ones listed come from the 1970 English language edition. I also corrected a few errors I noticed upon verifying the information, so that should all be squared away now. However, I just noticed that a fair amount of the text in the Legacy section has been greyed out, resulting in me missing the citations that were listed in there. Was there a reason for this? And is there something I can do to help resolve it? Cheers. --Grnrchst (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Grnrchst. I had started to convert the refs to the English version but started going slower when I too realized that there were errors in paraphrase. (Do you recall what exactly was incorrect? I tried to make corrections in the Spanish/Portuguese articles where feasible so that the mistakes would not be further propagated.) I'd still like to go back and confirm those citations at some point to bring this article to FA-status. Or if you can confirm that any Avrich-only citations you checked are accurate, I would only need to check the ones that cited multiple sources. I'm also tempted to rewrite some of the early sections with Getzler.
re: the commented out Legacy – That includes both new paragraphs I had not finished and old paragraphs that were either being recast or deleted. Feel free to restore any content that makes sense for the section, if not redundant to prior sections. czar 04:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]