Talk:Socialist Revolutionary Party

Old talk
"although some Left SRs did become part of the government"

The Left SR party was a coalition partner in the Soviet Government. Will change this to;

"The Left SR party became the coalition partner of the Bolsheviks in the Soviet Government,"

Any objections? TheInquisitor 00:50, 3rd Oct 2005

Also removed the bit about Victor Chernov being a Left SR and member of Soviet Government. He was actually Right SR and member of Provisional Government.

It also seems like the statement about SRs joining the Whites is overstated. Even the anti-communist historian Richard Pipes concedes that "The White Movement" was extremely reactionary in character representing the most privileged and feudal oriented sections of society and that it was steeped in anti-semitism. Thus they were considered in essence partisans of restoration of the monarchy and the old order and were loathed by all progressives and radicals who viewed the Reds as the lesser evil. This concern became more pronounced after the "Kolchak Coup" of 1919 in which Admiral Kolchak arrested-and executed some-of the SR and liberal members of the White Government. Things got so bad that Kerensky went to so far as to approach President Wilson and ask that he not aid the Whites, as he saw the Reds as an unstable and fleeting phenomenon, with the prospect of the resotoration of autocracy being more ominous. The peasants, some of whom had been born in serfdom and who were the social base of the SRs, had little use for their ancient oppressors whom they had a jaundiced view of. In this vein when the Bolshevik traitor Grigorev approached Makhno, the Ukrainian "anarchist" leader of the Ukrainian Army of Insurgent Peasants, who were on and off allies then enemies of the Soviet Government, about forming an alliance against the Bolsheviks, Makhno had him summarily executed, denouncing Grigorev as a scab and a class traitor. It is not an exagerration at all to characterize the Whites as proto-fascist given the loud praise Hitler heaped on them early in his career (actually in 1919-20 the "Freikorps" that Hitler was a member of at the time and who boasted about their recent murder of Leibnecht and Luxemburg and the suppression of the German Revolution, played a role in the Russian Civil War in the area around Kaliningrad where German troops had remained and ethnic German elements existed) and what happened in Russia twenty five years later. Tom Cod 22:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There is much more about the SRs' role in 1918 under Russian Constituent Assembly. It will need to be included in this article at some point. Ahasuerus 04:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The whole political landscape in the Russian Civil War was much more complex than SRs joining either Whites or the Reds. They were opposed to the Bolsheviks as the SRs were the main part of the Provisional Government following the February Revolution of 1917. SRs also won the elections following the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917; the parliament that was elected following these elections was closed by the Bolsheviks. On the other hand, the SRs were against the monarchist element in the White movement, whom they saw as as the continuation of the imperial Russia, against which the SRs fought before 1917. SRs also controlled municipal administrations in a number of large cities both in Southern Russia and in Siberia and the Russian Far East, where the Russian Civil War was at its most intense. This meant that the SR mayors and municipal administrations had to have at least some working relationship with the White governors and military commanders, especially when it was about fighting against such common enemies as the Bolsheviks or Petlyra's Ukrainian Nationalists. Thus, the SR position during the Russian Civil War was very very complicated indeed, and the article would need to reflect these nuances in SR history. Hope it helps. IgorYeykelis 05:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:1904-kamf.jpg


Image:1904-kamf.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The title of the article needs to be corrected
The correct title for the article would be: "Party of Socialists-Revolutionaries", which is an accurate translation from Russian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winnie ru (talk • contribs) 03:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This has since been done, but I'd argue it's a wrong move. It may be a direct and literal translation from the Russian, but the most common form in serious sources in English – which is what matters for us here, not editor assertions as to what the translation should be – as far as I've ever been aware is and always has been "Socialist Revolutionary Party". A quick Google Books search comparison suggests that is correct, as it gets 30,500 hits (even with "Russia" added) whereas "Party of Socialists-Revolutionaries" on its own gets merely 228. The former may have dredged up some more generic references, but I'm not sure that explains all the numbers. It looks as if while some sources do translate the name per the current title, most do not. Plus we need to be more consistent within the article with both the name and the abbreviation (I'd argue SRs is the more common form seen).  N-HH   talk / edits  12:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The page was recently moved from the proposed title, and then the title subsequently finessed for punctuation, on the basis of it being a more direct translation of the Russian name (there was no RM or even informal discussion). However, the proposed/original form is clearly the standard rendering in the vast majority of book references, by some way (see section above), which is what we should go by. These often differ for political organisations, especially when it comes to the simple ordering of the words, eg with NATO (when compared to the French version), PSOE (from the original Spanish). See also, for example, Britannica, Merriam-Webster and what appears to be one of their own publications etc for what is the preferred form. I would simply move it back myself but a) thought it worth doing formally as it was only recently moved away; and b) the proposed title is currently a redirect to this one and that redirect needs deleting.  N-HH   talk / edits  10:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC) ps: here are the Google Book links for ease of reference: "Party of Socialists-Revolutionaries" - 265 ... "Socialist Revolutionary Party" +Russia - 32,500. There'll obviously be quite a few false positives in the latter, but scrolling through the first few pages of results suggests you need to go some way in before they start kicking in (they seem to start on about the third page for the former).  N-HH   talk / edits  10:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Party of Socialists-Revolutionaries → Socialist Revolutionary Party
 * Socialist Revolutionary Party → redirect needs deleting –
 * In future, this is just a simple move request. Any redirect at the new page will always be simply deleted to make room for the move, and does not need to be listed in the move request. Should there be any page history in the redirect, it would be renamed. In this case there is no history that needs to be kept (a couple of bot edits removing double redirects). Apteva (talk) 07:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Standard and well-known English name, almost universally used in English language sources.  DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support as per nom. also second the comment above about no need to list multiple redirect. Tiggerjay (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Tagged redirect page for G6 per consensus here to enable move. Tiggerjay (talk) 09:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Repeated deletion of painting of attempt on Lenin
This has been deleted from the article twice. Why? Kaplan was an SR, so it seems relevant. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Ideology
How could its ideology have been "revolutionary socialism of democratic socialist and agrarian socialist forms"? These are three separate ideologies, and first being inconsistent with the second (i.e revolutionary and democratic).203.80.61.102 (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Lede too long
The lede is about four times longer than it should be, in proportion to the article. Valetude (talk) 06:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Democratic socialism
Wikipedia is riddled with anachronical mentions of "democratic socialism". This is the left-wing equivalent of labelling pro-capitalist parties as libertarian - the application of a novel nomenclature to historical persons or groups that, even though they may have understood the general thrust of the term, would not associate it with its current understanding (and the way that it is described in the corresponding wikipedia article). 82.12.128.242 (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2023 (UTC)