User talk:Greenalien79

Which part of the "brutal terrorist bolshevik uprisal" bothers you?

Hi, thanks for your question. I believe it says "brutal criminal bolshevik" etc -- so it is "criminal" by whose standards? It was precisely the legitimacy of competing governments that was driving the Civil War. It is not for us to insert editorializing judgments that either the Whites were criminals (as the Reds would have maintained) or vice versa. We should just present the facts, and let people make their own decision. The same can be said of "brutal." There was violence and brutality on both sides of the Civil War, and people can read the facts about this in other articles, so this is pure editorializing that also has the effect of promoting the POV of Denikin and the Whites by suggesting that only the Bolsheviks were violent. All that needs to be said is "defeat the Bolshevik uprising" (not sure why the author invented this word "upprisal"). This happens at other points too: for example, "the Allies were more interested in profit than democracy," which again is pure editorializing. I think it is also psychological speculation that can be neither proved nor disproved, so it does not belong here in this form. I would have the same objections if someone wrote in an article about the Iraq war that "the Bush administration was more interested in oil than in bringing democracy to Iraq. Perhaps the conspiracy theorist Antony Sutton draws this conclusion, but that does not make it a fact.  I suppose one could present Sutton's opinion as an opinion, along with a contrasting one (based on the fact that the Allies sent thousands of troops into Russia in 1918 and over 500 British and 150 American troops died in a single campaign.  Greenalien79 (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)