Talk:White movement
|
|
Was there such a thing as the "White Army"? There was the Volunteer Army, which fought in southern Russia from 1918 to 1920, and then there were various force in Siberia, and Yudenich's army in Estonia, but can there be said to be a single "White Army"? john 06:17, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- There was not, in a sense that counterbolshevik activities were not coordinated. And there was, as a common term for all these activities.
Similarly, I tried to find the origin of the term (Russian) White Guard, and it was not so eviden either. Mikkalai 20:23, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
But wouldn't it make more sense to have an article at "Whites (Russian Civil War)" or something, rather than White Army, which implies a single organization? john 18:58, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- The "Whites" title has its own drawbacks. It would make much more sense to have someone knowledgeable to write a non-stubby article. The title will follow.
- As for your wishes, there already is White Russians (Russian Civil War), btw., referred from this article, and equally poor. Mikkalai 03:20, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, a good article on this stuff would be good. But I think this article is a bad idea, as it implies there was something called the "White Army". We should have an article on, say, the Volunteer Army, which was an actual thing. Although there were various White armies, which were vaguely aligned with each other, there was no such thing as the "White Army" on a parallel with the Red Army. john 04:06, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I beg the logic above is faulty. While there was no White Army parallel to Red Army, it doesn't exclude "non-parallel" term. And it was, and pretty much in use. http://www.aviapress.com/viewonekit.htm?OTH-178 Mikkalai 06:58, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Given that that's a translation, I'm dubious. At any rate, of course there were White Armies (which is all one can infer from that title), but there was no "White Army". Why should there be an article on something that didn't exist? There should be an article on the White movement in general, and articles on the individual white armies (like the Volunteer Army), and on various white movements. I don't see why there should be an article on a non-existent "White Army". What could this article tell us that an article on the Whites in general could not? john 07:02, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
At the very least, since it is not a proper noun, the article should be moved to White army. john 07:03, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Please don't play with words. White Army is not a "thing", it is a "notion". The term is used, even if you maintain it doesn't exist. Atheists maintain that God doesn't exist, but they nevertheless can define the term and operate with it. Words don't always match things. Since the term is in use, it is none of our business to prove whether the choice of the word correct or not, you must describe the usage, rather than try to force your understanding. Mikkalai 07:32, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)