Talk:Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A news item involving Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In The News section on August 4, 2008.

Version 1.0 Editorial Team     (Rated Start-Class)
	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
	This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Additional information: Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Biography     (Rated Start-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography portal Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.            WikiProject Russia (Rated B-Class) Russia portal v • d • e This article is part of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Christianity       (Rated Start-Class) Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: January 24, 2008

Archives
2002–2008
About archives

Contents 1 Problem with source #32 2 Collective complicity 3 Slavophilism? 4 200 years together book

[edit] Problem with source #32

When I clicked onto the source's website, there appeared a bunch of symbols and accents that didn't look to me like cyrillic or any intelligent language. Could anyone explain to me what this is all about or is the site just experiencing technical difficulties? Jung 089 (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Collective complicity

Galassi, the text I have written does not claim that there is collective Jewish complicity in the crimes of communism. As Solzhenitsyn has been accused of such ideas, however, the incident has to be explained, whether we like the things he has been accused of or not, and whether we agree with the accusations or not. Deleting the discussion is a shabby way of silencing unwelcome topics. In case you have objections to the account you are welcome to edit it. Wikipedia policy prescribes rephrasing and correction rather than removing information without further ado. This should be all the more obvious when undoing my edit includes removing things that I cannot imagine that you disapprove of. --Jonund (talk) 15:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The extent of Jewish participation in the revolutions and subsequent oppression is not controversial, it is taboo - a judgement that is mentioned in the sources. This taboo gives some plausibility to Solzhenitsyn's view that the bulk of the literature is imbalanced.

Extraordinary Jewish achievements in the second world war not only needs to be sourced, there should be evidence that Solzhenitsyn had seen these, as he in this case only reports his own experience.

Again, let me remind you about rephrasing, rather than simply undoing an edit. Now, even spelling corrections have been reverted. --Jonund (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no taboo. Every marginal pseudoscientist has published something on the subject. I presume you are familiar with Shafarevich, Kozhinov, Platonov, Klimov etc.

Jewish wartime achievements are sourced. Rephrasing is done.Your slanderous inference (S. "bore witness") of Jews' cowardice is removed.Galassi (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Controversial is inappropriate. We are dealing with a taboo. There are some who defy the taboo, but it does not make it less real. Just consider the reactions to their writings. Your own formulations tell something, too. Richard Pipes notes that Jewish historians have downplayed Jewish overrepresentation among revolutionaries and claims the record had to be set straight by Erich Haberer in Jews and Revolution in Nineteenth Century Russia. The Guardian article, referred in the text, makes no secret of the taboo.

There is not sufficient sources to gainsay witness about Jewish cowardice (but I hope you can provide them), let alone claiming that he ignored them. Solzhenitsyn talks about his own experience; that is by definition witness. Please argue objectively and don't accuse me of slander. I have no wish to slander Jews, but neither do I want to see insinuations that Solzhenitsyn was occupied with slandering, unless there is very good evidence for such a judgement.

Others may have been witnesses to more heroic achievements by Jews. If so, that needs not contradict Solzhenitsyn's experience.

Rephrasing was not done, your statement to the contrary notwithstanding. Misspellings had been reintroduced. --Jonund (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Step aside. Petrovsky's detailed analysis is being added.Galassi (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Petrovsky's "detailed analysis" consists of a tendentious description which takes things out of their context and draws a caricature of Solzhenitsyn. This is not the kind of material that is suited for an encyclopedia.

Maybe you should start doubting the quality of a source that says Two Hundred Years Together "is destined to take the place of honor in the canon of russophone antisemitica" - although a leading Jewish historian says it absolves the author from the taint of antisemitism; indeed, Mr. Pipes suspects that the book was written partly in order to rid the author of the reputation for antisemitism.

As for Jewish wartime accomplishments, I have clarified that S. bore witness to his own experience. I simply want to do justice to this. I welcome other accounts. I'm a bit puzzled with your reference here. It says Jews were made "heroes of the Soviet Union" less frequently than Russians, but more frequently than Ukrainians and Belorussians. It doesn't seem to say that they were decorated in particularly high numbers. The number of Jews who perished depends on other factors besides their military merits, not least that Germans killed Jewish POWs. --Jonund (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI- Petrovsky is one of the most respected historians in the field of Jewish-Russian relations. That you don't like what he says is irrelevant, and your objections thereto are ORIGINAL RESEARCH. S. bore no witness, because 1. that this infers credibility of the cowardice postulat, i.e. slander, and 2. he participated in no direct combat to bear any witness. As to decorations, that is precisely what article says, Jews have the 2nd highest place among the decorated for bravery.Galassi (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have known YPS since 1973. He is faultless as a scholarLute88 (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

First, let us have a serious discussion and listen to, rather than throwing suspicion on each other. I don't dismiss any one because I don't like what they say. Criticism of sources is something different.

Petrovsky's qualifications as an historian are, unfortunately, of little use to determine his objectivity. His bias may lead him to judgements he would not otherwise make. In this case, we have a peer who shares his own bias and yet manages to come to the opposite conclusion regarding Solzhenitsyn's alleged antisemitism. This is a strong reason to distrust Petrovsky's opinions about S.

As to S's remarks about Jewish contributions in the war, I have tried to vindicate his good faith. I know little about Jewish military achievements, neither do I care about the issue. If you want to reproduce S's words along with arguments against him, you have to be careful not to make it seem as though he slanders Jews, unless he in fact does. If Jews were better soldiers than S. had seen, this may be influenced by chance (he was on a particular place at a particular time). He may have had insufficient knowledge of overall Jewish achievements. To prove his bad faith, we need more than the information that they produced more Heros of the Soviet Union than other minorities (a very limited number got he title). S's witness refers to his own experience of undertaking many comrades, but never a Jew. --Jonund (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Are you literate in Russian? 2. Petrovsky's qualifications are of use, not least because he workes hard against both lacrimose insider view of Jewish history in Russia and the slanderous outsider one. 3. We don't vindicate here. Wiki is not a forum. We report facts, cited and quoted. ^The level of S's awareness of Jews' battle behavior needs to be cited either way. We report what he said regardless of what we think he meant. 4. Go on a Russian search engine (Yandex) and look up Jewish battle decoratees and the surrounding statistics, as well as political implications tghereof. It is a huge issue.Galassi (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

1. No, I used a web-engine translation for the document discussed above. The quality of such translations are poor, but they may be useful to a certain extent, nontheless.

2. Petrovsky's conclusion, as well as his description of S., if you have reproduced it correctly, make it clear that he is not to be trusted in this case.

3. A person is presumed innocent until he is proved guilty. Attempting to uphold this principle is a proper vindication that should be encouraged. The problem with the section about Jewish battle behavior is that it claims S. ignored facts, which implies that he was aware of them. Such awareness has to be documented, if the claim is made.

4. For obvious reasons, I'm not the right person for the project. But I encourage you, and others who know Russian well enough (or have access to material in other languages), to create an article about Jewish military achievements. --Jonund (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the section about Jewish military behavior, since there has been no evidence of his bad faith, and I assume that is the raison d'être of the passage. Other changes have been explained. --Jonund (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't remove that, as it is by far the most common antisemitic canard in Russia. As you stated you are not literate in Russian- therefore you cannot have an informed opinion on any of these issues. Galassi (talk) 11:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The frequency of the opinion is not to the point, what is at issue is whether there is evidence for his bad faith. No such evidence has been presented.

You have confirmed that the document in question said what my web-engine translation rendered. That should make me qualified to judge its relevance.

You seem to have introduced a new policy for Wikipedia: only those who speak the language in which some important sources are printed can have an informed opinion on the issue under discussion, and, by implication, be entitled to remove text. If this is what you mean, you should discuss it and, if others agree, introduce it, on a relevant metapage.

There are, however, other means of forming an informed opinion on these issues. web-engine translations can, at times, be of some help. More important is the availability of other sources in English, as well as in other languages I know.

By the way, have you read Richard Pipes's review of Two Hundred Years Together? --Jonund (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is not informed, per your own admission. And your agressive (and disruptive) reversions do not show good faith.Galassi (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you joking? I have supported my views with sources and arguments, which you have yet to answer. Of course, my opinion is informed, although I'm not omniscient. My edits are irenic and constructive - traits that are harder to detect in yours. Wikipedia is built by discussion and willingness to listen, not by arrogant dismissals. Please, make an effort at reaching agreement. --Jonund (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You cherry-pick your sources and remove those that don't support your view. The emerging pattern does NOT show good faith.Galassi (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

That is not true! I state my reasons for prefering some sources over others and I leave those portions of your sources intact that I don't have (enough) reason to doubt.

If my explanations are incomplete, please give details.

I still wait for answers to my objections. Do you realize that YOUR behavior may seem suspect? I try to have patience, but I expect you to show a willingness to discuss. You also had better consider WP:AGF.

When Reznik attributes to S. the view that the Russians "greatly suffered from Jewish exploitation, alcohol mongering, usury and corruption of the traditional way of life", this is exactly the opposite of what Pipes says: "To his credit, he disposes of the canard, widespread in late czarist Russia, that the Jews exploited the peasants." According to Pipes, S. notes that Jews had a beneficial economic effect on Russian peasants. --Jonund (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Your explanations are worse than incomplete, they are cherrypicked, i.e. you operate in halftruths. And those give you no right to delete legitimate data that doesn't agree with you POV. We use BOTH - Pipes AND Reznik. And we use sources in all languages available. As to AGF: Your edits show an antisemitic agenda.Galassi (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, this is an article that I am very interested in, but I think a cup of tea would help here. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 23:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Graham. Exactly what I needed, since I was quite offended by the comment above.

Galassi, your knowledge of Russian is valuable and adds to the quality of the article. Your eagerness to fight antisemtism is honorable. The problem is just that you are off target. I'm staunchly pro-Jewish (check my history!). I do, however, understand your suspicion, as my contributions might be motivated by antisemitism. But is it not evident that I can have totally different motives instead?

We avoid POV sources on wp. When two sources make opposite claims and one claim suits their shared bias and the other is inconsistent with it, the latter is more credible.

If you accuse me of halftruths, you have to specify the accusation. I have explained my edits and expect you to consider my arguments, rather than questioning my motives. --Jonund (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not off-target. I merely report scholarly criticism of AS. At the same time you are engaged in NNPOV overeager whitewashing of the subject, and by doing so you perpetuate the canards that are present in thw "200 Years".Galassi (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, your comment is tantamount to admitting that you have no interest in discussion, but prefer to hold on to your dogmatic position. WP, however, does not work that way. Only text reflecting consensus is accepted, and cosensus is reached by discussion. I have repeatedly tried to make you answer my arguments, but to no avail. I cannot understand your dogmatism. I am afraid I have to give up my hope that you would engage in constructive discussion - but it is not too late for you to change your attitude.

If you think you are on target with your accusation of antisemitism, the least I can expect is an explanation. Unwarranted accusations are called slander. Unsubstantiated accusations of whitewashing is of no use.

Reporting scholarly criticism is fine. Neglecting source criticism is unacceptable. --Jonund (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• This edit war is becoming very disruptive and there is a danger of breaking WP:3RR. Please try to reach a consensus on the Talk Page and not just revert each other's edits. If this continues, to protect Wikipedia, I will consider blocking both of you. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 09:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. The problem that remains is that most negative resonance "200 years" caused is and will be in the russophone sources, because that was the book's taget audience, and those sources simply cannot be ignored. In the case of Pipes: Jonund gives only 1/2 of the complete Pipes opinion (BTW given BEFORE Pipes had actually read the book) and the complete Pipes quote is nearly not as Solzh.-friendly. Also, if you look at Jonund contribution list - there is almost nothing there but reversions of my edits.Galassi (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Please stop this edit war and seek a third opinion - editors at the Russia Portal may help with this. This constant reverting is not achieving anything. I am only interested in protecting Wikipedia—please remember that thousands of people read our articles each day, and this level of instability is not acceptable. If I see no attempts to reach consensus on this and the warring continues, I will have to block both of you. Graham Colm ^Talk 16:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I will ask a couple of people who seem to be knowledgeable.Galassi (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Graham, that is not fair. I have patiently tried to reach consensus on the talk page and been turned down flat. Then you treath to block both of us, as if we were equivalent. It looks like you want to get rid of the edit war in the easiest way (which is understandable), but you do not appear to investigate what is going on carefully. Please, read the (admittedly long and tiresome) talk page and consider Galassi's failure to engage my arguments. I don't claim that all of my arguments are necessarily irrefutable. But if I am wrong, the proper way to deal with this should be simply to refute them. As long as Galassi shows little interest in discussing, his version should not be on WP. That would be to favor dogmatism. etiquette prescribes : "Do not ignore questions".

Galassi has twice sought assistance from a selected person. That seems a bit different from seeking a third party opinion. I have now made a request on the third opinion page.

Galassi, from where do you have the statement that Pipes hadn't yet read the book he was reviewing? I have quoted Pipes only regarding his evaluation of accusations of antisemitism, and I think I have done this in a proper way, in the light of the need for brevity. I cannot see how an account of Pipe's polemics against AS would be more neutral, it would just make an already long section even longer.

It is not true that almost everything in my contribution list consists of reversions of your edits. 17 of 118 edits are contributions to the AS article (excluding the talk page). If you had answered my arguments, fewer had been simply reversions.

Nobody disputes the use of russophone sources --Jonund (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• OK, I have read all the above discussion and compared the diffs. The request for a third opinion is a good move. I sorry that my concern that blocking might be needed was perceived as a threat; it was not. Blocking is used to protect Wikipedia and not to punish editors. I am trying very hard to be fair, indeed, I have my own views on this debate but I do not want to get embroiled. If I may put my FA reviewer's hat on for a moment, I think the section is question is too long. It would benefit from précis. The reader does not need to be told who wrote what, it just needs to be cited. As an outsider, it reads like the cake has been over-iced—let readers draw their own conclusions and remember sometimes editors have to write for the enemy. As for the use of sources in Russian, please see here; sources in English are preferred. Lastly, Galassi, you have been a little rude, please do not bite other editors. As long as the ping-pong reverting stops, I will stop poking my nose in here. Stepping back, and looking at the bigger picture, I see a first-rate article developing. Happy editing, Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 16:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I've asked Avraham, Jayjg and Humus_Sapience (all or whom I respect despite earlier disagreements) for a 3rd, 4th and 5th opinion. As to English sources: I am well aware that the English ones are _preferred_. But foreign ones are not proscribed either. Especially where the subject a priori doesn't arouse a lot of anglophone interest. As to rudeness: I lost one of my grandfathers to a German bullet in 1943 at Kursk, and I cannot take "Jewish cowardice" canards lightly.Galassi (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This is just to acknowledge that I have read the response. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 17:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time, Graham, and for your constructive attitude.

Maybe there could be a separate article about Two hundred years together. That would allow for a shorter summary here. It would also make it possible to go into more detail and it would be the right place for important information which does not merits attention here - as, for instance, AS's unfamilarity with important works printed in other languages.

I hope we will be able to find a way of using Russian sources to the extent that they are needed. And to some extent, they are certainly needed.

I would advice you to go through my arguments and answer them. Maybe we can find more understanding for each other than you expect.

I understand your feelings regardings questioning Jewish military performance. I have a little different perspective. I am Finnish and my ancestors were oppressed by Russia in the 19th and early 20th century. People here could lose their young sons to the Russian army. After that we have had to fight Soviet in several wars. It is hard for us to imagine serving in a Russian uniform. When I visited Ukraine, I saw old Jewish olim with Soviet war medals on their chest. I could not help being dismayed by seeing people proudly wear a picture of Lenin, but I realized that when the alternative was Hitler, their situation was quite different than ours - especially when they were Jews. --Jonund (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually moving the detailed analysis to a separate article is FINE idea.Galassi (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• It is indeed a fine idea and I have created a stub 200 Years Together. If you do not like the title, we can easily re-name it. I started The Oak and the Calf for unrelated reasons. I think Solzhentisyn is worthy of a Wiki Project of his own. But I am in danger of WP:NPOV perhaps? PS, I think you two could be very productive together, Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 22:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I've beat you to it, so I redirected yours to Two Hundred Years Together. I also did a bit of poking around and the controversy is apparently a lot greater than previously thought: "200YT" has been picked up by neonazis as cause celebre.Galassi (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have deleted my "200 Years Together" along with the re-direct. Please try to find common ground (consensus) in this new contribution—both editors are clearly passionate about this, so argue, debate and discuss, but please no more edit warfare :-) Graham./ Graham Colm ^Talk 22:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I really abhor edit wars, but I have little hope about peaceful editing there, since David Duke's minions are already latched onto the book. Sooner or later this would turn into a Judeo-Masonic Conspiracy of some sort or another. Do stick around...Galassi (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I shall. Graham Colm ^Talk 23:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Slavophilism?

Is this man considered a Slavophile? From reading about him, he seems to be Dostoevsky's clone. They shared practically identical views, and both spent time in labor camps, resulting in a strong conversion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.153.132.181 (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 200 years together book

Is this book widely regarded as Anti-semetic? There are 4 references given. The first in English doesn't even call it such, just that it touches on this theme? The other three are in Russian, so I can't tell. Thank you, --Tom 15:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

More than widely. See Petrovsky and Gimpelevich. There is no English translation to date, so most sources are russophone.Galassi (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Galassi, you don't need to add additional sources as it stands now. If you want to use the term "widely", the source should say this speciffically it seems, otherwise it is original resaerch or synhesis. --Tom 16:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think common sense rather. 3 opinions is narrow, to be sure, but 33 certainly qualifies as wide.Galassi (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Who are the 33? I know about 40 who would disagree, but that doesn't matter since that can't be reliable sourced. Is it true that this book hasn't been translated into English? That can't help with any analysis it seems, --Tom 16:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The only translation in existence is the French one. An English one was proposed, but refused by the publisher as inflammatory and full of factual error, libellous, way too much liability. I cannot edit it in, WP:OR...Galassi (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Really? For someone as high profile as AS and with all our modern technology, its had to believe somebody hasn't done it. Anyways, no problem here since I am a comics and sports section reader myself :) Cheers! --Tom 17:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think it was a good move to remove "widely", it didn't add that much and would have attracted criticism based on WP:NPOV. Tom was the first to spot this, but others would have followed for sure. With regard to the references given, the one from Reason Magazine (37) would probably be considered the most reliable if the article were an FA candidate. Reference 33 is good too, which although not a source, is a link to a reliable source (and further useful sources). I would support reference 35 (in Russian) if its reliability were contested, but I would have a problem defending reference 37 as reliable which is mainly an essay on The First Circle. In short, I would prune these references—references 33 and 37 are probably the only ones needed here. The other reliable ones might be needed elsewhere later, but at the moment, I don't think they serve much purpose. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 19:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • You mistook 37 for 35 here. I don't mind pruning, but the editwarring necessitated ref-ammo [;-). I propose keeping extra ref, for the time being...Galassi (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree (on both counts, sorry about the mistake), but please be prepared to prune later ;-) Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 20:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)