Talk:Leon Trotsky

It says here that Trotsky was expelled from the Politburo in 1927, but under the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee page[1] it says he was expelled in 1926. I have no idea how to tag it as contradictory, but that might be an idea? I would fix it myself but i'm not a member. 17:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Was it ever revealed why the instrument was used? Was it just simply the only available weapon laying about?

-G

I would like to see a source for the claim that Trotsky's ship was full of gold. This seems like an anti-semetic attack that would come from a Stalinist.

It's not a Stalinist claim, for a change. You can find it in the (now mostly forgotten) writings of the "Bolshevism as an international conspiracy of Jewish bankers" folks. Not all of them were Nazis, amazingly enough :-) Ahasuerus 01:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

You can find this claim on any number of rabid anti-semitic web sites on the net. Try this search: Trotsky gold -kahlo -wikipedia jew

CPMcE 00:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

The claim is repeated all over the web that Trotsky traveled from New York to Russia with twenty million dollars worth of gold provided by Jacob Schiff. The claim is preposterous on a number of levels.

First, given that the average price of gold in 1917 was $20.72 per ounce, this means that Trotsky would have been carrying approximately 30 tons of gold. Ever try to travel with 30 tons of gold?

Second, the British naval authorities at Halifax would certainly have noticed it and, in all likelihood, would have noted it in their official reports on Trotsky's detainment there. What they noted, in fact, was that Trotsky was carrying $10,000 in American currency. The origin of these funds is an interesting question and full of intrigue itself, but it would drag me too far off topic, so I won't get into that here.

Third, if it were true, one would have to assume that Jacob Schiff, senior partner at Kuhn Loeb, was essentially ignorant of banking practices. Wouldn't it have been far easier and safer to simply arrange a credit for the Bolsheviks through, say, Nya Banken of Stockholm via Olof Aschberg?

Apparently, this claim is an embellishment of an article appearing in the New York Journal-American of February 3, 1949, wherein it is reported that John Schiff, Jacob's grandson, claimed that Jacob invested about $20 million in the Bolshevik Revolution. While this is certainly not beyond the realm of possibilities, given Schiff's widely known and public anti-Czarist position, and given other documents corroborating Schiff's financing of the Bolsheviks (see, for example, U.S. State Department Decimal File 861.00/5339), it seems doubtful that he would have done so by placing a big pile of gold aboard a ship.

Hope this helps.

--Sabean 22:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

The changes by the 143... ip quad - that's me - one of these days I'll remember to sign in - maybe not. In any event, this still needs some work.

bob

Trotsky was not killed in Frida Kahlo's house, he was killed in his office at his own home. The author is confusing the fact that for a while Trotsky lived in Frida's house.

Tony Acosta

The "ice pick" is a widespread mistranslation: it was an ice axe, a tool used by mountaineers; it had most of its handle sawn off to facilitate hiding it in clothing. --Jerzy 06:18, 2004 Feb 16 (UTC)

Actually, mountaineers commonly call their ice axes "ice picks" (Google for 'ice-pick' + 'mountaineering'), so it's not just a matter of a mistranslation. In any case, "ice axe" is a lot less ambiguous. –Hajor 14:02, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I heard it was an ice pick (looks like a sharp screwdriver), not an ice axe. Does anyone have a source for this?

• Well, this Trotsky pictorial biography says it contains a picture of the Mexican police holding the murder weapon, referred to as an "Alpinist's icepick"; that would be an ice axe. I'd sure love to see this book... --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Seriously, we need to replace that photo with one of him a tad older. he looks seriously goofy and hardly recognizable. --206.172.139.168 05:49, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There I did it. Its changed. --JessPKC 03:53, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've inserted the (may i emphasise) strict translation of his name "Trocki". I have not removed the alternate spellings, as to prevent uproar. =]

If you look around at other English language wikipedia articles you'll see that when we refer to transliteration we mean transliterations into English. Trocki is the transliteration of Trotsky into Hungarian and Slovenian so it shouldn't be listed. Otherwise we should also list the transliteration into Chinese, Hindi, Arabic, Hebrew and a dozen other languages. AndyL 05:40, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Personally i dont see the big deal.. so it was something translated wrong, i mean come on.... what the deal with all this??? i just dont get it, i mean, what is wrong with you people! this is the past, we need to get over it?!? why can we not focus on the FUTURE? as that is what were looking to.....

Does anyone know where the ice pick/axe that killed Trotsky is? Like, is it in a museum somewhere?

I don´t know where the axe is. But I heard that the guy that killed Trotsky had a fake relationship with trotskys maid or sombody working close to him. The "hitman" who did it all worked for a very long time thats for sure.

The ice pick has surfaced!! Does somebody want to update this page and Ramon Mercader's page too? Link - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4103306.stm

-- Peripatetic

It is just a claim that it is the weapon, not yet proven. Also looks like a pick rather than axe in picture (but not very clear).

-- Clive Power

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he was killed in 1941.

You're wrong, and you're corrected. Everyking 14:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He died one day after the attack, not one year. I think you may have mixed it up.

-G

Hello all, despite being a newbie to the English part of the Wiki, I added the section called A Father of Red Terror. I tried to obey all the rules. If you would like to argue, please back up your point with specific references. If need be, I can provide more references for concentration camps in addition to the ones already given by someone in the Lenin article.

Also, cannot help but notice (do page search): "He was expelled from the Soviet Union in 1929" and later, "Trotsky was deported in 1928". Which one is true? Guinness man 08:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Both are true: internally deported [to Alma Ata] and then expelled the next year. --DuncanBCS 21:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

That was many many many versions ago :) Ahasuerus 21:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure the name is correct on this page. I've seen stuff signed by this man, and he put an accent on the "e". Should we not move the article to the correct spelling of his French name, Léon Trotsky? I put a redirect on that spelling in the interim. --Grcampbell 16:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

• I agree, for what it's worth --DuncanBCS 21:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't there be a mention of Trotsky's supposed film career? From time to time I've seen it reported as fact that he was a Hollywood bit-part actor. Even though I have also seen it stated that this is a misidentification, I do think it ought to be mentioned. --A bit iffy 04:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

There are two separate stories here. There is a minor 1930s "Hollywood history" documentary (they were popular at the time) that includes an 8-10 second excerpt from a ca. 1917 silent movie with a Trotsky lookalike making a brief appearance as an extra. The announcer claims that it's the man himslef supplementing his income while in NYC in early 1917. The episode is very minor and played for laughs. You can catch it on Turner Classic Movies from time to time. Kevin Brownlow argued in Behind the Mask of Innocence: The Social Problem Films of the Silent Cinema, New York, Knopf, 1990, that it couldn't possibly be Trotsky, but even in the unlikely event that the extra in question was indeed Trotsky, it wouldn't be particularly notable.

The second episode is described here:

Recorded on the Fox lot in Hollywood on January 27, 1928, the Dedication of "Park Row" footage constitutes one of the earliest synchronous-sound newsreels. [...] However, the real star here is this "Leon Trotsky of the Soviet Republic!" Exactly what Trotsky is doing in Hollywood seems to bewilder even those standing behind him in this film. More bewildering still to most viewers in 1928 is the fact that his Russian goes untranslated. Is this confirmation that it is really he? It looks like Trotsky, albeit a little younger and leaner than he was at the time. While we, like they, might have wondered, for the Russian-speaker the joke is given away immediately. The actor's words (delivered haltingly, with a Slavic accent) can be translated as:

Comrades, by the irony of fate I play the role of Trotsky in the new Raoul Walsh production by the Fox studio. In this production, he will show the very best anyone has ever seen. Raoul Walsh is famous for this staging of What Price Glory?, and in this production he'll show something truly special. [Translation by Alexander Ogden and Judith Kalb]

Of course, Trotsky was still in the USSR in 1928, so it was just a publicity stunt.

And that, folks, is the rest of the story :) Ahasuerus 19:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

It has to be said - that is a pretty abyssmal first picture of Trotsky and is really no way to start a page! Considering Trotsky's rather high ideological stature (i.e. his thinking differed enough from Leninism to be called Trotskyism and with subsequent parties following it), do we think he deserves a table like Lenin and Stalin or is this reserved only for leaders/heads of state?

I've drawn one up just in case:

If i'm right in guessing tables are only for leaders of states, then i'll just put that picture as the first one, cuz to be fair that other ones awful and there are plenty more of his young self there!

this one could be an excellent first picture too

let me know! thanks

px

The criticism section is being used as a freepass for false and strongly worded attacks against the subject of this article. These are not even valid criticisms, in that they do not even represent the real critics of Trotsky... Find some real critics of Trotsky, quote them and cite their works. Do not take quotes directly from Trotsky to be used as critiques (how can a person critique themselves...?)

Since nobody disputes this, the criticisms section will be removed. Anyone is free to add a better written one. I would like to reserach and write a coherent criticisms section, but I am very busy with college atm. If anyone else is interested feel free to ask help for any research you will need to do. The criticisms section should definetly have past criticisms mostly, since Trotsky was mostly influential (he was an avid critic of Stalin.....) during 1920-40. Contemporary criticisms would belong in trotskyism wouldn't they? Unless this article begins to cover Leon Trotsky's current influence... but again... wouldn't that be trotskyism?--So Hungry 22:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

The current version is quite messy. Many details are either off or completely wrong. For example, Trotsky didn't lead the "Mezhraiontsy", which had been formed in late 1913, he just joined them for a couple of months in mid-1917 before they merged with the Bolsheviks. Bukharin dind't "join Trotsky in the Joint [United] Opposition" after 1927, and so on and so forth.

The article also makes many statements that are at best tangentially relevant and at worst POV, e.g. "This destruction of the leading members of the Chinese party led to the rise of Mao, then a supporter of Stalin." Some statements, e.g. "In March 1921 anarchists organized the Kronstadt Rebellion to overthrow the Bolshevik government. The was the last major threat to Bolshevik rule." would be relevant if Trotsky's not inconsiderable role in the suppression of the Kronstadt rebellion was spelled out or at least mentioned.

The last major revision wasn't perfect either, but it is better written and overall it's the lesser of two evils. Revert and then revise to incorporate any useful changes from the last 5-6 versions, perhaps? Ahasuerus 18:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'll support anything which brings this article to a higher standard. Another thing which needs fixing (as mentioned in the above discusion) is the criticisms section, it is just of poor quality and a series of statements simply meant to attack Trotsky and not provide criticisms... It mostly just talks about Communism and Terrorism and doesn't show any current or past critiques at all... It should either be removed or totally remade.

Would you consider the article on Grigory Zinoviev, which I just finished polishing, an acceptable template? I could probably do something similar for Trotsky, although it may take a while. Ahasuerus 04:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

yeah. Trotsky's article should have topics focusing on key events such as the one about Grigory Zinoviev, instead of the few it currently has (revolutionary, post-revolution, exile and theory are too little to describe Trotsky. The only difference I see is that trotsky's modern interpretations be represented pretty well, since he isn't just a historical figure. Wikipedia is great at providing modern interpretations of things, and--koenige 20:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC) so many want to learn more about Trotsky, not just why he is remembered today but what his current influence is.

The Grigory Zinoviev is a good template, but I think the real question is where to put in the historical accounts and the modern ones...--So Hungry 13:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

OK, the first draft of the Brest-Litovsk episode is done. Let's see if this is acceptable and reasonably non-controversial :=) Ahasuerus 06:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps the top of the page should have something meaning: This article is a biography about Leon Trotsky and his theories during that time. For modern interpretations of Trotsky, refer to Trotskyism.

Added 1896-1903 details. More to follow, time permitting. Ahasuerus 01:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Leon Trotsky is my great uncle. My grandfather's brother, i feel special now.

I removed the photo okhranka_mugshot.gif on the "Revolutionary activity" section because I think it was overcrowded: not so much text, so 2 pictures disturbed reading flow. The remaining photo is more than enough, it's clearer and gives us a pretty good idea of what Trotsky looked like at the time. The curious can always look for more in the commons. This also goes for other sections: there's far too many photos on top of each other. Either we spread them more evenly throughout the page, or we should remove some. I'll try something here in the future. --koenige 19:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Following my previous attempt at improving the layout, I reorganized the way too overcrowded last section. That meant, unfortunately, removing some pictures (Farrell Dobbs and Trotsky, Trotsky on his deathbed) and moving around the remaining. I'm no graphic designer, but I believe it looks better now. Let me know if you disagree. --koenige 20:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

You know, this is so weird... I was thinking about reorganizing the pictures merely a few hours before you did this today! It's so weird... So, I was thinking about it but then I realized, although overcrowded, each image did relate to the text that it was near, and was very informative. Although I do think the new layout is pretty good too.

One more thing to add to this discussion page, unrelated to koenige's post, Trotsky shouldn't be in the assasinated politicians category since he wasn't really a polotician, ESP during the 11 years of his exile and the time he was infact assasinated...--So Hungry 20:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Oh and whoever added the category "Old Bolsheviks" ? I don't think Trotsky was with the Bolsheviks long enough at all to be an Old Bolshevik? So I'm going to remove that category, until someone can show to me how he is an "Old Bolshevik".--So Hungry 20:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

That's a tricky question. Technically, Trotsky and other revolutionary internationalist social democrats (but not "social democrats-internationalists" or the left wing of the Mensheviks which was also called "internationalist" -- yes, it gets confusing) joined the Bolsheviks at the VIth Party Congress in July-August 1917. Since the most common definition of an "Old Bolshevik" is "a member of the Bolshevik faction or, later, the Bolshevik party prior to October 25, 1917 (O.S.)", that would make Trotsky an "Old Bolshevik". On the other hand, the term "Old Bolshevik" was also used to distinguish between those who were Bolsheviks prior to 1914, when the intra-Party lines were redrawn by WWI, and those who were not. Zinoviev and Stalin used this definition extensively to emphasize Trotsky's "non-Bolshevism" in 1923-1924. Trotsky used yet another definition in Behind the Kremlin Walls:

In the hard period between the first and the second revolution, Yenukidze, like the majority of the so called “Old Bolsheviks,” wandered away from the party. ... The revolution aroused many old Bolsheviks, but they had a perplexed and unfriendly attitude toward Lenin’s program of taking power. ... These “Old Bolsheviks,” who in the period of reaction had broken with the party, were admitted during these years to posts in the Soviets but not in the party.

and there is some truth to it since many Bolsheviks (and other revolutionaries) did abandon revolutionary activities after 1907 and many were indeed less than happy with Lenin's move to the Left in 1917. But that definition would exclude Zinoviev, Kamenev, Stalin, Bukharin and most other people that we normally think of as "Old Bolsheviks", so it's very narrow. On balance I'd say that it's 50-50. Ahasuerus 00:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

• Updated the childhood section based on My Life.
• Created an article for Olga Kameneva, Trotsky's sister and Lev Kamenev's wife.
• Polished 1896-1903 and greatly expanded 1904-1917, but the latter could still use more work.
• Next: The Civil War, first conflicts with Stalin and Zinoviev, the 1920-1921 discussion which leads to a purge of Trotsky's supporters in March, Lenin gets nervous over attempts to oust Trotsky in mid-1922, proposes an alliance against Stalin, etc etc.
• Related issues: Trotsky is now 33K and will be likely 50k by the time I am done. Split? Also, need to re-write Mezhraiontsy, which is a complete mess.

Ahasuerus 20:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Nice work. As for a split... Well, I don't think articles should ever be split. 50k and 2k are no different in performance, but many/some feel this weird need that articles shouldn't be too long... but it is even more weird that people feel the need to omit useful information just because the scroll bar is getting small or w/e... so... I am only for organization based solely on content and not at all size. To me, organization by content makes complete sense and that standard would be best for well any wikipedia article. So yeah I prolly could go on and on about this lol... I'll stop now.--So Hungry 17:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Although it's true that a biographical article is hard to divide logically, the main problem with extra-long articles is that it takes a long time for dialup users to download them. However, one would think that this is a case when a picture is worth a thousand words :=) I suppose I'll leave it as is for now unless there are complaints.

Anyway, sorry about the delays, I cleaned up Adolph Joffe and Christian Rakovsky in the meantime. With any luck, I should get back to Trotsky in the next few days. Ahasuerus 03:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

OK, 1896-1917 sections are as comprehensive as I am likely to make them without descending into minutiae. I'll give 1918-1919 a shot next. Ahasuerus 00:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

• The article said nothing at all about the November 7th uprising itself. Added Stalin's assessment of Trotsky's role in 1917. (This from a book in my possession). Camillus McElhinney 07:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

The book was quoted in the Criticism section, but then the whole section got zapped pending a rewrite, so the answer to the question is "No, not at the moment" :) Ahasuerus 03:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Starting work on 1918. For a biographer, it's the most difficult period of Trotsky's life with a lot of important things occurring in a compressed timeframe. I am not sure how deeply we want to go here. I suppose it's important to show the roots of Trotsky's conflicts with Stalin and Zinoviev, but should I describe the collision with Smilga in mid-1919, which eventually made the latter Trotsky's friend and supporter (until mid-1929)? I guess I should, otherwise it's hard to understand why Trotsky was sent to the South in July. Ahasuerus 00:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Expanded October-November 1917 and added March-September 1918. I am really not sure if this is the right level of detail, though. Am I digging too deep? Not deep enough? Just about right? Ahasuerus 01:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

1918-1922 are done. The article is at 60Kb or so and will be closer to 80-100Kb once all is said and done (need many more footnotes, references, etc). Clearly, something will have to be done. Anybody want to volunteer to write two paragraph summaries of the currently existing high level chapters so that we can move them to separate articles? And, um, I assume somebody is reading this, right? :) Ahasuerus 03:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

The only advantage of reducing an article from something like 100k to seperate articles of 30-40k is reducing the bandwidth burdern on wikipedia's web server. I use 28k connection (not even 56k...) and wikipedia loads at just the same rates as when I'm on my campus's high speed connection at their labs. I think the entire article should contain all portions of Trotsky. Unless, there is something in this article that is really seperate from the biography of trotsky, like trotskyism for example, and anything contemporary would go there as opposed to in this article. Tell me what you think.--So Hungry 23:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Well, the larger the body of the article, the more likely it is that your typical casual reader may jump right to the section that he is most interested in, usually the section that relates to the article that led him here in the first place. For example, if the reader follows the "Leon Trotsky" hyperlink in the "Stalin" article, then he will be most likely interested in Trotsky's conflict with Stalin in 1922-1928. But when he jumps to that section, he will be bewildered by references to Zinoviev, Kamenev, Smilga and other actors whose significance was explained 10-30K earlier. I am not sure there is an easy way to fix the problem, though. Ahasuerus 13:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

A rough draft of 1918-1928 is finished. Still need to flesh out 1926-1927, especially re: the issues that the Opposition and the Stalinists disagreed on, plus add sources and attributions throughout. Then onto 1929-1940, although the current version is not too bad. Ahasuerus 03:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hmm yeah it is more difficul to scroll a large article as opposed to one that is 2 screens. But I gotta say that the ToC solves just that problem, although for those who do not normally use the ToC and like to scroll, that would be an annoyance for them unless they figure out how to use the ToC someday. If you can come up with a really good multiple article organization then go for it. I firmly think that the organization should be... what we in the computer sci would say, very well encapsulated. That is, divide it up into seperate articles which strongly relate to 1 subject and then put all relating contents into that article and only that article.--So Hungry 18:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

The following quote has been added up top:

"Trotskyism is not a new movement, a new doctrine, but the restoration, the revival of genuine Marxism as it was expounded and practiced in the Russian revolution and in the early days of the Communist International." - James P. Cannon in History of American Trotskyism.

I am not sure this is a good place for this particular quote. Not only is the format questionable (a quote in the summary of someone's biography?), but it is also POV and relates to Trotskyism more than to Trotsky proper. Should it be moved to Trotskyism where it will hopefully find a loving home?

Quote is valueless. Morwen - Talk 15:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Quote is gone. Bronks 27 october 2005

Thanks :) Ahasuerus 20:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

In performing disambiguation link repair I somehow managed to screw up the link for the language labeled "zh" and my browser doesn't have characters that would allow me to fix it. If someone with the proper characters could change the word for that language back to what it was in the previous version, I'd appreciate it. --Polotet 04:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I think we are OK now. And thanks for the disambiguation help :) Ahasuerus 11:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Moving the recent addition of "Ukrainian-Jew Bolshevik" here. I would advise against adding this text since it would be rather misleading in the summary paragraph. Trotsky was neither religiously Jewish nor ethnically Jewish and to the extent that he identified with a particular national culture, it was Russian and not Ukrainian culture.

Admittedly, the question is a complicated one due to the evolution of the "Ukrainian" and "Jewish" identities over the last century+, but I don't think you can usefully explain all (or even some) of it in the first paragraph. Should we add a discussion of the issues involved to the "Youth and Family" section or perhaps a footnote? Ahasuerus 02:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Well... according to the Jew and Zionism articles on Wikipedia, a person from a Jewish family doesn't need to be religious to be considered a Jew; there's a known secular-jewish culture and even well-known godless jews. --MaGioZal 04:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

That's just the definition used by the 1950 Israeli Law of Return, which was formulated to be as broad as possible to maximize the number of potential immigrants. Even within Israel, the law is only used for immigration purposes whereas internally a different, Halakhic, definition is used. Not that Trotsky, who had little use for Zionism and who was killed when the state of Israel was but a pipe dream -- or, as he called it, a tragic mirage -- would have been affected one way or the other :)

"Who is a Jew?" is a very old and peculiarly complicated game that has been played in different societies for generations. See Who Is a Jew? for an analysis, but basically you can define Jews based on ancestry ("the Jewish race", as they used to say); ethnicity/culture (Hebrew/Yiddish); religion; or some combination of the above. For Wikipedia purposes, when a person has Jewish ancestors but is neither religiously Jewish nor has any definite links to the Jewish language(s)/culture, it is probably safer to refer to him/her as a person "of Jewish extraction" or "Jewish descent" -- see the current verbiage in the article to that effect. Otherwise we are more likely to confuse the reader than to provide useful information.

Another thing to keep in mind is that in some countries (including the United States) the term "Jew" and "Jewish" is typically used to refer to religion and you have to explicitly qualify it if you are talking about something else, e.g. "ethnically Jewish". In other countries, however, the usage may be different, so it's conceivable that we may have a cross-cultural problem here. Ahasuerus 06:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

From this point of view, Leon Trotsky, who was born in a Jewish family and had a tipically jewish surname, was a Jew; and he was even later persecuted by White Army propaganda because of this. --MaGioZal 04:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

But why would we use the POV of Trotsky's enemies (the White Army) or the laws of a state that didn't even exist in his lifetime to define him? Ahasuerus 06:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Although Ukraine got formal independency as a nation-state only in 1991, the fact is that Ukrainian identity begun to develop in the second half of the Middle Ages, since the destruction of the old slav kingdom of Kievan Rus by the Mongols and Turks. Trotsky was born in a Ukrainian region of the Russian Empire, and according to the text he spoke Ukrainian (and Russian) at home, --MaGioZal 04:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

It is certainly true that a separate Ukrainian identity already existed when Trotsky was growing up. However, Trotsky's family and friends weren't a part of this renaissance of Ukrainian culture. True, at a child he spoke a mix of Russian and Ukrainian just like his parents did, e.g. he writes in his autobiography:

I learned that scores of words which seemed beyond question at home were not Russian but Ukrainian jargon.

but from the time he moved to Odessa at the advanced age of nine, he lived in the family of a Russian speaking publisher (again, see his autobiography) and went to a school where he was taught Russian, German and French, but not Ukrainian. Tellingly, even rabbinical instructions were in Russian.

Most importantly, Trotsky left Ukraine when he was 18 and never went back except for a few brief visits during the Russian Civil War, notably in mid-1919. We don't call Albert Gallatin a Swiss politician or Alexander Hamilton a West Indian one, do we? :) Ahasuerus 06:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

just changing completely to Russian after university in Odessa, which was passing by a process of cultural Russification at the time. --MaGioZal 04:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Oh no, Trotsky never went to college to pursue that degree in mathematics that he wanted. He chose another career with exceptionally well known results :) His younger son (Sergei Sedov), on the other hand, had little interest in politics and became a prominent engineer at a relatively young age. Ahasuerus 06:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

So, I think that we can call Leon Trotsky a Ukrainian Jew. --MaGioZal 04:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I beg to differ. I don't think inserting these two words in the summary paragraph would add anything useful to the article and will more than likely confuse potential readers. Ahasuerus 06:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

The Jewish secular culture and the non-religious jewish Zionists existed well before 1950; some of them were the forerunners of the Zionist movement in the turn of the 19th to 20th centuries. MaGioZal 08:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

That is certainly true, but what does it have to do with Trotsky, who was not influenced by the Jewish culture, secular or otherwise, and was never active in the Zionist movement? He later wrote somewhat ambiguous things about Zionism (although he always emphasized that the "Jewish question" would only be fully resolved by a social revolution), but the comments were clearly those of an outsider. Ahasuerus 18:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

There wasn't a "renaissance of Ukrainian culture" in the end of the 19th century, at least on the Russian-controlled Ukraine; to the contrary, the Ems Ukaz was supressing Ukrainian language completelly. MaGioZal 08:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Again, it's true that the Russian Empire suppressed Ukrainian language and culture in the 1860s-1910s. It is also true that the Ukrainian renaissance was mostly occurring in Galicia, which was ruled by Austria. However, although Russian Ukrainophiles encountered numerous difficulties within the Empire, they were able to contribute to the process. To quote John-Paul Himka's "The Construction of Nationality in Galician Rus': Icarian Flights in Almost All Directions" in Intellectuals and the Articulation of the Nation (University of Michigan Press, 2001, ISBN 0472088289):

For all their weakness, the Ukrainophiles of the Russian Empire were not an entirely negligible ally. By social origin they were mostly descendents of the Cossack starshyna or officer class, and hence of gentry status, and hence also by and large of greatre wealth and higher social prestige than their Galician counterparts, who were priests and priests' sons. Someone someday shoudl make a detailed list of all the material aid that Ukrainophiles from Russia gave the Galician movement. They contributed money to publish Pravda, they were the main benefactors of the Shevchenko society, they were the primary source of income of the press associated with the Ukrainophile radical current. I would not be surprised to learn that the sum total of their contributions approached that of Russia's investment in the Russophiles.

And once all that literature was printed in Galicia (mostly in Lemberg, now Lviv), it was in part smuggled back to Russian-ruled areas of Ukraine and available to those who were interested in such things, although not without risk. That's what laid the foundations of the outburst of Ukrainian national feelings in 1917-1919 and to the well known explosion of Ukrainian culture during the Ukrainization years (1920-1932). Trotsky, however, was not a part of that movement. Ahasuerus 18:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

When a person lives their first 18 years of life on a determined region, I think we can say that a person is from that region, specially during the crucial formation years of childhood and teenage years. MaGioZal 08:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Here is what Trotsky wrote in his autobiography about the role played by "nationality" during his formative years:

In my mental equipment, nationality never occupied an independent place, as it was felt but little in every-day life. It is true that after the laws of 1881, which restricted the rights of Jews in Russia, my father was unable to buy more land, as he was so anxious to do, but could only lease it under cover. This, however, scarcely affected my own position. As son of a prosperous landowner, I belonged to the privileged class rather than to the oppressed. The language in my family and household was Russian-Ukrainian. True enough, the number of Jewish boys allowed to join the schools was limited to a fixed percentage, on account of which I lost one year. But in the school I was always at the top of the grade and was not personally affected by the restrictions.

It hurt me quite as much to see the concealed cad in Lyubimov’s [one of his teachers] attitude toward Poles, as to see the spiteful captiousness of Burnande [another teacher] with Germans, or the Russian priest’s nodding of his head at the sight of Jews. This national inequality probably was one of the underlying causes of my dissatisfaction with the existing order, but it was lost among all the other phases of social injustice. It never played a leading part not even a recognized one in the lists of my grievances.

So I still say that Leon Trotsky was a Ukrainian Jew, as the same way that we can say that Stalin was a Georgian and Lenin was a Russian. -- MaGioZal 08:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Lenin's case is a simple one because he was born in Russia, was culturally Russian and spent his life engaged in Russian politics. Well, unless one subscribes to the racial theory of ethnicity, I suppose, in which case Lenin is not "Russian" either, but that's a decidely fringe approach these days.

Stalin's case is more complicated. On the one hand, his early career in his native Georgia was not a terribly notable one whereas his subsequent Russian career was highly notable. On the other hand, unlike Trotsky, who was culturally Russian (although his German was very good and his French was decent), Stalin was at best bilingual (his Russian was heavily accented and he sometimes spoke Georgian with his Georgian associates). Also, Stalin rose to power at least in part due to his ethnic background. In 1913 the Bolshevik leadership tried to build him up as a counterweight to the Georgian Mensheviks who were so important in the RSDLP -- see his Marxism and the National Question. He subsequently became the Soviet "nationalities" expert and, unlike Trotsky, who wasn't involved in Ukrainian politics, Stalin remained involved in Georgian politics after the Soviet re-conquest of Georgia in 1921. And yet, in spite of all of that, most dictionaries out there refer to him as a "Soviet leader" or a "Soviet dictator" and not a "Georgian politician" or even a "Soviet leader of Georgian origin". Surely Trotsky's connections to Ukraine in general and Ukrainian Jews in particular were vastly weaker than Stalin's connections to Georgia?

In the end, the decisive question here is whether adding a particular appellation clarifies or obfuscates things. When someone who doesn't know who Trotsky is looks him up, does she benefit more from learning that Trotsky was "a Ukrainian-Jew Bolshevik revolutionary" or that he was "a Russian Bolshevik revolutionary"? Ahasuerus 18:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

DuncanBCS added a lot of links to the above. I think they belong in the article "Trotskyism", not here, so I say they should be removed. CPMcE 00:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

If my eyes are not deceiving me, he just reordered the URLs, although some of them do look like they could be moved to Trotskyism or at least better labeled to show how they relate to this article. Which reminds me that I still need to expand 1930-1940 when I get a chance... Ahasuerus 01:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, I alphabetised the list. Camillus has a good point. Since some of these are linked to resources about Trotsky and others are links to Trotskyists [the CWI and WSWS links], I will keep the former on this page and move the latter to Trotskyism --DuncanBCS 08:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC) PS I also cut the link to Dewey's book, which looks wonderful, but it not really concerned with Trotsky. --DuncanBCS 08:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I would argue yes:

role in organising the October Revolution: Petrograd Garrison alliegience Chairman of Petrograd Soviet Supported Lenin on Central Committee Planning of takeover

role in civil war: Organising/Coercing/ecouraging Red Army increasing red army size to 2 million in a few months ruthlessness

If you want to see my rather more detailed essay on this please ask

Discuss!

-- 21:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, please add an URL to your essay here.

Yes probably, but perhaps also crucial to its failure. If Trotsky had oriented to the Bolsheviks much earlier, then the notions in 'Our Polotical Tasks' and 'Results and Prospects' could have innoculated more communists against the political errors that Stalin developed. --DuncanBCS 21:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

• During the days leading up to the October Revolution, Trotsky was Lenin’s greatest supporter for the idea of armed uprising, in a time when many of the other prominent Bolshevik leaders, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Kalinin… were very hesitant to the idea of seizing power. Bronks december 13, 2005.

Excellent point! --DuncanBCS 17:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

perhaps something should be mentioned of trotsky's correspondence/meetings with andre breton (leader of the surrealist movement) while he was in mexico, since the document "manifesto towards a free revolutionary art" written jointly by the two has long since been considered a defining text concerning revolution and art. though i do not know much about the biographical details, i've only read the essay.

User:Dahn removed Trotsky from these two categories, without explanation. I'm putting them back in.  Camillus ^{talk|contribs} 23:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I now understand that User:Dahn and User:Wknight94 are involved in a project to tidy up these categories.  Camillus ^{talk|contribs} 01:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_size this article is way too long and should somehow be spit up. It is currently 95kb which is much more than the reccomended 20-30kb. Hell, its over twice as long as this talk page.Shadow demon 01:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

It isn't really any fault of the writers that this article is so large. Trotsky accomplished much. The article could be split up. This would be nice for those who do not want to download 95kB (aprx 32 seconds over a 28kbps connection). However, 32 seconds isn't that much compared to slicing this article into categories that must be browsed thru. Either way, a large artile is going to require a minor amount of time to browse through and/or download no matter how it is organized. Slicing it up into seperate articles can increase this time for everyone (requiring the user to read through the article and find the links they want instead of just displaying the content, the user must now find links to the content...), even the dial-up user (who must d/l the template again, for each sub-article).--So Hungry 02:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I believe splitting this up into several articles is a very good idea. I agree that he accomplished much in his life, but so did Stalin (76 kb), Hitler (86 kb), Dubya (61 kb), FDR (84 kb), and on and on and on. I can't find a single article in a few minutes of searching that has over 90 kb. Trust me, I'm not saying that the information shouldn't be in Wikipedia, but rather that many readers aren't necessarily going to be willing to read a book to get some basic dates and facts on this guy, and that the really in-depth info would be more appropriate in a different article (or articles).Shadow demon 07:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

The guidelines have been eclipsed in so many articles - I strongly oppose splitting the article up - check out length anarchism if u have a strong heart -- max rspct leave a message 16:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Was Trotsky killed by an Ice Axe or an Ice Pick? Look at this picture: [2], I say it's an Ice Axe! Bronks 17 January 2006

It's an ice axe. --DuncanBCS 09:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

It is an Alpine Ice Axe, used for Mountaineering - specifically for climbing Glaciers. It is also sometimes referred to in Europe as an Ice Pick - the problem is that this term confuses it, in tropical climes, with the screwdriver shaped tools used to break up Ice for drinks & chilling foods. User:Trotboy

The hebrew wikipedia claims that Trotsky was convinced that the jewish people had no future as a nation and sided with assimilation. Maybe this should be added to this article? --UVnet 01:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Is there a reference? Of course, assimilation was the general approach of communists. Trotksy also opposed the Bund in 1905... --Duncan 17:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Read this, an excerpt of an interview with Trotsky On the Jewish Question[3]

--Bronks 25 January 2006

• This is a useful interview, thank you Bronks. It seems to disprove both the idea that Trotsky was an 'assimilator' (indeed, he rejects the term explicitly). Far from saying that the Jewish people had no future, he argued that socialism is the most effective way to win an independent Jewish state. Bronks: seriously, many thanks. I have had this pamphlet 15 years but had totally forgotten Trotsky's conclusions. I don't speak Hebrew, but this correction would be worth pointing out to colleagues on the Hebrew Wikipedia. --Duncan 19:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't seem like Trotsky to argue for an independent Jewish state. As an atheist, he did not favor one religion over the other. Kozlovesred 20:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

• In the communist tradition, the right to self-determination can exist, but need not always be used. I don't recall Trotsky's position, but certainly many communists have recognised the right to a Jewish state, while opposing it as a strategy for fighting anti-semitism. Again, we need to cite source material here. --Duncan 18:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

There is an excellent survey of Trotsky's view in Enzo Traverzo's book on the Jewish Question. Trotsky's view is presented as being quite distict from that of other, earlier, Marxists. --Duncan 19:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Trotsky was, first, NOT a Zionist. He never expressed sympathy for, or belief in, a "Jewish State in Palestine". I think all of us can agree with this. By and large, he was opposed to recognition of Jews as a nationality. His view of Judiasm, was, by and large, restricted to European Jewry, and not "Jews in General". Ergo, when he postulated in ONE interview (and I can't think of which one right now) that there could be, under terrible circumstances, support by communists for some sort of Jewish political entity. But he was, largely, referring to Eastern European Jews, not Jews in general. --David Walters

The section on "The Trade Union Discussion [sic]" is very underdeveloped. I think it would be safe and NPOV to say that it wasn't a discussion, it was a debate. Trotsky played a very important part in this debate, representing an important tendency. Not only is Trotsky's part in the debate not represented in the article; there is NOTHING specific about the debate other than there being a "heated and increasingly acrimonious discussion over the role of trade unions in the Soviet state." Given that the "discussion" was "heated and acrimonious," I move to re-title the heading using the word "debate" and hopefully flesh out what the content of it was. In short, I want to BE BOLD, but want some input from everyone as well. Dialecticas 18:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

It is certainly true that the current version of the article doesn't cover the theoretical part of the controversy. If you want to flesh it out, more power to you :)

As far as "debate vs. discussion" goes, in this case these terms are used interchangeably by historians. A quick search on print.google.com returns 8 hits for ("trade union discussion" trotsky), 11 hits for ("trade union debate" trotsky), 8 hits for ("trade union controversy" trotsky) and 2 hits for ("trade union debates" trotsky). Certainly no harm in changing it from "discussion" to "debate". Ahasuerus 18:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Any objections to my adding Dr. Zhivago to the "Trotsky in Literature catagory"? The character of Pasha Strelnikov was a fictional version of Trotsky (not in the strict biographical sense, of course, because of the character's intimate relationship with the primary fictional characters and, of course, his suicide after being ejected from the party).

I have objection. Trotsky was a member of Communist, Strelnikov is not. Trotsky's range was an equvalent of the Minister for War, Strelnikov is a few steps below. Trotsky had wide artistic connections, Strelnikov does not care about art. Trotsky in the height of power was very supportive for his relatives, Strelnikov does not care about his own wife. Trotsky was a career conspirator in the tsaris Russia, Strelnikov did not. Trotsky was a Jew, Strelnikov was Russian.

In the Civil War there were zillions geeks becoming murderers becoming victims, Pasternak certainly knew quite a number of them, he did not need Trotsky for the prototype. abakharev 04:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

• The only main similarity I can see is the train! Bronks 24 march 2006.

This is interesting, my history professor @ the University of Utah made a reference to Strel being based on Trotsky. I do see some more similarities: the train -and especially how Strel is associated with his train, as was Trotsky-, Trotsky was the military leader of the Red/White War, very idealistic, and the Communists did turn on him. I can't remember if Strel ever said he was a Communist in the book, but he definently had Communist sympathies. There are enough similarities there to form a connection, though maybe not to say that Strel was based on Leon Trotsky. The dissimilarities can maybe be attributed to the fact that Strel is a major character in a fictional book, so to flesh him out he can't be a copy of Trotsky. Strelnikov with his disillusionment and coldness is not Trotsky, but they have interesting biographical similarities. My main problem with this is that I can't find much on the web academic-wise that links the two, but here is what I did find: http://www.cishsydney2005.org/images/ZajdaAIO24.pdf -- page 10

I think the Trotsky thing should be left up but maybe changed to simply saying there are similarities (unless we can find evidence that the author said the character was really based on him)User:Dzzycicero

Poskrebyshev, a supporter of Stalin, Eitingon and an Armenian, possibly called Gaik

Ovakimian were also taking part in the murder. The spelling "Eitigon" is sometimes used.

I have removed the remark about Trotsky's chess-playing cousin. I see only the vaguest relation to the life of the subject. If someone is terribly attached to this, throw it into the trivia section. JGray 00:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Trotski falsely claimed that he did not speak Yiddish. He went to a Yiddish-speaking school at the age of 4 and his English is full of Yiddish. Trotski only adopted leftism when the Jewish quota was full, having previously rejected leftism. This was said by Ziv, who knew him at that time.

According to Trotkiy's self-biography he studied actually in a Christian School where he studied German which is quite similar to Yiddish. Also, it is common for Eastern European Jews to speak Yiddish wether they study it at a school or not, it's very commonly used among Eastern European Families and mostly during those times. Either case is that quite relevant? 201.129.240.39 17:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC) ZealotKommunizmaReply

I assume the source of this information is what the catalog of the Library of Congress describes as "G. A. Ziv. Trotskii; kharakteristika (po lichnym vospominaniiam), New York, Knigoizdatel'stvo 'Narodopravstvo', 1921, 96p." Ziv was a friend of Trotsky's in the 1890s, but then their paths diverged and Ziv emigrated to America. Trotsky scholars (from Deutscher, who did a lot of cross-checking, on) tended to be careful with Ziv's memoirs since Ziv relied on his often imperfect memory of 20+ year old events.

We are probably better off sticking to Wikipedia's policy on sources and using academic and other reputable historians, who analyzed and partially incorporated Ziv's book in their research. For example, Deutscher writes (The Prophet Armed, p.9) that:

"He was seven when his parents sent him to school at Gromokla, a Jewish-German colony only a couple of miles away from Yanovka. There he stayed with relatives. The school he attended may be described as kheder, a Jewish private religious school, with Yiddish as its language. Here the boy was to be taught to read the Bible and to translate it from Hebrew into Yiddish; the curriculum also included, as sidelines, reading in Russian and a little arithmetic. Knowing no Yiddish, he could neither understand his teacher nor get along with his schoolmates. ... His stay at Gromokla was brief, for after a few months the Bronsteins, seeing the boy was unhappy, decided to take him back home".

Trotsky does mention the episode in his autobiography, but his account is very brief:

I often left school and returned to my village, remaining there almost a week at a time. I had no intimate friends among my schoolmates, as I did not speak Yiddish. The school season lasted only a few months. All of which may explain the paucity of my recollections of this period. And yet Shufer —that was the name of the Gromokley teacher—had taught me to read and write, both of which stood me in good stead in my later life, and for that reason I remember my first teacher with gratitude.

Moving on, I am not sure where the notion that Trotsky's "English was full of Yiddish" originated. Trotsky's primary languages were Russian, German and French, in that order. His English was rather imperfect as you can see in the few surviving newsreels from the 1930s where he is reading from his notes. Given Trotsky's fluency in German, it's entirely possible that his English was contaminated with German (which is close to Yiddish), but I wonder what the source of this information is?

As far as the idea that Trotsky had "previously rejected leftism", he admitted as much himself in Chapter VI of his autobiography:

It is remarkable that at first in conversations I was the stubbornest opponent of “socialist utopias.” I played the part of the skeptic who had passed beyond all that. My reaction to political questions was always one of ironic superiority.

He became interested in radical politics at the end of HS, which, according to Trotsky's account, would be years after the "the Jewish quota was full":

The law limiting the admission of Jews to the state schools to ten per cent of the entire number was first introduced in 1887. It was an almost hopeless effort to gain entrance into a gymnasium, requiring “pull” or bribery. The realschule differed from the gymnasium in the absence from its curriculum of ancient languages and in its broader course in mathematics, natural sciences and modern languages. The ten per cent statute applied also to the realschule. In the case of the latter, the stream of applicants was smaller and the chances for admission were therefore greater. ...

In the fall, I took my examinations for the first class of the St. Paul realschule.. I passed the entrance examination with average marks: a “s” in Russian, a “” in arithmetic.* This was not enough, as the ten per cent statute meant the most rigid selection complicated, of course, by bribery. It was decided to put me in the preparatory class, attached to the school as a private institution. Jews were transferred from there to the first class according to the statute, it is true, but with preference over outsiders.

So the incident with the "Jewish quota" (unless there was another one) apparently occurred ca. 1888-1889 when Trotsky was ten, years before he became politically active. Ahasuerus 19:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have to agree with the comment about the closeness of Yiddish and German, especially when dropped into English. They are as close as Flemish and Africaans. One would tend to drop in individual words, such as nouns that one didn't know in the other language. Of course there's a big difference when written, but not when spoken. However in the best know transcripts of Trotsky, the discussions on the Transitional Program, this doesn't happen. --Duncan 20:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oy! This is getting impossible. FACTS: Trotsky came from a RUSSIAN culture. He did not speak Ukrainian at home, he spoke RUSSIAN. One speaks one or the other as they too close in syntax and grammer to speak alternatly in the same household. He did NOT know Hebrew OR Yiddish as no one in his family spoke it. He comments in 1938 or so that he LATER had to learn Yiddish so as to correspond with Yiddish speaking communists in Paris that were drawing close to the Fourth International. If people are intent on defining Trotsky as "Jewish" then it must be like this: Trotsky, from a Russian family living in the Ukraine, of Jewish descent. That would cover it. Again, *factually* being of Jewish descent meant absolutely nothing to him and there is little evidence to contridict this. I actually think he spoke French better than German in that he focused far more on French culture and politics than German.--David Walters, Admin, Leon Trotsky Internet Archive — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.203.27.99 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

There seems to have been an earlier atttempt on Trotsky's life by Stalin in 1938. It is referred to by Conquest in "The Great Terror".

So you're saying Stalin physically tried to kill Trotsky? Look there is a difference between Stalin saying "I want this man to be killed" (proof?) and someone who is a Stalinist that tries to kill Trosky for his views.

-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.66 (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC).Reply

What is he doing in the Mexican Jews category? Unless he was naturalized, I think he should be removed. I think this category is meant for Jewish people whose ancestors have settled there or who naturalized there, not someone who lived there as an exile in adulthood and doesn't otherwise have a personal connection to Mexico.

No, this is crap, I have removed it. Bronks 13:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've started writing an article on My Life (Leon Trotsky autobiography). -Bronks 13:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

yeah, quite good article...--Walter_Humala wanna talk? 04:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

i know very little about trotsky and can say that this article was little help at all. it is overly long and detailed. wiki articles should be ~20kb or so but this one is currently over 100kb.

could the trotsky experts try to nail down a few key elements and move the details off into other articles so us poor noobs can get a handle on the man? i know it is tough to decide what is important and what isn't quite as important but you'd be doing the world a service if you gave it a shot.

thanks fellas YkstortNoel 06:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

There a link to an online discussion between two people on the Maoist Internationalist Movement site that merely asserted (rediculously of course) that Trotsky was in league with Japanese Imperialism. There were no citation, just the one sentence. IT has no business on a wiki extranal link list. I also added the Leon Trotsky Internet Archive link direcly.

Hope all this is ok --'''David Walters'''

Thanks David. --Duncan 12:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

This article looks brilliant - how about a renomination for Featured status?

Also, I removed this picture, as it was stuck in an awkward place, and we already have one of Trotsky's grave.--90.240.34.177 00:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

On second thoughts, the other one is copyrighted whereas this is released under GNU. Whoops! I'll swop them round. This picture on the left is the copyrighted one.--90.240.34.177 00:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Many quotes of Trotsky are linking to this source: http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/worst.html This doesn't seem like a very good citation to have for an encyclopedia (we're citing quotes of Trotsky by linking to an unauthoritative web page of quotes of Trotsky), especially since it is totally unnecessary: the full text of Trotsky's writings are available online and can be linked to directly. I propose removing this citation from the article, and citing the quotes with links directly to the full text. Are there any objections to this? Otherwise I'll go ahead and make the change.Wpegden 18:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I'm going to go ahead with this and start some clean-up of this very long article. For now, I'm starting with the 1918 section from the Civil War. Here are some changes I'm making:

I'm removing references to this source, since it does not reference leon trotsky and so seems to have little bearing on the main subject of the article: http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/blockdet.htm

I'm removing some paragraphs such as the following one:

In opposition to some other Bolsheviks, Trotsky insisted that former officers (from Czarist Russia) should be used as military experts within the Red Army and, in the summer of 1918, was able to convince Lenin and the Bolshevik leadership not only to continue the policy in the face of mass defections, but also to give these experts more direct operational control of the military. In this he differed sharply from Stalin who was, from May through October 1918, the top commissar in the South of Russia. Stalin and his future defense minister, Kliment Voroshilov, went so far as to refuse to accept former general Andrei Snesarev who had been sent to them by Trotsky. Stalin's stubborn opposition to Trotsky's military policies led to an acute personal conflict, which continued, in various forms, for the next 10 years, until Trotsky's expulsion from the Soviet Union.

Which seem far too specific for this article, and which seem to contain some "original research" as well (claims about what led to Trotsky's expulsion from the Soviet Union, for example).

I'm also removing these paragraphs for the same reason:

In September 1918, the Soviet government, facing continuous military difficulties, declared what amounted to martial law and reorganized the Red Army. The Supreme Military Council was abolished and the position of the commander-in-chief was restored, filled by the commander of the Red Latvian Rifleman Ioakim Vatsetis (aka Jukums Vācietis), who had formerly led the Eastern Front against the Czechoslovak Legions. Vatsetis was put in charge of day to day operations of the Red Army while Trotsky was appointed Chairman of the newly formed Revolutionary Military Council of the Republic and retained overall control of the military. Trotsky and Vatsetis had clashed earlier in 1918 while Vatsetis and Trotsky's adviser Mikhail Bonch-Bruevich were also on unfriendly terms. Nevertheless, Trotsky eventually established a working relationship with the often prickly Vatsetis.

The reorganization caused yet another conflict between Trotsky and Stalin in late September - early October 1918 when the latter refused to accept former imperial general Pavel Sytin, who had been appointed by Trotsky to command the Southern Front. As a result, Stalin was recalled from the South Front. Lenin and Yakov Sverdlov tried to get Trotsky and Stalin to mend fences, but their meeting was unsuccessful.

Wow, this article is still WAY too long. I think the Civil war section is a good section to cut from (since it has its own article, unlike some other sections). Next on the list should be 1919 and 1920. How do people feel about the changes?Wpegden 23:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

People feel very simply: one more massive deletion without discussion and you will be blocked from editing. `'mikka 00:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

These deletions have been shown to be unwise, since a revert war is opening up. It's clearly highly POV to add in, or weed out, references to Trotsky's civil war role in such a highly partial way. I suggest we win agreement here and stop editing that part of the page, reverting it to before the start of these edits. What do people think? --Duncan 15:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm happy to discuss any issues people have with the page and try to reach common ground or mutual understanding. TheQuandry 15:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK ابو علي 15:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Longer Trotsky quote seems fine. I think there have been issues in the past with over-long quotations (in some cases, if you're using a great deal of text it may even be considered copyvio), but if you want to include the rest it doesn't bother me. TheQuandry 16:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The "longer quote" was mostly just combining the two pieces of the quote that were already on the page into one place. Now we have the part about the train twice. Why not just have the full quote first and ditch the second instance?Wpegden 01:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

My goal was primarily to reduce the size of this monstrous article. It is probably about 3x too large. Where do we think we should cut? Also, is anybody defending the use of the worst.html source? Otherwise will someone remove it? These citations should be replaced with links to full text.Wpegden 00:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I did attempt to cut down the size of the article and make it less of a hatchet job. But my edits were reverted. ابو علي 08:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

(reset indent) I think almost everything (if not all) under "Trotsky in the arts" should come out. Do we really need to know that there's a Uruguayan punk band named after him? This will cut down a decent amount of garbage. It also seems like everything under "Contributions to theory" could be cut and replaced simply with links to the main articles. What do you think? TheQuandry 15:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree about "Trotsky in the arts". But Trotsky's contribution to theory is extensive and an important part of his notability, so a summary should stay in the main article. ابو علي 15:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, but his philosophies and theories are important enough to have their own articles, so maybe we can slim the summaries down a bit? I'll delete the Trotsky in the arts junk. TheQuandry 17:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please stop your improper "slimming" attempts. Please read the rule "wikipedia is not paper". A distinctive feature of wikipedia is that you can find here things you can find nowhere else. You think it is junk, others probably disagree, not to say that the word "junk" is an insult to fellow contributors. Please see "Wikipedia:Summary style" for explanations how to do "slimming" properly. Please also take a look at category:In popular culture and its sub-category:Representations of people in popular culture for a hint what you may do in this particular case. `'mikka 19:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I give up. Y'all can work out amongst yourselves what to do about this. TheQuandry 19:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I changed my mind. I came back and deleted the trivia-like section. As someone else put it very nicely on the discussion page of a different article: WP: Not a paper encyclopedia does not mean that an article can bloat indefinitely. TheQuandry 15:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can we have a reliable source for this? i.e. not http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/worst.html ابو علي 20:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

It seems like this source should be removed entirely. It is a collection of quotes, and seems to be of lower quality than the wikipedia article.Wpegden 00:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

How about, for now, we just remove it as a citation and put it in the "links" section? Wpegden 01:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Fine. But do we have a good source for the Blocking Units claim? Otherwise they should be removed from the article? ابو علي 08:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I will try to look up in Russian language sources. `'mikka 19:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK. This was an easy one. this cyberone is a collection of quotes, but it gives references. It the "blocking units case" it is [ Dmitri Volkogonov, Trotsky: The Eternal Revolutionary, tr. & ed. Harold Shukman, HarperCollinsPublishers, London 1996, pp. 179, 180]. So "cyberone.com" may be easily replaced with original sources. I will do it right now. `'mikka 19:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can anyone tell us what the relevant passage of Dmitri Volkogonov's book actually says? Do we have any other references? We need multiple reliable sources to establish notability. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 00:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

The section on officers' families needs a real source. The current [14] links to a Russian page and an English page which doesn't contain the quote being cited. The only other source we have for this is the http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/worst.html page. What do people think?Wpegden 01:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

No opinions on this? How long should I wait before removing this citation?? Wpegden 01:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I plan to on Wednesday, March 07 remove references to the worst.html source and replace them with direct sources, when I can find them, and citation needed tags when I can't. This will have been a week without anybody responding to the issues here.Wpegden 17:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Again, the English page cited in the current [14] is apparently irrelevant to the quotes it is citing. We need something other than the Russian page. Where did these English-language quotes come from? Are they a translation done by the editor who put them in the wiki? I think if we can't source the English quotes, they have to go. I plan on replacing [14] with a citation needed tag on Wednesday, March 07.Wpegden 17:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Speaking of translations, does anyone care to explain what this quote is supposed to mean??: "commissars are obligated to keep track of [former] officers' families and appoint them to positions of responsibility when it is possible the seize their families in case of treason."

I've read it out loud a few times and I can't make heads or tails of it, even if a change a few words around. I'm not sure if people are making up their own translations of quotes to put in the article or using google translate or whatever, but either way, this kind of junk has got to go. Does anybody object to me removing this "quote"? Otherwise, I'll take it out on Wednesday. Wpegden 22:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

This link is a victim in the current reverting. However, it's an article that is inferior to our own, and biographyshelf.com seems to be a blog-level source. I suggest we keep it out. --Duncan 15:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

agreed ابو علي 15:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Okay, it does look pretty borderline. Go ahead. TheQuandry 16:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

consider this quote from the article:

At a meeting of his faction at the Tenth Party Congress in March 1921, Lenin said:[22]

   I have been accused: "You are a son of a bitch for letting the discussion get out of hand". Well, try to stop Trotsky. How many divisions does one have to send against him? [...]

   We will come to terms with Trotsky. [...]

   Trotsky wants to resign. Over the past three years I have had lots of resignations in my pockets. And I have let some of them just lie there in store. But Trotsky is a temperamental man with military experience. He is in love with the organization, but as for politics, he hasn't got a clue. 

It seems like the only source for this is the Richard Pipes book, in which case it is not notable enough for inclusion in the article.

thoughts on removal of the quote?

It is a quote by someone else, about Trotsky, with ratio of content to context almost as low as conceivably possible. Wpegden 19:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

It is quotes not "by someone else, FUI, and in fact they say quite a lot about relations between bolsheviks. Restored. `'mikka 21:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

This IS a quote not by Trotsky.

This is not an exhaustive article about relations between the bolsheviks.

There are many quotes that say "quite a lot" about relations between bolsheviks.]

We cannot include all of them.

This quote is has one source. To establish notability, you will need multiple reliable sources.

The quote has more dots and removed context than content.

Any real arguments for keeping it, that don't apply to tens of thousands of lenin quotes?

Most importantly, the way the quote is currently included in the article constitutes original research in the sense described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution#Unpublished_synthesis_of_published_material

Not only do you need multiple reliable sources to verify that the quote is authentic and notable, but also that the point being made with the quote in the article is accepted an notable. (And don't forget, this is an article about Trotsky. You should find this in some biographies of Trotsky). Wpegden 05:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm removing the quote again. If you want it back, you should 1) establish authenticity by giving multiple reliable sources attributing the exact quote in question to Lenin 2) explain the point of the quote in the article (for example, "it says quite a lot about relations between Trotsky and other bolsheviks"). and 3) give multiple reliable sources to establish that the point you claim this quote makes in the article is widely accepted and notable. 140.180.163.6 16:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

In Leon Trotsky#Assassination there is a sentence in parentheses about his granddaughter being a brain specialist. It doesn't appear to be at all relevant to the paragraph it is within. I suggest that it be removed. The Behnam 20:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Since this article is so long, is it perhaps appropriate to have a longer summary at the beginning (3-4 paragraphs about his life and historical significance)? What do people think about this? Wpegden 18:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

The lenght of the summary is irrelevant to the lenghth of the article. If you think that some fundamental, definitive statements about Trotski (comparable in importance to these already in the intro) are missing, you are welcome to add. Otherwise no need to bloat the text. `'mikka 21:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

The reason it may be relevant, is that currently the article is far too long for someone to read through who just wants to find out basically who Trotsky was. See above for users complaining about this. Seems like it would help out to have a more comprehensive summary. I'm not pushing hard for this, but I don't see why you think this has no use! Wpegden 05:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply