Talk:Two Hundred Years Together/Archive 1

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)

Same Jayjg and Humus_Sapience mentioned here? 95.76.14.158 (talk) 00:27, 9 September 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 abhore edit wars, but I have little hope about peaceful editing there, since David Duke's minions are already latched on 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, and I'm watching both articles. Graham Colm ^Talk 23:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Do read the Gimpelevich paper (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3763/is_200609/ai_n18622003?tag=rel.res1).

It is absolutely essential for understanding of the depth and the breadth of the problem we have to deal with here. I hope Jonund reads this too.Galassi (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead section

Can others comment if this book is widely viewed as AS? The sources are in Russian and the one English source doesn't even call it such?? --Tom 16:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the Gimpelevich article?Galassi (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it linked somewhere, or do I have to put on my pants and head out to the library :). Seriously, I am more concerned with the "modifiers" you are using in the analysis. Best just to leave those words out and stick to how RS cover the material. Providing a few sources does not then make something "widely" considered. Anyways, maybe others can comment? --Tom 16:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It is listed twice, as a ref, and an ext.link. as well as a few lines above here.Galassi (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I am slow. I read this first pages but that article is 20 pages long? It mentions that some find Alex S to be pro Jew, but more find him to have differing degrees of AS. No where does it say the book is widely regarded as AS. Can you point that out? The author offers analysis but it seems that he lets it to the reader to decide how to interrupt the book? Anyways, my spelling sucks and I was more copy editing. --Tom 16:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You really should read the whole thing. Should you know- neonazis and ultranationalists consider ASolz a PHILOsemite, and they think he gives Jews excessive lip service.Galassi (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) To be honest, I don't have a real interest in this. I find religion, politics, and conspiracy theories to be week points of Wikipedia. Don't get me wrong, I think this project is fantastic and is an awesome starting point for learning, but these said areas are just to POV and prone to agenda pushing (not saying you) so it becomes very difficult. Again, Wikipedia is not about the "truth" but about how reliable sources have reported information and then compiling that material without analysis or original research or POV(what I call color commentary). --Tom 16:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Some topics are just that way, sadly. One cannot by totally neutral toward an odious entity. However, I have never used an unreliable source. They are aplenty, thankfully.Galassi (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Galassi its not so much the sources, though I would prefer if they were in English since this is the EN version of wikipedia but no biggie, its more that it seemed that you were doing original research or synthesis by providing sources and then making a conclusion. Again, I have zero expertise in this area and don't know what the "truth" is. What do other editors think? --Tom 17:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This can of worms is really not for everyone, largely due to the lack of the English translation. In my estimate 90% of the sources are mildly to strongly anti-AS, and the rest are the ultranationalist ones.Galassi (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Citing sources

Review by Voinovich. I looked the source and did not found nothing about "long, tedious, and slanderous". It is OK to cite Voinovich directly from his book (with page please), but citing a Russian communist newspaper that slanders Voinovich and Solzhenitsyn together was hardly appropriate.Biophys (talk) 00:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

http://www.sem40.ru/interview/hot/9926/ --Galassi (talk) 00:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see. But simply telling "long, tedious, and slanderous" hardly adds any value to the article. This article should be slightly rearranged: (1) The content of the book (whatever it is); and (2) Criticisms. Why would not Borealis do just that, instead of reverts?Biophys (talk) 00:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice idea. However - there is no English translation, so the content is going to be OR-prone.Galassi (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

There ARE NOW, at least, 2-3 new and FULL ENGLISH translations to be had and those links were added today! :) ProphetPX (talk) 06:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Grigory Baklanov's opinions on Solzhenitsyn and '200 Years Together' in particular: [1]. Just a piece of criticism. --Miacek (t) 13:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Baklanov is a major writer.Galassi (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Vladimir Voynovich critique

It seems like the second part of that section is more of an attack on Solzhenitsyn. Also, a talk page mentioned that these two had a "history" or something (sorry for spreading rumors :) ) Would that make a difference if true and to what extent I guess on including that material? --Tom (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

That "history" would be WP:COATRACK, if true.-Galassi (talk) 00:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• I have to agree with this edit by Altenmann. Everyone knows that Voinovich does not like Solzhenitsyn (see Moscow 2042), but summarizing his interview this way shows a serious POV. My very best wishes (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

POV?

I don't claim to be an expert on this book but the criticism section is huge for a NPOV article. For some balancing info take a look at this article by a professor whose area of expertise are Jewish studies. --Cesar Tort 06:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The 200YT main claim to fame is the amount of crit it provoked, possibly more than any book of his save the ArchG. There is no English translation still, and according to one insider source a major scholastic publisher refused one translation, due to the factual unreliability of the original.Galassi (talk) 10:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the translation link. Too bad the translation is poor, as it was done by a non-native speaker. -Galassi (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh it is good enough to drive another little nail into vampire's heart —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.154.80.139 (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No matter how much "educated" people disagree with Solzhenitsyn's view on this topic, the only thing that really matters is how much PUTIN agreed with Solzhenitsyn. And Putin agreed fully, period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.210.114.245 (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, so even these Talk pages are monitored vigorously and enforced to follow pro-Jewish orthodoxy? My comment from yesterday was deleted because some Jews are scared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.82.153 (talk) 03:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Dissidents

"While some have criticized Solzhenitsyn for highlighting Jewish involvement in the Bolshevik regime, especially in its early period, few commentators have noticed his praise of Russian Jews for their disproportionate involvement in the "dissident" movement of the 1960s and 70s. As Solzhenitsyn notes, the activity of Jewish dissidents played a major and salutary role in undermining the legitimacy of Soviet communism."

This para need citations, to be included.--Galassi (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Subject of the book

I have read books like "Le Yiddischland Revolutionnaire". So the main topic is somehow familiar. But here, I feel it is more of a charge against Solzhenitsyn. Then his book is really annoying some people. I guess from the storm of criticisms that it is worthy to read.

Thanks God. There is a French translation.

which was just recently (2017), in FULL, translated into English by David and Davina Anderson :) ProphetPX (talk) 06:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

---

Why the archives of Ilya Ehrenburg have been moved to the Yad Vashem in Jerusalem ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.120.156 (talk) 04:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The source cited — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.114.105.82 (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Structure of the article

The article must be strucured/sectioned according to items in the book, not by the persons who uttered anything about it. - Altenmann >t 02:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

A good idea. However the is no English translation to date, and the critiques are all there is.--Galassi (talk) 02:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean "Plot summary"/"In popular cullture" and other standard nonsense. I meant restructuring whatever we already have in the article, so we don't really need English translation now. - Altenmann >t 06:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that there is a large danger of OR in that. 200 is unique in that in English there's a lot said about what is nasty in the book, but precious little about its structure.--Galassi (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Robert Service newspaper quote

I've moved this recently inserted material to here for discussion:

Others, such as historian [[Robert Service (historian)|Robert Service]], have said the Solzhenitsyn was "absolutely right".<ref name="guardian">{{cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/25/russia.books|title=Solzhenitsyn breaks last taboo of the revolution|publisher=''[[The Guardian]]''|first=Nick Paton|last=Walsh|date=January 25, 2003}}</ref>

To begin with, it's not clear why we'd be citing a newspaper article from January 2003, written just after the book came out. This source is particularly troublesome because it indicates that Service made his comments without even having read the book: the full sentence is Professor Robert Service of Oxford University, an expert on 20th century Russian history, said that from what he had read about the book, Solzhenitsyn was "absolutely right". From what Service had read "about" the book; he hadn't read it at that time. That's a very weak source to use. Contrast this with another source used in the lede, Gimpelevich's "Dimensional Spaces in Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together"[2]. This 2006 paper is actually a true secondary source; that is, a review of book reviews of Two Hundred Years Together, published in the September-December 2006 edition of the Canadian Slavonic Journal, a blind referred scholarly journal. That is the kind of source that should be used here. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

critiques without facts

This article is full of critiques against this book. If you have so much critique you should come with facts on which those critiques are funded. Nowhere do I see examples of texts from "Two Hundred Years together" with factual arguments against those texts. So what are all those critiques based on, really. On facts? Or just on subjective opinions. If the latter is so and those critiques are not funded in facts than we should have critique on the critiques and not on Solzhenisyn's book. It is not fear to mention critiques, and certainly not so many, without making their validity transparent.77.172.59.47 (talk) 00:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The really interesting issue here is that in 2015 there is still no easily available quality English translation of this book. Amazon currently lists only a Russian edition. Hard to make a critique with facts when the book is unavailable to English language readers despite the fact that a paper edition would have a ready market. (This is not a criticism of the previous post directly above) Seki1949 (talk) 07:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Second paragraph: seriously?

I just corrected this misleading statement: "The book stirred controversy and is viewed by historians as unreliable in both factual data and ideological approach, as well as antisemetic" to read some historians.

Then I notice that this has been done before. And reverted. Several times.

The article has several referenced examples of historians who do not view this as antisemetic. Despite this, there appears to be an effort to make it appear that there's universal agreement.

Atomicdryad (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Most view it as such, actually. See Zinaida Gimpelevich.--Galassi (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I added "most", which should be agreeable to both parties; it prevents the implication that this is a universal view, and Galassi agrees that most historians hold that opinion. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. The statement is sourced to citations that fail WP:RS and much of the article is biased in the extreme. Graham Colm (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

A book is NOT EVER = "anti-semitic" if it simply tells historical truth. There is NO SIN in describing evils of so-called "semites", nor is a work ever historically "inaccurate" or merely and only "biased" seemingly because it singles out one particular ethnic group for any reason. Labeling someone as having "Racism" is a latent communist psychological operation tactic to stymie the telling of history and truth. ProphetPX (talk) 06:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

This entire Wikipedia entry reads like a Buzzfeed hit job. There is more about what other people think about the work, than the content of the work itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:8400:5790:B85C:FACC:65E3:8029 (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Newly added: TWO FULL ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS, plus ONE Partial

Links for these three things were added here / done today, after this present week of my own digging for these resources. The FULL TEXT in modern English, of both volumes, and chapters 1 through 27, including a list of sources and footnotes for chapter 1, are now all freely online via the web, and via bit torrent (i still need to add those links but the web links are all up in here now) and easily accessible to read. Links were added into the main body of the text today to reflect this new finding. ProphetPX (talk) 06:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Saying that my "good faith" additions were also translations made by "amateurs" is itself an attempt to CENSOR information on FULL ENGLISH translations (something that exists NOWHERE ELSE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD other than the links i added last night!!!) I call ZIONIST TYRANNICAL BULLPUCKEY on your censorship, Galassi AND Graham Beards! Revisions UNDONE. ProphetPX (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

To Graham Beards:

WHO GAVE YOU GOD RIGHTS? What AUTHORITY do YOU have, OVER ME, to "block me from editing"? "RACIST" was a TACTIC invented by JEW Leon Trotsky. Wikipedia is owned by JEW Jimmy Wales. Nice try. Undid revision 833475267 by Graham Beards (talk) ProphetPX (talk) 06:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Two Hundred Years Together. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120707234728/http://exlibris.ng.ru/kafedra/2001-07-12/1_encyclopedia.html to http://exlibris.ng.ru/kafedra/2001-07-12/1_encyclopedia.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Columbus Falco

"A full uncensored English translation is found in "The Crucifixion of Russia" by Columbus Falco 2017."

A cursory search on this author yields no credentials.--Galassi (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be a neonazi alternative history writer.--Galassi (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

One of his titles says it all: "Holocaust vs Science"...--Galassi (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

@Graham Beards, any input?--Galassi (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I cannot find any biographical info on him.--Galassi (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

In any event - a commercial link to Amazon wouldn't be appropriate. We need something scholarly.--Galassi (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Barnes and Noble currently has this publication listed in their store pages, but their store site now lists it "temporarily out of stock" ( https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-crucifixion-of-russia-columbus-falco/1126703308 ) while jew-owned Amazon no longer even contains the any of the several product webpages for the various editions of this book product, under that name, any longer. Interesting ... CENSORSHIP? At any rate, today i have added new links and data concerning FULL ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS of this historical truth-telling work of Solzhenitsyn's historical accuracy. ProphetPX (talk) 06:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Richard Pipes review:: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

The Richard Pipes review section reports that Richard Pipes criticised Two Hundred Years Together for, in particular, failing to "discuss The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a Russian anti-Semitic forgery." In actual fact, contrary to that claim, the book does discuss The Protocols.

For example, Chapter 17 contains multiple pages on the subject:

"The Jews acutely realized the need to “defend themselves” in part because the post-war Europe and America were flooded with Protocols of the Elders of Zion, suddenly and virtually instantly. ... “The unheard-of success of the Protocols, which were translated into several languages, showed how much the Bolshevik revolution was believed to be Jewish.” English researcher Norman Cohn wrote: “in the years immediately after the World War I, when the Protocols entered mainstream and thundered across the world, many otherwise entirely sensible people took them completely seriously.” The London Times and Morning Post of that time vouched for their authenticity, although by August 1921 the Times published a series of articles from its Istanbul correspondent, Philipp Greaves, who sensationally demonstrated the extensive borrowing of the text in the Protocolsfrom Maurice Jolie’s anti-Napoleon III pamphlets (The Dialogue in Hell between Machiavelli and Montesquieu, 1864). ... The Protocols came to the West from a Russia overtaken by the Civil War. A journalistic fraud produced in the early 20th century (in 1900 or 1901), theProtocols were first published in 1903 in St. Petersburg. The mastermind behind them is thought to be P. I. Rachkovsky, the 1884-1902 head of the Foreign Intelligence unit of the Police Department; their production is attributed to Matvei Golovinsky, a secret agent from 1892 and son of V. A. Golovinsky, who was a member of Petrashevsky Circle. ... But when the right-wing activists suggested using the Protocols for the defence of the monarchy, Prime Minister P. A. Stolypin ordered a secret investigation into their origins. It showed they were a definite fabrication. ... However “1918 changed everything for the Protocols.” ... “After the Bolshevik victory the selling of Protocols was banned in Russia” and become a criminal offence, but “in Europe the Protocols brought in by the White emigration played an ominous role in the development of right-wing ideology, especially National Socialism in Germany.” ... Kartashev certainly regarded debunking of this “sensational apocrypha” as a “moral duty,” but also thought that “in washing out the dust of Protocols from the eyes of the ignorant, it is unacceptable to impair their vision anew by pretending that this obliterates the Jewish question itself.”"

Since what Pipes wrote (or, at least, what the article says he wrote) is demonstrable wrong, the question of how to handle the issue in a way that satisfies neutrality is raised. One way to achieve that would be to omit Pipe's criticism.

    ←   ZScarpia   20:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you find an RS that speaks of Pipes' error? Otherwise it would be OR, especially in absence of English translations. The Falco "translation" is certainly unacceptable.--Galassi (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Quoting passages which deal with the Protocols of the Elders of Zions from Two Hundred Years Together itself, such as the one above, would serve to show that Pipes is incorrect.     ←   ZScarpia   13:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

This 1985 New York Times article contains a defence against charges of antisemitism made by people including Pipes against Solzhenitsyn.     ←   ZScarpia   13:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Reception section: overrepresentation in the first Soviet government.

In the Reception' section, the article states without citation: "Solzhenitsyn falsely claims Jews were overrepresented in the early Bolshevik leadership and the security apparatus, without citing his sources. For instance, he claims that "from 22 ministers in the first Soviet government three were Russian, one Georgian, one Armenian and 17 Jews"." I have searched the 'Incorrect Library' electronic edition of Two Hundred Years Together using multiple search terms to try to find the relevant text, but without success. Since no citation is given, I suggest that that part of the article be deleted.     ←   ZScarpia   22:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

This seems to be cited to Marples.--Galassi (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

This is extensively covered in the Andrey Dikiy citations further below.--Galassi (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The Marples citation covers the sentence following the one quoted, but not the quoted sentence itself.

Currently, no citation is given at the end of the quoted sentence. If one or more of the citations given lower down cover the quoted sentence, which of them and what exactly do they say? It would be useful to know whereabout in Two Hundred Years Together they say that the relevant text appears.

    ←   ZScarpia   08:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

One can cite whole paragraphs too. There are lots of russophone citations for that particular tidbit.--Galassi (talk) 12:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

But, there are no citations covering the statement in question either at the end of the paragraph or even article section it is in. [    ←   ZScarpia  : since last writing, a citation has, in fact, been added - see below]

If citations elsewhere in the article justify the statement, exactly which of them and exactly what do they say?

The statement contains a quotation in English, yet I've searched the most recent, 2017, English translation and I can't find anything remotely similar. Which version of the book is the quotation taken from and whereabout in it?

    ←   ZScarpia   10:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Galassi, I see that in this edit, you've added this book, written in Cyrillic, as a source. Please state exactly which pages or chapters of the book you are citing and how they justify the statement cited to them in the article.

If I'm correct, the book is by Yuri Neresev, titled something like "Propaganda. 'False' Myths About Russia" and was published by Yauza in 2012.

Yauza doesn't exactly appear to be an academic-style publisher judging by these search results: [3][4][5]. From the second result: "“Advertising is advertising,” said Alexander Koshelev, the head of the book’s imprint Yauza, according to the New York Daily News. “A lot of books are printed with slogans claiming they had a certain rank on the New York Times Bestseller List, and no one checks whether it’s true.” He admitted the blurbs were fake, and called them all part of the “literary game.”"

    ←   ZScarpia   11:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)