Talk:Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn/Archive 2

Reverted Uncited Pro-Putin Claim
There was a lone edit that added the sentence, "The writer, however, deplored what he considered Russia's spiritual decline, increasingly adopting Western materialistic values, but in the last years of his life he praised President Vladimir Putin for Russia's revival." It has remained uncited since it was added almost a year ago, and since it's primary significance is to support a current political figure, it seemed appropriate to remove it until a citation is found. Also the person who made the edit has since been banned from editing Wikipedia, which also made this claim more suspect. Alweth (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Problem with source #32
When I clicked onto the source's website, there appeared a bunch of symbols and accents that didn't look to me like cyrillic or any intelligent language. Could anyone explain to me what this is all about or is the site just experiencing technical difficulties? Jung 089 (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


 * There is no taboo. Every marginal pseudoscientist has published something on the subject. I presume you are familiar with Shafarevich, Kozhinov, Platonov, Klimov etc.
 * Jewish wartime achievements are sourced. Rephrasing is done.Your slanderous inference (S. "bore witness") of Jews' cowardice is removed.Galassi (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Controversial is inappropriate. We are dealing with a taboo. There are some who defy the taboo, but it does not make it less real. Just consider the reactions to their writings. Your own formulations tell something, too. Richard Pipes notes that Jewish historians have downplayed Jewish overrepresentation among revolutionaries and claims the record had to be set straight by Erich Haberer in Jews and Revolution in Nineteenth Century Russia. The Guardian article, referred in the text, makes no secret of the taboo.
 * There is not sufficient sources to gainsay witness about Jewish cowardice (but I hope you can provide them), let alone claiming that he ignored them. Solzhenitsyn talks about his own experience; that is by definition witness. Please argue objectively and don't accuse me of slander. I have no wish to slander Jews, but neither do I want to see insinuations that Solzhenitsyn was occupied with slandering, unless there is very good evidence for such a judgement.
 * Others may have been witnesses to more heroic achievements by Jews. If so, that needs not contradict Solzhenitsyn's experience.
 * Rephrasing was not done, your statement to the contrary notwithstanding. Misspellings had been reintroduced. --Jonund (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


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


 * Petrovsky's "detailed analysis" consists of a tendentious description which takes things out of their context and draws a caricature of Solzhenitsyn. This is not the kind of material that is suited for an encyclopedia.
 * Maybe you should start doubting the quality of a source that says Two Hundred Years Together "is destined to take the place of honor in the canon of russophone antisemitica" - although a leading Jewish historian says it absolves the author from the taint of antisemitism; indeed, Mr. Pipes suspects that the book was written partly in order to rid the author of the reputation for antisemitism.
 * As for Jewish wartime accomplishments, I have clarified that S. bore witness to his own experience. I simply want to do justice to this. I welcome other accounts. I'm a bit puzzled with your reference here. It says Jews were made "heroes of the Soviet Union" less frequently than Russians, but more frequently than Ukrainians and Belorussians. It doesn't seem to say that they were decorated in particularly high numbers. The number of Jews who perished depends on other factors besides their military merits, not least that Germans killed Jewish POWs. --Jonund (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


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


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


 * First, let us have a serious discussion and listen to, rather than throwing suspicion on each other. I don't dismiss any one because I don't like what they say. Criticism of sources is something different.
 * Petrovsky's qualifications as an historian are, unfortunately, of little use to determine his objectivity. His bias may lead him to judgements he would not otherwise make. In this case, we have a peer who shares his own bias and yet manages to come to the opposite conclusion regarding Solzhenitsyn's alleged antisemitism. This is a strong reason to distrust Petrovsky's opinions about S.
 * As to S's remarks about Jewish contributions in the war, I have tried to vindicate his good faith. I know little about Jewish military achievements, neither do I care about the issue. If you want to reproduce S's words along with arguments against him, you have to be careful not to make it seem as though he slanders Jews, unless he in fact does. If Jews were better soldiers than S. had seen, this may be influenced by chance (he was on a particular place at a particular time). He may have had insufficient knowledge of overall Jewish achievements. To prove his bad faith, we need more than the information that they produced more Heros of the Soviet Union than other minorities (a very limited number got he title). S's witness refers to his own experience of undertaking many comrades, but never a Jew. --Jonund (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

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


 * 1. No, I used a web-engine translation for the document discussed above. The quality of such translations are poor, but they may be useful to a certain extent, nontheless.
 * 2. Petrovsky's conclusion, as well as his description of S., if you have reproduced it correctly, make it clear that he is not to be trusted in this case.
 * 3. A person is presumed innocent until he is proved guilty. Attempting to uphold this principle is a proper vindication that should be encouraged. The problem with the section about Jewish battle behavior is that it claims S. ignored facts, which implies that he was aware of them. Such awareness has to be documented, if the claim is made.
 * 4. For obvious reasons, I'm not the right person for the project. But I encourage you, and others who know Russian well enough (or have access to material in other languages), to create an article about Jewish military achievements. --Jonund (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


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


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


 * The frequency of the opinion is not to the point, what is at issue is whether there is evidence for his bad faith. No such evidence has been presented.
 * You have confirmed that the document in question said what my web-engine translation rendered. That should make me qualified to judge its relevance.
 * You seem to have introduced a new policy for Wikipedia: only those who speak the language in which some important sources are printed can have an informed opinion on the issue under discussion, and, by implication, be entitled to remove text. If this is what you mean, you should discuss it and, if others agree, introduce it, on a relevant metapage.
 * There are, however, other means of forming an informed opinion on these issues. web-engine translations can, at times, be of some help. More important is the availability of other sources in English, as well as in other languages I know.
 * By the way, have you read Richard Pipes's review of Two Hundred Years Together? --Jonund (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * That is not true! I state my reasons for prefering some sources over others and I leave those portions of your sources intact that I don't have (enough) reason to doubt.
 * If my explanations are incomplete, please give details.
 * I still wait for answers to my objections. Do you realize that YOUR behavior may seem suspect? I try to have patience, but I expect you to show a willingness to discuss. You also had better consider WP:AGF.
 * When Reznik attributes to S. the view that the Russians "greatly suffered from Jewish exploitation, alcohol mongering, usury and corruption of the traditional way of life", this is exactly the opposite of what Pipes says: "To his credit, he disposes of the canard, widespread in late czarist Russia, that the Jews exploited the peasants." According to Pipes, S. notes that Jews had a beneficial economic effect on Russian peasants. --Jonund (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


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

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


 * Thanks, Graham. Exactly what I needed, since I was quite offended by the comment above.
 * Galassi, your knowledge of Russian is valuable and adds to the quality of the article. Your eagerness to fight antisemtism is honorable. The problem is just that you are off target. I'm staunchly pro-Jewish (check my history!). I do, however, understand your suspicion, as my contributions might be motivated by antisemitism. But is it not evident that I can have totally different motives instead?
 * We avoid POV sources on wp. When two sources make opposite claims and one claim suits their shared bias and the other is inconsistent with it, the latter is more credible.
 * If you accuse me of halftruths, you have to specify the accusation. I have explained my edits and expect you to consider my arguments, rather than questioning my motives. --Jonund (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


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


 * As I see it, your comment is tantamount to admitting that you have no interest in discussion, but prefer to hold on to your dogmatic position. WP, however, does not work that way. Only text reflecting consensus is accepted, and cosensus is reached by discussion. I have repeatedly tried to make you answer my arguments, but to no avail. I cannot understand your dogmatism. I am afraid I have to give up my hope that you would engage in constructive discussion - but it is not too late for you to change your attitude.
 * If you think you are on target with your accusation of antisemitism, the least I can expect is an explanation. Unwarranted accusations are called slander. Unsubstantiated accusations of whitewashing is of no use.
 * Reporting scholarly criticism is fine. Neglecting source criticism is unacceptable. --Jonund (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Thank you for taking the time, Graham, and for your constructive attitude.
 * Maybe there could be a separate article about Two hundred years together. That would allow for a shorter summary here. It would also make it possible to go into more detail and it would be the right place for important information which does not merits attention here - as, for instance, AS's unfamilarity with important works printed in other languages.
 * I hope we will be able to find a way of using Russian sources to the extent that they are needed. And to some extent, they are certainly needed.
 * I would advice you to go through my arguments and answer them. Maybe we can find more understanding for each other than you expect.
 * I understand your feelings regardings questioning Jewish military performance. I have a little different perspective. I am Finnish and my ancestors were oppressed by Russia in the 19th and early 20th century. People here could lose their young sons to the Russian army. After that we have had to fight Soviet in several wars. It is hard for us to imagine serving in a Russian uniform. When I visited Ukraine, I saw old Jewish olim with Soviet war medals on their chest. I could not help being dismayed by seeing people proudly wear a picture of Lenin, but I realized that when the alternative was Hitler, their situation was quite different than ours - especially when they were Jews. --Jonund (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually moving the detailed analysis to a separate article is FINE idea.Galassi (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is indeed a fine idea and I have created a stub 200 Years Together. If you do not like the title, we can easily re-name it. I started The Oak and the Calf for unrelated reasons. I think Solzhentisyn is worthy of a Wiki Project of his own. But I am in danger of WP:NPOV perhaps? PS, I think you two could be very productive together, Graham. Graham Colm Talk 22:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've beat you to it, so I redirected yours to Two Hundred Years Together. I also did a bit of poking around and the controversy is apparently a lot greater than previously thought: "200YT" has been picked up by neonazis as cause celebre.Galassi (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have deleted my "200 Years Together" along with the re-direct. Please try to find common ground (consensus) in this new contribution—both editors are clearly passionate about this, so argue, debate and discuss, but please no more edit warfare :-) Graham./ Graham Colm Talk 22:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I really abhor edit wars, but I have little hope about peaceful editing there, since David Duke's minions are already latched onto the book. Sooner or later this would turn into a Judeo-Masonic Conspiracy of some sort or another. Do stick around...Galassi (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I shall. Graham Colm Talk 23:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

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

200 years together book
Is this book widely regarded as Anti-semetic? There are 4 references given. The first in English doesn't even call it such, just that it touches on this theme? The other three are in Russian, so I can't tell. Thank you, --Tom 15:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * More than widely. See Petrovsky and Gimpelevich. There is no English translation to date, so most sources are russophone.Galassi (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Galassi, you don't need to add additional sources as it stands now. If you want to use the term "widely", the source should say this speciffically it seems, otherwise it is original resaerch or synhesis. --Tom 16:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think common sense rather. 3 opinions is narrow, to be sure, but 33 certainly qualifies as wide.Galassi (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Who are the 33? I know about 40 who would disagree, but that doesn't matter since that can't be reliable sourced. Is it true that this book hasn't been translated into English? That can't help with any analysis it seems, --Tom 16:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The only translation in existence is the French one. An English one was proposed, but refused by the publisher as inflammatory and full of factual error, libellous, way too much liability. I cannot edit it in, WP:OR...Galassi (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? For someone as high profile as AS and with all our modern technology, its had to believe somebody hasn't done it. Anyways, no problem here since I am a comics and sports section reader myself :) Cheers! --Tom 17:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it was a good move to remove "widely", it didn't add that much and would have attracted criticism based on WP:NPOV. Tom was the first to spot this, but others would have followed for sure. With regard to the references given, the one from Reason Magazine (37) would probably be considered the most reliable if the article were an FA candidate. Reference 33 is good too, which although not a source, is a link to a reliable source (and further useful sources). I would support reference 35 (in Russian) if its reliability were contested, but I would have a problem defending reference 37 as reliable which is mainly an essay on The First Circle. In short, I would prune these references—references 33 and 37 are probably the only ones needed here. The other reliable ones might be needed elsewhere later, but at the moment, I don't think they serve much purpose. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 19:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You mistook 37 for 35 here. I don't mind pruning, but the editwarring necessitated ref-ammo [;-). I propose keeping extra ref, for the time being...Galassi (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree (on both counts, sorry about the mistake), but please be prepared to prune later ;-) Graham. Graham Colm Talk 20:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sholokhov
This is an unresolved controversy as described for example here. So, please do not tilt it in favor of any specific view. Besides, I did not see a single reference mentioning Solzenytsin in this segment.Biophys (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * So, what exactly source tells that "Solzhenitsyn was the most prominent of the Nobel Laureate Mikhail Sholokhov's many detractors"? Furthermore, why this is all so much relevant to Solzhenitsyn? Of course, if one wanted to describe the persecution of Solzenitsyn by the Soviet authorities (one of them Sholokhov), that might be appropriate. But as it stands right now, this belongs to article about Sholokhov.Biophys (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Simply because other detractors were not as prominent as A.S.Galassi (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * First, please answer my question about the source. Second, you said: "Simply because other detractors were not as prominent as A.S.". Well, that only means A.S. should be mentioned in article about Sholokhov.Biophys (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'll add him.Galassi (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Edits removed
I removed a couple of edits made by sock of User:Jacob Peters.Biophys (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Arranging his own arrest
"Solzhenitsyn has been accused of staging his own arrest and eventual imprisonment in order to avoid active duty, based on his awareness of total perlustration of all mail by the military censorship.[28][29][30]"

Please cite where these Russian sources claim such thing - with English translation please. Do you really think he wanted to be arrested and be sent to Gulag? He was already at war and served his active duty.Biophys (talk) 02:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no personal opinion apropos that, and it would have no relevance here. But the opinion persists, and is sourced.Galassi (talk) 02:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please cite where these Russian sources claim such thing - with English translation please. Your or my opinion is irrelevant.Biophys (talk) 03:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What kind of sources are you using? "Александр Солженицын. Гений первого плевка". "Сначала повенчали лженаследника, где перепутали царство земное. А теперь перепутали и Царство Небесное. Ох, лукавый попутал!". Biophys (talk) 03:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since there is no reply here, I am going to remove this. Please realize, there are tons of great Western sources about Solzhenitsyn including books. Please use such sources. Yellow press Russian language sources are only good to source one thing: there was a massive defamation campaign against Solzhenitsyn in Russia. Nothing less, nothing more.Biophys (talk) 14:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I am still watching this page and I am saddened to see that my concerns expressed above have not been resolved. I am particularly worried about Galassi's edits and use of very unreliable Russian sources, (which you know I can read). This is not the place to perpetuate gossip, and an unreliable source is unreliable regardless of what language it is written in. Although reliable sources in Russian are acceptable, for controversial issues an accurate translation of the salient points should be provided. Having said that, there is such a wealth of reliable sources on Solzhenitsyn in English that the use of Russian ones is rarely needed. Graham Colm  Talk 13:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality
in Central Asia he notrious as a racist who hates all non-whites (Idot (talk) 03:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC))
 * Have you got any sources to back this assertion, per WP:BLP? Per Ardua (talk) 08:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've heard it often from TV and Radio as I live in the Central Asia, and people who blamed him are based on his interviews (Idot (talk) 01:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC))

"http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2002/oct/24/20021024-093553-4426r/print/ 'Reviving greater Russia' Originally published 12:00 a.m., October 24, 2002, updated 12:00 a.m., October 24, 2002 ... Back in 1990, Nobel laureate Alexander Solzhenitsyn publicly urged the creation of a 'Greater Slavic State' made up of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and northern Kazakhstan to replace the U.S.S.R. The Soviet Union's subsequent dissolution did nothing to mute these yearnings. Mr. Solzhenitsyn himself repeated the call for Slavic unity on the floor of the Duma, Russia's lower house of parliament, in February 1995. That he was given such a forum to call for expanding the Russian Federation was a sure sign of serious political support for the idea. Mr. Solzhenitsyn is hardly alone. Seven years on, the concept of a 'Greater Russia' continues to hold great currency among Russian nationalists of all stripes for good reason..."
 * PS just found that Solzhenitsin become notorious not only in Central Asia and Cacasus (according russian racism native inhbitants of Caucasus are not considered as whites), but also in Ukrain due to his neglection of Holodomor (Во Львове Солженицыну не простят отрицание Голодомора (Lvov will not forgive Solzhenitsyn's neglecting of Holodomor)) Idot (talk) 02:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I’m afraid this is egregious nonsense. Nowhere in his writings (or speeches and interviews) can one find Solzhenitsyn spouting racist sentiments about Central Asians or other non-Caucasian peoples. Solzhenitsyn advocated “a clean, loving, constructive Russian patriotism” rooted in spiritual and cultural attachment to the best Russian traditions and not in some racial definition of national identity. He emphatically rejected a “radical nationalist bent” that elevated one’s own nation above all others and that repudiated a “humble stance before Heaven” (see chapters 26 and 36 of 1998’s Russia in Collapse, pp. 474-475 and 482-484 in The Solzhenitsyn Reader (475 for the quote).


 * In Rebuilding Russia (Farrar, Straus, & Giroux, 1991 for the English-language edition), Solzhenitsyn warned against the “cruel partition” of Slavic peoples, especially Russians and Ukrainians, whose cultural, spiritual, and historical destinies had been inextricably linked for nearly a millennium. He welcomed the break-up of the Soviet Union and the independence of its constituent peoples but called on Russians, Ukrainians, and Belorussians to consider forming a voluntary Slavic federation. But as far back as the third volume of The Gulag Archipelago(published in English in 1978) Solzhenitsyn argued that Ukrainians should be free to choose separation if they so desired. He also opposed accepting arbitrarily drawn “Leninist” borders as a fait accompli.


 * In dozens of places in his works Solzhenitsyn holds the Soviet regime responsible for the death of millions, even tens of millions, of its citizens as a result of government-induced famine and a brutal and inhuman process of forced collectivization. In the article that he wrote on this subject for Pravda at the beginning of April 2008 (an English-language version appeared in the Boston Globe on April 5, 2008) Solzhenitsyn denied that the millions of peasants who perished as a result of government-induced famine in the Ukraine and the Russian Kuban region died as a result of a genocide perpetrated by Russians against Ukrainians. He in no way denied the criminal responsibility of the communist regime for the deaths of millions of Ukrainian and Russian peasants. In a moving passage in Rebuilding Russia, Solzhenitsyn writes that Communism, not Russian nationalism, was responsible for “the torture chambers of the Cheka from 1918 onward,” for the confiscation of grain in twenty-nine drought-ridden provinces in 1921 and 1922, and for “the pitiless famine of 1932-33” in the Ukraine. He poignantly adds that “as common victims of the communist-imposed collectivization forced upon us all by whip and bullet, have we not been bonded by this common bloody suffering?” It is fair to say that many Ukrainian commentators  have distorted Solzhenitsyn’s position beyond all recognition, suggesting quite falsely that he somehow closed his eyes to the terrible suffering of the Ukrainian people as a result of the “pitiless famine” of the 1930’s. But Solzhenitsyn is right to hold the communist regime and ideology—-and not Russia per se—-responsible for this crime. Sklundy (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * the fact is that he was very arrogant to Central Asians and they fill very offended by him. so the article in wiki is not neutral (Idot (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC))
 * This is fine. Good citations are needed for this allegation to be made. Do you have any sources? Where in his writings do you find this? Are there any interviews in which this can be documented? I'm fine with his arrogance towards Central Asians being documented, but it has to be documented and referenced. Only if you have citations for your accusations can the neutrality be disputed. If you think a section on his poor treatment of Central Asians should be added, research needs to be done and presented which supports this. Sklundy (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * do you know tha even some russians agree that he was xenophob? if you can read russina may check Владимир БУШИН, "Александр Солженицын. Гений первого плевка" ? ops! a wrong book! but any way there lots of his critics.. (Idot (talk) 02:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC))


 * Unfortunately, Russian cannot be used to support the English article. Do you have any credible English sources? Even if some claim he was a xenophobe, unless these claims can be substantiated, they have no place on this article. What CAN be added, though, are these accusations. Would this be acceptable to make the article neutral? If we mention the controversy over his claimed xenophobia? 72.73.34.239 (talk) 05:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * unfortunatelly English - is not my native language :-( so may you help with searching English sources? :-) Idot (talk) 01:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Russian can be used to support the English article--Jaro.p (talk) 07:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Of cource he is a racist and antisemite. You kan read this in any Aleksandr book. His book are not popular by many russian people because of his racist point of viev --Jaro.p (talk) 07:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Citation needed. --Borealis55 (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * possible source that could prove that he is racaist who hates non-whites: Francis Fukuyama "Varieties of russian Nationalism" in Jihn Moore (ed.) "Legacies of the Collapse of Maexism", George Mason Univeristy Press, Fairfax, 1994, pp ~59-60 his main racistic work is "Как нам обустроить Россию" ("How we should arrange Russia") where he told that Kazakhstan, Belarus and Ukraine have no right to exist as countries, so should be annexed by Russia (even by force) and divided to small gubernias (Idot (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC))


 * None of the above is evidence of racism, there might be some evidence of nationalism, but the two terms should not be confused—they are not synonyms. Graham Colm Talk 19:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * it demends on POV : from Central Asians view he is a racist. You could also say that "Hitler was never racist and was just a nationalist", but other POV also exist, so if you present in the article about Hitler only that point of view it wouldn't be neutral (Idot (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Please provide a full quote (in the original language) of the sources and specific passages which explicitly state his racism/nationalism (whatever we want to call it). If possible, please provide an English translation. If not possible, a full quotation and corresponding citation in Russian would be excellent. We can add an "Accusations of Racism" section if you like. That would make the article neutral, but we need the sources and the language to support it! Let us know when you find it so this can be cleared up! Sklundy (talk) 21:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources, citation issues and WP:NPOV
I am concerned that this article is not adhering to WP:NPOV and I do not like the continuing use of sources of dubious reliability. Recent edits are not supported by reliable citations and edits are being reverted without full justification and explanation. This has been going on for months. It is important that this high-profile article does not damage the reputation of Wikipedia by what, I perceive as, non-neutrality. I am seriously considering taking advice with regard to blocking editors who continue to edit this article from a biased point of view. Graham Colm Talk 21:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific? I am of a similar opinion, and there are parties bent on removing all evidence of any (serious) criticism that AS has been subjected to over the years. Galassi (talk) 10:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Article protected
I have protected the article for 2 weeks, probably on the WRONG version, because of the ongoing revert war about the nationality/ethnicity in the lead. Just a few remarks: To all parties: the amount of revert warring is disproportionate to the quantity and quality of arguments exchanged between the participants, here on the talk page or elsewhere – which has been close to zero. This reflects poorly on all participants. To : single-purpose accounts who spend their time here doing nothing but revert-warring about things such as inserting "USSR" into as many articles as possible, are unwelcome in this project. Please reconsider your attitude and aims in participating here. – To : a repeated edit summary like "that's really too much! - see Infobox/citizenship" is uninformative and not a proper justification for a revert. – To : your argument that he had "several citizenships" doesn't really link up well with the change you are making – why do you insist on inserting this particular citizenship at that point? Also, "disruptive nonsense rm" is not a constructive contribution to the discussion and not a legitimate justification for a revert, especially since your edit wasn't even removing anything but re-adding something. – To : I would strongly advise you not to take admin action on this matter, such as blocking other users, since you are evidently involved in the content dispute.

Now please work this out here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * i notice the reference for "soviet" writer says he is russian. should that be "anti-soviet"? Occoquan (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * He was published in the Soviet Union, and thus was in fact a Soviet writer.--Galassi (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Solzhenitsyn & Putin photos - fakes?
I am not an expert on this but I STRONGLY feel that the Solzhenitsyn & Putin photo in the article looks fake, with pre-Photoshop crudity. My feeling on that is strengthened by having seen a much cruder fake of Putin visiting the dying Solzhenitsyn. Putin's image looked about as convincing as if some Stalinist thug had cut out his picture with a pair of blunt scissors and pasted it in next to Solzhenitsyn with a mixture of bread and water. It was printed in all the Western papers without comment.

I remember thinking, the Russians might have to take this bull, but SURELY this should raise a few eyebrows here. Solzhenitsyn is regarded by many in Russia, and outside, as about as close to Mandela as you could get. Like Mandela, he suffered prison, but was released and won a Nobel Prize, and saw his vision vindicated. Putin could not possibly allow himself to be seen as being off side with this "saint". But Solzhenitsyn's view of Putin was simply to see him for what he was - a KGB assassin who, since then, has been DIRECTLY responsible for the murder of journalists and citizens who oppose him, even ones resident in the United Kingdom.

I can understand why the Stalinists who still run things up there would get their goons to doctor up photos showing Solzhenitsyn sucking up to Putin and vice versa, what I CAN'T understand is why we swallow this manifest bullshit. Anyone thinking on these lines? Myles325a (talk) 05:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Reversion of recent edits
I have Scammell's book open at pages 76–77, and 153, and no there is no mention of "Koka" but there is "Kirilla" and "Kirochka", which refer to  his friend Kiril Simonyan. It says on page 153 that (Captain Ezepov) had "copies of all correspondence between Solzhenitsyn, Nikolia, Natalia, Kirill, and Lydia from April 1944 to February 1945", which is why I changed "friend" to "friends". Nowhere on the pages cited does it say "fellow officer. The second "reference" that you have restored just says "Current Biography, 1969". What does this refer to? And what is the full citation? Furthermore, the Russian reference cited, from "Black Fire Pandemonium" is not a reliable source. I will restore my changes until this is resolved, as I don't see that "there are MANY citations apropos" as was written in the edit summary. Graham Colm (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added a citation referring to Vitkevich explicitely, but you deleted it with the previous ones.--Galassi (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Which one was that? Graham Colm (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Warrax.net one.--Galassi (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said above, ""Black Fire Pandemonium" is not a reliable source". It's a biased Russian occult/anarchist site. Graham Colm (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's a better one - http://bibliofil.info/book_reviews/politics/solzhenitsyn_treason_spiral//.--Galassi (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a blog, and besides I can't see where any of this can be used to support the text that was in the article. Even the original book sounds biased. "Solzhenitsyn's spiral of deceit". Exactly who is Томаш РЖЕЗАЧ? Can you enlighten me? Graham Colm (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Tomas Rezac (needs diacritics) (1935-1992) was a Czech journalist and detective fiction writer who knew AS in Switzerland. His book is much reviled by the Russian pro-AS contingent. I don't trust it fully, but there is a lot of negative info in it that is not discountable. There is a better book still, A.Ostrovsky http://www.litru.ru/br/?b=120348&p=1.--Galassi (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a book. Among other things, it is a website that offers to tell me how I can lose weight quickly! I am not prepared to wade through any more unreliable Russian websites. To watchers of this page, it might seem that we are arguing over a trivial point, but I have been watching this page for years, and the development of this article is being stifled by reversions and biased editing. Although non-English sources are allowed for non-controversial statements, they should not be used for contentious edits that readers who cannot read Russian are unable to check. My views on the quality of Solzhenitsyn's character are irrelevant, and so should those of other editors. We need reliable sources that are easily verifiable if this article is ever to do justice to Wikipedia. There is a wealth of literature on AS in English, please do not add any more contentious material from unreliable  Russian sources.Graham Colm (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are wrong, it is a book, hardcover - http://reeed.ru/lib/books/solzhenitsyn_proshanie_s_mifom/. The e-version is on ad-supported site, unfortunately. some ads are sof-core pornographic. but that is the way Russia is these days. The book itself is legit, myriad of footnotes.--Galassi (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Vietnam War
I wanted to explain my edit. The article originally said that Solzhenitsyn, after arriving in the United States, urged the US "to continue its involvement in the Vietnam War". This is nonsensical, since Solzhenitsyn did not get to the US until mid-1976, over a year after the Vietnam war ended (with the fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975), and his Harvard Commencement speech, in which he commented publicly on the Vietnam war and which this section refers to, was in May 1978, three years after the war ended.

The footnote for the statement was to a August 6, 2008 article in the Independent on Solzhenitsyn's death by Mark Steel. "http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/mark-steel/mark-steel-a-reactionary-called-solzhenitsyn-886115.html". Steel's article in fact said, "Once in America . . . he urged the US to continue bombing Vietnam." That is more specific and still more ridiculous, because US bombing of Vietnam stopped in early 1973 (two years before the war ended and five years before Solzhenitsyn's commencement speech). An earlier version of the Wikipedia article simply copied what Steel actually wrote; someone apparently tried to make that less nonsensical by watering it down.

I know nothing about Steel (his Wikipedia article says he is "a British socialist columnist, author and comedian"), but it is obvious from this article that he is not a historian or a serious commentator on Solzhenitsyn. Steel knows next to nothing about Solzhenitsyn, as he readily admits: the article begins "I had no idea Solzhenitsyn was still alive . . . It was as if someone said 'Have you heard the sad news – Joan of Arc's dead.'". It goes on in that vein: lots of laugh-inducing gag lines but no real knowledge or understanding of Solzhenitsyn's life and work.

Alas, just being in "The Independent" does not guarantee seriousness: one must distinguish between serious journalism and light-hearted, lightweight articles like Steel's. For what Solzhenitsyn actually said on Vietnam, see instead his Harvard Commencement speech (cited in this section).

James Dunlap (talk) 05:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Marriages and children
It makes sense to me to make this a separate section, rather than parcel it out into the different subsections by chronology. (It was all in the "early life" section, before WWII started, which was inaccurate). Marfinan (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Restored edits by User:Jacob Peters
@Galassi. First paragraph here. Did you personally check that quotation was indeed in the source? Who knows. We can not AGF with respect to banned users. Besides, I do not think we can indiscriminately quote Soviet propaganda sources (such as "Pravda") in such manner: this contradicts our NPOV rules. My very best wishes (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * А banned user does not mean an unacceptable edit. The info in question looks OK to me.--Galassi (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * An acceptable edit? It tells: "The publishing of The Gulag Archipelago book was met with controversy, with extensive criticism of Solzhenitsyn and his work in the Russian media" and so on. A "controversy"? This is simply untrue. The book was not published in the Soviet Union. It was forbidden. People were arrested for having a copy of the book printed by Ardis Publishing in US. If you want to describe the persecution of Solzhenitsyn by Soviet authorities (the publications in "Pravda" and a lot of other things), that's fine. But this should be done in appropriate manner and with appropriate sourcing. My very best wishes (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

First sentence
Even for WP, the first sentence is a real horror. Overloaded with secondary detail, it meanders here and there, on and on... Is there no-one left who can write English? Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I reworded the lead a bit. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Sholokhov
This part tells more about Sholokhov than about Solzhenitsyn. As something highly controversial (see here: ru:Проблема авторства текстов М. А. Шолохова,, ), this should be sourced to books by historians of literature as perfect secondary RS, rather than to Russian newspaper "Trud". There is a recent book by writer and historian of Russian literature Benedikt Sarnov, "Stalin and Writers", one chapter was about Sholokhov. The conclusion (based also on other research by other people quoted in the book): that was indeed plagiarism, although Krukov had nothing to do with this. This part should be shortened and NPOVed, based on books. My very best wishes (talk) 03:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Leninism and Kosovo

 * Yes, but I don't think it was justified to remove portions on Leninism and Kosovo.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Let's see. (1) This edit. Not only this claim was unsourced, but the meaning is not clear with the title like "Stalinism". Does it imply that S. was a Stalinist or that he was an anti-Stalinist? (2) 2nd edit. There is no source and the link was dead. Moreover, this is a non-notable claim almost every Russian nationalist does. If you want to make a point that Solzhenitsyn was a Russian nationalist, then yes, that should be mentioned somewhere, but I think this is already in the article. My very best wishes (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Criticism Section
Dear Mr. Wikipedia,

I would just like to suggest that the article may benefit from a section outlining the various criticisms of Solzhenitsyn (his work, views & actions). If such a section is deemed appropriate, I could provide examples.

Sincerely,

Vilhelmo. Vilhelmo De Okcidento (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Specific criticisms should generally be incorporated into the article where appropriate, rather than given their own section. Such viewpoints should have reliable sources.  See WP:CRIT for a more complete overview of the policy.138.16.18.24 (talk) 02:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * There should also be an effort to put them in context, instead of just writing the typical "X has criticized Solzhenitsyn claiming that he is so-and-so /quote/ and was stuck in such-and-such views /quote/; Solzhenitsyn didn't reply". It needs to be made clear whether a specific criticism comes from Russia, from let's say Poland or from someone in Western Europe or the US, from the left or from the right or somewhere else. It used to be fairly obvious, especially during his exile, that he'd sometimes get called out and ranted at for statements and arguments that were aimed primarily at a Russian audience, and so in a context where open and free discussion at home about let's say imperial Russia vs Soviet conditions was simply not possible. Saying something like, Soviet Russia was the worst and most bloodstained tyranny ever in Eastern European history (worse than Mongol rule in Russia? worse than the Nazis?) will mean one thing when it's a reply in a conversation within Russian culture, and where most of the wider circle intended to take part are living under censorship, and a very different thing when it's picked up by a western audience where most people will have little familiarity with Eastern European and Russian history. That kind of difference was often overlooked, or glossed over, in western writing about Solzhenitsyn and his views. Strausszek (talk) 03:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Use of Template:Citation
The final result of the use of Citation in the Published works and speeches section is terrible. Having almost all entries in the list prefixed with “———” is a complete nonsense. I don’t know if the citation template is able to format the citation in some more logical way, or any other similar template could do it, or if we need/should replace it with just plain old wikitext, but the output needs to be changed. --Mormegil (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

TV shows - section: title translation
"Russian under the title Taynaya Istoriya "Arkhipelaga Gulag" (Secret History: The Gulag Archipelago)". The text in the brackets is not grammatically correct translation. That should be: "The Secret History of the Goulag Archipelago". I dont dare to edit the article text, because the source is too complicated, full of formatting signs that I am not familiar with. Pls change the ":" to "of", if you are confident with the howto of it (without messing up the structure of those formatting signs). 94.66.182.86 (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Trouble archiving links on the article
Hello. I am finding myself repeatedly archiving links on this page. This usually happens when the archive doesn't recognize the archive to be good.

This could be because the link is either a redirect, or I am unknowingly archiving a dead link. Please check the following links to see if it's redirecting, or in anyway bad, and fix them, if possible.

In any event this will be the only notification in regards to these links, and I will discontinue my attempts to archive these pages.
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=5yYBZ35HPo4C&dq

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document060603.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110216181044/http://www.beaconforfreedom.org:80/about_database/russia.html to http://www.beaconforfreedom.org/about_database/russia.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120605001157/http://www.blinkx.com:80/watch-video/secret-history-the-gulag-archipelago/u8LgZxdriv5U0f5gcCZeuw to http://www.blinkx.com/watch-video/secret-history-the-gulag-archipelago/u8LgZxdriv5U0f5gcCZeuw

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

NPOV tag: Thoroughly doctored article
I distinctly remember that the text about "200 Years Together" contained a noticeable list of references indicating that the book is full of inaccuracies, biased language, and borrowed misconceptions. Now it is gone, and the section is nothing but praise. Does anybody care to take a look? -M.Altenmann >t 00:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, I fail to see any criticism (well-referenced) that when AS become a celebrity, he acquired the "star disease", and many commenters noted that they would very much like to remember AS only for his Gulag Archipelago, and forget his later days activities. -M.Altenmann >t 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

"===On Russia and the Jews===

Although Solzhenitsyn has often been accused of anti-Semitism, there is sharp division on whether or not the charge is valid. According to proponents, Solzhenitsyn was a Russian ultra-nationalist and anti-Semite in the mold of Fyodor Dostoevsky. Those who reject accusations of anti-Semitism insist that Solzhenitsyn merely held the Jewish people to the same standard of repentance and self limitation as he held other nations.

In his 1974 essay "Repentance and Self-Limitation in the Life of Nations", Solzhenitsyn called for Russian Gentiles and Jews alike to take moral responsibility for the "renegades" from both communities who enthusiastically created a Marxist-Leninist police state after the October Revolution.

In a November 13, 1985 review of Solzhenitsyn's novel August 1914 in the New York Times, Jewish-American historian Richard Pipes commented: "Every culture has its own brand of anti-Semitism. In Solzhenitsyn's case, it's not racial. It has nothing to do with blood. He's certainly not a racist; the question is fundamentally religious and cultural. He bears some resemblance to Dostoyevsky, who was a fervent Christian and patriot and a rabid anti-Semite. Solzhenitsyn is unquestionably in the grip of the Russian extreme right's view of the Revolution, which is that it was the doing of the Jews".

Jewish Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel denied this claim and insisted that Solzhenitsyn was not an anti-Semite: "He is too intelligent, too honest, too courageous, too great a writer." He added he wished Solzhenitsyn were more sensitive to Jewish suffering, but believed his insensitivity to be unconscious.

In his 1998 book Russia in Collapse, Solzhenitsyn excoriated the Russian extreme right's obsession with anti-Semitic and anti-Masonic conspiracy theories.

In 2001, however, Solzhenitsyn published a two-volume work on the history of Russian-Jewish relations (Two Hundred Years Together 2001, 2002). A bestseller in Russia, the book triggered renewed accusations of anti-Semitism.

The controversy was fueled by the similarities between Two Hundred Years Together and an anti-Semitic essay titled "Jews in the USSR and in the Future Russia". According to professor of Jewish history Semyon Reznik, textological analyses of the essay indicate Solzhenitsyn's authorship.

Solzhenitsyn responded by saying that the essay was written using manuscripts stolen from him by the KGB forty years before. They were then carefully edited as part of the Soviet State's "active measures" against him.

Although Two Hundred Years Together has never been published in the United States, long excerpts from it appear in The Solzhenitsyn Reader. The book began with a plea for "patient mutual comprehension" on the part of Russian Gentiles and Jews. Solzhenitsyn explained that the book was conceived in the hope of promoting "mutually agreeable and fruitful pathways for the future development of Russian-Jewish relations".

In Chapter 9, Solzhenitsyn that, "...it would be quite wrong to say that the Jews 'organized' the revolutions of 1905 and 1917, just as it was not organized by any other nation as such."

At the end of chapter 15, Solzhenitsyn expressed a belief that, "every people must answer morally for all of its past -- including that past which is shameful." In this spirit, he urged the Jewish people to answer, "both for the revolutionary cutthroats and the ranks willing to serve them." It is not, he insists, a matter of answering "before other peoples, but to oneself, to one's consciousness, and before God." He explains that Russian Gentiles must also repent "for the pogroms, for those merciless arsonist peasants, for those crazed revolutionary soldiers, for those savage sailors... To answer just as we would answer for members of our own family. For if we release ourselves from any responsibility for the actions of our national kin, the very concept of a people loses any real meaning." " Moved here for discussion.--Galassi (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Problems with the section: but the problem is cherry-picking. Only AS niceties towards Jews are cited, while they constitute about 5% of his book about the Jews. - user:Altenmann >t 15:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * (1) The judgement of AS was not as "black-and-white" as the section starts. The range of the opinions covers a continuous spectrum. - user:Altenmann >t 15:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * (2) The section gives more space to AS himself than to his critics taken all together. While nothing wrong with that,

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121101083310/http://russiancinema.ru/template.php?dept_id=15&e_dept_id=2&e_movie_id=6834 to http://russiancinema.ru/template.php?dept_id=15&e_dept_id=2&e_movie_id=6834

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Sentence in the lede...
"Solzhenitsyn was afraid to go to Stockholm to receive his award for fear that he wouldn't be allowed to reenter. " This sentence needs to stand on its own, and it does not. Even if you go on to read the following sentence, which fills out the thought, it doesn't do so very well. It would be more properly worded as "Solzhenitsyn was afraid to leave the Soviet Union and go to Stockholm to receive his award for fear that the Soviet Union would deny him re-entry.", or something along those lines. As it stands now, the sentence makes little sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.95.11 (talk) 03:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You are right. Your version is clearer. Go ahead and edit. - üser:Altenmann >t 03:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110721011240/http://www.romanism.net/tag/sabia-dreptatii to http://www.romanism.net/tag/sabia-dreptatii

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Disbalance
A lot of space is dedicated to personal political views by S. during last years of his life. Well, this is not something he is really notable for. I would suggest to significantly shorten this part and describe his views only briefly. My very best wishes (talk) 04:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC) At the very least, one should have a secondary RS (preferably a book) telling that such and such views by Solzhenitsyn were significant for such and such reason. What we have right now are his opinions about something picked by wikipedians for whatever reason of their POV. Given the large number of books about Solzhenitsyn, this is not an acceptable approach. My very best wishes (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It is perhaps a laudable goal to keep to the main points written about in notable books/biographies, but not all of the remaining sections are sourced to books either. You removed some things but kept others based on your own "POV", so to speak, so I don't see this as being any better at all than those who added sections based on "their POV". Esn (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What exactly my POV do you mean here? Please tell what other (sub)sections were poorly sourced and let's either improve the sourcing or remove/fix them too. My very best wishes (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "POV" was your wording in your original post; I just mean that everyone has certain tastes which influences what they do. People added some of his statements that they thought were noteworthy/important enough to give weight to in the article, then you removed them because you thought they weren't. Some of his statements without current defenses of their importance in books & biographies are still kept in (not that I'm suggesting they should be removed, too, the article is short enough as it is). Even the things we choose to include or not include from any books would also be, though to a lesser degree, subject to the tastes of editors. I just doubt that we can entirely get away from variable human/community taste in editorial decisions. Esn (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. 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/20140407060954/http://www.geocities.ws/kandathil/harvard.html to http://www.geocities.ws/kandathil/harvard.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/solzh/Solzh/v_obvale_toc.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927221903/http://www.stalinsociety.org.uk/lies.html to http://www.stalinsociety.org.uk/lies.html#Solzhenitsyn
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100812080327/http://www.russiaprofile.org/page.php?pageid=Politics&articleid=a1249487843 to http://www.russiaprofile.org/page.php?pageid=Politics&articleid=a1249487843

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Possible date errors
I've noticed a number of "Check date values in: |date=" errors showing, particularly in the Published Works section of the article, but I'm not sure how to resolve these. Does anyone have any advice? Thanks! Cadar (talk) 06:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Section: On Russia and Jews
It's evident that the On Russia and Jews section has been largely lifted from this piece from the Scott Nevins Memorial blog. As such, bearing in mind the "state where you got it" rule, it's probably worth checking that the cited sources do actually support the text. I'd say that its probably a good idea to give an explicit "see also" link to the article on Solzhenitsyn's book 200 Years Together for a more extensive treatment of the subject matter. The quotes of Richard Pipes and Elie Wiesel have been taken from the blog piece. In my opinion, to give a rather long quote from Richard Pipes is to give too much weight to one person's opinion and, as someone with a bit of a reputation for windbaggery and cant, quoting Wiesel's opinion of Solzhenitsyn is a waste of space. Note that Pipes gives a contradictory opinion ('In The New Republic, Pipes wrote that while Solzhenitsyn is too eager to exonerate czarist Russia of mistreating its Jewish subjects, and as a consequence is sometimes insensitive to the latter's predicament, "at least he absolves himself of the taint of anti-Semitism."') to the one quoted in the cited article from Reason.com.    ←   ZScarpia  17:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone have a citation for the claim in this section that he Solzhenitsyn is similar to Dostoevsky in the sense that Dostoevsky was a "rabid anti-semite"? Even Dostoevsky's own page makes no such claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:9603:F630:9CF0:8E0A:D15C:50D7 (talk) 03:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Solzhenitsyn's Publications in the USSR
"He was allowed to publish only one work in the Soviet Union," It's wrong. He publiched also at least three short stories: Случай на станции Кречетовка, Матренин двор, Захар-Калита (1962-1966). He also published almost everything in Gorbachev time, including Архипелаг ГУЛАГ in hundreds of thousands copies, and formally it was still in the USSR Hunu (talk) 22:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Several controversial aspects of Solzhenitsyn's life
In the article, the following aspects of Solzhenitsyn's life are not described:
 * His collaboration with GULAG's authorities (the process of his recruitment was described by him in the "GULAG Archipelago"; in addition, a report to GULAG's authorities written by Solzhenitsyn was found).
 * A huge amount of funds of unknown origination, that was enough to buy a plot with a house and some other auxiliary buildings. Мартин Мягер (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://nobelprize.org/literature/laureates/1970/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100805141955/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3763/is_200609/ai_n18622003/ to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3763/is_200609/ai_n18622003
 * Added tag to http://video.yandex.ru/users/fancyfly/view/39/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

1983 tv interviews
Added a paragraph about three rare tv interviews with Solzhenitsyn (in the final section of the article). I remember watching the first one, by famous French tv journalist Bernard Pivot, myself in the summer of '84, but looking for cites on it I found two more in a Google Books source. Can somebody please string together my first and third footnote on these appearances, since those two notes are identical? I don't know how to do that. :) 192.121.232.253 (talk) 10:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ When citing the same source multiple times, use . Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Solzhenitsyn's Harvard Speech
Vietnam War ''Once in the United States, Solzhenitsyn urged the United States to reconsider its attitude towards the Vietnam War (which had ended in April 1975). In his commencement address at Harvard University in 1978,[54] Solzhenitsyn alleged that many in the U.S. did not understand the Vietnam War. He rhetorically asked if the American Anti-War Movement ever realized the contemptuous laughter which, he said, their actions had always provoked among the elderly men in the Soviet Politburo. Solzhenitsyn also accused American anti-war activists of moral responsibility for the political repression that followed the Fall of Saigon: "But members of the U.S. antiwar movement wound up being involved in the betrayal of Far Eastern nations, in a genocide and in the suffering today imposed on 30 million people there. Do those convinced pacifists hear the moans coming from there?"[54]''

Nowhere can I find any of this in his speech. Please, follow the link to the speech: None of the above is to be found there. Please, remove it (if it's fake) or revise it with the correct information (if it does in fact exist).Mwidunn (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I did not find it. Removed. I also included a secondary RS about this. My very best wishes (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC) Does appear in this ref. It is another question what should be cited, but this is something he said. My very best wishes (talk) 04:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

frenkel thought up the prison camp system?

 * According to author Elisa Kriza, "Although it is true that the central theme of the [The Gulag Archipelago] is to protocol the longevity of the Soviet prison camp system and therefore condemn communism as a whole, it contains other ideological arguments too. One of them was that the prison camp system was thought up by Naftaly Frenkel, a “Jew” who hated Russia."

Please do not restore an idiotic claim that frnkel invented prison camp system. Really??? Someone has to read wikipedia before write wikipedia. - Altenmann >talk 06:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Everything written in this article is to the point and very informative. Marta.tkachuk (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

On page 207, Kriza writes that Solzhenitsyn's accusation and his depiction of Frenkel is skewed by "anti-Semitic stereotypes". Pay attention, people. Frenkel did not invent the gulag, the camps existed even before 1917. They were expanded by Stalin, but not by Frenkel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauri 0924 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

CIA's role in disseminating Solzhenitsyn's work in USSR
The New Yorker alleges that "The C.I.A. supported the publication of underground books in the Soviet Union by such authors as Boris Pasternak and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, a ploy that the agency knew would enrage the Kremlin leadership and deepen anti-Soviet sentiment among dissident circles inside the country." Source: "Private Mossad for Hire", by Adam Entous and Ronan Farrow, The New Yorker, 2019, online: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/02/18/private-mossad-for-hire (accessed Tues., Feb. 12, 2019) 2600:1702:2FF0:1D00:8563:4D65:93D8:714B (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

US Military (NSA) role in disseminating Solzhenitsyn's work to the West
William Eldridge Odom "while serving at the United States embassy in Moscow in the early 1970s managed to smuggle out a large portion of Alexander Solzhenitsyn's archive, including the author's membership card for the Writers' Union and Second World War military citations" Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Eldridge_Odom

A reasonable conclusion is that Soviet and US Intelligence agencies were in fact working together to promote their own respective controlled oppositions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.153.109.219 (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)