Talk:Leon Trotsky

Regarding my contributions
I didn't want it to being something controversial, however I believe my edits suits with the regulations of Wikipedia. But for a moment let's assume it's not, instead of shortening blockquotes, reverting all of them, especially parts of non-blockquotes are unfair. Not only I had fulfilled the needs for proper sources (I, in most cases, tried to detect original sources, pointed out to its variants (translation etc.), supported them with secondary hand literature, most-to-half of them academic or professional biographic etc.), I have also kept my non-partisan position, used my sources with notifyings like "according to", "as pointed out" etc.; tried to point out to debates on these topics (like, for example, authenticity of Trotsky's letter to Lenin from Brest-Litovsk, and how Trotsky endorsed it) etc. I also had adapted further developments from other contributors while correcting some problems with sources (I friend most probably couldn't realize there was a reference template for Renton for example, so they added manually). I believe, such a study can't be discarded this much of easily. For example, parts about Trotsky's stay in Spain is so much overlooked (even by great biographers of him like Deutscher) that my research on this is an important contribution to this article. Also not only I have corrected some of the erroneous informations regarding Trotsky's photographs (like the one that was dated as 1902), but also have given further informations about them, of course all are sourced from the first and secondary literature. I plan some further contributions to Trotsky article. For example, according to the notes taken by Bazhanov in PB meetings, Trotsky talks about how Lenin proposed a position to him as back as 1917, but he declined for reasons he outlines in his talk. This is only one example. Life of Trotsky is long and lively and has many interesting points in it. I believe that, in a non-partisan way, most of them can be represented in Wikipedia. However, before that we must come to a conclusion. Therefore, I invite all the parties who recently involved with the article, i.e.,: Please, don't overlook it, and do not postpone the debate with methods like not replying etc., I invite, and insist all the people who recently have participated on the contributions to article. My offers are: 1) Since most of the debate aroused over the "long quotes", I propose a) either quoting these lines in reference notes (since it's an option given to us in the citing templates), or b) Only pointing out to sources. However, if it comes to 1/b, I think we must decide on all of the quote blocks, not only the ones added after my edits. 2) Photographs, not-long-blockquotes etc. should have been saved, for they have nothing to do with this debate. No one ever questioned them, but while reverting changes because of "long quotes", they reverted all of them. I hope and wish for most, if not all, of you participating on this topic. Reminder, otherwise is not disheartening, but also will prevent further contributions to article. For example, I was writing about "Bolshevik-Leninism"/"Revolutionary Marxism"/Trotskyism terms before I got the notification of revertion. My section's still waiting. Beyaz Deriili (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with you're edits overall, but I don't understand why you removed the membership categories for the Orgburo of the 8th Congress and the Orgburo of the 10th... Just seems random... Other than that I don't understand the guy's reason for removal of text.. --TheUzbek (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have only adapted what was added, and only deleted one category that was red. I couldn't remember which one you're talking about. Beyaz Deriili (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree somewhat with the changes made by Beyaz overall.. He is right that its controversial to explicitly state in the text that Trotsky & Lenin were allies in a bloc against Stalin. Stephen Kotkin in Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878-1928 makes the point that Lenin was, throughout his rule, always closest to Stalin and not Trotsky. He even goes so far as to say that Lenin's Testament was bogus and that he wittingly made Stalin his successor. Kotkin's argument is a more thoroughgoing version of the earlier "Stalin was Lenin's best pupil" (literally, communism was evil from the start). WikiUser4020 is wrong in other words. It's extremely controversial to state "In 1922, Trotsky formed a bloc alliance with Lenin to counter the bureaucratisation of the party and the growing influence of Stalin" since leading academics disagree on what is indeed correct. To be honest, I don't necessarily see Kotkin's argument. He forgets that Stalin manipulated and hollowed out institutions as the Council of People's Commissars and the Politburo and centralised power in the Secretariat and the Office of the General Secretary. But whatever my view on the matter, that sentence is misleading if Wikipedia intends to present the academic consensus (there simply isn't any here, at least among Western historians). --TheUzbek (talk) 14:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @TheUzbek I think you are grossly incorrect in that assertion. Kotkin's proposition that Lenin's testament was a fabrication is not shared by many historians on this point. I have cited several Western historians who share the view that a bloc/alliance was developing between Lenin and Trotsky in light of the growing tensions with Stalin and the common interpretation of the private correspondence betweeen the two over trade monopoly and the national question. I could cite several more Western historians i.e. Robert Service, Moshe Lewin and Ian Thatcher etc that concur with the view of a bloc existing between Lenin and Trotsky. None of their works have stated that this remains a topic of great controversy. Also, can you provide other sources which states the proposition of a bloc between Trotsky and Lenin is a controversial issue? Aside from this, I think a solution would be either find a definitive source which states the majority position/consensus of historians on this topic. The fact Kotkin's view on Lenin's testament is rejected would also be suggestive that his views are not reflective of most historians. This is also listed in Lenin's Testament article page. Can you provide other historians who dispute the proposition of a political bloc? The issue is not the closeness of personal relations between Stalin, Lenin and Trotsky as that varied depending on the political issue and time period. The issue is whether a bloc between Lenin and Trotsky during 1922/23 is accepted by most, mainstream historians or explicitly a subject of great controversy. I have seen no source with exception of Kotkin which states the latter is the case. WikiUser4020 (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all I must state that I think this is deviating from original debate, so I don't want to continue it this much. However I must add few things. Kotkin's claim that (which he wasn't the one who coined it but a Russian historian) "Lenin's testament" being a fabrication is contraversial, as much as Lenin founding a bloc with Trotsky. However, I must add that, while WikiUser4020 being correct on its not being a general position (which it's normal, it's a "new" position that developed in '90s), day by day it gains more followers, especially in Russian language sources. As for Moshe Lewin's work, not only it's a highly outdated work (1968), but also neglects many important points and misinterprets some issues due to Lewin's anti-Stalin bias. One can be anti-Stalin, sure; an anti-Stalin work can be used as a source, sure; but taking its arguments as face value isn't a correct attitude, let alone the fact that Lenin in his so-called "testament" (so-called not because its authenticity, but because its labelling as a "testament"; something was also rejected by Trotsky's himself in his stay in the USSR) had also criticized Trotsky for several issues (not something one would do against his bloc partner, I suppose). So it's not about if you or I can found academics and historians that claims such things, but it's about it being a political comment, and I'm pretty sure most of the people who thinks so won't cite Lewin just for the sake of being historically correct, but because of their historical-political convictions. We must keep in my that main political opponent of Trotsky at that time wasn't Stalin: Stalin, while still being somewhat influental wasn't a leading figure of a faction, instead, he was put into that position with the consensus of struggling faction because he was a figure of center, thus someone who can be reconciled over him. PB meeting votings are well known. Stalin used this position very well in his quest for power, and with tactical alliances with one faction over another, to eliminate them. These are my final comments on this topic. As for the other issues, sadly I haven't saw anything from on original topic; and sadly  (whose last two were the ones who reverted my changes) haven't even joined to debate. Without them joining, how can we come to a conclusion on topics? AndyTheGrump said, we must conclude the issue in talk page, but haven't commented themself yet; and as for Rennespzn, he still didn't explained in what sense I had to read blockquote page (I have read so, and aside from avoiding too long blockquotes, I didn't find something them claiming that I have violated, since it doesn't, in the final analysis, prohibit long blockquotes). I can understand finding them too long (as you can see it, I also tried to summarize them to a degree), but what is acceptable length for Rennespzn? How can we know and debate on it without Rennespzn joining? As I said, I expect them to join to debate, and I must state that if there won't be any further debate to be debated, I think it's normal for me to continuing my changes. Beyaz Deriili (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't comment earlier, as I wanted to check a couple of sources, and to read through the changes more thoroughly. To be honest, it was the wording of your edit summary that initially led to my revert, as much as the changes themselves. I'd strongly advise against using the phrase "my original research" in a summary, given that No original research is core policy. Having looked through your changes, I'm now fairly confident that it doesn't involve 'original research' in the sense that the policy uses the term, though possibly the section on Spain could do with more secondary sourcing. If, as you suggest above, this episode hasn't been covered by biographers, we need to be careful not to draw conclusions of our own from the primary sources cited. Having said that though, you make it clear that you are reporting what Trotsky himself wrote, rather than asserting it all as fact, so it is probably ok, provided other contributors are happy with the extensive use of quotes in this article generally - this biography does seem to use them to a greater extent than most, and they can sometimes prove problematic, if not chosen with care. As a general principle, I'd also advise against making substantive changes to multiple sections of an article in one edit, if there is much possibility of any of it being disputed. Doing it that way makes it harder to deal with issues that may arise, without wholesale reverts. With regard to the issue discussed immediately above concerning the 'testament', and the supposed 'Lenin/Trotsky bloc', I'd have to agree with WikiUser4020 regarding the apparent consensus amongst historians on this matter. Or at least, that's the impression I have, though I've not really looked into more recent scholarship on the question, and probably ought to before commenting further. This probably merits a separate discussion though, which rather reinforces my point about not making large multiple-section edits where controversy may arise over parts of it. Edit each section separately, and it gets a lot easier to discuss the specifics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * With original research, I meant not plagiarizing, and directly looking for original (if possible) sources, along with second academic and professional studies. But you're right, original research would mean something different. English isn't my mother language, so please forgive me for it. I also had do my must of the changes by section to section, not in all article; by examining article history one can observe that. But because I had adapted further changes over my earlier version, recent change was made in one change. As I have said before, when it was reverted I was editing one section. With the bloc part, again, I think it's a contraversial issue. Instead of recording such a political comment, we can, maybe, add a section under the legacy part about how his life was evaluated, by stating pro-to-counter positions. For example, his relation with Lenin can be subject to such a section (since life of Trotsky is closely linked with the life of Lenin). Also, I must note this: Isaac Deutscher, in his monumental biography, states that while still his autobiography being the first and foremost account, in order to prove his suit with Lenin and Leninism, Trotsky revised or ignored somepoints, especially in 1913 (which was merely talked in this article). As it's all known, while being criticized by some Trotskyist currents because of Deutscher's politics (and his comments like the one mentioned before), Deutscher is a well known Trotskyist, and his biography (with all of its fragmentary errors and partially being outdated due to recent studies) is still one of the principal sources for the life Trotsky. I do not try to do "good Trotskyist, bad Trotskyist" thing, or use Deutscher against to other Trotskyists, but accounts of Trotsky's life are (in different degrees, but still), mostly under the influence of late Trotsky. In the light of all of these facts, I can say that: Wikipedia page of Trotsky can exist (and will do much better) without such a contraversial claim. That's why I believe we mustn't go into that region, but I can't force anybody to accept it, nor can't prevent anyone from it. Beyaz Deriili (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Beyaz Deriili The proposition of a bloc has not been disputed by most of the historians that I have read so far. However, the alignment between Trotsky, Lenin and Stalin has always been a major source of contention as their positions/views on a range of matters changed during the pre-revolutionary years, revolutionary period and post-civil war era. All historians have political persuasions and biases. Kotkin and Service are affiliated with the conservative, Hoover Institute and several other mainstream historians are former Trotskyites, Stalinists or liberal democrats which will undoubtedly shape their characterisation of the Soviet period. However, this is irrelevant to the the specific point on whether the existence of an emerging bloc between Trotsky and Lenin has mainstream acceptance or a controversial issue among the majority of historians. Most of the historians that I have cited/read seem to echo the point that Lenin did propose a bloc and this corresponds with other actions by Lenin in his final years such as the 1) private letter correspondence, 2) the recommendation that Trotsky be appointed as deputy Chairman and 3) final testament which is overtly critical of Stalin. In contrast, the claim that Kotkin is getting more followers is an unsourced statement and his views on the authenticity of Lenin's testament are not widely shared by other historians unlike the proposition of a Lenin-Trotsky bloc. Hence, that is a false equivalency between the two propositions. Also, the criticism of Moshe Levin is an unsourced, personal judgement which is not the point of contention but rather if most historians view the proposition of bloc as controversial ? WikiUser4020 (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all, let's try not to personalize debate. Of course my critic of Moshe Lewin (right now) is unsourced, because I did not intented to write a critique of Lewin. However, Lewin's book too was reviewed and found outdated by some people. For example, Erik van Ree writes that in his "'Lenin's Last Struggle' Revisited" (2001 [note: in following quoted passage he uses the academic romanization]): "It appears from the archival documents collected by Richard Pipes in The Unknown Lenin, that before the winter of 1922-23 Lenin's relations with Stalin remained cordial. In contrast Lenin and Trotskii took conflicting positions on questions of bureaucracy. The former was annoyed by the latter's proposal to keep the party from interfering in the state apparatus. And Trotskii refused to be a part of Lenin's plan to have a team of deputy prime ministers combat state bureaucracy. Pipes further notes that the troika of Stalin, Zinov'ev and Kamenev, formed after Lenin's May 1922 stroke, was in constant communication with the leader. The four men operated jointly against Trotskii." (p. 87) That's one thing. But you're right, Moshe Lewin by himself isn't the issue of debate, why had I exampled him was because his work was mentioned, and I tried to explain my point, i.e. it wasn't foremostly about Lewin but also for the sources that can claim the same. The other thing is you say that the thesis that was newly popularized by Kotkin, but was coined by Sakharov (who wrote an article in '90s and later a book in 2003 about it) is widely rejected, meanwhile bloc idea is prevailing. As I said, since it's a new thesis that emerged in '90s, of course it's not something popular. However, I do reject that what you said is "dominant"; it's widespread, but so does the opposite of it. Hence, I did not made a false equivalency, I stated that both of them being contraversial. "Most of the historians that I have cited/read ..." isn't a criteria. As for the part "Kotkin is getting more followers"... I never said it was Kotkin getting new followers, I said the thesis, which was coined by Sakharov and was debated long before Kotkin popularizing it. A simple Google books search will prove it. Why it was popularized by Kotkin is because a) Sakharov's only one article, and not the book was translated in obscure political circles, b) Kotkin (and so does his biography) was more known-propagandized in western languages speaking world. You claim that what I said is "unsourced statement". Considering what I said was recently gaining influence and not widely accepted, I think we can track this claim in, let's say, Russian language studies (since I was talking about Russian language sources). True that I don't have one under my hand, nor carried a research on this, but, I believe, so does you, since both of us were talking over our own empirical knowledge. The real question of Lenin and Trotsky relations was not both being in their best: In fact, Lenin had some personal to political beefings with Trotsky in 1922. The question was, Lenin and Stalin relations. Lenin criticized Stalin only in his rude manner, and how one person can attain such power in one position in Letter to Congress. Actual political criticism of Stalin was in The Question of Nationalities or "Autonomisation". Lenin criticized Stalin for 1) his handling of the Georgian issue, and 2) Stalin's opposing to the federalism (an old Bolshevik position once was also fervently supported also by Lenin). Stalin's "rudeness", i.e. his beef with Krupskaya, and Krupskaya's informing Lenin on it and Lenin's personally asking for an apology (Stalin apologized), was the question in Letter. I'm not going to debate Sakharov's points of its authenticity (I believe it being authentic), since it will only further deviate from the main issue, but I must state that such a total rejection of it too is meaningless. Main point of Sakharov's argument is lacks of Lenin's authorization on the decreed papers. This point, while I believe isn't enough, isn't something one can so easily discard. So yes, Lenin had issues with Stalin, but so does with Trotsky; Lenin was for democratization and anti-bureaucratization, but not in the sense of Trotsky. As it was pointed out by van Ree (please pardon me for oncoming long quotes): "The stubbornly immobile Rabkrin became part of the problem rather than of the solution. In September Lenin proposed to upgrade the collective of deputy prime ministers by adding Kamenev and Trotskii, whom Lenin apparently hoped to win over for his struggle against the state bureaucracy. Stalin supported the proposal, but Trotskii refused categorically to accept the position." (p. 92) "On 13 December he [Trotsky] wrote a letter to Lenin, Stalin and others declaring himself in favour of putting the state apparatus on the different footing of a centralised system of accounting. He called Rabkrin 'the most absolute and total rubbish'." (Ibid) "Thus Trotskii had reaffirmed that for him 'bureaucracy' meant the overlapping of party and state. A struggle against bureaucracy would, then, have to aim for a reduction of party control over the state. The question is whether Lenin was indeed won over to this point of view. In a January 1923 letter to the Politbureau Trotskii recalled the same conversation. But in this letter the bloc does not appear. Trotskii wrote that he had once again rejected Lenin's proposal to become deputy prime minister, because he did not believe in the value of a collegium of deputies. Instead he had criticised the leading party organs for interfering too frequently in the work of the military and economic departments. Lenin had replied that he did not want to force the post on him. They did agree however that the 'directing apparatus and selection of officials' was extremely bad, and that a party commission might be formed to look into this matter, and in which Trotskii might take a seat. That was all there was to it. (...) In some respects Lenin indeed returned to Trotskii's policy of banking on the bourgeois specialists. He admitted that the latter had been right in his assessment of Gosplan as a competent organisation. (...) Stalin did not make a similar turn. In early January he wrote a critical letter against Trotskii's proposals. Not Gosplan but the collegium of deputy chairmen of the Council of People's Commissars - Trotskii among them - should be the centre of economic policy. The latter answered, once again, that he was against such a collegium and complained about interference by the Central Committee and the deputies in economic policy. Only the specialist Gosplan could provide real leadership." (pp. 93-4) "However, Lenin's Gosplan proposal was only a minor point in a broader plan. (...) Lenin warned comrades not to deny the use and need of Rabkrin, an unmistakable reference to Trotskii. But Rabkrin could only trim the state apparatus providing it became an exemplary commissariat. Lenin acknowledged that it was presently the most horrible of all state institutions. It should first be reduced in size and staffed with the 'best party forces' and new proletarian cadres before anything good could be expected of it." (p. 94) "The difference between Lenin and Trotskii had never been that the former was content with the functioning of Rabkrin. As we have seen, he was constantly complaining that it functioned badly. The difference between him and Trotskii was that Lenin nevertheless hoped for Rabkrin's improvement and for its transformation into an effective purging machine. And that was exactly what he, again, proposed in his last writings." (Ibid) "It cannot be denied that there was some degree of rapprochement with Trotskii. (...) But in the main the last writings confirmed strikingly what Lenin had proposed earlier, namely that the state apparatus needed overhauling from above by Rabkrin, Trotskii's greatest nightmare. What is more, for the first time he proposed turning it into an assistant, not of the collegium of deputy prime minister, but of the party apparatus. He finally drew the logical conclusion from his own reasoning that the party bureaucracy should be strengthened instead of weakened and take the purge directly in hand. This was the opposite of everything Trotskii stood for. Characteristically in his notes Lenin called the latter a man attracted too much to the 'purely administrative side of matters'. He still saw him as a state bureaucrat. Lenin's 'testament' does not testify to a 'bloc' with Trotskii against bureaucracy. In fact, it hardly testifies to a change of mind on the problem at all." (pp. 94-5) Further examples can be given. The point is: Yes, Lenin was for anti-bureaucratization, but on his own type, not the type of Trotsky. "Bloc" that was first claimed by Trotsky is just overstating some facts. Yes Lenin approached to Trotsky on some matters, but so does to Stalin. Lenin wasn't someone who would do "pacts" "blocs" with factions (in fact, as it well known, he prohibited factions in the RCP (B)). While Trotsky was known for being for some failed "blocs" (like August Bloc), Lenin didn't so. Reconciliation? Tho this might go against Stalin's definition of Lenin's pure attitude, Lenin used reconciliation many times. But he didn't bloc on party affairs. You rightly comment on everybody having their political bias. This is surely something undeniable, and %100 true. And in fact, in Marxist sense, "... it is a basic Marxist concept that being determines consciousness, that the objective realities of class struggle and national struggle determine our thoughts and feelings." So does the sources claim the bloc. However, since Wikipedia collective and we try to minimize our personal and political influences in our contributions (imagine hundreds of people from different political trends adds their political comments because it's sourced etc.), I think, as I said, wikipedia article of late Trotsky can exist with its own importance without such a debated claim existing in it. Beyaz Deriili (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Beyaz Deriili I will address your points in a systematic manner. I do not want to detour from the wider purpose of this section. 1) I never stated this was a personalized debate but you mentioned that Lewin had "anti-Stalin bias" and I countered that all of major historians had political persuasions which ranged from conservativism, Stalinism, Trotskyism and liberal democratic which shaped their views. 2) Erik van Ree is not a professional historian but a sociologist that operates in Eastern European studies. Hence, these views should not take precedence or carry higher weight than professional historians. Our weight of sources need to be line with Wikipedia guidelines on weighing minority opinions in line with WP:UNDUE specifications. 3) You did state the thesis which influenced Kotkin's work had gained more followers over time please see the quotation below: " However, I must add that, while WikiUser4020 being correct on its not being a general position (which it's normal, it's a "new" position that developed in '90s), day by day it gains more followers, especially in Russian language sources". Also, the point is if this is accepted by the majority of scholars. There were reviews strongly rebutting Kotkin on invoking this thesis due to its historical errors and one particular reviewer describing "Valentin Sakharov (an arch-Stalinist historian at Moscow University, without whom many of Kotkin’s arguments would collapse)" - A review of Stephen Kotkin’s Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878-1928 by Fred Williams. This reviewer is admittedly a Trotskyite but his criticisms of the book are shared by other professional reviews. A book review by Ronald Suny, US distinguished historian, characterised the issues with Kotkin's view of the Lenin's testament: "Few other scholars doubt the authorship of the document, which accurately reflected Lenin’s views, nor was it questioned at the time it was written and debated in high party circles. Kotkin’s interpretation, fascinating as it is, relies on conjecture rather than evidence". 4) I have already referenced the relations between Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin converging/divering over over time i.e. pre-revolutionary, revolutionary and post-civil war and was highly dependent on the nature of the issue. This is not the issue at hand but rather if the political bloc existed and has mainstream acceptance. 5) You did falsely equivocate when you stated ""Lenin's testament" being a fabrication is contraversial, as much as Lenin founding a bloc with Trotsky". You are suggesting both topics are equally controversial when this is clearly not the case. The bloc between Lenin and Trotsky has widespread acceptance among Western historians. 6) I could cite various leading historians who agree that a bloc existed rather than a non-historian on this particular point. Orlando Figes (1997), republished 2017 (pp796-797): "Trotsky would later claimed, Lenin approached him with an offer to join him in a "bloc against bureaucracy", meaning a coalition with Stalin and his power base in the Orgburo. Trotsky's claim is credible. This, after all, was on the eve of Lenin's testament, which was mainly concerned with the problem of Stalin and his hold on the bureaucracy. Trotsky had already criticised the party bureaucracy, Rabkrin and the Orgburo in particular. And we know that Lenin shared his opposition to Stalin on both foreign trade and the Georgian issue. In sum, it seemed that Lenin and Trotsky were coming together against Stalin. And then suddently, on the night of 15 December, Lenin suffered hs second stroke". Robert Service (2010) p301: "The Lenin-Trotsky alliance was disrupted by the sudden deterioriation in Lenin's physical condition on the night of 6-7 March". Anthony D'Agostino (2011) p67: "By October 1922, he and Trotsky had formed a bloc to save the monopoly of foreign trade, to protect and subsidize industry, and to support the GOSPLAN against those who called it a "nest of the spetsy" Joshua Rubeinstein (2011) p130: "Lenin had made up his mind. Anxious to curb Stalin's authority, Lenin summoned Trotsky and encouraged him to challenge Stalin at the XIIth Party COngress over his authoritarian methods in Georgia". Michael Kort (2015) p166: "Lenin also urged that he and Trotsky form a “bloc against bureaucracy in general.” Martin McCauley (2014) p59: "On the last occasion, in December 1922, Lenin offered him a 'bloc against bureaucratism in general and the Orgburo in particular'" I am strongly in favor of having the paragraph remaining in the main page as the proposition of a bloc is supported by many, reliable sources in line with Wikipedia requirements and also sourced from major historians on this point. In other words, there is a consensus. Only a minority of scholars seem to dispute this view. It could be amended that Western historians vs certain Russian linguistic scholars have differing view but that also raises the question on which scholarship should have greater weight. This could be featured as a second point in the personality and characteristics sub section i.e. his working relations with Lenin and the other Bolsheviks. I would rather avoid us having a circular debate and get a group vote to conclude the other topic at hand as the original contention was the bloc proposition was a one sided Trotskyite view when a range of reliable sources actually agree with this! ''' WikiUser4020 (talk) 06:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all, I must state one thing: 1) Scientific literatute doesn't revolves around "western" sources, 2) There is nothing contradicts with what I'm saying (for example I said Sakharov was the one who coined it, and your review also points to this [also if Sakharov being a "arch-Stalinist" shadows his works, so one can assume the same for Rubenstein who's pro-Soviet dissident, Figes and Service who are conservatives, etc.]). I have only mentioned Moshe Lewin as outdated, because you mentioned. I have also never said bloc theme lacks from "credible sources", in fact I said opposite. So "original contention was the bloc proposition was a one sided Trotskyite view when a range of reliable sources actually agree with this" is not my point. What I'm saying is one can found such other "reliable sources". You criticized Erik van Ree for being sociologist (as if at least one his main interests not being Russian revolution and the former USSR [also, in the mentioned article he also counters Service's comment that you have quoted]). van Ree mostly had builded his article "newly published" (as for 2001) documents, and most importantly, right-wing historian Richard Pipes' The Unknown Lenin. Pipes, for example, wrote these ("The Unknown Lenin" [1996], pp. 9-10): "Of special interest are Lenin’s relations with Trotsky and Stalin. In exploiting Lenin's rift with Stalin in the winter of 1922—23 to depict himself as Lenin’s closest and most trusted associate, Trotsky entirely misrepresented his relationship with the Bolshevik leader, Lenin valued Trotsky's talents as organizer and orator highly; for that reason he angrily rejected the suggestion conveyed by Kamenev that Trotsky be expelled from the Central Committee (Document 106). But Lenin had little regard for Trotsky's judgment on any matter of substance and generally kept him at arm's length. Several documents in the present collection attest to this fact. Lenin dismissed as a case of “bad nerves” an urgent appeal by Trotsky, his commissar of war, to redeploy the Red Army at the critical juncture in the civil war (Document 39). He similarly ignored Trotsky's advice to keep the party from interfering in the economy: “Into the Archive” (Document 92). It is known from other sources that he was appalled and annoyed by Trotsky's “categorical refusal” to accept the post of one of four “deputies” (zamy) in the state apparatus during Lenin's illness (Document 109). It was only in the winter of 1922-23, when he had but a short time left before a stroke would leave him permanently paralyzed and speechless, that, feeling totally isolated, Lenin tried to form a tactical alliance with Trotsky against Stalin, Kamenev, and Zinoviev— an offer Trotsky tacitly rejected. By contrast, there is much evidence of Lenin's reliance on Stalin, not only in running day-to-day government operations but also in setting major policy goals. We have his notes to Stalin asking for advice on numerous issues. The notes acquire additional importance in the light of recent information that it was Lenin personally who in April 1922 designated Stalin to occupy the newly created post of the party’s general secretary. Trotsky lied in claiming that this appointment, soon to become the most important in Soviet Russia, was made against Lenin’s wishes." Can someone dismiss Pipes' claims? Surely can. But this won't change the fact another "credible historian" counters it. So that was what my point: It's something highly subjective, and as much as every other topic of Soviet history, it's disabled with a) what late Trotsky have wrote and influenced the oncoming generations, b) Cold War right-to-left-wing narratives. I think everybody can aggree with me on this. Because I'm not a professional historian (nor, I believe, anyone of us), it's not up to us making historico-political comments as universal facts. That's why, I believe, I didn't make false equivalency, in fact what I have said and defended is non-partisanly correct. And there I stand for. If we have any disaggreements on it, I think we must seperate it from this section, and must debate it under a new section in talk page, because it highly deviated from the original topic. As for the original topic. I still haven't saw the objections and reasons of . If he don't want to be involved with the debate, then, I think he mustn't go against the decision taken over in here (so far, people were generally positive on my recommendations, and my contributions were ok). If so, we must debate on final decision for the length of quotes-blockquotes, and, vote for it. Beyaz Deriili (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Beyaz Deriili Pipes is not disputing the existence of a bloc between Trotsky and Lenin in the quoted statement above. In fact, he references it as stated: "Lenin tried to form a tactical alliance with Trotsky against Stalin, Kamenev, and Zinoviev— an offer Trotsky tacitly rejected." However, he is challenging Trotsky's characterisation of his relations with Lenin. That is a separate point which I have already addressed above that their professional/personal relations changing over time depending on the subject matter. The original contention which you raised in the edit section of the main page which was " Adapted most of the newer contributions except the one with the Lenin-Trotsky bloc theme, because it's a one sided interpretation by Trotskyists and pro-Trotsky/Trotskyism people. I'm not saying it's wrong or not, it's a historical debate that's beyond this place". I have provided a range of reliable sources (conservative, Stalinist, Trotskyite, liberal-democratic historians etc) that agree with the view that a bloc existed. This is in line with WP:RS and giving precedence to majority view WP:UNDUE over a minority view i.e. Kotkin and Ree (non-historian). Pipes in the statement does not explicitly deny that a bloc existed only the relations betweeen Trotsky and Lenin which is a separate topic. Hence, the current paragraph can stand as it in line with Wikipedia guidelines. WikiUser4020 (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * sorry but at this point this is just falsifying. I have quoted a long passage in which Pipes openly claims that Lenin for once tried to reconcile with Trotsky (details of it were further explained in the quotes above from van Ree), but Trotsky rejected. This was before Letter to the Congress, about Gosplan etc. It's clear from the quote that there wasn't an emerging bloc, because Trotsky with his own political agenda declined this offer. Even in the following lines Pipes explains how this irritated Lenin. Cherry picking a line from long quote and using it against the argumenteur (that's Pipes) isn't honest. It's not Kotkin and van Ree, it's Kotkin and Pipes in these examples that I have given. You try to gain Pipes on your side because he is "historian" and try to defame van Ree because he's sociologist. van Ree wrote to a history journal, from a historian system, and with basing himself on historians. Just because they are a historian's thesis, even if historians are credible ones, it doesn't mean that everything they wrote can be taken as universal truth. A Postulat is not an universal & verified truth, and "bloc" idea is a political claim that at best an interpretation, since it lacks from an actual document. Since yesterday I'm trying to explain this. I have said pro-Trotsky/Trotskyism, and I stand before it. As you know, explanation bar for contributions has character limits. That's why I couldn't carefully explained the reason, but since you pointed out to it I can make myself clear: Being overall pro-, and being partially/on-subject pro- are different things. For example, some German leftists have objected to Service's bio's German translation to be published because for them it misinterpret Trotsky's views. However, in this "example" we are talking about, it's pro-. Because it's a political comment, it depends on context and person to which reason they use. For example, because Pipes is conservative, his comments on Trotsky and Stalin isn't because he favor Stalin, because he is anti-Bolshevik, and especially anti-Lenin. I had not presented what Pipes wrote as a historical fact, I presented it because historians, with different political implications, can differ on history. It's their right to do so, everbody has their own world view. However, since Wikipedia is a collective body, we must minimize it. For example, instead of political comments, we may & must record exact date of Trotsky's first arrest (it's known and if I recall correctly exists in Volkogonov [a Yeltsinite] and several other people). I have made my point very clear, i.e. avoiding debated politico-historical comments and claims ("academic consensus" that limited to only one scientific section [which even it differs between the schools historians adhered to] and only western language studies of Cold War and post-Cold War studies isn't actually fair interpretation), but you try to make it 1 against 10 issue. Also which one is the Stalinist source you presented? You only quoted a Trotskyist's comment on "arch-Stalinist historian" Sakharov. You quoted from McCauley, but McCauley himself is quoting from Trotsky. Is it from his Stalin biography, and a famous line that was used by many Trotskyists, like Mandel. Well, of course can Trotsky quote something, like document, but was it something written? A letter? Anything? No. Just his claim (Well Red ed., p. 508): "Around this time, Lenin summoned me to his room in the Kremlin, spoke of the frightful growth of bureaucratism in our Soviet apparatus and of the need to find a solution for the problem." ""Very well, then," Lenin retorted, "I propose a bloc." "It is a pleasure to form a bloc with a good man," I said. It was agreed that Lenin would initiate the proposal for this commission of the Central Committee to fight bureaucratism "in general" and in the Organisational Bureau in particular. He promised to think over "further" organisational details of the matter. On that we parted. Two weeks passed. Lenin's health became worse. Then his secretaries brought me his notes and letter on the national question. For months he was prostrate with arteriosclerosis and nothing could be done about our bloc against the bureaucratism of the Organisational Bureau. Obviously, Lenin's plan was directed against Stalin, although his name was not mentioned; it was in line with the train of thought Lenin expressed explicitly in his Testament." McCauley not only failed to give a proper reference for his partial quote (in p. 59 you mentioned references 12 and 13 are to other issues, and this line is unreferenced), but also just narrated what Trotsky claimed. Again, what not Trotsky, let's say, quoted from a document etc., but what Trotsky claimed. So much for credible, academic historianism! Is the most needed historian characteristic determined with such merits? van Ree, who was "sociologist", at least had succeeded in giving proper references. I think not only the titre historian, but also sources of that historian is matters. One can quote/reference Trotsky, even to his impossible to prove claims (i.e. personal memoirs), but must back it from second party sources too. Just narrating the Trotsky's claims isn't what needed for make it universal truth. For the final, I say we must go on to voting, and if bloc issue is still debated, we must seperate it to another section, because this issue unjustly started to revolve around only one, and minor topic. And again, I invite for joining to debate. Beyaz Deriili (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Beyaz Deriili You are making false claims and insinuating acts of bad faith which makes further discussion untenable. I literally provided the quotation which you stated that Pipes agrees that Lenin proposed an alliance but Trotsky declined. Hence, Pipes is agreeing that a bloc alliance was proposed at the least not that it never existed. Attacking me with assertions of bad faith because you cannot present a sufficient argument does not contribute to the development of this article. I presented you with quotations from two reviewers with one a noted, distinguished historians stating clearly that Kotkin's views on Lenin's testament are shared by only a few other historians. This is in line with WP:UNDUE. Yes, most of the historians cite Trotky's account as Figes (non-Trotskyite historian) elaborated in my previous post that Trotsky was viewed as credible viewed as credible due to the corresponding other sources of primary evidence such as the (1) the private letter correspondence with Lenin, (2) the final testament denouncing Stalin and requesting his removal, (3) Lenin's views on the growing bureaucracy which all seems to concur with his account of events. I have not defamed Ree but stated he should not be given greater weight than the majority of professional historians. This is very much in line with WP:UNDUE. You ignored the points I raised about the sources aligning with WP:UNDUE and WP:RS guidelines especially considering that a majority of the leading sources agree that a bloc was proposed. To be clear, the historians I selected were largely based on their citations on the related Lenin and Stalin article pages. A few others were included due to the recency of their work and hence I think these are reliable sources which match the WP:UNDUE and WP:RS guidelines. I am not making it a 1 vs 10 issue as suggested but those are the guidelines for source entries on Wikipedia. The WP:UNDUE even raises the solution to a minority view is to include it as in citation. Alternatively, another paragraph can be added in the later sub-sections expanding on the issue but it is clear that the majority of the leading sources agree that a bloc was proposed.'' WikiUser4020 (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You put forward the examples of the thesis that forgery of Lenin testament and Kotkin against me several times. However, it wasn't me who come up with it, it was ; and I was expecting this leading to a deviation from the original debate. Also it's not just Kotkin, Hiroaki Kuromiya too in his Stalin biography debates the thesis. I'm quoting Kuromiya (pp. 59-60): "‘Lenin's testament’ has been taken for granted by nearly all historians, but it has recently been the subject of scrutiny. The authenticity of the story (including Stalin's response) cannot be ascertained, as there are too many documentary and evidential inconsistencies. It is not even known whether Lenin received a response from Stalin, although it appears that Lenin did not break off relations with him. Ten days after the alleged incident, Lenin, who was in acute pain, asked Stalin for potassium cyanide. Lenin, however, was calmed by Stalin. If these documents (the ‘testament’ and the Lenin-Stalin exchange) were forged, then they were meant to be used against Stalin. In that case, who forged or at least doctored them? V.A. Sakharov, who has advanced the forgery interpretation, suspects Lenin's entourage (Krupskaia, Zinov’ev, Kamenev, Lenin's secretary L.A. Fot'eva) and Trotskii. Certainly Krupskaia and Stalin did not get along in the last years of Lenin's life. (Stalin asked Molotov why he should kowtow to Krupskaia: ‘Sleeping with Lenin doesn’t mean understanding Leninism!’) Whatever the case, even if the negative assessment of Stalin’s personal character in ‘Lenin's testament’ was not Lenin's, it reflected the sentiment of the Politburo members who were not favourably disposed towards Stalin. ‘Lenin's testament’ also includes a discussion of Trotskii: [..., excluded from the quote, Kuromiya quotes some lines that Lenin criticizing Trotsky, and some other comments —my note] Whether this assessment was Lenin's or not, Trotskii was feared and disliked by Stalin and others as ‘the most capable man’ in the party. (Krupskaia seemed to prefer Trotskii to Stalin, however.) ..." As it can be seen, Kuromiya, while not blindly accepting the Sakharov's thesis, also does not discard its, and finds a middle way: "Whether this assessment was Lenin's or not, ..." As I said one can quote Trotsky's unverifiable account, and one can be in conviction of it being truth, but it's up to them. It's their interpreting of the story, not historical fact. Scientific truth can't be simplified like "... seems to concur with his account of events." I too can claim things impossible to verify over historical things. That's the point in here. If a claim has its roots in something impossible to verify, it's not a fact but claim, and it must have been openly stated that it's a claim from someone, and further people have only (either be it referencing to him directly or indirectly) narrated it and accepted or opposed to it. Also you say this: "The WP:UNDUE even raises the solution to a minority view is to include it as in citation. Alternatively, another paragraph can be added in the later sub-sections expanding on the issue but it is clear that the majority of the leading sources agree that a bloc was proposed." However your original change wasn't this. I'm quoting it: "In 1922, Trotsky formed a bloc alliance with Lenin to counter the bureaucratisation of the party and the growing influence of Stalin." What about referencing to other views? Also, I see that you continue to your changes. I strongly protest to it. While I'm waiting for the conclusion of the debate, in the meantime, you continued your changes. I could have done the same. I do expect to see the comments of on this, and revertion of them until a conclusion coming out. Because you change your arguments several times (if they are not minor changes you must add them as new replies, because while I'm writing my replies you change your arguments), I'm going to quote them: 1) "Yes, most of the historians cite Trotky's account as Figes (non-Trotskyite historian) elaborated in my previous post that Trotsky was viewed as credible as the letter correspondence with Lenin, the final testament denouncing Stalin and requesting his removal, Lenin's views on the growing bureaucracy seems to concur with his account of events." 2) "Yes, most of the historians cite Trotky's account as Figes (non-Trotskyite historian) elaborated in my previous post that Trotsky was viewed as credible due to the corresponding other sources of primary evidence such as the (1) the private letter correspondence with Lenin, (2) the final testament denouncing Stalin and requesting his removal, (3) Lenin's views on the growing bureaucracy which all seems to concur with his account of events." 3) "Yes, most of the historians cite Trotky's account as Figes (non-Trotskyite historian) elaborated in my previous post that Trotsky was viewed as credible due to the corresponding other sources of primary evidence such as the (1) the final testament denouncing Stalin and requesting his removal, (2) Lenin's conflict with Stalin over concurring issues such as foreign trade/Georgian affair." I'm going to quote from Lenin's Letter to the Congress (Italics are mine): "I think that from this standpoint the prime factors in the question of stability are such members of the C.C. as Stalin and Trotsky. I think relations between them make up the greater part of the danger of a split, which could be avoided, and this purpose, in my opinion, would be served, among other things, by increasing the number of C.C. members to 50 or 100." "Comrade Trotsky, on the other hand, as his struggle against the C.C. on the question of the People's Commissariat of Communications has already proved, is distinguished not only by outstanding ability. He is personally perhaps the most capable man in the present C.C., but he has displayed excessive self-assurance and shown excessive preoccupation with the purely administrative side of the work." "These two qualities of the two outstanding leaders of the present C.C. [Stalin and Trotsky —BD] can inadvertently lead to a split, and if our Party does not take steps to avert this, the split may come unexpectedly." "But I think that from the standpoint of safeguards against a split and from the standpoint of what I wrote above about the relationship between Stalin and Trotsky it is not a detail, but it is a detail which can assume decisive importance." These are not the lines of a bloc against Stalin, in fact Lenin openly states that a split that was in development between them and this must have been avoided. How come Lenin can found a bloc with Trotsky, when in fact he was the one who named him two person that's leading for a split? Is this what testifies with Trotsky's account? And as for the final since you occasionally neglect it: Trotsky can, and must have been quoted, but by himself his claims isn't a historical fact itself. I think I have made it very clear. The name "bloc" was given by Trotsky, not by Lenin. In fact, I requote Pipes, "[i]t was only in the winter of 1922-23, when he had but a short time left before a stroke would leave him permanently paralyzed and speechless, that, feeling totally isolated, Lenin tried to form a tactical alliance with Trotsky against Stalin, Kamenev, and Zinoviev— an offer Trotsky tacitly rejected." Trotsky rejected Lenin's offer (the name bloc or anything resembling it was in nowhere of Lenin). Now let's see what was this offer: 11 September 1922 For the vote of Politburo members over the telephone. To Comrade Stalin, secretary of the Central Committee In view of the fact that with the arrival of Tsiurupa (his arrival is expected on 20 September) Comrade Rykov has been granted leave and [that] the doctors are promising me (of course, only in the event that nothing bad happens) a return to work (very gradually at first) by 1 October, I think it is impossible to dump all the current work on Comrade Tsiurupa, and propose appointing two more deputies (a deputy chairman of the Sovnarkom and a deputy chairman of the Council of Labor and Defense), namely, Comrades Trotsky and Kamenev. The work load should be distributed between them with my participation and, of course, that of the Politburo as the highest instance. 1 1 September 1922 V. Ulianov (Lenin)  Vote of the Politburo members taken over the telephone. 1. “In favor” (Stalin). 2. “Categorically refuse” (Trotsky). 3. “In favor” (Rykov). 4. “Abstain” (Tomsky). 5. “Do not object” (Kalinin). 6. “Abstain” (Kamenev)." Pipes' note: "The votes of Stalin and Trotsky are handwritten; the votes of the remaining Politburo members were recorded by the secretary." A bloc from this? No. This is not a bloc. As for Trotsky's claim, Trotsky does not give a date. I stead he says "around this time". Because he doesn't imply before or after, it's a vague time, but correspondents to winter of 1922-1923. This happened after Trotsky's rejection of the offer (which, according to Pipes, irritated Lenin), debates of Gosplan, Rabkrin etc. In fact, as van Ree quotes: "Trotskii told this to L. Averbakh, who informed E. Iaroslavskii of it. The latter reported it again in December 1924. Iaroslavskii did not believe it. He met Lenin in mid-December and heard nothing of such a bloc. Lenin said he was 'deadly tired' of Trotskii's tone. See 'Iz lichnykh zapisei E.M. Iaroslavskogo o ego poslednei vstreche s VI. Leninym', Izvestiia TsK KPSS, 1989,No.4, pp.188-90." (p. 120/n26) Requoting van Ree (Italics are mine): "In a January 1923 letter to the Politbureau Trotskii recalled the same conversation. But in this letter the bloc does not appear. Trotskii wrote that he had once again rejected Lenin's proposal to become deputy prime minister, because he did not believe in the value of a collegium of deputies. Instead he had criticised the leading party organs for interfering too frequently in the work of the military and economic departments. Lenin had replied that he did not want to force the post on him. They did agree however that the 'directing apparatus and selection of officials' was extremely bad, and that a party commission might be formed to look into this matter, and in which Trotskii might take a seat. That was all there was to it." (p. 93) Indeed, there is no mention of such a bloc by Trotsky, and one can verify it in Meijner's collection of The Trotsky Papers (vol. II). Since everything is that much of clear, I think there is no reason for its further debate. Further debate must continue in another section. Since I have made my point clear, I may not join to it, but I can too. Please, let's vote for my proposals. It started to being tiring repeating the same points for several times. Beyaz Deriili (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Beyaz Deriili You have again ignored my repeated points about adhering to Wikipedia guidelines WP:DUE and WP:RS. Rather, you have continued citing selective quotes from sources who do not reflect the majority position. The sources I have referenced are reliable sources and cited routinely on the Lenin and Stalin pages. Most of the sources agree with the view that a bloc was proposed. Our position is not to present a personal critique with extended quotation but to decide whether the majority of the sources cited agree with this proposition in line with WP:DUE and hence if it is suitable for entry on the Wikipedia main page. This is the definitive point and not our personal interpretation of the period. Ronald Suny already stated that few other historians share Kotkin's position on Lenin's testament, hence it is a minority position and needs to be treated accordingly to WP:DUE. In fact, Lenin's testament is still featured on Lenin's article page despite the dissenting, minority view. Simiarly, this approach should be applied to Trotsky's page in which most of the leading historians currently cited reference a bloc despite the dissenting, minority position. FYI: The core and underlying arguments have been repeated endlessly with minor corrections and I have expanded upon them with reference to Wiki guidelines for a solution due to the circular nature of our discussions. WikiUser4020 (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Further debate on this topic is useless and I won't comment on this anymore. Trotsky talks about a bloc in December 1922, Lenin's proposal was in September 1922, in which Trotsky rejected, and after that Trotsky just downright started to lose his struggle. Lenin, on the contrary, not only haven't cut his ties with Stalin, also (as it has been proven by entry logs) continued his cordial relations with Stalin. The proposal which Pipes talked as a something that can be understand as a kind of alliance (not bloc) was in September (so, unlike your claim, it doesn't support your point), and everybody can realize difference between September and December. I think it's up to others, i.e.,, to comment on our arguments and comment on the original debate that was overlooked because of the deviating debate. Beyaz Deriili (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Beyaz Deriili The standing statement in the main article does mention "bloc" and "alliance". Although, some of the sources do not make a clear distinction between the two terms.
 * FYI, Pipes stated in his actual work (Russia under the Bolshevik regime)(p471): "Although obviously in no condition to do so, he planned to intervene with Trotsky's help at the Twelfth Party Congress scheduled for March, to force through drastic change in the country's political and economic management. Trotsky was his natural ally in this endeavour, for he, too, was politically isolated. Had Lenin succeeded, Stalin's career would have been seriously set back, if not ruined".
 * Yes, we should leave it to other contributors @AndyTheGrump@TheUzbek@Rennespzn@Thedarkknightli to reach a conclusive view. Overall, I have attempted to steer the discussions in line with WP:RS and WP:UNDUE guidelines rather than my personal interpretation of the period. WikiUser4020 (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Image
The current image is both clearer and a closer photo of the subject and is without the copyright concerns tied to the proposed replacement. 31.218.86.208 (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * No concerns whatsoever as it won't get deleted soon, if at all. The already established one which you and other IP addresses (probably the same user using multiple IPs) keep reverting shows Trotsky at the height of his power and as he is more often depicted - in a suit and not a military uniform. Agian, start a Request for Comment in this talk page before unilaterally changing the infobox photo. If the majority of voters decide that the 1917 military uniform one is better suited, then I'll have no objections, of course. GreatLeader1945  TALK  16:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

"Lev Trotskij" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lev_Trotskij&redirect=no Lev Trotskij] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

"Leo Trotskij" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leo_Trotskij&redirect=no Leo Trotskij] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 19:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)