Talk:What Is to Be Done?

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gharding13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

(Primary Topic)
As Lenin's work is by far the best known and most important work of the 3 works of this tile (there is also Tolstoy's) surely it should be the primary meaning on Wikipedia? I propose moving. PatGallacher 22:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If nobody objects over the next couple of days I will make these moves. PatGallacher 13:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Lars who?
Regarding the following: However it has recently been argued in a book on the pamphlet by Lars Lih that it has been widely misinterpreted, based partly on mistranslations of key terms used by Lenin. Does someone want to grammatically correct this, properly cite it, and explain what the hell it is supposed to mean? Thanks in advance. 74.140.211.161 17:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody? Okay, I'm taking it out.  Feel free to reinsert if you're willing to address the concerns above.  National Airport 12:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you will see that a citation for this is given in the review by Socialist Democracy, which is linked. I'm not sure what the grammar problem is either. PatGallacher 20:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You haven't explained what it's supposed to mean. I don't think that the "citation" follows any format suggested at Citing sources, either. I also can't find anything to suggest that this Lih fellow is a reliable source and not just a conspiracy theorist or something, either. 128.163.113.201 20:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think if you actually read the reviews of Lih's work on the Socialist Democracy website and online at the Weekly Worker then it does come across as a piece of serious scholarship. I may expand the article on these issues. PatGallacher 14:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

What is to say that Lenin understood such non-native words as konspiratsiia, tred-iunionizm and revoliutsioner po professii, or even if he did, distorted them to serve his own tendencies?--Paul from Michigan 14:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Given Lars T Lih's affiliation, I'm not convinced that the sources provided add anything. A quick glance at google scholar suggests that there are independent RS to confirm his relevance. However, I think the present state of the article grossly overstates Lih's importance. --Nixin06 (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't get why this one scholar's (?) views are of particular importance. Is this a recent trend in scholarly analysis of Lenin's pamphlet or is Lih a particularly renowned scholar? What is his "affiliation"? Ileanadu (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I second that. Who is Lih and why do his views deserve an entire paragraph that is about 25% of this article, including a long quote (longer than any quote from Lenin...)? Furthermore, this paragraph is not clear. Can we just shorten it to one sentence saying that Mr Lih has a different interpretation and refer the reader to his book?--Exjerusalemite (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization
Apart from anything else we need to sort out the capitalization of this page, and I suggest the disambiguation should follow. This could be awkward as it was published in Russian, it may be awkward to regard any translation as definitive. However "What is to be Done" could be definitive, looking at the references, and also fits normal English conventions. PatGallacher (talk) 11:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Misinterpretations According to Lars Lih - What did Lenin mean, according to Lih?
The section states that according to Lars Lih, "Lenin's pamphlet has been widely misinterpreted." The section then goes on to specify various terms that Lih holds to be misinterpretations, but nowhere does it say what Lih thought the correct interpretation(s) would be. Without knowing how Lih thinks they should be interpreted, the reader has no idea what the importance of this criticism is. Ileanadu (talk) 03:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there no one on Wikipedia competent to say what Lenin's words really Meant?
Why is a comment like this: "Pages and pages of Lih's book, therefore, are devoted to explaining why and how the word спонтанность, when translated as "spontaneity," distorts his views; how конспирация does not mean "conspiracy"; тред-юнионизм does not mean "trade unionism" and революционер по профессии should not be translated as "professional revolutionary".[7][9]" even allowed on Wikipedia without suggesting what the words are presumed to actually mean?

It is merely innuendo with no attempt to provide comments which could help the reader decide on its truth, Hsfrey (talk) 20:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Why is the interpretation included?
The interpretation takes away from the factual information presented in the article. The reader can interpret however we please. The interpretation should be removed so that the factual information remains unbiased. Gharding13 (talk) 02:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

(credited as N. Lenin)
This "(credited as N. Lenin)" appears in the opening sentence. The letter that would be "N" (as in "November") in the Latin alphabet (as used for English) is in fact the a Cyrillic (as used for Russian) letter, that equates with "I" (as in "India"). This is the first letter of Lenin's middle name, Ilyich.

So, in fact the author of the book, as it would be written in English, is "I. Lenin" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.64.198 (talk) 01:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 24 July 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: pages moved as requested at this time, per the discussion below. If necessary, please raise the issue of the "(Tolstoy)" disambiguator separately. Dekimasu よ! 19:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

– Per MOS:TITLECAPS, and WP:CONSISTENCY with all the other book articles that have "to" in mid-title (it is capitalized neither as a proposition nor, in this kind of case, as an infinitive particle). The over-capitalization is rare in reliable sources, and does not seem to be used in the title of any actual English-language editions of the works or of any critical analyses of them that include the Lenin or Tolstoy title in their own titles. The "To" spelling occurs sporadically in news sources, but this is irrelevant; per MOS:CAPS we do not apply a capital letter unless RS do so with near consistency for the exact case in question. News results show every possible variation, including "What is to be Done?", "What is to be done?", "What Is to be Done?", etc. PS: I'm skeptical that "(Tolstoy)" is a proper disambiguation; it should probably be "(essay)". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC); revised: 10:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What Is To Be Done? → What Is to Be Done?
 * What Is To Be Done? (Tolstoy) → What Is to Be Done? (Tolstoy)
 * What Is To Be Done? (novel) → What Is to Be Done? (novel)
 * What Is To Be Done? (disambiguation) → What Is to Be Done? (disambiguation)
 * Neutral, will watch the discussion, good points in nom and by Dekimasu. Fixed: Initial oppose because your example for consistency is incorrect, the page What Is To Be Done? (novel) is in upper-case. So if consistency is followed then this one should stay as is. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * D'oh! Someone must have moved it.  I noticed that the disambiguation page had that one listed with "to", and so did WikiProject Russia, so I didn't think to check whether the article title was still actually at "to". I've revised the nomination to include the novel and the DAB page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Previously, we had 06:49, September 4, 2016‎ Amakuru moved page What Is to Be Done? (novel) to What Is To Be Done? (novel): "to" is not a preposition here, it is a particle of the infinitive "to be done" so should be capitalised per MOS:CT. Presently, MOS:CT says not to capitalize "to" in infinitives. Of course the novel should also be moved if these are moved. Dekimasu よ! 20:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As far as I know it's said that.  It certainly has since long before 2016.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per MOS:CT. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per MOS:CT. There is no reason to capitalize "to". Darkday (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.