Talk:The Gulag Archipelago

Question

Why is its Nobel Prize credentials not listed in the article?

Because it wasn't yet published or even known when Solzhenitsyn was awarded the Prize in 1970. The Academy had no idea of the existence of the book, nor had any of his Western publishers. The credentials do stress, however, S' sense of moral and human mission in his writing ("the ethical force with which he has rekindled the priceless heritage of Russian literature")Strausszek August 24, 2006 13:50 (CET)

According to Solzhenitsyn's memoirs (The Oak and the Calf), the international publicity garnered by his winning of the Nobel Prize (and the further stir caused by his insistence that it be presented to him in Moscow) enabled him to speak out more boldly than ever during that period, and was a large part of why he was not simply executed. He held that if Gulag had been discovered by the Organs a few years sooner he would not have survived to see it published. Michael Isaiah Schmidt (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Acronym

"Gulag" is the Russian word for prison, and an archipelago is, of course, a chain of islands. The idea behind this is that the Soviet concentration camp system under Lenin and Stalin were like an island of prisons spread all over the Soviet Union. the acronym is derived from

G   GLAVNOE    = PRINCIPAL
U   UPRAVLENIE   RULE for DIRECTORATE
LAG LAGEREI      CONCENTRATION CAMP from germ LAGER
    ISPRAVITELNO RECTIFY
    TRUDOVYKH    TRUD = LABOR

as if the point was REFORM WORK

Bertrand Russell

Would anyone be opposed to a mention of two comments that Solzhenitsyn made to Bertrand Russell within this book somewhere in this article? We're looking for a place to put a snippet of important content that got placed into another article that may or may not belong there. Thanks. KC9CQJ 06:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Solzh made four comments in total, two to Bertrand Russell, two to Russell Tribunal.--nobs

If I am following this correctly, I assume you refer to comments made to the spirit of Russell? He had already passed away before those comments were written, and long before they were published. Important content is always welcome, of course, and needs no permission prior to insertion -- providing it is appropriate to the article. 165.247.222.122 02:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That would be correct, following your associated comments at Russell Tribunal. We're trying to figure out where the Solzhenitsyn material should go, whether it should be mentioned at Russell Tribunal, within Bertrand Russell, or within Gulag Archipelago. My comment above was intended to provoke thought and encourage comment. I'd like to see these quotes go somewhere relevant, wherever that may be. KC9CQJ 10:18, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Russell Tribunal

The Gulag Archipelago contains two reference spoken dirently to the Russell War Crimes Tribunal. They belong on the Russell Tribunal page. Any assisitance readers of this page can give on the Russell Talk page will would be appreciated.

Directly to the Tribunal? The Tribunal had long been disbanded before these comments were published; the Tribunal never saw them. Your statement that these footnotes from The Gulag Archipelago belong on the Russell Tribunal page is incorrect. They add nothing of value to that article. Perhaps you can use them here, in The Gulag Archipelago article, to illustrate Solzhenitsyn's frustration at the lack of similar Tribunals examining the crimes of the Soviet Gulag system. -Rob 16:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Like Bertrand Russell in 1950, Alexander Solzhenitsyn was recognized Nobel Laureate in Literature for 1974 after the The Gulag Archipelago had been published in the West. The following two passages were written contemporaneously to the Russell tribunal proceedings.

English translation (by Harry Willetts, Harper & Row 1976):

"Say there, Bertrand Russell's War Crimes Tribunal! Why don’t you use this bit of material? Or doesn’t it suit you?" Vol. I, Part I, chap. 2, p. 537.

"Attention, Bertrand Russell and Jean-Paul Sartre, with your War Crimes Tribunal! Attention, philosophers, here's material for you! Why not hold a session? They can't hear me...." Vol. III, Part V, chap. 12, p. 328. Russian text:

"Эй, "Трибунал Военных Преступлений" Бертрана Рассела! Что же вы, что ж вы материальчик не берете?! Аль вам не подходит?". "Эй, "Трибунал Военных Преступлений" Бертрана Рассела и Жана Поля Сартра! Эй, философы! Матерьял-то какой! Отчего не заседаете? Не слышат..." nobs

I would STRONGLY advise any 'concerned' users that nobs is referring to above hold their comments until the Russell Tribunal discussion page is cleaned up and an appropriate Request for comment on the article is issued. Please see User_talk:Kc9cqj/Russell Tribunal for further details. KC9CQJ 05:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOV issue

"Tenno declined, and probably for the better. It is Solzhenitsyn's tightly focused, highly emotional prose, which moves this book from point to point smoothly and unifies the work as a whole. The impact of the book is not in any way diminished by translation, a testament to its writer's literary skills."

This seems to be straying from 'pedia style to book review style, advocating the book directly. Is there any documentary support for the statement that the translation doesn't diminish the impact? Who, exactly, thinks that it's better that Tenno declined? -- Vonfraginoff 06:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly, this needs an NPOV tag. The tone of this article is completely ga-ga for the book.

Dawson 06:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"Slave Labor Economy"

It says early on that Lenin paved the way for a 'slave labor economy'. This is totally untrue (if you've ever read Lenin). Theory expressed in writings is one thing, the reality another. I doubt if Stalin's writings openly promote slavery.--Constanz - Talk 14:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"One third of the population of Leningrad was sent to Gulag"

The sentence removed until sources presented.--Nixer 06:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Volume I, Page 58 of The Gulag Archipelago reads:
"It is also believed that one quarter of Leningrad was purged--cleaned out--in 1934-1935. Let this estimate be disproved by those who have the exact statistics and are willing to publish them."
No statistics are likely to be found. There is talk above regarding the 1937 census. This situation does not necessarily preclude the inclusion of this information - so long as it is mentioned as a belief from the book, not a statistic - in the article. As of this time there is no mention of Leningrad anywhere in the article, but plenty on the talk page.
The unfortunate truth is that unverifiable claims are a huge part of the "Structure and factual basis" of this work, which makes things tricky. Michael Isaiah Schmidt (talk) 04:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

"Not finished"?

The article claims that the Archipelago was still a work-in-progress when published. I don't think this is true, the book was finished in 1968 - it ends with two brief postscripts dated 1967 and 1968, and after that Solzhenitsyn seems to have regarded it as definitely finished. He had made an effort in 1966-67 to get it finished and also to establish a clear and coherently edited structure and text (not easy when you're writing a book in utter secrecy and can't keep a full script at your house). This finishing-off let him turn to other projects, notably the novel cycle The Red Wheel. He had microfilms of the script smuggled out to his legal representative/agent Dr Heeb in Switzerland, and finally it was published in the West in December, 1973, which in turn triggered Sasha's arrest and banishment.

I've read the work in full and a number of others of S's works, and I think one can also see there are traces of different layers of the working process in it; for example the final chapter of Part 1, Tiurzak, about state prisons, as opposed to camps, seems to have been finished relatively early. Strausszek August 22, 2006 13:25 (CET)

As most people here on the talk page (or who have read the entry closely) seem to be aware, this is not the most brilliant article of Wikipedia. I added some needed corrections and modified the view that this would be the first or only work up to 1974 that exposed the Soviet camp system - there had been many books before, and it's not true at all that most writers in the West saw the purges and the camps as just a Stalin aberration until Sasha came along - though this is a popular idea.

Popper's The Open Society and its Enemies (1945) makes about the same claims on Soviet totalitarianism as the latter part of the current article, and Koestler probably comes close too. Of course the view that Solzhenitsyn "proves indisputably" that the GULag system was rooted in the policies and free decisions of Lenin is a POV (I modified that into writing he "sets out to prove" this, still leaves the POV argument clear -edit August 27) but as it is, the viewpoints and perspectives stand inside the article and illuminate the different sides of the work. Strausszek August 23, 2006 21:30 (CET)

Revision of latter part

I've just revised mainly the latter part, about the influence and, in particular, the circumstances in which the Archipelago was published (new section). There's been a lot of unreliable or fake detail hanging around since this spring, some of it had been cleared out already, like the insane claim that the city censuses of Leningrad in the 1930s became top secret documents because half the population had dropped out (sent to Gulag or killed) by 1939, but the bits about the structure and publication of the book had a lot to do. Sources are Solzhenitsyn's own autobiography and writings by some people who helped him by bringing manuscripts out etc. i've tried reasonably to avoid POVs here. Strausszek August 27, 2006 19:02 (CET)

Actually, Melanie Ilic of the University of Gloucestershire, in her article "The Great Terror: Leningrad--A Quantitative Analysis," published in Europe-Asia Studies (Vol. 52, No. 8 (Dec., 2000), pp. 1515-1534) discusses the drop-off of the Leningrad population by about a third. In that same article, in passim, she confirms the suppression of the 1937 Leningrad census, ref'd above. The suppression of the '37 census is common knowledge in Soviet studies, and amply documented.--TallulahBelle 01:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Book Length

The article claims the book is around 1800 pages long, but editions on amazon are rarly above around 600. Am I to believe these are only sections of the complete work, or there is no complete published edition? Robinoke 15:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

1800 pages is just about correct. The English paperback editions are split as follows:

• Vol. I sections 1-2
• Vol. II sections 3-4
• Vol. III sections 5-7

Each of these around 600 pages. Probably the same with hardcover, since paperbacks most often are reprints of a hardcover edition and have the same paging and typeface. I read the work in the Swedish translation, an excellent one. Strausszek September 2, 2006 22:50 (CET)

Ah, that explains it. Thanks! Robinoke 12:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Abridged (authorised) English edition since 1988

In 1988, an abridged one-volume version of The Gulag Archipelago was published. It has been in print ever since and a 50th anniversary version of that edition was published last year, including, for the first time, the names of all 258 witnesses who supplied Solzhenitsyn with the testimony on which he based his book. Many got in touch with him after the publication of "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" (1962).

John Crowfoot (talk) 03:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Dubious

Obviously repression, including political imprisonments, continued up to — and after — 1991. However, the Gulag system was disbanded between 1954-1960. Subsequent imprisonments were not under the auspices of GULAG and did not use the same methods. Also, statements of the form, "it is interesting to note that..." are rarely if ever appropriate, since they involve subjective judgments without attributing the opinion. <eleland/talkedits> 05:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the relevant phrasing. <eleland/talkedits> 02:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

dates please

Please add dates to "The book was published" and "The KGB seized". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leafgreen (talk • contribs) 01:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

the book was published in 1974 not 1973! --91.19.217.27 (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Russian-language original (of Vol.1 anyway) appeared on 28 December 1973. Translations into dozens of languages followed during the first six months of 1974. 83.254.151.33 (talk) 08:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Cross in the sand

This year, Sen. John McCain has repeatedly used the story of his prison guard drawing a cross in the sand, very similar to a passage in this book. Questions have arisen as to whether 1) Solzhenitsyn used McCain's story in the book or 2) whether McCain stole the story from the book or 3) if this was a common occurrence in prisons. I know this is a topical issue, and the state of the original research may be lacking, but I think it is relevant and worth describing. Has anyone seen research on this that they can link to? Bagsc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.237.253 (talk) 01:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

-- It might be worth first checking if the story actually appears in the TGA at all and provide a reference: I don't recall it from my one-time skim of the book, and most of the blog furore seems to be Chinese Whispers of other blogs (imagine that!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.227.163 (talk) 23:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

GULag or Gulag?

The two terms are both used in this article, and this should be cleaned up. I think that "gulag" (no caps) is better; it's certainly more commonly used, and it's as used by Solzhenitsyn in the book. QMarion II (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

In the edition I have, 1974 American English, the word 'Gulag' seems to only appear with the first letter capitalized. Specifically in the Preface (Page x) where it appears italicized for dramatic effect, and on Page 133 where it is used twice in parlance, capitalized. I can find other instances if necessary, but it seems the word should be capitalized throughout. It should also be noted that Gulag appears that way in its own article. As far as the acronym 'GULag' is concerned, it stands to reason that this should be used solely when referring to the actual institution. Michael Isaiah Schmidt (talk) 03:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Better to use Gulag

The correct transcription is GULag, since the term is an acronym, introduced in 1929: the Main Directorate of Camps. There is an illiterate and demeaning usage of a plural "gulags", applied to the Soviet Union and, even, to other countries (e.g. Indonesia): that is simply wrong -- would you say holocausts or shoahs about the 1941-1944 extermination of Europe's Jews by the Nazis? Of course, not.

To distinguish this as a unique historical phenomenon -- Solzhenitsyn offers the chronological limits 1918 to 1956 -- it would seem best to write Gulag with a capital G.

The existing English translation / edition of The Gulag Archipelago, unfortunately, is not necessarily a reliable guide on this or other matters. The first volume was produced in great haste by a non-professional translator and published in 1974; there was more time to work on the second volume which appeared in 1975; the third volume did not appear in English until 1978 and it was the work of a British academic who translated a number of other Solzhenitsyn works.

John Crowfoot (talk) 03:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Language in infobox

The language in the infobox is given as "French, originally Russian". Why not simply "Russian"? The text of the article says that it was originally published in Russian (in France), as well as being written in Russian. - Robina Fox (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

No reason has been given, so I'll change it. Robina Fox (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Adding some terms to See Also

I added "Article 58", "Kulak" and "Seven-Eighths Rule" (Law of Spikelets) to the See Also section. While Solzhenitsyn does adequately explain all these concepts in the text, the terms are used so often throughout the text that a reader who misses the initial explanation may benefit from the information in those articles. The author also seems to presuppose some knowledge of Russian history, which is understandable as he was writing for a Russian audience, but most English speakers know little of Soviet history and personalities.

While, of course, a reader could simply look up the articles, it might be convenient to have the links here, as these were among the main sources of inmates in the Gulag (besides those who had committed non-political crimes). The book uniformly refers to the Seven-Eighths Rule/Law, not the "Law of Spikelets" as it is referred to in Wikipedia. Roches (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Natalya Reshetovskaya's criticism of "The Gulag Archipelago" was Soviet propaganda?

Up until recently, this article (as well as Gulag) contained a claim that Natalya Reshetovskaya's criticism of The Gulag Archipelago was fabricated Soviet propaganda, but this has been removed by Special:Contributions/137.103.87.181. The description of the edits is "Removed content that wasn't in the source cited", and "There's no such claim in the Mitrokhin Archive", but this is not the case. "The Mitrokhin Archive: The KGB in Europe and the West" does contain this claim, so I do not believe that the reason for these removals is justified. Omcnoe (talk) 06:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you cite the paragraph the material somehow? It's also clear The Mitrokhin Archive needs it's own section within criticism, not just an easily-overlooked line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:B083:1B00:90E3:75F1:7F4D:9E23 (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Gulag Archipelago. 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://archive.is/20130113181358/http://video.yandex.ru/users/fancyfly/view/39/ to http://video.yandex.ru/users/fancyfly/view/39/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130311152853/http://a-solzhenitsyn.narod.ru/arhipelag_gulag/ to http://a-solzhenitsyn.narod.ru/arhipelag_gulag/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

waxes philosophically? Really?

This article contains, for the last five years the claim that Solzhenitsyn "waxes philosophically".

Now, my understanding is that this expression has a definitive and negative connotation of idle and vain chatter. Is that intended here, and if so, should it be? Wefa (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Nobody had addressed this, and I agree it was a poor choice of words. Corrected. CordialGreenery (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

About the English translation desaster, see author's text Between Two Millstones

According to part 2 of his memoirs, Between Two Millstones, the microfilm of Gulag Archipelago was smuggled to the west by Olga Carlisle, who had promised Solzhenitzyn to get the work translated into English (she had previously obtained an English translation of The First Circle, which was hopelessly spoiled by amateurish editing. Between 1968 and 1973 Carlisle had not obtained an English translation, there existed only a first draft by Whitney. So Solzhenitzyn and his friends had to microfilm the manuscript again and get it smuggled to the west, because Carlisle would not deliver her copy but insisted of having world rights on the book. First foreign translations appeared in French, German and Swedish.Hpesch (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Historian, Historians?

The accuracy of the book has been questioned by historians Is this appropriate to include in the opening paragraph , considering it's the opinion of one historian? --Mikeroetto (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this is out of place and WP:UNDUE. I've removed it. CordialGreenery (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

There are numerous citations both in the lead and in the criticism section below showing it has been criticised for inaccuracy.116.90.229.186 (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

IP was reverted and warned on their talk page. Get consensus and participate in the talk page before reverting things you dislike. CordialGreenery (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The onus is on you per WP:BRD. Now engage on the talk page.116.90.229.186 (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

What do you think this is? You have not achieved consensus to revert the changes. Stop edit warring and participate in the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CordialGreenery (talk • contribs) 19:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

You have now broken the WP:3RR rule. Again see WP:BRD the onus is on you to gain consensus.116.90.229.186 (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The current revision has consensus. You, as the vandal, have the onus to find consensus to delete it. Your constant deletionism without explanation or discussion is vandalism and has been treated as such. CordialGreenery (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The contents of Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago (1973, 1980, 2006)

Solzhenitsyn includes everything concerning the crimes of the Soviet regime, from 1918 to 1956 and beyond -- from the show trials and executions of the Civil War period to the systematic peacetime repression of the peasantry (1929-1933), the Great Terror in 1937-1938, the wartime deportation of "traitor" nations, and even the post-Stalin 1962 massacre in Novocherkassk.

The book is NOT just about the Gulag (which should always be spelled with a capital G), the Soviet system of forced labour in the network of camps, that expanded rapidly between 1929 and 1953. It covers many other forms of persecution and repression, as listed above. In the very last section, Without Stalin, it even covers the use of the army in 1962 to suppress workers' protests in southern Russia.

John Crowfoot (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Publication details, 1973-1978

Let it here be known that the publication details for The Gulag Archipelago, as presently listed in this entry, are incomplete.

It was first published on 28 December 1973 in Paris by the YMCA Press publishers, headed by Nikita Struve. Subsequently, the book was translated into French and English and appeared sometime in the spring of 1974. That was after Solzhenitsyn ahd been expelled from the USSR, on 13 February.

It is only fair and right to name the first three publishers of the Russian, French and English translations; the dates and translators of the subsequent two volumes. If someone disputes any of these details, let them raise the point here.

I shall wait for a day, and then restore the information I entered in the article on 8 May or thereabouts.

John Crowfoot (talk) 04:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Loaded language

"A controversial work, authored by a historian suspected of working with British intelligence, claims that her memoirs were part of a KGB campaign"

WTF? Controversial to who? By what standard? The historian "suspected" of working with UK intelligence is in fact MI5's official historian. It's like saying Andy Murray is a suspected tennis player. This is a clear attempt to discredit material the overwhelming academic consensus is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:B083:1B00:90E3:75F1:7F4D:9E23 (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Revert

@Ceoil: You justified your purge of my material on the grounds that they were "not good sources overall" but the claim is clearly nonsensical because ALL of the sources I used were good, reliable sources accordingly to any guideline you can think of WP:RSP, WP:PUS, etc. Explain your revert, if you don't then I will revert back . Flaughtin (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, nonsensical. Ceoil (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ceoil: This isn't an explanation. Be more specific. How were the sources not good? I used Reuters, Economist NYT, public broadcasters from Australia,Canada and France, books written by notable people. Do you have a problem with them because the sources are all "Western"? Flaughtin (talk) 03:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@C.J. Griffin: Please comment on this as he is ignoring my notification (he has edited on other articles). I am pinging you because we have interacted before [1] Flaughtin (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I've restored the material per WP:SILENCE and WP:Stonewalling (the user who removed my edit has edited other pages in the intervening period despite my notification to him to discuss this.) Flaughtin (talk) 07:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Stop edit warring and follow WP:BRD. As User:C.J. Griffin has already explained to you your sources are utter garbage for a historical article.80.111.44.144 (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Try again. The source are all entirely legit per WP:RSP, WP:PUS, etc. so obviously they can be used for a historical article; I don't see any of this crap that they can't. Don't just copy what Ceoil said, you actually need to do the research and look at the guidelines. And read next time the user you pinged wasnt the one who made that nonsensical comment it it was the other guy. Flaughtin (talk) 02:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

This is a historical article not we don't just include the random opinions of random magazines. Yiu have been reverted by three separate people now stop edit warring. 80.111.44.144 (talk) 10:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

80.111.44.144 Firstly stop making this kind of wild accusation as you did here. Keep making those kinds of comments and pretty soon you are going to get yourself blocked. (WP:BOOM) It violates (at least) civil conduct and does not asume good faith - policies that you would be well aware of given your experience. Not everyone who disagrees with your purge of the material is a sockpuppet of me. That said the editing record of that user is abnormal and I can also forsee future users who would (understandably) take issue with your mass blanking of material so in the interest of not getting entangled in any of this shitty back-and-forth about sockpuppetry, edit warring, etc again I am going to declare at the outset that I am not going to revert what you have done until this issue out on the talk page here first (even though I would be well within my right to do so - you can't tell people to abide by WP:BRD as you did here and then not abide by it yourself when you've been reverted on the same grounds). If other users do actually revert your edits, that is on them, not me and I expect you to not come up with this nonsensical allegation of sockpuppetry again

Moving on

The material that you purged weren't of random opinions, magazines or whatever. What is random is your opinion that those sources, people, etc are random. I have already told you what the relevant policies for this are - again, this is stuff that you would be well aware of given your experience. The sources I cited were all reliable sources and nearly all the people who i cited were notable enough to have their own wikipedia page. Don't just regurgitate tthe same argument that the sourcse are no good, you have to be speific and actually explain how and what part of it is no good - clinging on to the opinions of another editor who just ran away from my request for clarification isn't an explanation. Since you are the one who is making this accusation, you are responsible for backing it up with your own arguments. And by the way, on that note, you can forget about trotting out this line about how "three people reverted me" again: three people have reverted you and you are the only one doing the counter reverts. Flaughtin (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Well first of all WP:STATUSQUO applies so I have not breached any Wikipedia policy. Secondly just because a source is generally reliable does not mean it should be included. There are Porn news magazines that are reliable but that doesn't mean we should include them in this article. 80.111.44.144 (talk) 08:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Alright so I am going to ignore your wikilawyering (you can't argue with me on this. You reverted somebody using BRD and I reverted you using the same thing so that should have been the end of it. If I really wanted to prove a point I could have just kept reverting you and there would have been nothing you could have done about it: you would be going over WP:3RR first and you know it) and just get straight to what matters. How and what part of the sources I used were no good. I am not going to ask you again. I am not interested in your views about pornography - perfectly fine if that is what you do in your spare time or put on your personal blog but that's not what matters here. All i care about is ending this back-and-forth circlejerk. Honestly, this really, really isn't fucking hard to do. If you aren't going to answer my question then I am going to get somebody else who will (WP:3O) Flaughtin (talk) 10:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok Well first of all threatening to edit war is not a very good approach to take. Also you clearly do not understand WP:BRD. You are challenging the WP:STATUSQUO. As two other users have already explained to you and I have explained to you multiple times, the opinions of random journalists should not just be scattered throughout the article. The opinions of historians should be included. After all this is a history article, not a current affairs article. 80.111.44.144 (talk) 10:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

But now you are distorting reality you see. You edit warred I didn't. End of. You ask others to abide by BRD but you won't do it yourself. End of. You can deny it all you want, but the facts don't lie. Don't try to weasel your way out of this by making it about my (non-existent) threats.

I am going to ask for a third opinion on this seeing as it is very clear you have no/refuse to have an idea about what is going on. This isn't a history article, it's a literary article (it's about a book) so your nonsensical theory about historians doesn't apply; even if it was a history article, that doesn't mean only the opinions of historians can be included. The people whose opinions you purged (from this version of the impact section) aren't even journalists and even if they were their views can still be included in this article. (it's all coming from reliable sources) I don't know what you are trying to prove by dragging this out because at this point you are just stalling - most, if not all, of the material is going to be restored. It's just a matter of time before it happens. I know it, you know it, we all know it. But like i said, it's off to 3O we go. Flaughtin (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• I am looking at the version restored by Flaughtin (right part of this diff) and do not see any problem with sources. Unless there are some specific objections, I think all of that can be restored, excluding only one paragraph I tried to fix, but this is easy to fix again. My very best wishes (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

So I reverted to version by Flaughtin. If there are specific objections, please explain here. Also, noticing that the only "opponent" to the version by Flaughtin, IP 80.111.44.144, was just blocked foe sockpuppetry. (My very best wishes (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Many thanks for your help on this. That said, I suggest that you/we keep an eye on this in the strong likelihood that the ip comes back and starts edit warring again (the block applies for only 1 month)

2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 @Isaiahpeters: 96.246.0.169 As IP user 80.111.44.144 has edit warred with every one of you, please take note of the latest developments above and take the appropriate action Flaughtin (talk) 01:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:PEACOCK

I don't care how many adverbs you add SkeletonFan1776 but listing an author's awards in the lede about an author's book is WP:PEACOCK regardless of context. Please remove from this section. This is material appropriate for Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn where the word "Nobel" appears sixteen times. But the Nobel Prize is not awarded for specific books but rather for a body of work, so it's not appropriate here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm really sorry you feel that way. And I value your opinion. That fact that he earned the prize is really actually very important, more important than his nationality, and that's included. But your feelings on the matter are noted, even of they don't really matter in this instance. SkeletonFan1776 (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not a matter of my feelings. Simply put, the book didn't win that prize. The author did. As such that prize is not relevant to the book. It is relevant to the author. Simonm223 (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

No comments from historians or criticism?

In the current version of the article, there is no section which talks about historical accuracy of this work or what historians think about it. For obvious reasons, having such a section is very important for this article.

Natalia Svetlova

See [2]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)