Talk:Nikolai Gumilev

Untitled

The caption to the photo uses the transliteration: Gumilev . Any reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benedictheal (talk • contribs) 18:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of sentence about anniversaries of birth and execution

I've removed the following sentence as it seems to simply state - in rather roundabout terms - that Gumilyov's death happened 35 years after his birth. "Reportedly, Gumilyov's a hundred and tenth anniversary coincided with the seventy-fifth anniversary of his execution." Stumps (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

For an interesting snapshot of Gumilev, see Victor Serge, Memoirs of a Revolutionary, to whom he is quoted as saying, "I am a traditionalist, monarchist, imperialist, and pan-Slavist. Mine is the true Russian nature, just as it was formed by Orthodox Christianity. You also have the true Russian nature, but at its opposite extreme, that of spontaneous anarchy, primitive violence, and unruly beliefs. I love all of Russia, even what I want to fight in it, even what you represent...." It's no wonder he was shot by the Cheka; the real wonder is that he made it to 1921. (The quotation is from Serge, Victor, Memoirs of a Revolutionary, New York, Writers and Readers, 1984, tr. Peter Sedgwick, p. 59.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taganguero (talk • contribs) 18:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

POV

As I already explained here and here, according to mainstream version (official version of governmental commission and books written by an independent historian who had access to archives), Gumilev was not involved in any military conspiracy, and the case was "completely fabricated": all victims including Gumilev were officially rehabilitated. My very best wishes (talk) 04:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Ru-wiki thinks differently. Apparently there was a conspiracy.--Galassi (talk) 04:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an RS. The 3-volume book by historian I quoted is. This is good historian, not Yuri Zhukov, who wrote a "Handbook of Stalinist" and contributed here. Do you want to tell that he actually committed the crime, even after the official rehabilitation? My very best wishes (talk) 05:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Ru-wiki cites numerous sources that confirm some sort of conspiracy, including EMIGRE sources.--Galassi (talk) 05:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you just made this edit. You refer to a book where editor was an FSB general Zdanovich. This is not an RS like book by Shentalinsky. But did you actually read the book by the FSB general, and what exactly does it tell about Nikolai Gumilev? Please quote.My very best wishes (talk) 05:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The scholarly opinion on whether Gumilev was likely mixed up in something is currently DIVIDED. You cannot claim fabrication, because that is WP:SYNTH, POV, OR etc.--Galassi (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The question here is not whether Gumilev "was likely mixed up in something". The question is whether Gumilev was rightly prosecuted by Cheka as a member of apparently non-existing "Military Petrograd organization" or that he was simply a victim of Bolshevik repressions, just like many others. Please quote here good sources which claim former rather than latter. "Fabricated" is not my word, this wording was used in both official conclusion by governmental commission and in the book by historian I quoted. Once again, a lot of people talked that they do not like Bolshevik regime and could join some real resistance if they had a chance, one of them Gumilev. However, that were not charges by Cheka. The charges by Checka and the reason for execution was claim that that all these people (including Tagantsev and Gumilev) have been involved in actual conspiracy, such as would be buying the dynamite (as was described in old Soviet newspapers) and planning any actual operations (to "kill Jews" according to old Soviet newspapers). That was completely fabricated and therefore everyone was officially rehabilitated. In addition, there was no actual organization; Tagantsev simply named people who privately spoke against Bolshevik regime, apparently including housewives. But you did not answer my question if you actually checked the sources prior to reverting. Ruwiki is obviously not an RS. My very best wishes (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

We are not here to decide whether the subject of an article are 'rightly prosecuted'. This is an encyclopaedia; editors are not in the business of vindicating or condemning. We can mention that some sources say one things and some another, pointing to different view points, naming biographies. We must use secondary sources. We aim to hold a neutral point of view, especially where emotive topics like this arise. Span (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

My sentiment exactly.--Galassi (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Right, absolutely. I used the best available secondary source (book by Shentalinsky), along with other sources; made a careful research of other available sources, and posted some of this for discussion here. Sure, we are not in the business of vindicating or condemning. However, we are absolutely in the business of telling if someone was wrongly convicted, according to good secondary sources. @Galassi, I realize that your answer is probably "no"; you did not read the "Digest" (in article about Solzhenitsyn) and the book edited by Zdanovich? My very best wishes (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060404034430/http://www.litera.ru/stixiya/authors/gumilev.html to http://www.litera.ru/stixiya/authors/gumilev.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)