Talk:What Is to Be Done?

message: 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)
thread_title:  (Primary Topic) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lars who? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Capitalization 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Misinterpretations According to Lars Lih - What did Lenin mean, according to Lih? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Is there no one on Wikipedia competent to say what Lenin's words really Meant? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why is the interpretation included? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  (credited as N. Lenin)