Talk:Julius Martov

message: Leon Trotsky too was a member of the Menshevik faction for a brief period but soon broke with them.
''
I've left this in the article, but it's not substantially correct. Trostky was, at least nominally, a Menshevik from the split in 1903 til April 1917, though he didn't always follow the group in reality. I don't know whether it is best to remove this statement altogether, as it is not pertinent to the article, or reword it to make it clearer. Ephemera (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In think it would be more correct to say that Trotsky stood between the factions after breaking with the Mensheviks in 1904 IIRC. For most of this period he belonged to those who sought to heal the rift between the factions, a grouping often referred to as the Conciliators. It's true that more than occasionally in polemic Lenin lumped the Conciliators together with the Mensheviks in one amalgam but there was no real organisational link between Trotsky and the Mensheviks after 1904 other than the fact that both Trotsky and the Mensheviks considered themselves to be members of the same party, the RSDLP. --Mia-etol (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Sophistry. This "was a member of the Menshevik faction for a brief period but soon broke with them" is simply put there by someone who cannot deny that Trotsky was a Meshevik (it is a matter of historical record) but wants to severely underplay it, they are embarassed by it and want to make it look like something that didn't really happen. Trotsky wrote for and organised with the Mesheviks as part of their organisation up until 1917.  Talk about POV getting into an article :-D  82.71.39.170 (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

text: I have changed this part in the article to: "Leon Trotsky too was a member of the Menshevik faction until 1917." EmSim15 (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trotsky's Affiliation 

message: I am curious what others think about removing this comment from the first paragraph. To me, this comment is a result of a rivalry and has no real bearing on who Martov was as an organizer and revolutionary. It may be useful to mention it at some point within the article, but I feel like it is unlikely that it is useful in the intro, and paints the wrong picture of Martov. (Check out the "Introduction" in Paul Kellog's 2022 translation of Martov's work World Bolshevism (pp. 20-25) to see what I am talking about and the issues with this characterization). EmSim15 (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hamlet of the Russian Revolution" 

message: By my count 21 of the 51 references in this article, nearly half, are to one source, Figues.  This seems rather excessive, particularly for someone who is not an obscure figure. PatGallacher (talk) 16:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This article doesn't merit a one-source tag at all. There are over 10 other sources referenced and Figes is considered to be one of the foremost experts on the Russian revolutions. Citations could be in one constant style. Meanderingbartender (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: He may be, but he's hardly the only one on what is not exactly an obscure historical episode. PatGallacher (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: And that's why there's over ten other references listed. Meanderingbartender (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

text: I agree that it may be a bit excessive and we could work to add to it. I also don't think there needs to be a bibliography with only that source either. We should either remove that section or add all the other sources to it. EmSim15 (talk) 03:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  One source