text:
Talk:Lenin's Testament

Authenticity needs to be discussed
Based just on my own reading of the document, and my knowledge that it was only discovered years later, led me want to know more about the document's claims to authenticity.

Lenin shows great foresight in this document. Any time you 'rediscover' a lost document whose author is extremely prescient, questions of authenticity immediately leap to mind.

Not saying the document is inauthentic-- just saying-- inquiring minds like mine wanna know :) --HectorMoffet (talk) 04:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Seconding this. Kotkin has a skeptical reading of the testament and its provenance, in light of documentary evidence, including the lack of dictation notes and doctors' journal indicating Lenin had already lost his speech at the time it was authored. It may have been Krupskaya's interpretation of Lenin's opinion rather than an actual dictation. As-is, the article relies too much on primary sources and takes those at face value. iml (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

 * On the other hand, Robert Service, one of the most knowledgeable western scholars on Lenin and Bolshevism, suggested that the document may have been tampered with already in 1923 and partly suppressed by Stalin and his associates. They could not eradicate the criticism of Stalin but there may have been even more pungent parts that were removed. 195.67.149.174 (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

 * I added this. Would welcome others' edits and corrections. SS451 (talk) 01:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Authenticity is historical consensus
The view that this document is inauthentic is a fringe conspiracy theory raised in recent years by a handful of extremely pro-Stalin revisionist historians like Valentin Sakharov and Grover Furr.

The document was considered authentic by the Soviet leadership (who nevertheless dismissed it with the argument that the USSR was not a monarchy and therefore not beholden to Lenin's will), its authenticity was not challenged by Stalin who had a stake in doing so, and it appeared in Lenin's Collected Works.

This article has clearly been the victim of a Stalinist POV edit campaign to misrepresent an extreme minority position among historians as being widespread. When I have the time I will be collecting sources from respected historians and Soviet authorities affirming the authenticity of the document, and adding those to the article. Famisht (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

 * As the editor who initially added the material about its disputed authenticity to the article, I kind of resent the accusation of Stalinism. (I am not a Stalinist.) It's kind of odd to interpret a somewhat esoteric historical controversy about the provenance of this document as though it represents a live front in a political conflict that has been over for 90 years. I am also skeptical that Stephen Kotkin can be fairly characterized as a Stalinist, since his biography is overall very critical of Stalin--unsurprising, since he was a paranoid mass murderer.

 * With that said, I do not claim to be any kind of expert on this matter or the history of the era. I read the Kotkin biography and thought it made interesting points that were not covered in the article, so I added them. None of the substantive points you raise seem decisive to me--why can't it be the case that the Soviet leadership of the time, including Stalin, was deceived? To the extent other historians have responded to these arguments, that should be included; to the extent that the revisionist position on the Testament's authenticity can be shown by a consensus of established sources to be a fringe view, the discussion of it could be cut down to a brief reference to avoid undue weight. SS451 (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 * The original source which Kotkin relies on for his claim is V. Sakharov, a Stalinist polemicist. For this reason it seems very strange to list Sakharov as another historian that concurs with Kotkin, as opposed to explaining the origins of the idea and how Kotkin would later raise the issue while citing Sakharov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chilltherevolutionist (talk • contribs) 06:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Is Sakharov really a stalinist? His russian wikipedia page contains no such information. Seekallknowledge (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Oh yes, there is no doubts in authenticity. This claim is WP:FRINGE, and I think it should simply be removed from the page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sakharov is an ardent Stalinist, as can be seen from his 2003 book on Lenin's "testament" Политическое завещание Ленина and his book on the Katyn Massacre НЕМЦЫ В КАТЫНИ (where he argues it was wholly carried out by the Nazis).--Magneez (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

 * A lot historians have become increasingly critical of its authencity so I do not see any reason not to include it. And also lets drop the red baiting about "Stalinist povs".PailSimon (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Soviet leadership viewing it as authentic and treating it as authentic is not evidence of its authenticity. Stick to facts, please. 98.122.56.33 (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Additional comment The recent inclusion of "However this remains a fringe theory which is rejected by the large majority of historians." seems problematic to me for two reasons, the first is that it is sourced to 'World Socialist Web Site' (not a reliable source), the second is that the term fringe is not even used.PailSimon (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but it is not "a lot" of historians. It is the research of only one historian (Sakharov) who is really a pseudo-historian. Grover Furr recently published a book that simply summarizes Sakharov's "findings", and Kotkin never flat-out agrees with Sakharov. He just says the so-called testament MAY have been forged, and cites Sakharov. Note also that Sakharov's main argument is that Stalin and Lenin were so close (!) that Lenin could  not have been so critical of Stalin as in his final dictations. This is obviously not a serious historian. A meticulous study of the Will/Testament was published by Yuri Buranov in 1994 and translated to English as Lenin's Will: Falsified and Forbidden--Magneez (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

 * I changed it to (this view is not widely accepted) also Stephen Kotkin is a good source, he is Professor History at Princeton University.BasketballfanLIT (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

 * No, he is not good source about it. Here is what Keith Gessen say :

 * This is a typical WP:FRINGE opinion by a single persion. My very best wishes (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources don't use the term fringe so this is all WP:OR.PailSimon (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

 * Stephen Kotkin in general is good source but he did say something that is not widely accepted, as we can see with what the journalist said.BasketballfanLIT (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You said "I changed it to". What your edit are you talking about? My very best wishes (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

 * PailSimon said the sources don't use the term fringe that is why I changed it to (However this view is not widely accepted).BasketballfanLIT (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

 * I may not go to the barricades on this, but the term fringe theory appears to me to be legitimate. PatGallacher (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

like PailSimon said if the sources don't use the term fringe it all WP:OR?BasketballfanLIT (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

 * I looked up the name of the one historian who one user said was a Stalinist and it does not come up he is  http://publ.lib.ru/ARCHIVES/S/SAHAROV_Valentin_Aleks  Сахаров, Валентин Александрович

It is the hallmark of Stalinists to claim that Stalin and his allies continued the politics of Bolshevism/Leninism and that Trotsky's Left Opposition (so-called "Trotskyism") was an anti-communist and anti-Bolshevik deviation. This kind of rhetoric continues throughout Sakharov's book.--Magneez (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is an excerpt from Sakharov's introduction to his book on Lenin's Testament, which makes it abundantly clear that he is a Stalinist: "Each [political tendency] viewed the problems of Lenin's "Testament" through the prism of an acute political struggle on the issues of building socialism.   In the late 50s, a new version appeared, the political customer and inspirer of which was N.S. Khrushchev. It mechanically combined the anti-Trotskyism of the Stalinist (Bolshevik) conception and the anti-Stalinism of the Trotskyist (anti-Bolshevik) conception." The Russian Original is: ""Каждая из них рассматривала проблематику ленинского «Завещания» через призму острой политической борьбы по вопросам строительства социализма. В конце 50-х годов появляется новая версия, политическим заказчиком и вдохновителем которой был Н.С. Хрущев. В ней оказались механически увязаны антитроцкизм сталинской (большевистской) концепции и антисталинизм троцкистской (антибольшевистской)." (Sakharov, Lenin's Political Testament, Introduction)

 * Editors, don't forget that Wikipedia is guided by WP:V and WP:RS. Any claim that X historian is a Stalinist and should, therefore, be highlighted, needs to be properly referenced, because Wikipedia is not a WP:FORUM. -- BunnyyHop ( talk ) 04:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Can someone please quote here what exactly these allegedly Stalinist Russian writers say? In particular, did they say that the author was Trotsky? Well, that would be even more ridiculous. If no one can verify it (I could not) and cite here, then this is failed verification and the claim should be removed. My very best wishes (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being late. Sakharov does not say who he thinks the "real author" of the so-called "testament" is - he just insists that the author is not Lenin. Kotkin read Sakharov and says that his study creates some doubt as to authenticity, and further suggests that Krupskaya may have influenced the text, but does not say outright that she authored the testament, least of all the recommendation to remove Stalin from gensek position. Another award-winning Russian author named Lev Danilkin, clearly influenced by Sakharov, explicitly reasons by elimination that Kruspaka is the real author, since nobody else was both physically close to Lenin at the time and had any plausible motive to do so. It is important to note that the only "scholarship" on this matter was done by Sakharov, and the others (Kotkin, Danilkin, Furr) do not add any new evidence. Having read Sakharov, it is pretty clear that he is a Stalinist who is interested in showing that the testament is a forgery in order to "prove" that Lenin did not at all take up any struggle in his final months (before being incapacitated entirely) against the ascendant bureaucracy and Stalin. In other words, Sakharov (and Furr behind him) are interested in negating the thesis associated with scholars like Yuri Buranov and Moshe Lewin (Lenin's Last Struggle). Magneez (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing so far? My very best wishes (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually this whole section should be removed per WP:verifiability: "Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine, history, politics" and "apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources". There Russian fellows (allegedly Stalinists - see citation above) are not "mainstream sources". The book by Kotkin - yes, but this is just one source (not multiple sources) and an opinion by one man. My very best wishes (talk) 04:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

As the editor who added this section, here are my thoughts. I definitely do not think this meets the definition of a fringe theory. It does not appear to me that this significantly alters mainstream assumptions in history, given that this is a relatively minor part of the careers of the people involved. There's a lot of other historical evidence about the relationship between Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky, and I don't see that Kotkin is attempting to overturn the historical consensus on those relationships, he is simply questioning the authenticity of this particular group of documents. Kotkin's book was widely reviewed in mainstream publications by professional historians, and apart from the World Socialist Website piece, I have not seen Kotkin's view on this outright rejected anywhere. Even the New Yorker article only presents reasons for skepticism.
 * Comment: This is not a critical part of the article. There are plenty of areas of the article that need attention, expansion, and citations. These areas have ample scholarly consensus and sources which are accessible and document factual information. I've added sections and moved some content, but it needs work.  // Timothy :: talk  06:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

As to the World Socialist Website review, it does seem to me like a reliable source. Although I am no expert in the area, it seems that the author is highly familiar with the historiography of this era, and presents a coherent critique of Kotkin's argument about the Testament. The website as a whole is openly Trotskyist, so they have an editorial viewpoint that probably played into the decision to run this critical review of a biography that is critical of Trotsky. I frankly think the reviewer portrays Kotkin's biography as more sympathetic to Stalin than it actually is, but I don't think that the reviewer's summary of the mainstream historical consensus on this issue is unreliable. It does seem to me that the reviewer is mostly citing work that was done before the recent books questioning the Testament's authenticity, so it may well be that the inauthenticity thesis attracts more support over time, but it's not our business to predict that.

With all that said, I think I probably gave Kotkin's view undue weight in creating a whole new section and detailing the specific reasons why he contends that the Testament is inauthentic. I think a two-to-three sentence version which explains the historical controversy, doesn't label Kotkin's view as either Stalinist or fringe, but also explains that most historians have accepted the Testament's authenticity would probably be appropriate. What do others think about that change? SS451 (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not a "particular group of documents". This is one of the most famous documents in Soviet history. It has been debated hundreds times from a lot of different angless by different historians none of whom claimed it to be authored by someone else. The claim by a Kotkin is fringe and undue on the page. Speaking about these Russian authors, can you just cite here what they say? Did they claim that the author was Trotsky? My very best wishes (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the Russian historians said; I don't speak Russian and haven't read Kotkin's sources. I disagree that this is a fringe theory. It's a minority opinion, but Kotkin provides specific reasons to believe it's true, and I am not aware of any rebuttals having been put forward by other historians--the sources that the WSW review cites come from before Kotkin's book, so they are not responding to his arguments. Even if there were rebuttals published, we would need to look at what they say, because disagreeing with a historical interpretation is not the same as dismissing it as a fringe theory. I do not think sufficient reliable sources have been provided to characterize this as a fringe theory. SS451 (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You should not include any new content sourced to references that you can not personally verify. My very best wishes (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're talking about. The only content I added was sourced to Kotkin's book, which I verified by reading it and cited properly. Another editor added the reference to Russian historians (which has since been removed). If you're suggesting that I should have examined the primary or secondary sources backing Kotkin's arguments, that's not how the reliable sources policy works. SS451 (talk) 02:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There are no doubts Lenin was able to write/dictate the "Testament". This is because he also started wring a series of other articles at the very same time (see a well written dramatic description of this here . starting from page 197. All of that was well researched by many historians. The alleged forgery by Krupskaya is FRINGE nonsense. My very best wishes (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Kotkin's book was positively reviewed widely in the mainstream press and a number of reputable historians (Geoffrey Roberts, Barbara C. Allen and Catherin Andreyev, and Vladimir Tismaneanu to name a few) have either approved of his analysis of the so-called "testament" or at least acknowledged it as a serious invitation for further scholarly discussion and debate. Kotkin was not even the first mainstream historian to question the so-called "testament", it was Hiroaki Kuromiya.
 * Kotkin correctly identifies that no stenographic or handwritten originals of the "testament" exist. There is no archival evidence to corroborate its production. This is unusual given that dictations typically entail a number of drafts, re-writes, inserts etc. The evidentiary issues with the so-called "testament" have been highlighted by a number of mainstream, reputable historians and its certainly not a fringe position. 104.246.134.214 (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that Sakharov's book was translated (in abridged form) to English by the neo-Stalinist academic Grover Furr, so one can find the gist of Sakharov's arguments in English. Also a readable machine-translation of the full book by Sakharov can be found on libgen. There is also an article titled "“Under Seven Seals" New Perspectives on Lenin’s Testament" by Alexis Pogorelskin, which summarizes the crucial part of Sakharov's argument (the other part of the argument being rather trivial and dubious, namely the possibly inaccurate timestamps given by Lenin's secretaries) as follows: "He [Sakharov] decries the authenticity of the “zaveshchanie” [testament] and its attribution to Lenin in part because he insists that Lenin could never have turned the fate of the revolution and the Bolshevik party over to a one-time Menshevik like Trotsky. The very fact that the author of the “zaveshchanie” characterizes Trotsky as “the most able man in the present Central Committee” destroys the credibility of the document, Sakharov insists." (see: https://brill.com/view/journals/css/53/1-2/article-p90_6.xml )
 * Sakharov spends many pages to elaborate on this idea - the testament could not have been authored by Lenin because it coincides with Trotsky's position (or rather his much later position, since Trotsky at the time amazingly did not support the removal of Stalin from the gensek position and even participated in the active suppressing of the testament!). To put it simply, the neo-Stalinist Sakharov  claims that Lenin was actually a "Stalinist" (anachronistically speaking) and therefore could not have taken a stand against Stalin! Very serious scholarship, indeed... Magneez (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Verification
Russian; "М.: Изд-во Московского университета. 2003. 717 С.: ил. Тир. 5 000 [...] В монографии доцента кафедры политической истории факультета государственного управления МГУ нм. М.В.Ломоносова В,А. Сахарова речь идет о цикле последних работ В.И. Ленина [...] Книга Сахарова * результат более чем де и летних и Тедов Аний зной интересной и сложной проблемы. Научная самостоятельность автора и его профессионализм проявляются уже в историографическом введении" Translation; "Moscow: Moscow University Press. Moscow State University. 2003. 717 P.: il. Circulation. 5 000 [...] In the monograph of the Associate Professor of the Department of Political History of the Faculty of Public Administration of the Moscow State University n.a. M.A. Lomonosov. M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University V.A. Sakharov deals with the cycle of Lenin's last works [...] Sakharov's book* is the result of more than a decade of interesting and complex research. The author's scientific independence and professionalism are already evident in his historiographical introduction" Russian; "Сахаров первым поставил вопрос о необходимости атрибуции текстов ленинского «Завещания», так как подлинники их предоставляют собой машинописные тексты, о которых нельзя с уверенностью сказать, что они являться записью диктовок Ленина. Их читали в архиве многие история, но только автор рецензируемой монографии пришел к заключению, что, прежде чем использовать эти записи в качестве ленинских документов, необходимо еще доказать их принадлежность Ленину с использованием всей совокупности прямых и косвенных свидетельств" Translation; "Sakharov was the first to raise the question of the need to attribute the texts of Lenin's 'Testament' because their originals are typewritten texts about which one cannot say with certainty that they are a record of Lenin's dictations. Many historians have read them in the archives, but only the author of the monograph under review has concluded that, before using these records as Lenin's documents, it is necessary to prove that they belonged to Lenin, using the totality of direct and indirect evidence" The document then goes on to explain situations, context, etc. -- BunnyyHop ( talk ) 21:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * First of all, what are you citing here with blockqoutes? These are not quotes from these books on the subject of discussion. Is it a preface from the books? Or is it an anonymous posting by someone on the internet? "многие история" - where that strange Russian came from? Now, if such info was correct, an opinion that "необходимо еще доказать их принадлежность Ленину" is very far cry from an assertion about the forgery by Krupskaya. My very best wishes (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Link., the article had no OCR so I had to transliterate it. Also, my Russian is not the best. «Архиве многие историки, но толко [...]». It might be better if you create an account and access the file yourself, as your reading proficiency will be incredibly greater. Later В. П. Иванов says «Важным является установление факта неоднократного изменения Н.К. Крупской в ходе внутрипартийной борьбы в 1920-х гг. своих показаний относительно предназначения "Письма к съезду"», so I guess you can see where he's going with this. Note that I didn't include here the points of view of the other two scholars, just Ivanov's. -- BunnyyHop ( talk ) 00:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Texts that you copy-pasted above do not appear in this link. How did you get them? I only found this by that author. There he denies that Katyn massacre has been committed by the NKVD. So yes, Stalinist he is. My very best wishes (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , you have to register here. I'll read that text later. -- BunnyyHop ( talk ) 05:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So you do know Russian? This registration is like placing yourself to a database of FSB. My very best wishes (talk) 05:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I found it here on website "stalinism.ru" created by Stalinists. This is no better than "sources" on Stormfront (website). I especially like that one, "Stalin as a benefactor of Jews". These Jews? My very best wishes (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Now I see. That Russian "historian" simply did not like the careful criticism of Stalin by Lenin in his "Testament" («тов. Сталин, сделавшись Генсеком, сосредоточил в своих руках необъятную власть, и я не уверен, сумеет ли он всегда достаточно осторожно пользоваться этой властью»). That's why author is trying to deny everything we know about it, including even the authorship by Lenin. This is an extreme whitewashing of Stalin. I am surprised that Kotkin bought this BS. My very best wishes (talk) 00:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It really does not matter what this Stalinist thinks because the authencity challenge is notable because other respectable historians have taken it up, not because he has taken it up.PailSimon (talk) 10:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This sub-thread is only about specific Russian language sources. So far this is no. Writings by neo-Stalinists are just as good for sourcing as writings by neo-Nazi. This whole thread is entitled "Authenticity is historical consensus". Yes, it certainly is. My very best wishes (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

 * Comment: The link above is setting off my security software. Someone shoulde provide standard references for the sources proposed? They can then be discussed at at the RS boards and if these are RS they will also be circulated in academic libraries.  // Timothy :: talk  12:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Lenin's Testament Consensus
It is a consensus view amongst historians that the works comprising the Testament are genuine, yet edit warring is happening. According to the talk page, this hasn't been resolved in a decade but I assumed that it was vandalism considering that Sakharov is a Stalinist apologist. He even suggests that Trotsky, Zinoviev and Bukharin forged it and that they were the leaders of the enemies of the people who tried to prevent the formation of the USSR, essentialy rehashing old Soviet Propaganda. As Kotkin relied on Sakharov's research and the claim was rejected or ignored by most, it is safe to say that inclusion of the fringe theory is not needed.Originalcola (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

That last contribution was by Originalcola, it would help if people signed their contributions. I don't disagree with everything he/she says, but edit warring seems to have abated over the last couple of weeks, the current version looks like the consensus version. Is anyone proposing any changes? PatGallacher (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I though I had signed it. Anyway I'm proposing to get rid of the section mentioning Kotkin's work as well as both the "Circumstances surrounding dictation" and "Questions surrounding the content" sections. The "Circumstances surrounding dictation" section adds nothing to the article considering the fact that everything in it is covered in the history section. The "Questions surrounding the content" section appears to be focusing on a strange and minor part of the Testament. I think it's just an opinion piece, offering nothing more than wild speculation.Originalcola (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I would oppose deleting the section about Kotkin completely, although I'm not against condensation or re-examination. I'm not against deleting the other two sections. PatGallacher (talk) 13:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I quote the WSWS link: "In discussing these events, Kotkin plays a thoroughly dishonest game with the reader. Every document or testimony that does not fit his narrative, he dismisses as a forgery; any incident that violates his narrative, he claims never occurred. In order to concoct this string of falsifications, Kotkin has to turn the following people into unprincipled liars and conspirators: Trotsky, Krupskaya (Lenin’s wife), Fotieva (one of Lenin’s secretaries), Volodicheva (another of Lenin’s secretaries), Maria Ulyanova (Lenin’s sister), and at least some of the doctors attending Lenin. He also has to overturn the accounts given by the following historians: Carr, Deutscher, Daniels, Lewin, Volkogonov, Rogovin, Nazarov, Khlevniuk, Naumov, and many others. He also must dismiss Valentinov, Bazhanov and Avtorkhanov." PatGallacher (talk) 12:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

See also the New Yorker link: "Kotkin’s answer is twofold. The first is to allege that the testament was a forgery cooked up by Krupskaya. Kotkin believes that Lenin was too incapacitated to have composed the document in any legitimate way. Krupskaya must have interpreted it, as one would a Ouija board. This was the one claim in the first volume that really rankled other historians. Some of them pointed out that the recent Russian originator of the testament-forgery thesis, on whose work Kotkin relied, was an unapologetic Stalinist. For a historian who prizes evidence as much as Kotkin does, it seemed an unnecessarily extravagant claim." PatGallacher (talk) 13:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand. How is the political views relevant to whether it should be included or not? Should we exclude using the WSWS source as support, since they are avowed Trotskyists? Surely this factor would have bearing on the sentence "In order to concoct this string of falsifications, Kotkin has to turn the following people into unprincipled liars and conspirators: Trotsky...." We are simply noting the views of these so-called Stalinist or revionist historians. What Wikipedia policies forbid the inclusion of viewpoints on history according to their truth (as decided by an editors, I should note)? We have criticism of Kotkin and others' view point in the article, and these criticisms can be expanded if an editor wishes to do so. Whether or not the material is historically true or not is irrelevant, it's a contested view and we should thus include the range of voices. I don't really see a consensus here for deleting it anyway. Also, you haven't responded to the comment I made in my first revert. Where in the sources is support for the assertion that the majority of historians reject the view? Acalycine (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * To expand upon this, from WP:FRINGE:
 * Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Wikipedia. The threshold for whether a topic should be included in Wikipedia as an article is generally covered by notability guidelines...Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community

 * This is exactly what is present on the page and what I propose should be expanded - the evidence from orthodox historians against the so-called Stalinist apologia should be detailed, if it exists.

 * Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas. However, ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong.

 * I see nothing that essentially says "revisionist view-points should be excluded totally because they're wrong or because of the political views of the author", I see the opposite in fact. Thanks. Acalycine (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I never said that that Kotkin's view should be completely excluded, simply that they should be recognised as a fringe theory. You appear to be engaging in selective quotation, reducing a lengthy list of names to just one, Trotsky, and the rest left as four dots. In the article I reduced this list of historians down to those who already have a Wikipedia biography. PatGallacher (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well in that case, why exclude these other historians, one of which who Kotkin is 'relying on'? The Trotsky sentence was just to illustrate my point about politics being irrelevant, no need to focus on it. In the article I reduced this list of historians down to those who already have a Wikipedia biography. - what is the justification for this? What policy? Besides, Furr does have a Wikipedia page so why did you remove my mention of him, if he clearly fits your criteria of inclusion? WP:FRINGE clearly says Additionally, the topic must satisfy general notability guidelines: the topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. - the topic of the theory is subject to notability rules, not necessarily the person. If we were to reject content within Wikipedia pages based on whether that content itself had a Wikipedia page, Wikipedia would be empty. Clearly, WP:FRINGE says The threshold for whether a topic should be included in Wikipedia as an article is generally covered by notability guidelines. Nothing about the person themselves. Acalycine (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I was trying to avoid unduly bloating this part of the article. Grover Furr, just from his Wikipedia biography, looks like a very controversial figure, can we treat his as a serious historian of the period?  Pretty near everything he says looks like a fringe theory. PatGallacher (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is only 17k bytes and 1.7k words long. How are three or so sentences bloat in an important section (analysis of the historical details, which take up most of the article in comparison)? I'm showing the range of views on the contested topic. Your reasons for removal have changed now from what they originally seemed to be, so I think I'm justified in putting the content back to be fair, unless you have any other concerns related to actual policy. As to whether we can "treat his as a serious historian of the period", this is irrelevant. We seem to agree (for the sake of consensus and argument) that this is a fringe view, and that he is a fringe historian. WP:FRINGE doesn't say we exclude fringe theories purely because they are fringe. Acalycine (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not meaningful to talk of a plurality where there are only two points of view on offer. I can't find anything about Valentin Sakharov, suggesting that he is not an important historian, Grover Furr is clearly a fringe pseudohistorian. PatGallacher (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We've already been over this, do you have any response to the points I brought up? Plurality means to me that there are more views against forgery than there are for it, meaning that out of the three options "Authentic" "Fake" and "Not known", there are more views in the authentic category than fake. But I'll concede the plurality thing, which leaves me to ask what your judgement of Furr and Sakharov as "not important" and "psuedohistorian" has to do with anything? Please show me the Wikipedia policy that says we totally exclude fringe views merely because they are fringe. I showed you the policy against this view and you have responded with nothing, instead conceding to some sort of "bloat" argument against inclusion, devoid of any policy justification. Acalycine (talk) 04:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any historian who takes the view "not known". I think the article does deal with the "fake" view adequately as a fringe theory. I don't know very much about Sakharov, although some sources describe him as a Stalinist historian, and if he was that important he might have a Wikipedia biography. Furr's biography on Wikipedia makes him look like a pseudohistorian. PatGallacher (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Not known means "We, Wikipedia, are not aware of their views on the Testament", since they aren't included in the article - however, as I said, I will concede the dispute over the "majority" statement. You still haven't given me policy citations that say we can't expand upon this "fake" view, which currently stands as one historian's book (which cites the very historian I want to include) - this is again your "bloat" argument which isn't backed up by policy. I really don't know why you're repeating yourself in saying that Sakharov is not notable for Wikipedia and that Furr is a psuedohistorian - these are not relevant to any policy saying we cannot include them. We've already agreed (for the sake of argument) that we can consider both of these historians "fringe" (or psuedo as you say) historians, and that they hold fringe views - you can stop repeating this. Now the onus is on you to demonstrate what policy says we don't include fringe theories on the basis of them being fringe. Please, in your next response, cite some policy or we'll simply have to resort to a third opinion process for this edit dispute. I recommend reading WP:FRINGE in full. Acalycine (talk) 06:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

In accordance with WP:FRINGE, I am not against saying something about this fringe theory, so long as it makes it clear that this is a fringe theory. My point about "bloat" was that I didn't think it was necessary to mention every historian or witness who would confirm the view that Lenin's Testament was not a forgery, I thought it was enough just to mention those historians already important enough to have a Wikipedia biography (a bit of a rule of thumb perhaps, but a reasonable one IMHO). PatGallacher (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, so again, if "having a Wikipedia biography" is the criteria, why are you trying to exclude mentioning Furr? He has a Wikipedia article. Now again, to make this simple, what Wikipedia policy justifies your view that "it [is not] necessary to mention every historian or witness who would confirm the view"? You say "bloat" but this isn't a policy. Acalycine (talk) 02:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I never ruled out mentioning Furr, but we should make it clear that he is a fringe historian. PatGallacher (talk) 12:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. I was under the impression you did rule out Furr because you reverted the edit (in full) where I added him. Firstly, how do you suggest we make this clear, keeping within BLP policy? Secondly, please answer my query about the other historian - what policy are you citing? Where does this rule of thumb come from? Acalycine (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

 * Kotkin is a more or less mainstream historian, but this particular view is definitely fringe simply because NONE of mainstream historians agree with this view. This is one of the most famous documents in Soviet history, and no one ever had concerns that it was authentic. There is no really any dispute if it is authentic. A couple of citations on the page is criticism of Kotkin in general. Hence, I would be inclined to remove this view as fringe. Give me at least one another well known mainstream historian who supports it if you think this is not FRINGE.My very best wishes (talk) 23:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the section uses good sources, in particular this review of work by Kotkin, but this content only belongs to page Stephen Kotkin. So moved. My very best wishes (talk) 01:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Your argument (or lack of one) is similar to PatGallacher's. If we agree that it's a fringe view for the sake of argument, what Wikipedia policy necessitates that we remove it or exclude it from this page? Please link the policy. I would also ask you to justify the exclusion of Sakharov's mention (whom Kotkin cites on the authenticity). That most historians think it is authentic is not disputed by me (although I haven't seen any sources for this). WP:FRINGE tells us that Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas. However, ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong. I don't see anything that stops us from mentioning unorthodox views in opposition to mainstream ones (in proportionality of course). Acalycine (talk) 09:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is WP:DUE (a part of WP:NPOV). It say: If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Remember, this testament by Lenin was discussed in a huge number of publications. The fabrication of the testament by Krupskaya (as this "theory" suggests) is something no one ever contemplated, and it is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. I would say that the poisoning of Lenin by Stalin is a rock solid theory compare to the fabrication of Lenin's testament by Krupskaya. My very best wishes (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn't some internet crackpot proposing the theory, it's Stephen Kotkin, a very well known historian in modern Soviet historiography. As the sentence above that says, If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents - Kotkin is one of these prominent adherents. Again, Kotkin is not some fringe historian presenting this view, he is a well-respected historian (look at the reviews that praise the book but are against Kotkin's authenticity argument) presenting a revisionist viewpoint on history. Perhaps there is a problem with WP:DUE, namely that the "it's authentic" view wasn't given as much coverage as the "not authentic view", but this can be remedied (as I was trying to do) by either expanding the authentic paragraph or by shortening the paragraph about Kotkin. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly. This also applies to other fringe subjects, for instance, forms of historical revisionism that are considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence, such as claims that Pope John Paul I was murdered, or that the Apollo moon landings were faked. Kotkin is not part of a "tiny minority" in the DUE policy which clearly means "do not include crackpot nobodies from the internet that haven't been covered in reliable sources." The fact that other historians have challenged his view (while respecting his stature in historiography) tells us he is not one of these nobodies. Acalycine (talk) 07:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the opinion by one man in a very big array of publications (many hundreds of books and scholarly articles) that tell exactly the opposite is "an extremely small minority" position as the policy say. The policy does not say this must be a pseudoscientific position, just an extremely small minority position. But again, I think it can be included on page "Kotkin" because this is his view, and it was mentioned (harshly criticized) in a couple of other RS. So I just moved it. And again, I am not saying that Kotkin is a fringe historian, only the particular claim is "fringe" (most other claims in his book are perfectly mainstream). My very best wishes (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I reverted your effective deletion of the entire discussion in the main page. I think that WP:UNDUE would support condensing this down from an entire section to one or two sentences--saying that Kotkin, a notable and respected historian, has argued that the Testament is a forgery while also noting that no other mainstream historian agrees--but you have not established that this is actually a fringe theory, just a contested one where the large weight of historical consensus is on the other side. SS451 (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to keep but seriously condense the authenticity discussion to avoid undue weight
Here is my specific suggestion for how to condense this to avoid giving undue weight. The current section titled "Authenticity" would be deleted. Instead, in the section "Document History," between current paragraphs one and two, a new paragraph:

"Historian Stephen Kotkin argued, based on circumstances of the documents' content and composition, that the Testament may have been a forgery by Krupskaya and not authentic dictations by Lenin.[cite Kotkin book at 473-505, which contains most of the relevant discussion, although if it's unforgivably bad citation practice to cite a range of pages that way, we could also list each individual page currently cited] However, the Testament has been accepted as genuine by all mainstream historians, including E. H. Carr, Isaac Deutscher, Dmitri Volkogonov, Vadim Rogovin and Oleg Khlevniuk,[cite the WSWS article][cite the New Yorker article] and Kotkin's argument was specifically rejected by Richard Pipes.[Cite the Pipes essay]"

There you go. Two sentences, makes it clear that although Kotkin's argument is notable, the consensus of historians is against it. Can everyone live with this version? I'll note that I don't think it has to go in the particular spot I've proposed, I just don't see a better spot for it if the "authenticity" section is deleted. SS451 (talk) 00:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree with this compromise. I argued that Kotkin is clearly a "prominent adherent" of this minority view and we should follow due by expanding the section that argues for authenticity (which I did). This is following DUE by going in the opposite direction, and I agree with it. We should keep in mind that Kotkin said the following though "To recapitulate, I nowhere dismiss Vladimir Lenin’s so-called Testament as a fabrication. I point out, as the Russian scholar Valentin Sakharov first demonstrated at length, that there is no solid evidence to confirm Lenin produced the text." Perhaps we could directly quote that last sentence in part? Also, I would prefer "a majority of mainstream historians", since "all mainstream historians" implies that literally all historians accept it as genuine, which isn't backed up by the sources. Acalycine (talk) 06:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that "all mainstream historians" overstates it, since Kotkin himself is a mainstream historian. I cribbed that text from the existing version, but I agree it should be something more like "the majority" or reword the sentence to refer to a consensus of mainstream historians.

 * As for including that quote, I feel like that will tend to bloat a paragraph that we're hoping to keep tight both for readability reasons and to avoid undue weight. Given that remark, maybe the first sentence could be something like "Historian Stephen Kotkin argued, based on the circumstances of the documents' content and composition, that the evidence for Lenin's authorship of the Testament is weak and suggested that the Testament could have been a forgery created by Krupskaya." SS451 (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

 * So, according to the suggested text, the Testament has been accepted as genuine by all mainstream historians except only Kotkin who "argued that it may have been...". This is very definition of a viewpoint held by an extremely small minority that does not belong on Wikipedia (see discussion above). My very best wishes (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you're the only person in this discussion who has characterized it as a fringe theory. Not even Pipes, who directly criticized the argument, characterized it that way. So since you've chosen to revert, I'm going to make the change as discussed. You need reliable sources characterizing it as a fringe theory to keep it out of the article entirely. SS451 (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I made the edit. My very best wishes, there's been active discussion on the talk page for eight months, and there is no consensus among editors that Kotkin's argument is a fringe theory, nor is there any reliable source characterizing it as such. Please don't remove the discussion again without establishing consensus for the change. SS451 (talk) 00:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You did not address my argument. If included, this must be framed as a harshly criticized claim by one person, and this is precisely the reason why it does not belong to this page, but only to page about Kotkin. My very best wishes (talk) 02:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * So here's what I'll say. In WP:WEIGHT, the rule of thumb is that "[i]f a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." Kotkin I think unquestionably counts; he is a generally respected historian whose work (including this book) has attracted significant engagement and praise from others within his field, even though this specific claim has not. I will also make the more specific point that in this case, Pipes seems to be the only prominent historian who considered and rejected Kotkin's argument, whereas the others were working on an unchallenged understanding of the Testament's authenticity. That isn't to say Kotkin will necessarily attract more support as others respond directly, but it's worth keeping in mind that Carr, Deutscher, etc. have not rejected Kotkin's argument, they just haven't engaged with it.

 * I appreciate your editing to try to find a compromise version, even though you think it doesn't belong in the article at all. I will say that I think the current version elevates the claim in a way that's not totally dissimilar to this version, prior to the most recent round of edits, although the framing is more critical. Is your concern about my last version that it suggests the claim is somehow mainstream or a major theme of scholarship on the Testament because it was integrated into a description of the document's history? I can understand that, but I do think putting in its own section inevitably gives it greater and perhaps undue prominence.

 * Finally, I fixed the reference to Kotkin's book, since taking it out of the bibliography also removed the basic citation information. I agree with your edit summary that it belongs only in the reference list, not the bibliography. SS451 (talk) 02:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * How well are you familiar with this subject? This is not just "E. H. Carr, Isaac Deutscher, Dmitri Volkogonov, Vadim Rogovin and Oleg Khlevniuk". This document was debated in literally hundreds books and articles, and no one ever suggested it was a forgery. Last days of Lenin and what he wrote/dictated (including things after the "Testament") are described in every detail. This speculation by Kotkin (and by a couple of Russian Stalinists) is really an absurd. My very best wishes (talk) 03:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I would propose the section be retitled simply "Authenticity" or "Question of authenticity" - including the name of the historian in the section seems a bit odd but maybe I'm wrong, is there a specific reason it was retitled to this? My very best wishes: there are a number of people who claim it was a forgery, even dating back to the 1950s. I'll list the historians and academics I've found that question the authenticity in any way, implicitly or explicitly, without myself making any claims about the "fringe" nature or notability of these figures. Some are milder, merely acknowledging that consensus is mixed, but this is still relevant for the discussion. Acalycine (talk) 05:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

 * Hiroaki Kuromiya, citing Sakharov
 * Profiles in Power (2005)
 * Review of Kotkin's "Stalin, Vol. 1: Paradoxes of Power, 1878–1928"
 * Stephen Kotkin, citing Sakharov
 * Author's Response (where he says that he simply questions authenticity, not saying outright it's a forgery - To recapitulate, I nowhere dismiss Vladimir Lenin’s so-called Testament as a fabrication. I point out, as the Russian scholar Valentin Sakharov first demonstrated at length, that there is no solid evidence to _confirm_ Lenin produced the text.
 * Sakharov (no need to link him as I'm sure we're aware of his texts on this)
 * Jack F. Matlock Jr, reviewing Kotkin
 * Review of "Stalin, Vol. 1: Paradoxes of Power, 1878–1928" - One of the most valuable features of Kotkin 's study is his acute analysis of the Lenin "Testament.
 * Catherine Andreyev, reviewing Kotkin
 * Review of "Stalin. Vol. 1: Paradoxes of Power, 1878–1928" - Kotkin pays a great deal of attention to Lenin’s ‘Testament’, dictated to his wife, in which Lenin apparently criticises members of the Party. He shows that it is possible that Lenin was not the author of this document
 * Gerhard Schnehen, citing Sakharov
 * Stalin, A Biography in Facts (page 111 and around) - he goes into detail on Sakharov's arguments, presents Sakharov's arguments and says "nothing needs to be added"
 * IB Diploma textbook presents this view as contested (ISBN 9781316503690) - However, these aspects are questioned by Hiroaki Kuromiya... later on the next page the textbook sets as an activity "write a paragraph explaining which argument you think is most convincing regarding the authenticity of these two documents." To me, a textbook showing these views as contested and asking students to consider both sides presumes they think this is a serious academic view that is contested and not merely a fringe theory.
 * Grover Furr
 * Khrushchev's Lied - There are good reasons to suspect that Lenin's letter to Stalin of March 5, 1923 may be a forgery. Valentin A. Sakharov has published a major scholarly book on this subject on this thesis with Moscow University Press. (March 5 letter is not the Testament in question but this is endorsing Sakharov's work, plus Furr endorses explicitly the Testament theory elsewhere)
 * interview - [Sakharov] shows that precisely the documents that are anti-Stalin and pro-Trotsky in Lenin’s last writings are false, are fakes, that they were faked at that time
 * Cyril Bryner in 1951 presents the question as not settled - If we are to believe in the authenticity of Lenin's "Testament," and If we do not believe in the genuineness of the "Testament,"
 * Barbara Allen, reviewing Kotkin PoP - Kotkin’s...meticulous examination of the context surrounding the Testament’s compilation and its political use by Stalin’s opponents underscores that this much-cited document must be reconsidered.
 * It appears that the claim originally comes from Stalinist historian Valentin A. Sakharov (gladly cited by another Stalinist apologist Grover Furr in his "Khrushchev Lied"), and then repeated by Kotkin with a reference to Sakharov. Such extraordinary claim did surprise several other historians who wrote reviews on the book by Kotkin (above). They say a lot of different things that probably need to be cited if we include it. In particular (your link),

 * And so on. Kotkin dismisses yet another well known letter by Lenin (written in 1920) as “a blatant forgery,” "although it has been accepted by all historians ... as well as the editors of Lenin’s Collected Works." A conclusion: this just a highly controversial claim by Kotkin (one can just dismiss Stalinist Sakharov), so it belongs to page Kotkin. My very best wishes (talk) 04:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Where is that policy in Wikipedia's policies? That 'if a claim by somebody is controversial, it should only belong on a page dedicated to them'. Kotkin is a prominent adherent, and so this claim does not fall into the third category of WP:DUE, If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article. I don't see any new arguments here. I'm sure we were already aware that Furr and Kotkin (and Kuromiya) all cite Sakharov, but this doesn't tell us anything about whether Kotkin's claim should be included or not. I would say that we should mention Sakharov too for this reason, but I'm not sure if there is consensus for that, as evidenced by above discussions - could you tell me exactly why we can "dismiss Stalinist Sakharov"? Is it because of his political views? As to citing the roundtable discussion - I am for this, and would probably say we could even revert to a previous edit which had a whole two paragraph long section on authenticity, since we could add a lot of content/quotes to satisfy DUE. If you want to merely include it in this new section, I would propose that the "authenticity doubted" part be expanded likewise in proportion. Acalycine (talk) 05:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have replied to this question already. This is WP:DUE (a part of WP:NPOV). It say: If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.. This is not just a controversial claim, but an extraordinary claim made by one person (Kotkin if we count mainstream historians) that no one else really support. A few others noticed this claim in their reviews of his book, but either criticized it as obviously wrong (quotation above) or just noticed as something strange. No one else conducted any research of their own which would support this claim. My very best wishes (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sure everyone here is aware of these critics that do not support questioning authenticity or reject Kotkin's claims. This is not in dispute, as the current version of the article shows their views. You cited the last bullet point of WP:DUE, but not the second. I provided you a number of people who do accept questioning the authenticity, including in reviews of Kotkin's book, but you seem to have ignored them. The claim is not just made by one historian, it's made by multiple, even if we exclude historians that you don't think count for some reason. Whether or not they did research of their own is irrelevant, I don't see this requirement in DUE. Kotkin is a prominent adherent to the theory, hence it belongs on the page according to DUE - we can further this by listing all the historians who also support this claim, which I did. I don't think anybody in this discussion has been successful in explaining why this isn't the case. Acalycine (talk) 04:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I checked your links. The claim is made by only one mainstream historian (Kotkin who refer to Stalinist Sakharov); others either strongly disagree or just mention the claim by Kotkin in their reviews of the book. They did do not do any their own research or published their own books to support the claim. There are hundreds other publications that simply do not mention Kotkin and consider the document authentic. My very best wishes (talk) 04:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Another problem is how we describe the claim by Kotkin. You cited the following words by Kotkin above: To recapitulate, I nowhere dismiss Vladimir Lenin’s so-called Testament as a fabrication. I point out, as the Russian scholar Valentin Sakharov first demonstrated at length, that there is no solid evidence to _confirm_ Lenin produced the text. OK. But then should not we just say that "according to Kotkin there is no solid evidence"? My very best wishes (talk) 05:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Describing Kotkin as "questioning the authenticity" would be fine in my opinion, although we could also use the direct quote from the book Their authenticity has never been proven. You can re-check all of the citations above, they all implicitly or explicitly question the authenticity, most by viewing Kotkin's work on the Testament favourably - this isn't simply "mentioning" Kotkin's claims in their review, Barbara Allen for example says Kotkin’s...meticulous examination...underscores that this much-cited document must be reconsidered. You seem to dismiss the people other than Kotkin as "non-mainstream", which isn't really justified and nor is it really relevant to WP:DUE, since a prominent adherent (Kotkin) is really all we need to include these views - this doesn't preclude us including (in the article) other historians that share Kotkin's views. For example, you don't mention Hiroaki Kuromiya's questioning of the authenticity - I don't see how considering the views of a pretty prominent university professor is not relevant. Again, They did do not do any their own research or published their own books to support the claim is both irrelevant (as far as I understand WP:DUE) and factually wrong, since Kuromiya or Furr or Schnehen, for example, all have written books where they agree with questioning the authenticity. Not doing their own research is still, again, an arbitrary point - please back it up with policy or stop repeating it. Acalycine (talk) 05:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I am fine with current version when we included claim by Kotkin to section "Document history" (per user SS451) - as a compromise.My very best wishes (talk) 06:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, okay. Would including a simple mention that Kuromiya (2nd most prominent "mainstream" historian) and "a number of other commentators" (with reference to reviews) "also question the view point" be okay? If this isn't acceptable as per "undue weight", would expanding the "authentic" viewpoint with a quote or two from the roundtable discussion, for example, be an acceptable counterweight? I also propose changing "all mainstream historians" to "a greater number of" or "a majority" - there's simply no sources to back up "all". Acalycine (talk) 06:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I think mentioning this on the page as right now is already undue. My very best wishes (talk) 06:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * But you said you're fine with mentioning it - i.e. for the sake of argument and compromise you acknowledge that Kotkin is a prominent adherent and that it belongs on the page. What, then, is the problem (supported by policy) with expanding one viewpoint in proportion to another? It follows DUE fine as long as we make sure not to "give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects". Acalycine (talk) 07:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I do not acknowledge that it belongs on the page. To the contrary, it clearly does not, but I am simply in minority here, with you and another contributor insisting this nonsense to be included. My very best wishes (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

would the above be ok? Acalycine (talk) 06:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

 * Yes, I think the current version with the edit by My very best wishes is fine and adheres to the undue weight policy. Thank you both for the discussion and coming to a compromise. SS451 (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , sorry I specifically meant the proposed addition I made at the end. Would including a simple mention that Kuromiya (2nd most prominent "mainstream" historian) and "a number of other commentators" (with reference to reviews) "also question the view point" be okay? If this isn't acceptable as per "undue weight", would expanding the "authentic" viewpoint with a quote or two from the roundtable discussion, for example, be an acceptable counterweight? I also propose changing "all mainstream historians" to "a greater number of" or "a majority" - there's simply no sources to back up "all". Acalycine (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry. So as far as saying "all mainstream historians" reject Kotkin's view, I agree that isn't supported--should be "almost all" or "most." With regard to including Kuromiya, I don't have a strong view as I'm not familiar with his work. My instinct is to perhaps keep it as-is with that change, since it appears that Kotkin is the principal mainstream exponent for now, with others reacting to the claim in his book. SS451 (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, understood. However, Kuromiya isn't citing Kotkin, he wrote his book (2005) before Kotkin released his book. Others such as Gerhard Schnehen and Grover Furr don't cite Kotkin either. Thanks. Acalycine (talk) 04:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Trotsky "forced" to write in opposition to Eastman
I deleted an unsourced statement that Soviet leadership used party discipline to force Trotsky to write in opposition to the Eastman article. All I can find on this is the citation-less assertion here, and a website called "Academic Kids" that has merely copy/pasted this wiki article. Given the range of historical sources that address the subject events of these articles, I think we should find a formal source if we are to include the assertion. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * They didn't exactly "force" him because in 1923 there were no means to force members of the Politburo to do anything, but he was strongly pressured to describe Eastman's book as "slander", etc. Trotsky's response was essentially the product of Stalin's group. The events are chronicled in Buranov's book Lenin's will : falsified and forbidden : from the secret archives of the former Soviet Union (1994)--Magneez (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Provenance of infobox image
I see that the infobox image of handwritten text was added in April from the Russian language Wikipedia. The image info is in Russian and I can't read it. Is anyone able to understand that information, and if so, can you weigh in on its provenance and authenticity?

I ask in part because (from what I recall) Kotkin claims that there was no handwritten original of the Testament's dictation in the archives, which is one reason he questions its authenticity; if there actually is a handwritten original, I'm wondering if any scholars have commented on this issue. SS451 (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

 * There could not be a handwritten original because Lenin dictated (due to his stroke) to his secretaries, and could not write. Some of the handwritten secretary notes were preserved, others were destroyed (see Buranov excerpt below), and some were typed with a typewriter. Buranov (in Lenin's Will, pp.40-41) writes: "At the same time Stalin began to alter Lenin's dictations. The latter is proved by the survival of Alliluyeva's original copy of Lenin's text of December 23, 1922, and by the abridging of Lenin's article on the Workers' and Peasants' Inspection, published in Pravda in January 1923. Trotsky did not know about the original wordings of Lenin's texts. The evidence of Stalin's intrusion into Lenin's texts was found many years later: the original wording of the article on the "Workers' and Peasants' Inspection" was only discovered as the text of Lenin's Complete Works was being prepared for publication in 1956; but the records dated December 23, 1922, were not discovered until 1989. Since the other handwritten reports of Lenin's dictations of December 1922 were burned, it is impossible to prove whether Stalin reworded any of the other texts and documents that became known as Lenin's will. But the above-mentioned "editorial" intrusions by the General Secretary into Lenin's documents leave open the great probability of equally or more serious falsifications of everything Lenin dictated from December 1922 through early January 1923." Magneez (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Handwritten notes by the secretaries are what I meant, and what Kotkin says do not appear in the archives for the Testament. Kotkin does present that as though this is an unusual and suspicious occurrence, but it seems this source claims that there are a number of omissions from the archives. SS451 (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

"Majority view" (POV tag)
The majority of bourgeois economists think deficits matter, the majority of 'muricans believe in Magic Sky Dude, the majority of doctors recommend Lucky Strikes, etc. ad nauseam. So? EDIT: This article cannot be taken seriously unless or until a conscienscious editor who isn't a Nazi addresses in this article the allegations of fraud wrt the "Testament" by Prof. Grover Furr, or for that matter his meticulous dissection of Kotkin's "sources" in his book Stalin: Waiting...For The Truth! (a play on Kotkin's Stalin: Waiting for Hitler). Veracity matters...so does mendacity. 142.126.146.27 (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

 * The article is fairly good in this regard. The idea is that on Wikipedia we are meant to be compiling an encyclopedia in which sources receive attention in proportion to their WP:DUE weight, not forming our own judgments of what competing historical explanations are more persuasive. Instead of waiting for someone else to bring forward the perspective you believe has not been accorded sufficient weight, please bring them forward specifically -- i.e. the specific proposition you think is missing, the work cited, and page number. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

BS Translation
As a native Russian speaker, I've personally read the scan provided, and nowhere does Lenin even mention Stalin, let alone warn of dangers regarding said individual. 82.115.62.57 (talk) 11:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lenin's Testament


text:
Antoine Ghonda

Antoine Ghonda Mangalibi (born February 19, 1965) was the foreign minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo from June 30, 2003, until July 23, 2004.

Ghonda was born in Leuven, Belgium, and grew up in the Bas Congo province of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which was then known as Zaire. He did university studies in the United States, and earned a B.A. degree in International Relations from Florida International University in 1992. From 1992 to 2000, he worked in his family's businesses, and developed a lucrative career in international trade. He took a keen interest in politics during these years, but did not align himself politically during the late years of the Mobutu Sese Seko presidency, nor during the early part of the presidency of Laurent-Désiré Kabila.

In 2000, however, he plunged into politics, joining the Congolese Liberation Movement, a rebel group led by Jean-Pierre Bemba. In 2003, the Congolese Liberation Movement made peace with the national government led by Joseph Kabila and joined a transitional government in which there were four vice-presidents, including two heading major rebel groups. Bemba became one of the vice-presidents and was given the power to appoint the foreign minister. Ghonda was given the post.

In July 2004 Bemba demanded that Ghonda be sacked, and President Kabila was forced to oblige. Although there was active speculation in Kinshasa's newspapers about the reasons for Bemba's demand, there was not a consensus, and several reasons were advanced. They included Ghonda's criticism of troops from Rwanda and Uganda operating on Congolese soil, Ghonda's friendship with Joseph Kabila, and the mentioning of Ghonda by George W. Bush as one of the three pillars of the new Congo, with Bemba not being mentioned.

After losing the confidence of Bemba, however, Ghonda became more influential with President Kabila. In the cabinet reshuffle of March 7, 2005, Ghonda was named as one of two roving ambassadors (ambassadeurs itinérants) for the Congolese President. In the 2006 legislative elections, Ghonda was elected to a seat in National Assembly, representing a district in Bas-Congo province whose main town is Kisantu. The Foundation Antoine Ghonda in this town is a leading source of socio-economic development in the area.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Antoine Ghonda