Talk:Pyotr Stolypin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Assassination Section Plagiarism
I have a strong suspicion that the assassination section has copied text almost word for word from Orlando Figes' book on the Russian revolution "A People's Tragedy". I've read this book and recognise the phrasing. I no longer have a copy of it to check what parts are breaching wikipedia standards, but if anyone has a copy then could they change it? It would be a shame to have to rewrite the entire section. Blankfrackis (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Leftist
"Leftist terrorist groups" should be changed to "leftist organizations." Whether they were actually committing terrorist acts is tenuous at best and under no circumstances is such a claim NPOV. - ?
- Assassinations were facts and "terror" was the word, borrowed from French Revolution, not from George W. Bush. Mikkalai 07:55, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- You say - "the phrase is specifically about groups who performed assassinations, "terror" is from their vocabulary,and they were terrorists by fact, not by POV". I think it's pretty obvious that the word "terrorist groups" in the context that it's used in the article insinuates that ALL the organizations of the era which were battling against the Russian monarchy used terrorist tactics, which is quite simply not true. The vast majority used strikes - or more generally, urged insurrection - which is not a "terrorist tactic". To suggest that even a small fraction of the organizations of the time were utilizing assassinations to accomplish their goals would be patently ridiculous. It is also quite fallacious to suggest that the tactics used by organizations that had support as widespread as the Russian progressives could utilize "terror" in the same sense that Robespierre prescribed it - the former used it (very rarely) to attempt to establish a popular leftist regime, whereas the latter used it to coerce the populace into subservience. The motives (and the origins) are completely different, which is why the use of the word "terrorist groups" cannot be considered as anything other than utterly biased and not at all NPOV. - ?
- But, if he was using the word terrorism, then its alright. besides, some people who believed they were terrorists might think that saying "leftist organizations" would not be NPOV. it would be on the side of the terrorists. In the future, please sign your name--Bagel7 02:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- You say - "the phrase is specifically about groups who performed assassinations, "terror" is from their vocabulary,and they were terrorists by fact, not by POV". I think it's pretty obvious that the word "terrorist groups" in the context that it's used in the article insinuates that ALL the organizations of the era which were battling against the Russian monarchy used terrorist tactics, which is quite simply not true. The vast majority used strikes - or more generally, urged insurrection - which is not a "terrorist tactic". To suggest that even a small fraction of the organizations of the time were utilizing assassinations to accomplish their goals would be patently ridiculous. It is also quite fallacious to suggest that the tactics used by organizations that had support as widespread as the Russian progressives could utilize "terror" in the same sense that Robespierre prescribed it - the former used it (very rarely) to attempt to establish a popular leftist regime, whereas the latter used it to coerce the populace into subservience. The motives (and the origins) are completely different, which is why the use of the word "terrorist groups" cannot be considered as anything other than utterly biased and not at all NPOV. - ?
-
-
-
- Many leftist organisations of the time e.g. the Populists, Socialist-Revolutionaries etc. were directly involved in political assassinations of government officials, members of the royal family etc. This counts as terrorism by any normal definition. Certainly there were some leftist groups such as the Mensheviks who were involved in peaceful strikes rather than terrorism, but they were not the main target of Stolypin's law-and-order measures. The term "leftist terrorist groups" is perfectly accurate. Walton monarchist89 09:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- The word "organisation" doesn't imply anything which would breach NPOV standards. It's a neutral word, calling Al-Qaeda an "organisation" doesn't say anything about whether it's a terrorist group. Calling them "freedom fighters" would breach NPOV standards but not "organisations". Blankfrackis (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Many leftist organisations of the time e.g. the Populists, Socialist-Revolutionaries etc. were directly involved in political assassinations of government officials, members of the royal family etc. This counts as terrorism by any normal definition. Certainly there were some leftist groups such as the Mensheviks who were involved in peaceful strikes rather than terrorism, but they were not the main target of Stolypin's law-and-order measures. The term "leftist terrorist groups" is perfectly accurate. Walton monarchist89 09:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Rasputin and St. Petersburg
In 1911 he ordered Rasputin out of St. Petersburg, and was obeyed. this was followed by an investigation by Lukyanov, minister of religion. The empress wasn't very fond of him after this point. And continued to support Rasputin.
Rasputin also prophesied his death the day previously.
The fall of the Russian Monarchy Pares 1939 Sethwoodworth 01:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)