This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.
Please be neutral when editing this highly sensitive article. It discusses a topic about which people have diverse opinions.
There is an image added by User:DIREKTOR, that is not actually Trotsky. We had a previous big discussion about this when he tried to insert it as the lead image on Jews and Communism.--Pharos (talk) 05:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
It is, in fact - Lev Trotsky. Note: Trotsky did not wear his trademark goatee or glasses at the time, but only a mustache. Further, the poster is signed by Trotsky and carries a message by him. To quote the source:
"In 1920, [Dmitry] Moor designed a striking poster, "Bud' na strazhe!" (Be on Guard!) that featured a drawing of Trotsky holding a bayonet and standing, larger than life, on Russian territory, with minuscule enemies around him."
That's about as quality a reference as one could possibly expect. -- Director(talk) 05:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, Trotsky wore his beard and glasses continuously since 1915, and low-res photos do not contradict this (see the Wikimedia Commons version!) There is a rather more detailed and hence credible interpretation of this poster from a quite reliable source here:
"'Be on Guard!' by Dmitrii Moor, with text by Trotsky, published at the time of the Russo-Polish War. A soldier of the Red Cavalry stamps on the Polish landlords while capitalists from Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Romania hover around hoping to become a potential threat."
The evidence is rather against this being Trotsky.--Pharos (talk) 05:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Your position is based on the fallacious concept that a few additional words of description make a source more "credible". Quite the contrary: the length matters not at all, and this project regards secondary scholarly publications as the most reliable. A longer description in no case makes the source more reliable or credible. The idea that we should favor a link from a gallery over a scholar specializing in the period frankly makes me cringe.
And no, I can't see any glasses or goatee on either image. Lets not pretend the link is so "low-res" it made his eyeglasses disappear. -- Director(talk) 06:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Reputable art galleries consult with art historians about their artwork because they want to be as historically accurate as possible. So what we have here is two reliable secondary sources who happen to disagree. USchick (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I am not prepared to grant that the gallery link "must be better sourced than it is". That said, I'm not really saying the gallery is "unreliable" - but that the scholarly source is more reliable. Its a university-published, scholarly, secondary source, dealing with the specific subject at hand, by a university professor specializing in the period. It doesn't get any better. Wikipedia policy tells us to go by what it says, unless a source of comparable quality is posted (the gallery link is simply not such by a long shot), only then can we actually debate the issue. Up to that point, no amount of words posted on this talkpage will change the situation.
And USchick, I'd really like to avoid one of those inane exchanges here. -- Director(talk) 18:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Nevertheless, there are two reliable sources at odds with each other. USchick (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
There are two reliable sources here. I don't think we are in a position to determine that one is more reliable than the other; this is surely a matter for the reliable sources noticeboard. RolandR (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily against taking this to RSN, but I feel WP:SOURCE is pretty explicit on this: "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." -- Director(talk) 19:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Certainly this could use more investigation; it's a fairly obscure image, though. My main concern, though, was in using the image to illustrate this article, when half of the RSes say it isn't Trotsky.--Pharos (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
That's not what you were saying above, Pharos. Your position was simply that the poster isn't Trotsky. As for whether it should be included here, that's a pretty subjective issue. -- Director(talk) 04:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I certainly think it's very likely not to be Trotsky, but I would also acknowledge that it's a fairly obscure image, and we can't be absolutely sure as it hasn't really been studied in depth. I wouldn't particularly advocate putting this image in articles under either interpretation.--Pharos (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
There are plenty of images available that are undoubtedly Trotsky. Why do we need to include one that may well not be him? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I thought it was a good illustration of his pivotal role in the wars of the period. The man wasn't just an intellectual, but also a very competent military leader. Still, as I said, its an entirely subjective issue whether to include that particular image. -- Director(talk) 02:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I remember reading at some point that the implement that Trotsky was killed with wasn't a mountaineering ice axe / icepick, but rather an icepick for breaking up ice that a barman might use before putting it in a drink. Is there any evidence for this? Am I completely wrong? I always thought it strange that there would be a mountaineering icepick in Mexico... VenomousConcept (talk) 10:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
According to Robert Service, it was an ice axe, not an ice pick. Apparently the ice axe had its handle sawn back, and the assassin also carried a dagger with it under his raincoat (on a sunny day). The idea was to commit the deed and get away undetected. Remember, this was a "professional" hit, not a target of opportunity done with improvised weapons.--Pharos (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Stalin had been planning this for years. There was no need to use a weapon found in the same country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intheafternoon (talk • contribs) 14:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)