Talk:Alexandra Kollontai

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 9 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alardne1 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Aboardm1.

Old talk[edit]

I am not sure of the place of accent in Domontovich. Any ideas? — Monedula

Last o is correct. Mikkalai 00:52, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Mikhail Domontovich[edit]

I found two links to Mikhail Domontovich's involvement in Bulgaria (and it's constitution). These do not need to go in to the Kollontai article. The primary source is Kollontai's memoirs. (in Finnish :-( -- Petri Krohn 04:45, 25 October 2005

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry in early life section[edit]

IP, please make your case for adding information mentioned with attribution to a family biography in interaffairs. The article is currently written from the basis of several biographies by established academics, so if they make no mention of it it's probably not WP:DUE. signed, Rosguill talk 00:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For starters I'll repeat what I've said in the note following my revert:

You reverted not to pre-dispute status quo but to a version which erases her progenitor that was already there pre-dispute; either this is oversight on your part or deliberate; furthermore, I've just noticed that the subject is nee Domontovich, meaning your edit is obscuring the very origin of her surname (Domont, Daumantas, whatever the spelling)).

I started editing this article after her origin from Daumantas was already in the article. I added link to Lithuanian nobility which does provide important context (the multi-ethnic and multi-religious character of that nobility) in only 2 words and a hyperlink.
Your stance to remove her origin that is in her family surname seems to be off a reasonable consensus that I would think is the current version of the article. It does say she was Ukrainian; it does mention her origins; it makes a separation between citizenship, ethnicity and belonging to a super-national nobility (as all of them were/are).
What is missing?
1. More explicit clarification of the origin of her surname (one has to be specialist of the entire region to make connection between Domont and Domontovich.
2. You say, better references? 151.11.216.130 (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've just looked into the 2 present references.
The English reference is typically lazy as most were during the times of the Iron Curtain. It says she was "Russian" nobility even though her father was Domontovich (a "Ukrainian") and her mother's father was a Finn. It would take some time to explain why this is wrong in detail. The gust is that while she was a Marxist we are assessing her family origins which were aristocratic. Aristocracy does not become "Russian" just because someone is born in Russia or because the country is part of Russian empire between dates x and y. One does not become Ukrainian aristocrat either because there has never been such a thing, it's a contradiction in terms (Ukraine is a nation state and previously a region; although yes, there was Kievan Rus' aristocracy).
The Russian reference is not as lazy and says: Домонтовичи ведут свою родословную от знаменитого князя Довмонта Псковского, княжившего в XIII веке с 1266 года в Пскове, принявшего монашество и признанного православной церковью святым Тимофеем Псковским. У псковичей имеется много легенд, песен и сказаний, сложенных в честь доблестных походов князя Довмонта на тевтонских рыцарей. Народ его высоко чтил. Мощи святого Довмонта и его победоносный меч хранятся в Псковском монастыре…
Let's compare her to Lee Radziwill, an American (and a capitalist). Was she part of Lithuanian nobility? Yes, by virtue of marrying into it. Was she American? Yes. What's not analogous here? 151.11.216.130 (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that the Interfax information is lazy, I'm saying that it's unreliable: all of the information is Воспоминания внука об Александре Михайловне Коллонтай –, "the memoirs of Alexandra Kollontai's nephew". This is not information that is independent of Kollontai, and is not due on this basis. Find me a historian that makes this claim and I will have no problem including it. signed, Rosguill talk 02:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kollontai has died quite a while ago. Nephew is not a dependent party but a primary source. Interfax is not an unreliable or a deprecated source. It is unreasonable to wait until a historian uses the same Interfax report to draw the same conclusions. It is also unreasonable not to draw conclusions from her surname. Domontovich is an extremely uncommon surname. Since you reverted to quo this time, maybe it can stay this way.

151.11.216.130 (talk) 11:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The intervening time is, if anything, an argument for the exclusive preference for sources written by actual historians, and Interfax's reliability is largely irrelevant here because they attribute their information to someone else (the nephew's memoir). Deriving conclusions ourselves from her surname or primary sources is original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. The status quo is fine by me, although as written it doesn't look like there's any information in the Interfax citation that is actually being used, so its inclusion doesn't really serve our readers at all. signed, Rosguill talk 19:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only woman other than Maria Spiridonova to play a prominent role in the Russian Revolution?[edit]

How do I edit this out without breaking the rule of not being allowed to remove parts of quotes: "She was the only woman other than Maria Spiridonova to play a prominent role during the Russian Revolution"? It does not show up as a quote when I edit it, I also did not realize that removing part of a quote while keeping the citation in tact was a cause for concern, apologies. There were many women involved in the Russian Revolution, even if they did not play as prominent of a role as being the first woman in the cabinet. I think this statement is unnecessarily reductive and does not tell the truth about the role of women in the Russian Revolution, see Women in the Russian Revolution for starters. EmSim15 (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or is this not what I removed? Looking back on my edit it appears I (embarrassingly) removed part of a quote that was in reference to her being the first woman in the cabinet...if so I request permission instead remove this part ("She was the only woman other than Maria Spiridonova to play a prominent role during the Russian Revolution") from the third paragraph instead. Sincerest apologies for the mistake. EmSim15 (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I'd demand sources to counter text with a citation attached, but the claim in question is so easily disproven by a review of Women in the Russian Revolution and the various biographies linked from there. I'm going to go take a look at the originally cited source tomorrow, looks like a library near me has it--I'd bet that it probably has a similar but more factually accurate claim calling Kollontai and Spiridonova the only women revolutionaries to hold a specific position or play a specific leadership role, rather than the vague qualifier of "prominent". signed, Rosguill talk 00:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is likely correct, there is probably a better way to phrase it for sure. Although, I think it is enough to say that she was the first woman to hold a position as cabinet minister/ambassador without unnecessarily diminishing the contributions of other women, as that is a huge feat in itself! That said, I will let you be the judge of that. Thanks in advance for reviewing the source! EmSim15 (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I made the related edit in the article, I remember finding the original English source online, but I can't remember where. While waiting for it to be found, I transcribe the quote from the Italian translation below, to allow you to get a preliminary idea:
"Nell'Unione Sovietica le donne, di fatto, non hanno avuto un ruolo importante nella direzione politica: la loro principale esponente, Aleksandra Kollontaj, ebbe numerosi incarichi importanti nella diplomazia, mentre l'altra figura femminile di rilievo, Marija Spiridonova, leader della sinistra socialista rivoluzionaria, non occupò alcuna carica nel breve governo di coalizione tra bolscevichi e sinistra socialista rivoluzionaria del 1917-18" (G.D.H. Cole, Storia del pensiero socialista, Bari Laterza, 1972, IV2, p. 445).
I'm pretty sure Cole originally used the word "outstanding" rather than "prominent", but I didn't mean to quote verbatim. Jeanambr (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As regards Cole, "outstanding" is the original word, and the above is a faithful translation to the Italian. My sense, given the availability of other sources that would disagree with claim that the only prominent women in the revolution were Kollontai and Spiridonova, we could simply call Kollontai and Spiridonova one of the most prominent, although I think that the lead already makes her prominence quite clear, so we may be able to just stick with the current wording (n.b. I've gone ahead and made the change at Maria Spiridonova).
Further complicating matters, Cole states earlier in the same paragraph that The first woman to become Cabinet Minister was the Dane, Nina Bang, who became Minister of Education in 1924, contrary to the other sources crediting Kollontai as first woman cabinet minister. Cross referencing with the rest of the biography, it seems that Kollontai was appointed in August 1924, so it is plausible that Bang was appointed a few weeks or months earlier; at the moment I'm not sure how we should reconcile the competing claims from various sources, as there's essentially no middle ground between the claims. signed, Rosguill talk 15:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently Cole (for whom I have had decades of admiration) got it wrong here: Kollontai became People's Commissar soon after the October Revolution and resigned her post in February 1918. In August 1924 she became "minister plenipotentiary", that is, the person in charge of a diplomatic mission of a lower rank than that of an embassy. She would finally become an ambassadress in 1943 when the Soviet diplomatic mission in Stockholm was upgraded to an embassy.
I don't disagree with Cole on his statement about the role of the two female revolutionaries: I remember seeing two or three postcards from the revolution bearing photos of the different revolutionary leaders. Next to Lenin, Trotsky, etc. the only two women depicted were obviously Kollontai and Spiridonova in all cases. Which by no means meant any disregard for the other women who had fought alongside them: they were simply the two prominent female leaders. And I don't think there are any sources that can deny this reality. Jeanambr (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably also be necessary to check the immediately following statement that "In 1919, Kollontai founded the Zhenotdel". I do not know the history of this department, but the related article states that it "was established by two Russian feminist revolutionaries, Alexandra Kollontai and Inessa Armand, in 1919", the latter being the first leader until her death in 1920.--Jeanambr (talk) 09:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the statement on Zhenotdel slightly. An English copy edit would be welcome. Jeanambr (talk) 09:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alexandra_Kollontai&oldid=1194089032"