Talk:Lev Gumilev

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Interpreting Gumilev

I think this interpretation of Gumilev ideas about Russia is wrong. He does not mention it as any supper nation. He uses term Super-ethnos for all composite origin ethnos which does not have any single root in past, i.e. Supper ethnos is nation that feels as one ethnos while actually consists for multiple ethnic groups with mixed origin and traditions. For example to some extend US is Super-Ethnos, since it's population still did not forget their roots and tradition but at the same time all feels like Americans and speak the same language. As one of historic examples of Super-Ethnos Gumilev gives Byzantium. This terms are very widely misinterpreted on by non Russian readers probably due to language barrier, I suggest this to be some how fixed in the text to avoid any misinterpretation of Gumilev works.

[edit] antisemitism

Lev Gumilev's theories about Jews were loudly proclaimed and undisputed even by his supporters. To call it drivel is to whitewash history. Explain how the paragraph is POV. It identifies certain theories and describes what commentors have said about it. Not sure what you mean by "noone is bound to love Jews". Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I oppose to representing the last passage in the light of anti-semitism, as if the Jews disconcerted Gumilev more than other peoples. He famously said that every clever Ukrainian knows that he is Russian. As for the last phrase it is so obviously POV that I don/t think it has a place in the article. Let it stay here: "Some scholars even labeled Gumilyov's ideas, which pitted the "Eurasian" peoples against the trans-Atlantic Western Civilization, to be neo-racist in nature.[1]". I would say that the guy responsible for the article quoted here is not "some scholars". He is so dizzy about his pet "Western Civilization" and "Pax Americana" that I wouldn't be surprize if he proclaimed "ex occidentum lux", while we all know that best things in life, including Judaism and Christianity, came from the East :) --Ghirla | talk 18:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why we should overlook some scholars qualifying LG as an antisemite or at least an ultra-nationalist (which in case of Russia is pretty much synonymous). Here's more evidence:

• "He is not only admired by semi-educated people but is also legitimised by sections of the academy (a university is named after him in Kazakhstan). It is argued that his work lends a spurious credence to nationalism and anti-semitism." (in Lev Gumilev: His Pretensions as a Founder of Ethnology and his Eurasian Theories by Viktor Shnirelman and Sergei Panarin [2])
• "The embittered Lev Gumilev grew up to be the ultra-nationalist historian who reintroduced mystic racialism into post-Soviet education." (In Our lady of sorrows by Neal Ascherson The Observer (July 31, 2005) Review of Anna of All The Russians: The Life of Anna Akhmatova by Elaine Feinstein [3])

And more yet: [4], [5], [6], [7]. I am posting this not to assassinate his character or other views. Our job is to reflect and systematize reality in encyclopedic manner. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 23:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I have little sympathy with the man or his views, but I strongly object to Briangott's current version of the page, which makes Gumilev's perceived antisemitism completely overshadow his contributions as a serious scholar and an original thinker. Richard Wagner was a fierce anti-Semite, but I would likewise object if half the article on him were littered with quotations about his reactionary views. It is not his opinion about Jews that makes him (or Gumilev) so important. Besides, Briangotts' voluntary association with some of the worst trolls that pester Wikipedia (such as Molobo, Bonaparte, AndriyK) makes me alert to possible provocative edits on his part.--Ghirla | talk 11:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA please. This is not about you, me or Brian. According to what I know (my POV) so far, LG does not qualify for "a serious scholar": see the links above. Also, it is your & mine POV to insist what is important and what is not. Nobody prevents you from adding encyclopedic info, but please do not delete sourced material just because you don't like it. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 12:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't remove anything after some NPOVing was made. It remains to be ascertained whether Mr Yasmann and Radio Free Europe are authoritative sources for their POV to be quoted so extensively in the text. I would prefer to supply a link to their article without inserting the extensive and POV-phrased quote. --Ghirla | talk 12:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)