Talk:What Is To Be Done?
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
 |
What Is To Be Done? is within the scope of the Russian History WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian History. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
As Lenin's work is by far the best known and most important work of the 3 works of this tile (there is also Tolstoy's) surely it should be the primary meaning on Wikipedia? I propose moving. PatGallacher 22:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
If nobody objects over the next couple of days I will make these moves. PatGallacher 13:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lars who?
Regarding the following: However it has recently been argued in a book on the pamphlet by Lars Lih that it has been widely misinterpreted, based partly on mistranslations of key terms used by Lenin. Does someone want to grammatically correct this, properly cite it, and explain what the hell it is supposed to mean? Thanks in advance. 74.140.211.161 17:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Nobody? Okay, I'm taking it out. Feel free to reinsert if you're willing to address the concerns above. National Airport 12:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you will see that a citation for this is given in the review by Socialist Democracy, which is linked. I'm not sure what the grammar problem is either. PatGallacher 20:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
You haven't explained what it's supposed to mean. I don't think that the "citation" follows any format suggested at Wikipedia:Citing sources, either. I also can't find anything to suggest that this Lih fellow is a reliable source and not just a conspiracy theorist or something, either. 128.163.113.201 20:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I think if you actually read the reviews of Lih's work on the Socialist Democracy website and online at the Weekly Worker then it does come across as a piece of serioius scholarship. I may expand the article on these issues. PatGallacher 14:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
