Talk:Fanny Kaplan

stuff

I posted an entry on Fanya Kaplan, the woman that attempted to assassinate Lenin. Being as her real name is Russian, there is some dispute on how it should be transcribed into English. I have seen it as both Fanny and Fanya. A Google search shows that Fanny is more popular by about two to one, but Fanya seems to appear much more frequently in the scholarly works as opposed to the general ones. In addition, Mikkalai, who unlike me actually speaks Russian, says that Fanny is the more accurate transcription. I'm throwing this one to the consensus of the crowd. 1430 EST 30 January 2004 MK

I'm not vouching for the correct spelling. In Soviet texts she was called Fanny, but there is no 100% sure data about her real name. Other hypotheses are Feiga and Dora (the latter gave rise to a ridiculous version that Lenin was shot by "Fanya and her syster Dora"). Mikkalai 23:27, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The Russian-language Wikipedia gives it as "Фанни Ефимовна Каплан (Фейга Хаимовна Ройдман)". The standard transliteration of this is "Fanni Efimovna Kaplan (Feĭga Khaimovna Roĭdman)". That means her Yiddish first name was Feyge (spelled Feĭga in Russian), and she was also called by the more European-sounding name Fanni, and her father's name was presumably Khaim in Yiddish and Efim in Russian. Her father's last name is given as Roĭdman.

1/ I took out the bit about her joining the Right SRs and have simply left it as her joining the SR. (The Right SR only existed after the October revolution when the SR Party split).

2/ I have changed the sentace regarding all parties expect the Bolsheviks being banned. The original implied that they were banned when the Constituent Assembly was closed. At this time only the Kadets were illegal. The Right SRs, Anarchists, Mensheviks and Left SRs were all banned in subsequent months. All of them had to some degree or another taken up arms against the Bolsheviks. The reasons why each of them did so are complex and best dealt with elsewhere.

3/ I took out the whole paragraph about the assasination of the head of the Petrograd and subsequent suppression of the SR. This misses out alot of other more important info (i.e. the Left SR 'uprising' in Moscow in July, the Left SR assasination of German Ambassador Count Mirbach)

None of which has to do with the Right SR who were already banned by this point.

Thank you very much for your corrections. Nevertheless I have to restore the last paragraph, since generally the two events are considered to be immediate triggers of Red Terror. Your comments will be valuable addition to the Red Terror article. Also, please feel free to edit the restored paragraph, but IMO it must be kept in some form. Otherwise the impression is that there were no consequences, which is clearly wrong. Mikkalai 01:45, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think that the new text about Lenin and his theory that the soviets were a valid alternative government is somewhat biased. But I'll leave it there for now so others have an opportunity to read and discuss it. MK2 04:44, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed in both this article and one on the Red Terror that Fanny Kaplan is authoritatively said to have been Lenin's attacker. There is actually some debate about this. Without going too into it, two main points off the top of my head: 1. Kaplan was quickly and rather quietly executed rather than made to suffer public humiliation for propaganda purposes. Though it may be argued that this tendency had not fully developed in the Soviet Union at the time and that the Bolsheviks weren't necessarily powerful enough to attempt such a thing, one must wonder why the Cheka, a secret police force rivaled only by the Gestapo in its barbarity, was unable to pry the names of Kaplan's coconspirators out of her and, indeed, gave up on doing so so quickly. Some say that this was because she was a scapegoat. Possibly the assassin's real identity would have embarassed the Bolsheviks (i.e. a worker or one of their own) so Kaplan was chosen because she was a member of a then unfavorable political party. Surely, the arrest of an SR for Lenin's attempted assassination allowed the Bolsheviks to consolidate their power even further. In this way, the event is much like the similarly disputed Reichstag Fire in 1933. 2. My second, far less heady reason is that Kaplan had terrible eyesight. It is doubtful that she would have been able to fire a gun with any accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.81.42 (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

1. You are right: at these times there was no habit of public trials at these times. You are wrong: even most barbaric secret police cannot pry coconspirators, if there were none. Do you know them today? Also, you was not reading the article carefully: they did not need any coconspirators: all esers were rounded up, (Also, your opinion about whose barbarity was best is naive. If you think that English in their colonies worked in white gloves while suppressing rebellions, it is fine with me, but I will chuckle.) 2. She was shooting from close range. And she didn't kill him, by the way. Mikkalai 07:57, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that the content of the page be changed to indicate that Kaplan DID NOT shoot Lenin (though I believe that to be the case.) I am suggesting that it be mentioned that there is some question about Kaplan's guilt. Thank you. -Church of England 21:42 4/22/05 (this is my first time doing this so I'm probably not following the etiquette. I apologize. I have no idea how to do this properly. I'll check back soon. Please let me know how to properly leave comments like this.)

the basic etiquette is that wikipedia is not a discussion group. Your opinion has no place in the article: see wikipedia:no original research. See also User talk:Church of england for the very basic reading suggestions about editing in wikipedia. If you have serious, authoritative sources that discuss these issues, you are free to present them as opinions of experts, like, "Professor Drillenhengst argues that...". Mikkalai 07:57, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removed claim that the number of executions increased from tens to hundreds of thousands. The source gives wildly varying figures from the tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands for the whole period. Cannot consider that the source backs up the assertion. 88.107.42.244 (talk) 03:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Fanny Фа́нни, we find many cases in Middle and Eastern Europe, was used as a new form for Feiga Фейга. Not rarely, the name Fanny (פאני/פני) derived from Yiddish, as an anglicized Feigel, Feigele, or Feiga, Fejga. 79.219.88.181 (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

August 28 or August 30?

The article about Uritski shows the day of Lenin's assassination is August 28. Which one is correct?

Kaplan not executed in 1918?

According to Victor Serge in his book "From Lenin to Stalin" he said (referring to Dora Kaplan) "And Lenin insisted that she should not be shot; although her execution was announced, I have reasons for believing that it did not take place and that Dora Kaplan was still alive many years later." 4.131.86.187 09:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Date of birth

This entry gives her date of birth as 1883, while many other Wikipedias, also Russian, state it to be 1890. Also other Russian texts describe her as being 27 in 1918. What is true? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.212.171.26 (talk) 10:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

1890 is true (Julian calendar: 29 January 1890 / Gregorian calendar: 10 February 1890).79.219.88.181 (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Recommended source for use in revising this article

Someone needs to thoroughly revise this Wikipedia article, because the information in it is seriously outdated. I would do it, but I don't have time. The most up-to-date scholarly article about the 1918 assassination attempt on Lenin that I can think of right now is "The 1918 Attempt on the Life of Lenin: A New Look at the Evidence," by Semion Lyandres, in the journal Slavic Review, Vol. 48, No. 3 (Autumn, 1989), pp. 432-448. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allen1861 (talk • contribs)

Name in Russian?

There seems to be a discrepancy between the English form of her name (Fanya) and the Russian form (Фаина). This Russian name would correspond to "Faina" (?). I would have expected the Russian form to be something like "Фаня". What's correct? Richwales 06:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Fanny Фа́нни (so many cases; it must have been 'en vogue' in that time) deriving from Yiddish Feiga Фейга https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BD,_%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B8_%D0%95%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0 79.219.88.181 (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Monument

"A bronze monument to Fanny Kaplan was erected in Moscow" - was it really? Isn't it a April Fools' joke? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 04:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Amire80, for removing the bad joke. 79.219.88.181 (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Lenin was with syphillis

Beyond any doubt the bullets from Fanny Kaplan's pistol, put Lenin's health worse.Even so, the real cause of Lenin's madness and death was syphillis, a STD.Agre22 (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)agre22

Sydney Reilly

A sentence in the intro stated there were links between Kaplan and the British spy Sydney Reilly. Nothing in the main text of the article backs this up and Reilly is not mentioned again, so I have removed the intro statement. If it's to be restored, it should be with a cite and some discussion in the main body of the text. 87.224.74.143 (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

According to Orlando Figes book A People's Tragedy, after Reilly's accomplice, Bruce Lockhart, was imprisoned, the Cheka brought Kaplan to Lockhart's cell, hoping that she would identify him as a coconspirator. However, neither recognized the other. I think Kaplan even went so far as to say something along the lines of "I've never seen him before in my life." --Simon Beavis (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Which calendar?

Russia continued to use the Julian calendar till after the communist revolution. Are the dates of Kaplan's birth and death given using Julian dates, or have they been converted to Gregorian? 169.199.121.4 (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Gregorian calendar. Fanny Kaplan, date of birth: Julian calendar: * 29 January 1890 / Gregorian calendar: 10 February 1890. 79.219.88.181 (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, what about the “nearly 2 weeks” that the article claims separated the attempt on Lenin from the assassination of Moitsev? That also smacks of calendric dissonance, as other sources, for example scholar Yuri Slezkine in Government House, II, 5, write that the two events occurred on the same day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill.pollard (talk • contribs) 19:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Her near-blindness

It seems odd that her "near-blindness" is given as evidence for her "working on the behalf of others." Her inability to see suggests, much more strongly, that she acted alone. In order to succeed, an assassin needs good eyesight. It's unlikely that a third party would choose a "nearly blind" agent, for such a deed, if the main motive was to kill Lenin. 70.178.64.118 (talk) 01:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Very good point, thanks. Perhaps, instead of: "Kaplan (...) who shot Vladimir Lenin", we should write: "Kaplan (...) who allegedly shot Vladimir Lenin". 79.219.88.181 (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Which woman?

'Vaksberg states that Lidia Konopleva, another SR, was the culprit; believing it would be all too comforting that Lenin narrowly avoided being assassinated by a woman whose personality is so far from the stereotype of a national hero.'

Not clear which of the two women this refers to. Statement not very encyclopedic. Valetude (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fanny Kaplan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090116003440/http://www.memo.ru/Nerczinsk/szkol6.htm to http://www.memo.ru/Nerczinsk/szkol6.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080620115257/http://www.j-grit.com/radicals-fanya-kaplan.html to http://www.j-grit.com/radicals-fanya-kaplan.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Confusion in first line

The first line currently says:

... was a member of the Socialist Revolutionary Party who shot Vladimir Lenin.

I know nothing about her, and my first understanding of that sentence was that Lenin was fired at by a group or party of people, but that's not what it means, is it? (Or is it?) Ought it to say something else, like "was the member of..."? Or did other members of the same party shoot at Lenin at some point? -- BessieMaelstrom (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, we should clarify that. I will change it into two sentences. 79.219.88.181 (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing to an advertisement?

The Colley source is, quite literally, an ad. Qwirkle (talk) 06:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

What I believe you’re referencing is a pop-up before the actual source. No, it’s not an advertisement, but I can see why you’d be puzzled. Simply click off the pop-up for the source material, hope this clarified. R. J. Dockery (talk) 07:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

No. I am referencing the only the only thing which comes up (if you suppress pop-ups). It is a one-page web page gee-whizz did-you-know selfpublished article, sans references, written by a man who appears to believe in Browning revolvers. It has four illustrations: one of the subject, another of her victim, and two advertising the author’s other works. That’s a teaser ad for a series of books, at very best. The series of books appears to be History’s equivalent of “Great Square Inches in Art”, but not meant as humor.

It is complete rubbish as a source. Qwirkle (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Qwirkle that this is not a valid source. According to WP:CITE, "A full citation fully identifies a reliable source..." I don't believe that the included citation meets this critera. Jurisdicta (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

There are only two sentences with that source. It should be easy enough to replace it. That's hardly worthy of a {{disputed}} tag IMO. —howcheng {chat} 15:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

If this were a small claim, widely cited elsewhere, I’d agree with you.

It ain’t. It is a very large claim, badly sourced, and not easily found elsewhere. Big stuff probably wrong is well worth warning the reader. Qwirkle (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I have replaced that source with a couple of Oxford University Press ones. I hope that should be satisfactory. —howcheng {chat} 17:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

No, although a good deal better. Who is it attributing this fact to? Qwirkle (talk) 17:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I assume you mean the fact about the bullet not matching (the other claim about her being near-blind and suffering from headaches is widely known). Since the Sixsmith source is only a Google Books preview, I can't give you an answer as the author's bibliography (if it exists) is not in the available pages. If it's worth anything, the author is Martin Sixsmith, a former BBC correspondent. —howcheng {chat} 17:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that’s the sticking point...that, and the many Browning revolvers, but that is a minor thing. So many of the sources use nearly identical wording, again, never the best sign. Yeah, I recognized Sixsmith, and, as I said, see this as better, but it is still very small beer for a very large claim. Qwirkle (talk) 02:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Well the translation of Kaplan's confession uses the term "revolver" so it's not surprising that other sources all use the same term even if Browning never made one. —howcheng {chat} 06:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I found another biography of Lenin that states the bullet didn't match the gun. —howcheng {chat} 06:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I don’t doubt you can find many examples, but a good cite would say something like “the bullet was, like the others, largely intact, but its rifling marks were completely different” or “the expanded bullet’s weight was more consistent with a .45 round” and so forth. It would also cover all the Five Double-Ues (and One Aitch). Instead, we get cites which are hand-waves, and remarkably consistent hand-waves. Qwirkle (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Declassified materials

I have added some content sourced to the Boris Yeltsin Presidential Library (this link is in English), which has declassified materials about the assassination online. In particular, if someone can read Russian, there are a few sentences in this article that have {{citation needed}} tags that could probably be verified from those sources. —howcheng {chat} 17:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Photo

The primary photo used on this article does not match other available photos of Kaplan. The source for the photo is a Russian language website. This should be followed up on, but it’s beyond me. 98.248.218.67 (talk) 23:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Yep, just saw that you'd written about this. I don't find the site trustworthy. I suspect that somebody just chose a random photo of a stereotypically Jewish-looking girl.--62.73.72.3 (talk) 01:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Photos

I am, admittedly, not very good at recognising faces, but this time it seems too extreme - I just can't see the two photos in the article as being of the same woman. Are they both well sourced? 62.73.72.3 (talk) 01:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Just checked, apparently the image in the lede is from this article, [1], with this infotainment site cited as the source: "The Russian Seven is a fascinating guide to world civilization, covering history, science, culture, media, psychology, health and entertainment.Founder and publisher: TURA LLC." I don't see how it is reliable.--62.73.72.3 (talk) 01:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)