Talk:The State and Revolution

[Untitled]

• I have rarely seen the NPOV policy violated so consistently on Wikipedia. If you have read the text, please improve this article with a more neutral discussion of the content. 217.233.163.211 (talk)
• this article needs to be more neutral. I think it is a subjective opinion to assume that this book is "an excellent defence of Marx", and equally the fact that it is described as "witty" and so in reveals whoever wrote this article is undoubtedly putting forward a positive, rather than neutral view of a controversial book 81.96.164.156 22:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. Well written but not neutral, it is Leninist point of view. 78.0.82.107 (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • That would actually make it neutral. To examine a leninist text from a non-leninist perspective would violate most precepts of literary/artistic analysis, and presumably those of historical analysis too.

• I think this article needs to figure out what it is supposed to be. Is it an encyclopedia article? Is it literary criticism? Is this an article on the book? An encyclopedia article would have no opinion and little on the content itself. It would simply tell you when, where, by whom and maybe why. If this is more then make it more. Write a full article on the texts with as much information as possible. It needs several differing views of the text. Several quotations from the text and arguments from as many sources as can be found.

Take a look at Federalist No. 10 and all of the information it provides. There is context and history and so forth. Non-American texts deserve the same consideration. --jenlight (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Dispute of a few things. "In both a witty and intelligent language he deconstructs the arguments of..." Clearly POV. The page isn't even columned well and needs some major revisions.

• This article really could use information about publication history and such. Christopher Read's Lenin biography claims that Lenin was the most widely published author in history. That tends to suggest this book/pamphlet was among the most widely published of its time. Would be useful information.

Major Expansion

• Hey, I'm noticing this article is a bit thin, considering the significance of the subject matter. I'm going to attempting to expand this article by adding more sources from critics, Marxist philosophers, political figures and scholarly reviews. I've also added a "background" and "Reception" subsection that I plan on expanding in the upcoming future. Finally, I've added a "further reading" section that will provide material related to the subject from academic journals and significant published material.

S1d6arrett23 (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)