Talk:Andreu Nin

Stalin and the NKVD

Recent addition: "Andrés Nin was murdered, under direct orders from Stalin and the supervision of the NKVD." The italicized text was recently added. It doesn't seem particularly unlikely, so I will leave it there for now, but it's the sort of inherently controversial claim that really needs a citation. Does someone have one? -- 19:25, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Ref: "The Mitrokhin Archive" by Christopher Andrew & Vasili Mitrokhin, Pub: Penguin, 2000 ISBN 0-14-028487-7 Page 96 Paperback Version: "On 16 June the head of POUM, Andreu Nin, and forty leading members were arrested, it's headquarters closed and it's militia battalions disbanded. Less than a week later Nin disappeared from prison. An official investigation announced that he had escaped. In reality, he was abducted and murdered by a 'mobile squad' of assassins, supervised by Orlov. Nin was one of many Trotskyists in Spain, both real and imagined, who met such fates." The NKVD did not carry out such activities without direct sanction from Stalin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trotboy (talk • contribs) 28 Dec 2005.

I gather that the "Mitrokhin Archive", while unofficial, is consdered generally reliable. It is an appropriate citation for the NKVD having been responsible for Nin's death. While I agree that it is likely that "the NKVD did not carry out such activities without direct sanction from Stalin", I don't think that's a proven case. If you argue that all NKVD killings were on direct orders from Stalin, then under direct orders from Stalin and the supervision of the NKVD becomes redundant; surely we aren't going to reiterate this every time we say the NKVD killed someone. Shouldn't it just read "Andrés Nin was murdered under the supervision of the NKVD" and be cited to Mitrokhin, since that's what we've actually got? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The Mitrokhin Archive is not really ever going to be 'official', is it? That would mean the Russian Secret Service publicly admitting it was responsible for a whole series of Murders, which is about as likely as the CIA admitting to genocide in Vietnam. The NKVD were responsible for a lot of murders, but Historically only a few of them are highly significant, the murder of Nin, as with the murder of Trotsky, was extremely significant and high profile - it is important therefore to understand that such murders were directly sanctioned by Stalin, and if one doesn't say so, how can this be understood by anyone who doesn't have extensive knowledge of the period & events? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.153.126.144 (talk • contribs) 9 Dec 2006.

From the Gorbachev era on, the Soviets and, later, Russians, have admitted to many such things from their history, and many parts of the NKVD/KGB archives have been opened. As I say above, the "Mitrokhin Archive", while unofficial, is consdered generally reliable. But I don't believe it's Mitrokhin as the source for the claim that Nin's murder required Stalin's specific signoff. As I said, Mitrokhin is a good citation for NKVD being responsible, but not for Stalin personally. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but Orlov's papers ARE official and recognized by Russian scholars everywhere. That they are at the Mitrokhin Archive is not of importance. Orlov's confirms the orders given. --David Walters, January 1, 2007

That seems a non-sequitur. The citation given is Mitrokhin, not Orlov. And the "Mitrokhin Archive" is not a place, it is simply the title given to Mitrokhin's notes, ostensibly based on primary source materials that are not available.

Again, no reasonable person doubts that Nin died at the hands of the Communists, nor that Stalin is ultimately responsible for the NKVD's murderous policies in this period. But the claim that Stalin specifically authorized this individual killing, as far as I can tell, is just Mitrokhin's claim, and should be identified as such. - Jmabel | Talk 01:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Communist party of spain

The page says Nin "was among the founders of the Communist Party of Spain." Is that really the case ? I didn't find any reference of it, neither on the Spanish article nor on the "Communist Party of Spain" article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.41.164.194 (talk • contribs) 26 Aug 2005.

Nothing I'd call rock-solid, but footnotes on [1] and [2] both make this claim, as does [3]. All pass my "smell test", though they are lacking in specifics. I'd welcome a better citation, but I think this is a preponderance of evidence, even if it doesn't remove all reasonable doubt. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:23, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Recent addition

Apparently "Comandante Contreras" Vittorio Vidali, and Iosif Romualdovich Grigulevich were involved.

Anonymous, no citation. Not that the rest of this article is well-cited. Does someone have something on this? - Jmabel | Talk 00:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the references on the Vittorio Vidali page might cover this topic as well. Dahn 15:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. —Nightstallion (?) 12:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Name of the article

I think the title of the article should be corrected, replacing "Andrés Nin" by "Andreu Nin". “Andrés” is the Spanish version of the Catalan name “Andreu”, and Nin was, after all, Catalan. The Catalan and Spanish versions of Wikipedia have the title entry with "Andreu", not with "Andrés". Even the Foundation of Nin, publishing its texts ins Spanish, is called "Fundación Andreu Nin" (see http://www.fundanin.org). I wanted to change the title myself, but I didn’t want to do it without at least posting on the discussion page, because I think changing the title of an article is something not light. I hope everybody will agree to the proposal; in any case, I wanted to share it with you.--Hvitlys 20:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I support that move. I was not sure of that initially, as I had never heard a reference to him in Catalan, but I did link him as Andreu Nin in all mentions of him in other articles. Dahn 14:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Dahn. I tried to move the page myself but it didn't work (probably something to do with redirecting). So I have added a move request at the administrators site.--Hvitlys 23:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose Catalan nationalism. English usage, chiefly through Orwell is clear. Septentrionalis 04:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose: Nin never called himself Andreu, but Andrés. This is the name he always used to introduce himself. Wikipedia should stick to the most commonly used name in English, and that is Andrés (i.e. Orwell's works). Just because the Spanish and Catalan language articles have been taken over by nationalists, this does not mean we should follow the pattern. Asterion 16:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

As a supporter of internationalism, Andreu Nin would translate his name to Spanish when dealing with spaniards or people from other countries, or even use both forms indistinctively as it was typical at the time (even the translation of names in English, German or other languages was the norm). One can still find old books written by "Carlos Marx" or "León Tolstoy". This is still no argument against using his "real" name (the one he used at home) in this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.14.252.3 (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name of the article: Research

I have just checked progress on the discussion about the name of the article and have seen that, while I was doing research on the topic, the issue has already been closed.

I am really sad that my proposal has caused such comments, especially the last "Strongly oppose". I have never tried to manipulate anything, and I am the first person who is wishing to accept a mistake if I have made one. This kind of comments discourage me to contribute anything to wikipedia; I know it is a stupid attitude, to give up if I think the facts prove otherwise on a topic, but I can’t help feeling disappointed.

Next, I’m posting the procedures and results of my research.

Since I am personally no expert on Andreu Nin or on history, I searched for the right expert. I was addressed to historian Pelai Pagès, the expert Professor on Andreu Nin at the University of Barcelona. He has also appeared recently in a documentary about POUM (30 minuts, POUM: Una vida per la utopia, 4 December 2005).

I asked Professor Pagès what exactly was the name of Nin: Andrés or Andreu. Also, I asked him how people called him. And finally, how I could find out what exactly his name was. Also, I referred to Orwell’s usage of Spanish on Hommage to Catalonia.

This was his answer:

• Context: The majority of POUM members were Catalan. Something different is the name Nin used when he wrote: when he was writing books or articles in Spanish, he signed Andrés Nin, and when he was writing them in Catalan, he signed Andreu Nin. Prof. Pagès points out that this was what people did at that time. Furthermore, Prof. Pagès said that he had met many former fellows of Nin: they called him Andreu if they were Catalan, and Andrés if they were Spanish.

• About today: On today’s situation, Prof. Pagès said that the former was not the question of debate. He said that, for example, Fundación Andreu Nin has its central headquarters in Madrid but never occurred itself to call itself otherwise than ”Andreu Nin”. Moreover, Prof. Pagès added that the majority of Nin books that were published again in the seventies, regardless of the language they were written in, were published as ”Andreu Nin”.

• About Orwell’s use of Spanish: originally, I thought Orwell used Spanish in his book because he strongly opposed any form of nationalism; if it had been so, that would not have been fair from him. But Prof. Pagès suggests otherwise: that Orwell’s use of Spanish instead of Catalan was most probably due to bilingual confusion (Catalan and Spanish were spoken in Catalonia, at that time) rather than to a deliberate will of translating everything into Spanish - just to present a one-sided reality. Prof. Pagès explains that confusion among foreigners was extremely common about what Catalan was and what Spanish was; especially, because what was common then was to address all foreigners in Spanish and not in Catalan (something that still occurs today). That would be fair.

In the end, Prof. Pagès said we should be extremely careful about certain attitudes and how we interpret history.

In any case, the same as I am ready to correct any of my mistakes, I think we should try not to politicise wikipedia just because one might be antinationalist, another, nationalist, someone else, catholic, etc. Here I have tried to obtain the most objective facts possible from the expert on the issue.--Hvitlys 15:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Disappeared?

Does Nin really belong in Category:Disappeared people? His fate was briefly unknown; in fact, it turns out that he was killed days after his arrest. The category is a bit vague; I've asked also on its talk page, but I don't think it is a useful category here. - Jmabel | Talk 07:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Andrés Nin

That is what we call him in English, sorry.
Lots of English-speaking people have a degree of familiarity with Spanish. As for Catalan, well, there's ... me.
I got lost in Barcelona back when the street signs were in Catalan (Carrer) and the city maps were in Spanish (Calle), and I see no value in this sort of chauvinistic, linguistic infighting.

If we are going to insist on this Catalan-naming nonsense, then why are we insisting on a double-barrelled surname, especially when his Mum had a Castilian name! If you want to match Pérez, use Andrés.
The article should be:

1. Andrés Nin, or
2. plain Andreu Nin

I vote for #1. Varlaam (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Andreu Nin

Well, it seems we have a pretty bunch of curious "internationalists" here. It looks like calling someone by his own name in his own language is "nationalistic", at least if this language is Catalan; but calling him in another language that was NOT his own, is NOT "nationalistic", at least if this language is Spanish (which is never "nationalistic" at all...). What a pretty kind of "internationalism", specially when taking the (erroneous but comprensible) usage in English-language sources as the right standard to rightly title the article --not, for instance, the original sources. Wasn't Wikipedia an international encyclopaedia? About someone getting lost in Barcelona because he was looking for some city which doesn't exist, but ought to exist because of his own ignorance, that's this person's problem. Ignorance is not a defensible standard. Nor is outrageous contempt on any language or culture. Don't call this "internationalism".Joan Rocaguinard (talk)

People executed by flaying

This category is really specific (!) but there appears to be nothing in the article to support it.
99.247.1.157 (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)