Talk:Vladimir Lenin/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

RfC regarding the parallel drawn between the cult of personality of Lenin, and that of George Washington

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

In assessing consensus, closers are explicitly enjoined against simply totting up votes. There is a reason they are generally referred to as !votes or not-votes, after all. Much of the discussion below is, in essence, irrelevant debates about Lenin rather than discussion of the source or the questioned quote. Other discussion was clear non-policy personal preference. After discounting these irrelevancies, it is clear that no consensus exists for removing the quote. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

---

The article currently contains: "According to historian Nina Tumarkin, it represented the world's "most elaborate cult of a revolutionary leader" since that of George Washington in the United States," Should this stand, or should it be deleted? Gravuritas (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Survey

• Delete - Why directly quote a single semi-notable historian on such an notable historical figure? NickCT (talk) 05:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "Semi-notable historian"? You mean the foremost scholar on the cult of Lenin to publish in the English language? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Citation needed. NickCT (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - as noted above, the comment seems entirely fair and I see no evidence that it is WP:FRINGE.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
• Delete- see threaded discussion Gravuritas (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - The quote seems completely out of place given what follows (i.e., the description of the veneration of Lenin goes far beyond that of George Washington).Dbrote (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - Tumarkin is the foremost scholar to have published on the cult of Lenin in the English language. This quote—from her monograph study of the Lenin cult—helps to demonstrate the sheer size and scale of the cult. The sentence has been present in the article for a long time and attracted no concern during its FAC. Moreover—as can be seen from Talk Page comments made by those editors seeking the removal of this sentence ([1] [2] [3])—their whole approach is rooted in a strong anti-Lenin and anti-Soviet POV and is contrary to Wikipedia's ethos of neutrality. If one reads through the entire Talk Page, one can see that this attempt at removal is part of a wider pattern of WP:Advocacy by a small number of editors seeking to remove anything from the article which could potentially cast Lenin in a non-hostile light. To this end they are even undermining Reliable Sources produced of academic specialists on Lenin's life and times, for instance by dismissing Tumarkin's work as "bollox" ([4]) or Soviet "propaganda" ([5]). Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - per Midnightblueowl.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
• Keep — a valid inclusion in the article. I would not oppose rewording to take note of some of the objections raised.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
• Strong delete—Why should Lenin be compared to Washington? What could that possibly mean to a non-American? Even to an American? This would need a lot of context to even be meaningful, and even then is almost certainly WP:UNDUE and otherwise unencyclopaedic. Ditch this garbage. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, it means something to me, and I'm not American.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
    • What did it mean to you, what should it mean to the average reader, and why? I'm Canadian and had no idea there was some "cult of personality" surrounding George Washington that could be compared to Lenin.—let alone one so overwhelming as to be become a historical milepost, skipping Napoleon, et al. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
      • I think the point is that in the U.S., a pervasive, long lasting, and elaborate cult of personality was established after Washington's death. Similarly, in the USSR, a pervasive, long lasting, and elaborate cult of personality was established after Lenin's death. The situation with Napoleon was a little different, given that he was removed from power and not really subject to a posthumous personality cult; moreover, Napoleon was not necessarily a "revolutionary" in the same way as Washington and Lenin - rather, he was someone who swept to power on the back of a revolution but had not really been a leading figure in bringing it about. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
        • Regarding Napoleon, as you don't think he was the subject of a posthumous personality cult, you've clearly never been to Les Invalides. Go and learn. And even if the 'non-revolutionary' bit were true of Napoleon, its inclusion in your comment is just another slither, MBO: there is no mention in the Tumarkin quote of her comment being restricted to revolutionaries, so why do you think you are entitled to introduce this as some extra criterion to be included in the personnel selection? Gravuritas (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
          • "there is no mention in the Tumarkin quote of her comment being restricted to revolutionaries" - erm, yes there is. Tumarkin says that Lenin's was the "most elaborate cult of a revolutionary leader" since that of George Washington. The word "revolutionary" is pretty prominent there. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
            • Oh bother. On this point, you are right, I am wrong, and I apologise for the 'slither' assertion. Gravuritas (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
              • @Gravuritas: - No worries. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
          • There's no indication in the George Washington article that there was a "cult of a revolutionary leader" behind him. Naming things after people is hardly a "cult", and the position of Washington in American history is hardly comparable to the position of Lenin in the USSR. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• Modify: If "the point is that in the U.S., a pervasive, long lasting, and elaborate cult of personality was established after Washington's death. Similarly, in the USSR, a pervasive, long lasting, and elaborate cult of personality was established after Lenin's death", the relevant part is only the second half. So just say that part, with this source, and without the misleading and non sequitur comparison to Washington.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• Modify per SMcCandlish or delete, this comparison is unnecessary and begs more questions than it answers since G Washington is not normally thought of as a 'benchmark' political-cult-figure (even in the USA?). Maybe GW should be, but the article is about V I Lenin and the section is about the "pervasive, long lasting, and elaborate cult of personality" which surrounded him. How does this comparison help? Pincrete (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Question: can this now be wrapped up in whatever form WP uses? Gravuritas (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• Modify or Delete (Summoned by bot) d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
• Keep It seems a relevant comparison, made by a well respected scholar, and it describes the extent of his cult.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

• • sorry to all if my change to the article was premature: having asked for a wrap-up, I thought the next contribution (from L3X1) WAS the wrap-up. So what does happen to wrap this up?
  • Gravuritas (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Gravuritas RfCs can be closed using the {{atop}} {{abot}} templates. As for whether it should be closed, rough counting brings up 5keep 4 delete 3 modify, which seems to indicate a consensus for changing the sentence is some way. Personally, I don't think the matter is quite clear enough, so would recommend waiting a bit longer, or posting at the CLosure noticeboard. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• Summoned by bot Keep in principle, because I see no evidence that this statement is from a fringe source, or that it constitutes undue weight. Personally, I'd modify it a little bit: I'd say that there was a huge Lenin cult, and say that in Wikipedia's voice, because it's uncontroversial; and then say that it has invited comparisons, such as this historian making the comparison to Washington. But that's a relatively minor point. Vanamonde (talk) 09:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
• Keep per Midnightblueowl. Sourcing by an academic who is the expert on this topic seems like it should probably be included. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
• Keep since it is attributed to what appears to be a well respected, Harvard-educated historian. 23 editor (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
• Keep per 23 editor. I don't see a good reason to delete it. The book clearly meets WP:RS, and if the quote can indeed be found in the book (I have not checked) then that should be good enough. Still, SMcCandish's proposed modification is another way of going about it since it keeps all the most important aspects of the text. If it solves the dispute I'd suggest going with that. Banedon (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• On the face of it, the comparison is completely numpty- Lenin's cult of personality started under him in murderous revolutionary conditions and continued and was taken further under Stalin. Can you imagine the fate of a local leader in Nowheresville, Siberia in 1938 if he tried to decide that the time wasn't right for another statue of Lenin to be erected? He would have died quickly, if he was lucky. That clearly did not apply in George Washington's case. Now, in fairness to Tumarkin she may be making a more subtle, nuanced point in her book, but this article is no place to go into that, and the prima facie statement just looks like naïve bollox. It can only distract from the Lenin article, as well as being offensive to some people.

Gravuritas (talk) 13:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• First, Wikipedia isn't supposed to tiptoe around issues so as not to cause offense to certain groups. It is supposed to relay, in a neutral manner, the information provided in Reliable Sources. That is what this FA-rated article, through the use of the Tumarkin quote, does. Neither Tumarkin nor the article is saying that Lenin's cult of personality was totally akin to Washington's, and certainly not that Lenin himself was totally akin to Washington. There were differences between these individuals, the contexts in which they lived, and their respective personality cults. At the same time there were many similarities between the two cults; both were state-sponsored, both featured cities and regions being named after the deceased leader, and both included the depiction of the leader's face on coinage and postage stamps. Moreover, what Tumarkin is saying with her quote is that Lenin's cult was the largest cult of a revolutionary leader since Washington's - effectively that it was the largest that the world had seen in over a century. In doing so she is emphasising how significant in size and scale it was. That is important information for the reader of this article to know. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• The quote states that the cult was less elaborate than Washington's. But that's at odds with the rest of the paragraph. There certainly aren't busts or statutes of George Washington in nearly every American village. Either her statement is wrong or the implication of the rest of the paragraph is wrong. Why not rephrase it to avoid the direct comparison to George Washington? Your language that it "was the largest that the world had seen in over a century" seems like a fair paraphrase that avoids the issue. Dbrote (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• That would be an acceptable compromise, in my view, but I also think it unnecessary. I think that the current wording is fine and does not need to be changed. I also have to agree with Jack Upland's earlier observation that the calls for the removal of this passage are rooted in an attempt by a small group of editors to eliminate any passage in this article that could potentially be read as casting Lenin in a non-hostile light. More broadly, there is a move to push this Featured Article in a much more openly anti-Lenin direction, and I see the current proposed removal as part of that. Comments like this and this just make that attitude crystal clear, in my opinion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• It's certainly possible that there's a concerted effort to do that. I don't really have a dog in that fight though (and I'm certainly not enough of a Lenin expert to know if the article as a whole's POV is too far to one side or another). But I'd just suggest that even if that is the case, it's not impossible for them to occasionally have meritorious ideas. I'd suggest that this is one of them. The current phrasing is jarring because the following sentences appear to conflict with it. I think the reading experience would be improved by altering the phrase and I don't think the compromise language (or something similar) reduces the amount or quality of information conveyed. Dbrote (talk) 00:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

"The quote states that the cult was less elaborate than Washington's". No, it doesn't. Saying that "it's the most elaborate cult since Washington's" makes no comment on the size of Washington's cult, only that Lenin's is the largest since, which could be any size. Britmax (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

You're right, it doesn't state it directly. But it's clearly implied and that's the most natural reading. Claiming that it's not implied that Washington's was more elaborate is disingenuous. Dbrote (talk) 00:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't want any tiptoeing in WP- quite the contrary. I would like due respect paid to those who were killed by Lenin's government, so the mealy-mouthed elements of this article should go. When somebody suggests that 'reunited' is not an appropriate word for those countries conquered by Lenin, that's not anti-Lenin. When I suggest that Lenin's imperialist actions are far more important than his anti-imperialist speeches, that's not anti-Lenin. MBO and JU have consistently fought against these sort of changes being made, in the apparent belief that triangulation between the facts and some PR spin is a NPOV. When I make an edit to clarify that only one cite asserts that Lenin was demonized, that's following the sources, it's not being anti-Lenin. When I make an edit to show that various countries that achieved their independence around 1920 did so despite armed attempts to squash them by Lenin, that's not anti-Lenin. (The previous wording, in this -oh-so-wonderful FA article, defended by MBO, suggested that it was by Lenin's graciousness that they achieved independence.) When I say that Lenin's cult differed from Washington's in that the population of the USA was not cowed by terror into going along with the personality cult, that's not anti-Lenin. There is indeed a pattern here, and its not an anti-Lenin pattern by me and others, it's let's-not-use-a-nasty-word-for-a-nasty-act by MBO. There's the tiptoeing, and there's the bias.

Gravuritas (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

There are two reasons why I believe that there is a group of two or three editors pushing a particular POV here. First, it's the (often emotional and hyperbolic) use of language on the Talk Pages and edit summaries that consistently reflects a passionate anti-Lenin and anti-Stalin perspective: "I admit, I'm anti-Lrenin, like I'm anti-Stalin and anti-Hitler" ([6]); "People, stop your dreams about good Lenin" ([7]); "I'm against mass crimes, slave work, ethnic cleansing, censorship, terror. You call it anti-Soviet. Shall I understand that you support the crimes? Pleae name one acceptable result of Lenin's life. Soviet Union, kolkhoses, censorship, world revolution - everything caused terrible sufferings" ([8]); "Which part of Soviet was Socialist - mass executions, starvation, rapes, atomic weapons?" ([9]); "Anyone denying that... [Lenin's government was] a totalitarian dictatorship... is plainly wrong" ([10]); "Go and read some more about the period and about Stalin's mass-murdering proclivities, then come back and use this talk page to apologise to any representatives of his victims, O ignoramus." ([11]); "can MBO & JU really not see how offensive that is to the memory of Lenin's victims?" ([12]); "It doesn't matter whether he killed people 'for fun' or to while away those long boring afternoons, the fact is that he did so on an (almost) unprecedented scale. Which makes you, as a denier of that fact, scum" ([13]); "Maybe an apology from you to Stalin's millions of victims would be a good idea, for defending the scum who deny their existence" ([14]) etc. The rather uncivil language not withstanding, many of these are valid opinions for anyone to hold, and no-one is criticising these editors for being anti-Lenin or anti-Soviet. However, the emotional intensity and passion of their views is clearly influencing the manner in which these editors want to reform the article (an article which, it needs to be stressed, has already been repeatedly scrutinised for bias at GAN, PR, and FAC).

Second, it's the pattern of edits and suggested edits which all lean in a certain direction: one which undermines anything potentially 'good' about Lenin and over-emphasises anything 'bad'. Calling for the removal of a sentence mentioning George Washington lest it paints Lenin in a positive light. Trying to change a statement that Lenin's government were involved in the Polish-Soviet War to one that they "lost" it ([15]). Claiming that the article needs more information on press censorship in Lenin's Russia ([16]). Stating that Christopher Hill, an academic historian who was sympathetic to Lenin, should not be referred to as a historian in the article ([17]), or that the pro-Lenin views of Marxist-Leninists do not need to be mentioned ([18]); these acts clearly seek to delegitimise or make invisible those who held pro-Lenin views. Dismissing the views of academic specialists in Russian history as "bollox" ([19]) or "obviously untrue" ([20]) if they happen to say something deemed insufficiently hostile towards Lenin. This is coupled with some claims of dubious accuracy on the Talk Page, for instance the statement that it is "widely held" that Lenin was responsible for "many millions of deaths" ([21]) when the highest estimates regarding the Red Terror death toll place it just above 100,000 (a horrific number in itself), or that Lenin "hated peasants" ([22]) when no such claim is made in a reliable source. The pattern is clear. Conversely, not one of the edits or proposed edits removes anything from the article that might be construed as painting Lenin in a 'bad' light. It's all one sided.

Now, I am not unsympathetic to the personal view of these editors; I regard Lenin as an intolerant zealot whose regime brought significant misery to many and cast a very dark shadow over the 20th century. But I also don't think that Wikipedia should push this perspective on its readership. We don't have to editorialise and load the article with anti-Lenin bias. That is why I have opposed many of the proposed edits - not all, it should be noted. When a concern was raised that the article over-emphasised Lenin's words regarding imperialism over his actions then I made some properly referenced additions to the article to correct that imbalance (at the same time I expressed concern that these editors were trying to over-emphasize the USSR's actions in comparison to Lenin's words). Gravuritas and others have raised some pertinent concerns but at the same time I do not think we can escape the fact that there is a level of POV pushing in evidence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

It's a pity you have to use such propagandistic devices. Much of what you quote above is the work of another editor, who so far has not involved himself in this RfC, so what have his comments to do with this thread, or me? And why misstate the story so much? "When a concern was raised" you "made some properly referenced additions"? That's not my recollection- I recall most of our interactions being you blocking, filibustering, and smokescreening until either the evidence and argument on the Talk page was so overwhelming that even you couldn't ignore it, or I gave up because a minor change I was trying to make was not worth all,the hassle. You even suggested I call for an RfC over one referenced word I would have liked to insert- 'unexpected', for goodness sake. In that case, I am still unsure as to how you can interpret that as anti-Lenin. To repeat, my attempted edits have not been anti-Lenin, they have been mainly correcting pro-Lenin errors or oversights in the article, which is not the same at all. Your pride in what seems to be, in considerable part, your own work, is blinding you to these errors.

Gravuritas (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I cite both Xx236 and your own edits because you have both appeared on this Talk Page in the past month making a number of suggestions for alterations, all of which are presented as an attempt to correct what you regard as pro-Lenin bias that no-one picked up on during GAN, PR, and FAC. In my view, many of these proposed edits actually seek to replace neutral wording and information with a distinctly anti-Lenin angle (but which the pair of you sincerely regard as neutral). This present RfC cannot be divorced from that wider context. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

As for the "unexpected" comment, I did not claim that that was anti-Lenin; I just thought it unnecessary and imprecise, as I stated at the time. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I also disagree with the statement that I have been "blocking, filibustering, and smokescreening" your attempted changes, and I am sorry if that is the impression that I have given. However I have maintained that—because this is an FA-rated article—any changes that are (in any way) controversial need to be discussed here at the Talk Page first and given proper scrutiny. That is why I have been critical of many proposed changes and strongly questioned the reasons for such changes, even when I have ultimately made changes in the article body based upon them. I do not really think it fair to characterise my scrutiny as "blocking, filibustering, and smokescreening". Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

1. On the contrary, the present RfC absolutely needs to be divorced from your wider blather: it stands or falls on its own merits and demerits. Otherwise, You're asking previously uninvolved editors to get involved in a beauty contest between the two of us (plus other random contestants you wish to introduce), concerning the whole range of edits on this page, which is a ludicrous waste of their time.

2. You are incorrect. You claim above that all my edits 'lean in a certain [anti-Lenin] direction', and the 'unexpected' edit shows that to be untrue.

3. On the Davies-sourced edits, blocking etc is precisely what you did, for more than a month, and then you eventually made the edits which I had been trying to make. I don't mind who makes the edits, though clearly you do- I just don't like the amount of effort you're demanding of me to get perfectly reasonable edits into the article. Shall I mention the refs I introduced that you deleted because I had only put in the title, editor and page, and omitted the section author? I think filibustering is a fairly polite term for your actions.

Gravuritas (talk) 01:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Clearly there has been a campaign over the past month to incrementally turn this article into an anti-Lenin diatribe with a special focus on Poland, a campaign in which personal attacks and soapboxing form a fundamental strategy. Clearly this RfC is part of this campaign. I'd be inclined to oppose any of those incremental changes because I think the agenda is wholly destructive of this article.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Not to rant, but; this entire debate is really, really dumb. With almost any important historical subject or event there are going to be half a dozen historians or scholars who've produced some random narrative about the subject. Do the "supporters" here think it's appropriate to fill articles up with quotations like; "Historian X thinks subject Q was a naughty blighter" or "Historian Y thinks subject R was a dandy"? There are two obvious issues with doing this kind of thing. 1) It's essay-ish, and not something that's usually done in professional encyclopedic literature. 2) Where does it end? Are we meant to quote every random scholar who happens to have an opinion on a thing? We could fill an article this fluff. As a general rule, we really ought to avoid random narrative in articles like this. NickCT (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• • So the RfC was whether or not to delete one particular random comment. Your comment sounds like a delete, but you haven't said so.
  • Gravuritas (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
    • @Gravuritas: - I already supported deleting. I guess I'm trying to say that I see this piece of "random" narrative as being emblematic of a larger stylistic problem. We really need a NOTNARRATIVE policy or guideline somewhere, to specifically discourage this kind of thing. NickCT (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• • • • Yes, sorry didn't spot the early 'delete'. Agree that wood and trees need to be distinguished.
      • Gravuritas (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: There seem to be two main objections to this text: (1) the historian is not notable, (2) the comparison to George Washington. An easy compromise would be to leave them out. Don't mention Tumarkin in the text; just cite her to the effect that Lenin's cult was one of the greatest in world history...--Jack Upland (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

• • How's this: "In the Soviet Union, a cult of personality devoted to Lenin began to develop during his lifetime, but was only fully established after his death. It was one of the world's most elaborate personality cults of a revolutionary leader, and has been repeatedly described as "quasi-religious" in nature."

Gravuritas (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

• • • I don't think we need the bit about "quasi-religious". A "cult" is religious or quasi-religious by definition.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• We have five reliable sources describing the personality cult as "quasi-religious". While I would agree with you that personality cults are virtually all quasi-religious by definition, I think that the fact that so many RS authors use this term would strongly suggest that we should too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, I still think that the comparison with Washington is useful for the reader, but at the same time I find Gravuritas' suggestion to be perfectly okay. If it does become clear that there is a consensus to remove the Tumarkin/Washington quote at the RfC, then I would endorse Gravuritas' suggestion as its replacement. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• I think it's pretty obvious that people object to the comparison with Washington because they think he was good and Lenin was bad. Also, they simply don't see the honouring of Washington as a "personality cult", and in fact it's so normalised that it's invisible. See the assertions above that there weren't many monuments to Washington. They should look at this: List of memorials to George Washington. You could also look at the "personality cult" of Queen Victoria (though she wasn't a revolutionary). The cult of Lenin wasn't really out of place in its era, but it jarred with Communist principles. The term "personality cult" (or "cult of the personality") was coined by Khrushchev in his Secret Speech, in which he contrasted Stalin's emphasis on the exceptional individual with the Marxist theory of class struggle. Therefore it probably isn't appropriate outside that context, even though non-Marxists have adopted Khrushchev's critique of Stalin, just as they adopted Trotsky's.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

'Russian Communist Party'

There was no organization called the Russian Communist Party as far as Lenin is concerned. Its historic names were the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party (bolsheviks), the [All-]Russian Communist Party (bolsheviks) (square brackets are necessary since the CPSU article contradicts itself), the All-Union Communist Party, and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. I see the need for an immanent name, but 'Russian Communist Party' is innacurate - it should be changed to something else, preferably Communist Party of the Soviet Union, as this is the most recognized name. Oiygg (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm certainly not averse to a change. However, it only became the "Communist Party of the Soviet Union" in 1924, not too long before Lenin died. Perhaps the best option is to de-link Russian and simply link "Communist Party"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, he used the name himself.[23]--Jack Upland (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation

It's not [vɫɐˈdʲimʲɪr ɪˈlʲitɕ ʊˈlʲanəf], it's [vɫɐˈdʲimʲɪr ɪˈlʲjitɕ ʊˈlʲjænəf]. Change it, please.--Михайло Марсов (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Riga and reparations

The article currently contains a sentence "... the Peace of Riga, in which Russia ceded territory to Poland and paid it reparations". The Riga article does not mention reparations. I couldn't find (in my quick search) any information that this treaty has any significant provisions for reparations; reading the Polish wiki there is a text about Soviets having to pay reparations that never got paid. What source claims that the Russia actually PAID the reparations? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

RSDLP inaccurate date

Within the first few paragraphs this page states that "He moved to Saint Petersburg in 1893 and became a senior figure in the Marxist Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP). In 1897, he was arrested for...." The RSDLP, according to Wikipedia and other sources, was not formed until 1898. That part of the biography is factually inaccurate. According to Britannica, "in 1895, Lenin and other Marxists, including L. Martov, the future leader of the Mensheviks, succeeded in unifying the Marxist groups of the capital in an organization known as the Union for the Struggle for the Liberation of the Working Class." This was the group that Lenin had formed and become a part of. The RSDLP would come later. (Markfeldman21 (talk) 01:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markfeldman21 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• You raise a fair point, although the prose in question does not explicitly state that he became a senior figure in the RSDLP in 1893 so there is no explicit inaccuracy here, but rather an implied one. One factor that we must consider is that the Russian Marxist movement was in a state of flux in the latter 19th century, going through various rebrandings. The RSDLP was (at least in part) a rebranding of the League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class, so there is a continuum between the two. The other factor that we have to consider is of prose length and readability. The lede is already as long as we can really permit without it becoming unwieldy, so we must at all costs avoid lengthening it with additional text. I'll have a play around with the prose to see if we can amend the prose so that it is not unduly lengthened but at the same time does not give false impressions about the chronology. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, good point. I agree to the 'fluidity and rebranding' of the movement in the late 19th century. The initial RSDLP wording just seemed like a 'blanket summation' of the movements history. Not sure if it was you that made the changes but "He moved to Saint Petersburg in 1893 and became a senior Marxist activist" seems to be more accurate (Markfeldman21 (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)).
    • It was indeed I who made that change. Glad that you think it an improvement. Thank you gain for making the suggestion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Heart anerysm or brain haemorrhage?

This article states Lenins father Ilya Ulyanov died of a brain haemorrhage while the latters article states it was a heart anerysm. Both claims are sourced on their respective article. Someone should check these facts and reconcile the claims. 90.229.193.208 (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@90.229.193.208 I've reconciled the differences by changing the Ilya article. I couldn't find any reputable sources that hold the heart aneurysm idea true but I found many that cite a brain haemorrhage as the cause of death. Pagliaccious (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Lenin's train photo caption

According to Catherine Merridale (2007) Lenin on the Train - The engine that pulled the train on which Lenin arrived at St Peterburg in April 1917 was not preserved, so this one, by which he escaped to Finland the following July, serves as the .....

Can't fix the caption = not sure why ? Almanacer (talk) 08:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Fixed Almanacer (talk) 09:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Opening paragraph has several errors

It reads:

«Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, (...) was a Russian communist revolutionary»

Communism implies the disolution of the State and the extinction of class-divided society (and therefore class struggle), maybe it would be more correct to present him as a 'Russian marxist revolutionary'. Anyway, a citation is needed, isn't?

«..., politician and political theorist. He served as head of government of Soviet Russia from 1917 to 1924 and of the Soviet Union from 1922 to 1924. Under his administration, Russia and then the wider Soviet Union became a one-party communist state»

This is extremely wrong. The Soviet Union never achieved by any sense the status of a 'communist state', which is, for what I explained before, even non-achievable. There isn't and there can't be such a thing as a 'communist state', the same way you can't talk about an 'anarchist state' or a 'circular triangle'.

The Soviet Union reach different states (State's Capitalism, Half-Workers' State, etc.), at different moments, because it was a very dynamic historic and political process. Communism was really far beyond at the time of Lenin's death. It would be better if some citation gives a proper characterization.

«governed by the Russian Communist Party.»

This is historically inaccurate. Citation?

«Ideologically a Marxist, he developed political theories known as Leninism.»

This is also very arguable.

I really can't understand the lack of proper citations in an opening paragraph with such bold (erronous) propositions.

riveravaldez (talk) 21:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The structure of a WP article is supposed to that the lead summarises the body of the article, so look further down the article for cites. If the lead fairly summarises the body, extra cites are not needed. If you feel cites are missing in the body of the article, point it out. Alternatively, if you feel that the lead does not fairly summarise the body of the article, say so. If you feel that the Soviet Union was not a communist state, read more widely.

Gravuritas (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Note well: the United Soviet Socialist Republics, (Soviet Union), did not self identify as communist. Lenin, however did establish a school of thought, Marxist Communism, which, known as Marxism-Leninism , more or less guided the formation of the U.S.S.R. It's better not to use your last sentence as an argument less it lead to pedantism, endless arguments, and worse (see Talk:Soviet Union archives for a cautionary read. - Neonorange (talk) 04:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

And, of course, Lenin was a communist—that does not require the USSR be communist (or ever, as it turns out. — Neonorange (talk) 04:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the concern raised stems from different terminologies being employed by Marxists and non-Marxists. For Marxists, "communism" refers to a future stateless, classless society, and thus a "communist state" is an oxymoron. For many non-Marxists, a "communist state" refers to a state that is committed to Marxist ideas and believes that it is building socialism, which will in turn give way to communism. So it is not wrong to say that Lenin forged a "communist state", although Marxists may feel that this term is misleading. An alternative to "communist state" here might be "socialist state", a broader term but one which both Marxists and non-Marxists might agree on. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the clarification.

Considering that, and this: «The term "communist society" should be distinguished from the Western concept of the "communist state", the latter referring to a state ruled by a party which professes a variation of Marxism–Leninism.[6][7]» -From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_society-: Wouldn't be more correct to change «Under his [Lenin] administration, Russia and then the wider Soviet Union became a one-party communist state» to «Under his administration, Russia and then the wider Soviet Union became a one-party communist state in the Western sense of the concept», or something similar, to be more precise and minimize misunderstanding? riveravaldez (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vladimir Lenin. 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/20160820204138/http://raining-lenins.silk.co/ to https://raining-lenins.silk.co/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 11:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Image with the caption "Pallbearers carrying Lenin's coffin during his funeral, from Paveletsky Rail Terminal to the Labour Temple"

Dear Participants, the image Pogrzeb Lenina1924 which describes the Lenin's funeral has several problems. They are 1) the description is incorrect: the procession is moving to the House of Unions, not to the Labor Temple; 2) the image has the author. it is Samsonov, therefore it was not published unanimously as section Permission claims, therefore, the whole licensing is incorrectly described; 3) the original caption does not identify Lev Kamenev on the left, in fact it is difficult to identify who is on the left; 4) the image used was digitally enhanced since the clarity of the published original is much worse (as anyone who saw the published originals in 20s knows). Of course, there is nothing wrong with digital remastering, but it should be properly described. Apparently, if one wants to identify someone on the image (e.g. Lev Kamenev), he/she needs to look at the original, not at enhanced version. I have found the original image publication in Projector (Spotlight) Jan 31 1924 issue 2 (24) page 10. It could be, that the same image was published in Pravda as well (Bukharin edited both Pravda and Projector), as the image tag claims, but this I cannot verify. Since so many issues, I propose to delete the image from the article Vladimir Lenin as well as from the Wikimedia Commons. I can upload the original with proper tags (public domain tag license in Russia as the legal successor of USSR, and public domain tag license in US) so the public domain use would be properly described and licensed. --Armenius vambery (talk) 07:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I have inserted the image with the proper licensing etc. Please note that it is one of many live photos from Lenin funeral. There was heavy snow this day, visible on the other photos as well. The image I inserted WAS NOT digitally enhanced, apart from sharper contrast to compensate for aged paper and computer screen. So it is as close as possible to how the readers saw the image when first printed. It is very rare image of the live event since the standard was to make portraits. If someone wants to enhance (e.g. color) she can insert another version on the Wikimedia Commons. --Armenius vambery (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Early life article error

Lenin's brother was executed in May 1887 not May 1886. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccott (talk • contribs) 18:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Return to Petrograd

Should the article contain the date Lenin returned to Petrograd (as here)? Presently the article is included in the main page On This Day section for April 16 but doesn't include the date, so in the interest of not having an uncited claim on the MP again next year it would be nice to have a consensus regarding whether or not to include the date. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

It is shown that Vladimir Lenin is an ethnic Chuvash and Kumyk from his father's side

"Lenin's father, Ilya Nikolayevich Ulyanov, was from a family of serfs; his ethnic origins remain unclear, with suggestions being made that he was Russian, Chuvash, Mordvin, or Kalmyk."

This is honestly quite pathetic when we already know so much about Vladimir Lenin, his entire fathers family's history is available for the public. The page for his father attests to this by mentioning his ethnic origins and is sourced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilya_Ulyanov , (Shaginyan MS The Ulyanov family. Essays. Articles. Memories. - Moscow: Goslitizdat, 1959. - 626.) - by Marietta Shaginyan notes that his mother's family were baptized Kumyks. His family tree was created and depicted by this Ukrainian news source: Ukrayinska Pravda, http://www.istpravda.com.ua/blogs/2011/04/22/36859/ showing his descendancy. It shows that Ilya Ulyanov's father was Chuvash and his mother an ethnic Kumyk who was apart of an influential Kumyk family. Everything we know about Ilya backs this, considering he was an advocate for ethnic rights and created a school for Chuvash speaking people in the Astrakhan region. This region is neighboring the Volga, where the current Tatarstan Republic is situated...

When we already know the basics of his fathers lineage, why is it questioned on this specific page? Why do users such as RolandR hold any power in regards to this subject, when the user is (redacted)" Start screening out politically biased people. We already know the ethnic origins of Lenins father and his mother, and I also believe it isn't depicting what is factual because we have other biases in play here... People like "Mr". RolandR.

WikiNutt (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The Reliable Sources cited make it clear that there remain various open questions regarding Lenin's ancestry. Many ethnic groups have sought to claim him, and there may be truth to some of these claims, but they nevertheless remain un-verified. Unless you have very good reliable sources testifying to new discoveries regarding Lenin's ancestry, please do not change the established, FA-rated prose. Moreover, please refrain from making baseless accusations against other editors, lest you face disciplinary proceedings. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

How ironic, that reliable sources on wiki are considered falsifications, lies and propaganda.195.147.206.144 (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I hate it when people make baseless accusations against me, and baseful allegations are even worse.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

image for the Childhood: 1870–1887 section

Dear Contributors, I would like to add the image to the Childhood section. c:File:Vladimir Lenin 3 years old.jpg Please let me know if anyone objects.--Armenius vambery (talk) 08:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

There are two potential issues here. The first is that the image will require a very clear statement as to why it is in the public domain. At present there is a PD tag attached to the image, but no in-depth explanation as to why it applies. That will need to be rectified before the image could be added to this FA-rated article. The second issue is one of potential overcrowding of images. We already have one image in the "Childhood: 1870–1887" sub-section, that of Lenin's childhood home. Looking at the sub-section now, I think that there probably is room for two images in that one section, but we would need to be cautious as to where we position them to avoid the whole thing looking clunky or messy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Agree that the explanation should be crystal clear. The image was scanned by myself and it (unfortunately) was published anonymously. So we could not calculate pma as for the images with known authors (e.g. taken by Grigory Goldstein). Therefore, the current tag explains it the best. The Source specifies that it is the first publication of this image. To defend the space for my contribution: it is (arguably) the most well known image of Lenin in childhood: multiplied by Little Octobrist badge.--Armenius vambery (talk) 12:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Added the following clarification: This image was originally published anonymously or under a pseudonym in 1923. Please see Source information for details. 73 years passed since the image first publication on the URAA date January 1, 1996.--Armenius vambery (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Ancestry

A final section on Lenin's ancestry would be interesting. Not that his ancestors were particularly significant people but they were a very varied lot, from Kalmyk to Swede as national origin, very representative of the vastness of Imperial Russia. (talk) 12:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Image

Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs): This edit only changed the size of one image, from 234px to the default size of 220, as hard sizing is discouraged. The rest of the edit merely corrected syntax and spacing. Please revert your reversion. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Laszlo Panaflex (talk · contribs); my error, I thought that you introduced the hard size to start with. I've reverted my reversion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Lenin's age at father's death

From "Early life", subsection "Childhood: 1870–1887", paragraph 4: "In January 1886, when Lenin was 16, his father died of a brain haemorrhage." Four references are provided, but the age is incorrect. Lenin was actually 15 (and 9 months) at the time. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct. They've rounded it up.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I have changed the text and added Sebestyen as a reference. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I am surprised to see that Midnightblueowl has reverted my edit, with the edit summary asserting "an unnecessary level of detail at this juncture". Lenin was not sixteen years old. His age should not be rounded up to sixteen. Indeed if rounding is to be undertaken, it should be rounded down, although I prefer the more accurate statement. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree that we should not be including incorrect information and I am pleased that you brought this to our attention, Axl, but I do think that explicitly writing "15 years and 9 months" in the article is just a superfluous level of detail. Best to just state that he was 15, which is correct but doesn't over-burden the article with trivia. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2018

Blah blah blah, dont do drugs, blah blah blah Leexooi (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: no request DannyS712 (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Ancestry

According to Robert Service, the Soviet authorities tried to get the files which showed Lenin's mother to be of partial Jewish ancestry hidden. Also, the propaganda image of 'Lenin' shown to the masses made it important to not show any of his non-Russian ancestry, only the well-informed Bolshevik veterans were aware that his grandfathers were not Russians.--JackRussell1962 (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

This is already covered, with additional citations, in the "Within the Soviet Union" sub-section towards the end of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Implausible claim

We are told that Lenin did not know about his mother's ancestry. He must have known her name "Blank". He must have known her appearance. He heard many complaints about his ancestry for years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.72.151.169 (talk) 14:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that should be changed, because according to this source, Lenin knew about his jewish roots(contains copies of documents):

https://www.novayagazeta.ru/articles/2018/04/20/76246-vekovaya-tayna-vozhdya

А тайна состояла в том, что Израиль Бланк — это дед В.И. Ленина по материнской линии Александр Дмитриевич Бланк.

Все биографы Ленина, он сам и его близкие очень тщательно оберегали эту информацию.195.147.206.144 (talk) 05:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

It does seem a bit implausible.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Reliable Sources written by historians would be required before we could make such a change in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

We don't need to make the claim in the article that he likely knew of his mother's Jewish ancestry, but we also don't have to include the line that "It is likely that Lenin was unaware of his mother's half-Jewish ancestry". Since it does seem very implausible that he wouldn't have known, I think we should just remove that line and not address the question at all as to whether or not he knew of his Jewish ancestry. It's honestly a rather trivial point anyway. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I would agree on removal on those grounds.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Born into a wealthy family?

In the book "Lenin's Jewish Question," Yale University Press 2010, Yohanan Petrovsky-Shtern writes (Ch. 3),

Vladimir was born to a family of mid-rank Russian nobility: Il'ia Ulianov was an inspector of public schools with the rank of state chancellor and the state salary paid by the Ministry of Education. Alexander Blank probably also felt safe. Mariia Blank and Il'ia Ulianov belonged to the well-educated Russian cultural elite. Their family life seemed stable and predictable, and Vladimir had a secure future.

Note that this isn't quote true: according to Theen, Lenin's father was promoted to a rank including a noble title in 1874, after Lenin's birth.

In the book "Lenin: Genesis and Development of a Revolutionary," Princeton University Press 2004, Rolf Theen writes (pp.28–30,

In 1869 Ilya Nikolaevich was appointed Inspector of Public Schools for the guberniia of Simbirsk, and in September of that year, when Maria Aleksandrovna was expecting her third child, the Ulyanovs moved to another city on the Volga: Simbirsk... Having himself advanced from humble social origins the hard way, Lenin's father firmly believed in education as the only effective instrument of social progress. He was an enthusiastic supporter of the Great Reforms and worked diligently to make use of the opportunities which they opened up in the field of education. Unpretentious and modest in his conduct and life-style, firm but sympathetic and understanding toward his subordinates, constantly experimenting with new ideas in education, he became an extremely successful, dedicated, and well-liked civil servant... Throughout his life, he remained a devout Greek Orthodox and a loyal subject of the czar. In 1874 he was promoted to the position of Director of Public Schools and received the rank of Actual Councilor of State—a rank which, among other advantages, involved the status of hereditary nobility.

In the book "Reconstructing Lenin: An Intellectual Biography," Monthly Review Press 2015, Tamás Krausz writes (pp.23–27),

Revolutionaries from raznochintsy, or "mixed-class" intelligentsia background, were legion however. These figures often arose from lower social layers than the strata occupied by, among others, the father of Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, or "Lenin." Vladimir Ilyich was born in Simbirsk, on 22 April 1870 of the Gregorian calendar used in Russia since 1917... The Ulyanov family moved to Simbirsk in 1869, renting a flat near the prison. Lenin was born here... The siblings grew up in harmony, in a home that was comfortable (a cleaning lady and a cook were the family help and Volodya also had a governess) and spacious... Valuable paintings did not adorn the walls of their house, but there was a piano and a large library of books. Anna IIyinichna explained this peculiar simplicity as a continuation of raznochinets cultural traditions. This background was the source of a dedication to learning and social improvement, which came from both sides of Lenin's family. All of the children went to institutions of higher education.

The book "Lenin and the Making of the Soviet State," Palgrave Macmillan 2007 by Jeffrey Brooks and Georgiy Chernavkiy, includes a terse description of Lenin's childhood and states that

[Lenin's] father was a school inspector, a post of considerable local prestige.

@RolandR and Midnightblueowl: Altogether it seems we are certainly justified in stating that Lenin was born into a middle class family, that Lenin's father held an important post in the civil service, and that the family valued education highly. I'm not sure if we should or shouldn't write that Lenin was born into a "wealthy" middle class family. -Darouet (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The inclusion of "wealthy" has been a longstanding part of the lead; it was present, for instance, when the article gained FA status in 2016 ([24]), so it is important that we have the discussion before we remove it. It may, I acknowledge, not be the best term to use, however. Within the context of late nineteenth-century Russia, in which the vast majority lived in something approaching rural poverty, Lenin's family clearly lived a privileged and comfortable existence: he could afford to go to prestigious schools and then to university, for example. I do think it important that we make that clear in the lead. Some might say that the use of "middle-class" already conveys that, but I think that there is space for confusion here. Many readers will see the word "middle-class" and think of the contemporary Western situation, whereby the "middle-class" encompasses the majority, including large numbers of people whose economic situation is little different from that of the working classes. Perhaps "upper middle-class" might accomplish this, but I'm not sure that we have any reliable sources that would support this description. Other possibilities might be to say "comfortable middle-class", "prestigious middle-class" or "well-off middle-class"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

On the other hand, we do not seem to have any source for the assertion that the family was wealthy, and this seems to be based on our own interpretation of the sources. In fact, the article should never have been allowed to achieve FA status with that unsupported and contentious claim. Since there seems to be no reliable source to confirm this, the term should be removed.RolandR (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I won't oppose removal but I do think we need to find an appropriate replacement. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Christopher Read, whose Lenin: A Revolutionary Life is quoted extensively in the article, describes Lenin's father as "moderately prosperous, upwardly mobile". Maybe we can use that phrase, or simply "moderately prosperous". This would be more accurate than the problematic "wealthy". RolandR (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

That is certainly more precise, but would probably be too lengthy for the lead. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I think "moderately prosperous" sounds accurate, is consistent with other sources, and isn't too long for the lead. Also I fear that "wealthy" may be incorrect, especially in the context of a highly stratified and aristocratic Russia in the late 19th century. -Darouet (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I'll make the change. Thanks for your input, folks. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Now is says, "Born to a moderately prosperous middle-class family" and later "Despite this lower-class background he had risen to middle-class status" 100.34.110.98 (talk) 19:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

You're confusing the son (Lenin himself) with his father. The former quote applies to the former, the latter to the latter. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit request: update external link

The external link to "Lenin's Popularity Highest in Years on Revolutionary's 144th Birthday" no longer works. A current link to the article is https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2014/04/22/lenins-popularity-highest-in-years-on-revolutionarys-144th-birthday-a34477 Andraste733 (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Anti-semitism

Worth highlighting that the image of Bolshevik leaders used in the 'Civil War and the Polish–Soviet War: 1918–1920' section is Anti-semitic as well as anti-Bolshevik, it attempts to suggest the hand and financial support of 'international Judaism' in Russia's downfall in line with tropes of the time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Differengenera (talk • contribs) 16:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Marxism-Leninism

Could someone clarify that it was Stalin who coined the term Marxism-Leninism? Anthony the Marxist (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

You have just volunteered to do some research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.163.188 (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Anthony the Marxist: Yes. That is covered in the Marxism–Leninism article. Marxism–Leninism is a particular interpretation of Marxism and Leninism, its most notable promoter was Stalin. I have no idea of who actually coined the term. If you find reliable sources for first time term usage, that would be useful, but that's a matter for Talk:Marxism–Leninism. --MarioGom (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Category:Politicide perpetrators

Regardless of your views of him as a person or a national leader, Lenin's government engaged in what is textbook politicide. The idea that Lenin was somehow not involved with the Red Terror, or any of his own hanging orders is, quite frankly, laughable. I don't see how this is a controversial, questionable, or inappropriate category to include. Salociin (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Salociin: we would need reliable sources to add that. --MarioGom (talk) 16:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we should have categories that are controversial.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

"Instead it (Lenin's testament) recommended Trotsky for the job"

This is just false, no such suggestion is found in the letter. On the other hand, the marginal Stalinist claim that the letter is a fake (apparently one produced and promoted in conspiracy with Lenin's secretaries) is lent too much weight as well; many other parts of it are, appropriately, cited as genuine in the same section describing Lenin's stances on the national question etc.--87.126.23.210 (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree. This is false. It is also false that Lenin said Trotsky was the "most capable" man in the Central Committee: he said "perhaps the most capable". I think that the claim that the letter is fake is fringe and should be left out. Stalin himself never questioned its authenticity.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the claim that the letter is fake is necessarily Fringe. From what I can gather, it seems to be an increasingly popular idea among Russian historians (or at least, that's what Kotkin says). So long as we present it as an idea, as opposed to something that is an unequivocal fact, I think it should stay. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see where Kotkin says it is increasingly popular, I only find a reference to one Russian historian, namely Valentin Sakharov - but even if it were, there also happens to be a minority of increasingly vocal Stalinist revisionists among Russian historians. As for the attitudes towards this view in mainstream academia, here are some examples showing that it remains fringe and deserves a note at best, rather than the current extremely sceptical wording about "crooked Krupskaya pulling a document out of who knows where".

First, here is a quote from an academic review article of Kotkin's work published in the American Historical Review:

But aside from the biography’s overwhelming proportions, Kotkin’s ambitions lead him to other extremes as well. Determined to depict Stalin as Lenin’s natural heir ... Kotkin also embraces the largely discredited scholarship of the Stalinist historian Valentin A. Sakharov in order to cast doubt over the authenticity of Lenin’s so-called “Last Testament,” which has traditionally branded Stalin as unfit to lead (488–505). ... This argumentation ... results in a biography that sometimes evokes the personality cult that the Soviet ideological establishment constructed around the general secretary during his lifetime.

Here is Richard Pipes in his review of Kotkin's work:

Given these facts, it comes as a considerable surprise to have Kotkin reject the Testament as very likely a fabrication. He refers to it as a document “attributed” to Lenin whose authenticity “has never been proven.” Although Kotkin acknowledges that it could be authentic, he does not clearly accept it as such, as it has been by all other historians; as noted, it is included in Lenin's Collected Works.

Kotkin does not cite this document (the notes on the nationality question) either but simply dismisses it as “a blatant forgery,” although it has been accepted by all historians of the period of whom I am aware as well as the editors of Lenin's Collected Works.

It is difficult to explain Kotkin's skepticism of Lenin's late anti-Stalin diatribes except perhaps by his unwillingness to concede that, supportive as Lenin had been of Stalin until his fatal illness, by the end of his life he had turned resolutely against him.

Here is Russian historian Oleg Khlevnyuk in his "Stalin: New Biography of a Dictator":

Until recently, the authenticity of the anti-Stalinist dictations and activities of Lenin, which logically form a general picture, never raised any doubts. Only in recent years have attempts been made in Russia to declare Lenin’s assessments a falsification [footnote reference to Valentin Sakharov’s 2003 book]. Despite a pseudo-scientific presentation and references to archives, these attempts are not genuinely scientific. As a result, everything has been reduced to an absurd conspiratorial version: the anti-Stalinist dictations were fabricated and then slipped into Lenin’s archive by Trotsky’s supporters!”

Khlevnyuk also notes numerous other surviving documents that corroborate Lenin's anti-Stalin turn at the time, including letters by members of the troika and their supporters and Lenin's own letter to the Georgian Bolsheviks. I would add that the so-called testament is very balanced, careful and moderately worded, as well as being very seriously critical of all the major Bolshevik leaders, so it is hardly the text that any of them would choose to write if they had decided to make a forgery in order to strengthen their hand in the party.--87.126.23.210 (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

So far, there are only two historians who put forward this theory, and the overwhelming majority dismiss it. I think this is fringe. To make it worse, the article is written to accommodate this version (see text in bold):Krupskaya later produced a document that came to be known as "Lenin's Testament"; she stated that her husband had dictated it between December 1922 and January 1923. The document discussed the personal qualities of Lenin's comrades, particularly Trotsky and Stalin. It recommended that Stalin be removed from the position of General Secretary of the Communist Party, deeming him ill-suited for the position. Instead it recommended Trotsky for the job, describing him as "the most capable man in the present Central Committee"; it highlighted Trotsky's superior intellect but at the same time criticised his self-assurance and inclination toward excess administration. Some historians have questioned whether Lenin ever produced the document, suggesting instead that it may have been written by Krupskaya, who had personal differences with Stalin; Stalin never publicly voiced concerns about its authenticity. The article is written as if there are valid doubts about the authenticity of the testament. In fact, it is well-established that Lenin was dictating documents. Stalin always accepted the testament was genuine and even offered to resign because of it. Did he privately voice concerns? When? Yes, Krupskaya had a personal dispute with Stalin, but Lenin backed her up. And Lenin had his own differences with Stalin.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think a fairly decent case has been made that the argument is WP:FRINGE. I withdraw my objections to its removal. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Removed.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2019

I request access to edit this document for the soul reason of the change of picture on September 23rd of the "Vladimir Lenin" Wikipedia page. My reasoning for this is because when you search this individuals name on google or, most of the time, in any other place, the former picture of Lenin on this page is consistent. Furthermore, I'm often on the Wiki page and would love to correct errors on it if needed. Thank you, Ben. CommissarBen (talk) 12:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 12:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories

I'm inviting everyone to add to a very interesting but not well-covered aspect of Lenin's legacy, various conspiracy theories around his persona. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berehinia (talk • contribs) 02:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Invitation rejected.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Just because this isn't of interest to you, doesn't mean you can remove the whole section. Berehinia (talk) 03:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe theories tells us that "a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." I'd suggest that your theories and sources are neither serious nor substantial. They don't belong. HiLo48 (talk) 04:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

the internet world is full of junk ideas. Wikipedia has strict rules about the need for credibility. Lenin has been studied in depth by thousands of scholars--in this case none of those scholars have published a statement of support in a reliable secondary source. that = zero support. Rjensen (talk) 08:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Anyone could invent absurd fringe conspiracies about Lenin and post them on the internet. That does not mean that they should be mentioned in this article. If David Icke declared tomorrow that Lenin was a twelve-foot lizard, we would laugh and ignore the claim; and so we should at the psilocybin nonsense. RolandR (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Before I say anything, I would like to give Berehinia a chance. So, Berehinia, what theories are you proposing we should include?Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you User:Jam ai qe ju shikoni It's nice when someone engages into a respectful and collaborative discourse for once. So one of the most common conspiracy theories out there, although it's more of a theory really, is that Lenin was a spy for the German government, being used to subvert Russian war effort. New York Times explains it well. - Berehinia 21:57, 17 April 2020‎

Something interesting from the 2017 NY Times article: During his trip through Germany "Lenin got off on several occasions, and stayed overnight in a German hotel at Sassnitz. According to witnesses, Lenin even gave political speeches on German soil at Russian prisoner-of-war camps.... Scores of witnesses came forward to testify about wire transfers from Stockholm, money-laundering via a German import business, the German financing of the Bolshevik newspaper Pravda ... No matter Lenin’s real intentions, it is undeniable that he received German logistical and financial support in 1917." The article seems to say that Lenin took the money and support because Lenin's and Germany's goals were the same: Overthrow the Russian government and end the war. Nothing on being a German spy. -- Thats Just Great (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

"spy" is not appropriate. "German agent" is a better term--Berlin thought Lenin would advance German goals of ending the Russian war against Germany. Rjensen (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Even agent is pushing it. They shared similar goals. Germany similarly supported the Irish against the British. I wouldn't call the Irish, German agents. More like German allies. Irish nationalists didn't support German Imperial ambitions they just wanted the British out of Ireland and the Germans wanted to weaken the British. In supporting the Easter uprising they had common goals. Same with Lenin. He wanted out of the war and the downfall of the Russian government, which was the same as the German goals. -- Thats Just Great (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Specific Dates

It is confusing when Lenin arrived in Russia during WWI as he arrived, returned to Finland and then returned again in July/August? Added specific date for the 1st arrival but it was reverted. Do I need to find a better source? -- Thats Just Great (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

It is certainly important that we use top-quality and highly relevant sources, especially as this is a Featured Article. I reverted your (clearly well-meaning) edits because I did not feel that the sources provided met that criteria; none were sources about Lenin specifically. Besides, the sources already given at the end of the sentence already provide the date, so there is no need for additional citations to begin with. Moreover, I would question whether we need to give the precise date on which Lenin arrived at the Finland Station. It seems a good idea to specify the month (and I have now done so) but I think that including the exact day is unnecessary. In the article we only provide the dates for highly important events, such as Lenin's date of birth or that of the October Revolution; I'm not sure that his arrival at the Finland Station quite fits that, but I'm open to other perspectives. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Communist state

Socialism is a stage of communism in Leninist literature. Marx and Engels used it as a synonym of communism. “We are far from having completed even the transitional period from capitalism to socialism. We have never cherished the hope that we could finish it without the aid of the international proletariat. We never had any illusions on that score, and we know how difficult is the road that leads from capitalism to socialism. But it is our duty to say that our Soviet Republic is a socialist republic because we have taken this road, and our words will not be empty words.“ -Lenin to the Third All-Russia Congress Of Soviets “"The 'people's state' has been thrown in our faces by the anarchists". In saying this, Engels above all has in mind Bakunin and his attacks on the German Social-Democrats. Engels admits that these attacks were justified insofar as the "people's state" was as much an absurdity and as much a departure from socialism as the "free people's state".” -Lenin in The State and Revolution “Here was have what is most essential in the theoretical appraisal of the latest phase of capitalism, i.e., imperialism, namely, that capitalism becomes monopoly capitalism. The latter must be emphasized because the erroneous bourgeois reformist assertion that monopoly capitalism or state-monopoly capitalism is no longer capitalism, but can now be called "state socialism" and so on, is very common.” -Lenin in The State and Revolution Here is a video that explains Marx’s Engels’ and Lenin’s opinion beter than I could. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRXvQuE9xO4 “ Anarchy leads to Communism, and Communism to Anarchy, both alike being expressions of the predominant tendency in modern societies, the pursuit of equality.” -Pyotr Kropotkin The Wikipedia page about communism puts it like this, though it is slightly unclear about what it means. “Communism is a philosophical, social, political, economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of a communist society, namely a socioeconomic order structured upon the ideas of common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money and the state.” Communist society means a society without a state and still somehow Lenin managed to build a “communist state”. The page “communist state” recognises that these states aren’t communist or socialist, or at least understand they aren’t themselves, that Marxist–Leninist state is also a term used for these states (the term which should be used on this page) and that the term is really only used by western historians. The definition of communism used by actual communists differentiates from how the page uses the word, if the word can be used like that than democracy means wanting to commit the Holocaust and Holocaust means trying to summon magical flying pigs. NatriumGedrogt (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi! WP:NOTSOCIALFORUM: Article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article. Cheers! ——SN54129 12:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Dehumanisation of 3-year old child

The first image of the article is Ivan Parkhomenko's painting derived from Lenin's portrait with his sister Olga. Is it that necessary for the authors to make it grayscale instead of using either an actual photo or an actual painting? He was noble and cute as a child. His life would be not like that if his brother wasn't in Russia. It should not make anyone hate/love him less. Thus, the choice of the image seems to be very dehumanization-driven. Not a quality for a featured article. Tintin-tintine (talk) 10:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. The third (not the first) image is a photo (not a painting) of Lenin aged three, with his sister. There is nothing in the article about a painting by Ivan Parkhomenko. The comments about Lenin's life and his brother are incomprehensible. The purpose of the picture is not to make people love or hate Lenin, but to illustrate the article. I totally fail to see how the use of this picture dehumanises Lenin, and see no reason at all to remove it. RolandR (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@RolandR: I believe Tintin-tintine replaced the previous painting with the photo of Lenin with his sister, which would be causing your confusion. Not sure how the original painting dehumanised Lenin, but the current version is certainly more desirable. Acalycine (talk) 11:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Tintin-tintine has never edited the article. So your response leaves me even more bemused! RolandR (talk) 11:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Good thing I didn't say that. See [25]. Acalycine (talk) 08:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Narodniks, Marx and Lenin

Regarding:"Russian Marxist Georgi Plekhanov, agreeing with Plekhanov's argument that Russia was moving from feudalism to capitalism and so socialism would be implemented by the proletariat, or urban working class, rather than the peasantry.[29] This Marxist perspective contrasted with the view of the agrarian-socialist Narodnik movement, which held that the peasantry could establish socialism in Russia by forming peasant communes, thereby bypassing capitalism." listen to Chomsky's words: "Marx himself, in his later years, was deeply interested in the statistical and political work of the Narodniks, on peasant Russia, and apparently believed there was a lot of revolutionary potential in the Russian peasantry. This was largely suppressed by the urban intellectuals, by the Social Democrats and the Bolsheviks, who didn’t like that idea; in fact it wasn’t even revealed until years later." Can that be brought out?Soundhill (talk) 23:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Marx's view of the Nardonik isn't particularly relevant here. Marx's views were hardly a secret, anyway. He expressed them in the 1882 preface to the Russian edition of "The Communist Manifesto".--Jack Upland (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Lenin's Testament

The part about Lenin's Testament in the section "Declining health and conflict with Stalin: 1920–1923" should be removed as his authorship of the testament is disputed. GoldenSensei (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

We discussed that here.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Change of Infobox image

Why was the infobox image changed in the recent revision? Subjectively, I would consider the Pavel Zhukov photograph to be much more iconic, not to mention the controversy amongst some historians about photo colourisation. --TheOfficially (talk) 13:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@TheOfficially: User:SpaceSandwich (who made the change with this edit) is an inexperienced Wikipedian, and there are a number of considerations they did not (know they had to) take into account. Firstly, this is a Featured Article, which means that the images used have already goe through a systematic peer review and their inclusion is has been established by consensus. Secondly, per the MOS's guideline, It is often preferable to place images of people so that they "look" toward the text; and the FA criteria emphasise that he article follows the style guidelines. Thirdly—per POLICY— Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first. Changing the lead image without discussion certainly constitutes a significant change, so paging Midnightblueowl (who brought this fine article to FA status). 2A02:C7F:BE04:700:95AD:428E:B27:10DB (talk) 13:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, Jack Upland, by virtue! 2A02:C7F:BE04:700:95AD:428E:B27:10DB (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I also would support going back to the prior image, and am not fond of colourization. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kaiser matias: I agree with you.--LeftiePete (talk) 15:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@SpaceSandwich: Would you like to explain why you changed the infobox image? I have reverted the image back to the one that has a genera consensus. Coloured images are rarely used for the infobox image of a historical person anyway.--LeftiePete (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@LeftiePete: I think the colored image looks better as it is a closer up and higher definition image of Comrade Lenin's face.--SpaceSandwich (talk) 4:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Why is there graphic atrocity propaganda on Lenin's page but not on the pages of western presidents?

On this page there is a very graphic photo of the Volga famine but you can't see the same on Churchill's page related to the famines that killed millions of indians that happened under british rule, neither there are pics of the lacerated bodies of the millions of civilians in South East Asia and the Middle East murdered by american bombs under the pages of american presidents. This seems to be a clear example of double standard and just a cheap way to red scare.

95.237.14.23 (talk) 17:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2020

Template's Alma mater, to add the following: Imperial Kazan University (expelled) and only then the existing title in Education with parenthesis (externally). He didn't study in St. Petersburg and the current template info is misleading. Revolynka (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC) Revolynka (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. I'm hesitant to add Kazan University as he was there for less than a year. We also don't need to distinguish external degrees in the infobox, as functionally they're the same. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)