Talk:Vladimir Lenin/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Problems with sources

Wikipedia states:

• Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

This article contains sources that do not conform to Wikipedia's policies. First, Robert Gellately is not a specialist on the history of Russia. Nor is Melgunov's nearly 90-year-old work reliable because he was a politician, not a professional historian. Melgunov, as a member "People's Socialist Party", a right-wing faction of the SR Party, was a politician hostile to the Russian Government. Aleksandr Yakovlev was not a professional historian at an academic institution but was a politician who supported the policies of Yeltsin. Professor Donald Rayfield is a specialist in literature, not history. These sources have to be removed. Examples of reliable sources include work by specialists on Russian history such as Alexander Rabinowitch, Evan Mawdsley, Sheila Fitzpatrick, Diane Koenker, Isaac Mints, G.N. Golikov and others. Kasernewinkt (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, we are quoting Gellately directly from a book he wrote...about Hitler, Stalin, and Lenin. Melgunov's wikipedia article states, and I quote: "Sergei Petrovich Melgunov was a Russian historian, publicist and politician best known for his opposition to the Soviet government." The other sources all seem semi-reliable/questionable at best. "Gellately, Earl Ray Beck Professor of History at Florida State University, claims...Gellately claims" You see, even if Robert Gellately is not a specialist on the history of Russia, that doesn't mean he does not understand the material. He is a historian, and a Professor of History. Look at you or me. We're not specialists, yet we edit Wikipedia to the perspectives that we find correct...albeit those verifiable.Luna Rain^HowL_Cry 02:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

We are not specialists. But there are plenty of people who are, who disagree with Gellately. And plenty who do make their central interest Russian history. If we will follow deference to academia, as you (rightly) suggest, then we must stop quoting Gellately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.247.64 (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The test is the quality of evidence and reasoning deployed, not the professional position of the writer. So Gellately should not be relied on, nor Richard Pipes or Robert Conquest. Signed Will Podmore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.85.214 (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Nadezhda Krupskaya

I noticed that on a few occasions in the article mention is made of "Lenin's wife", and there is even a picture with the caption "Lenin and his wife"; but there is no mention whatsoever of her name; Nadezhda Krupskaya. As this article is "semi-protected" would one of the page's dignatories like to correct this ommission? Thanks! --TTKK (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous.

This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for propaganda. Criticism of Lenin is understandable and quite possibly deserved; but no matter what your position on the man and his deeds, sections like the one about the Red Terror are simply absurd. To mention that crimes were committed is fine; to go into lurid and lengthy detail about them smacks of the blandest of propaganda. Mentioning the opinions of anti-communists is also fine; but it has to be taken into consideration that these are not "neutral" sources and cannot make up such a large proportion of the article (neither can those of his defenders). This article reads like it was written by crazy conspiracy theorists, or by Joe McCarthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.221.56.17 (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You cannot ignore the atrocities which took place, justice to the dead requires that they be explored even if the details are horrifying and sickening —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.116.181 (talk) 11:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Article title

Is "Vladimir Lenin" the correct title for this article? This is a subjective view, but I don't recall ever hearing or reading of him by this name - it's either "Lenin" or "Vladimir Ilyich Lenin". Can anyone point to sources that say that "Vladimir Lenin" is the WP:COMMONAME for this person? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I see nobody seems interested in this issue, so if there are no objections in the next couple of days I'll move this article to Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. Using Google Books searches, which is the best way I could think of for judging the most commonly used name, I find 959 hits without the patronymic and 1435 with. Amongst the sources with the patronymic Ilyich and Ilich are pretty nearly equal, but WP:RUS would suggest using Ilyich. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

it is my understanding that the pseudonym Lenin did not include a patronymic, and this is a confusion. But in any case, we don't normally use patronymics in article titles; compare Stalin, Pushkin, Tolstoy, Prokofiev, and Shostakovich. Ilyich should be twice avoided; the spelling variation makes the article harder to find and link to. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Public Perception?

From my readings, I am a little unsure. How was Lenin perceived as a leader from the general public? Had he have been around for much longer (and not died) I believe he would've been like Stalin, however his body was pickled and perserved. My understanding is that he wanted a regular funarel and he is still considered a 'hero' today. Can anyone comment on this and maybe clear it up as I can't find anything that makes this clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.222.217 (talk) 06:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, given a choice, the people of what was then Leningrad much preferred the name of St. Petersburg. I would imagine that similar sentiments were across all Russia.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 15:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

According to 1999 survey, conducted by the competent survey company, which worked with both Yeltsin's and Putin's political campaign staff and russian President administration, 2/3 of russians consider him being a positive historical figure and 23% as a negative. Here is a prooflink| 80.251.126.6 (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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 proposal was NO CONSENSUS to move page, per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Also refer to previous discussion on the topic above.

• Vladimir Lenin → Vladimir Ilyich Lenin — Most sources either just say "Lenin" or use the patronymic --Phil Bridger (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • This move discussion is actually above in the section "Article title", as clearly indicated in the move template at the top of this talk page. Please don't create duplicate discussions that can only lead to confusion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Previous discussion noted and link changed. No harm in having the discussion here to keep the talk page in chronological order. — AjaxSmack 02:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons under #article title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. First of all, the change would make the article harder to find and to link to (although a good percentage of readers will just type "lenin" and be redirected here). Secondly, the naming convention specifically states that the Russian patronymic is usually not to be included in the article title. Jafeluv (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Only if there were 2 Vladimir Lenins and both of equal notability would we need to move article to include the patrynomic. --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Actually, it would be most logical to move it to simply "Lenin." Lenin is the revolutionary nickname that Vladimir Ulyanov adopted in order to hide his identity. In Russia (I'm Russian/Bulgarian) he is usually called either "Lenin" or "Vladimir Ilyitch" (and not Vladimir Lenin or Vladimir Ulyanov).

iloveads47 (talk) 08:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Iskra or the Zarya?

I'm a High School student trying to do an essay on Lenin, yet two of my sources contradict each other...

Encyclopedia Britannica states that, after leaving Russia to Germany in 1900 that he began working for the Iskra

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/335881/Vladimir-Ilich-Lenin

However, the American Law Encyclopedia Vol 6 states that he began working for the Zarya

http://law.jrank.org/pages/8215/Lenin-Vladimir-Ilyich.html

I'd like to clear up any confusion here, can someone please enlighten me to which newspaper he did, indeed work on? Wikipedia says the Iskra...and if this is incorrect, I'd like it to be changed.

24.8.128.152 (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Iscra is correct, according to the several Russian books on the revolution that I am in possession of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iloveads47 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Cause of his death was syphilis

The article forgets the cause of Lenin's death.He died of syphilis.Please see these sites: [New York Times] and [[2]] .Agre22 (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)agre22

Oh, please! The NYT article doesn't even name the Treponema Pallidum correctly. Only a very bad doctor would confuse stroke with syphilis. Man, kids that study medicine these days have a complete disregard for propedeutics depending exclusively on specialized diagnostic procedures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.171.232 (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Here a peer reviewed paper that claimed that Lenin died of neurosyphilis. I read it when I had journal access at university, it is very thorough. However, the claim Lenin of syphilis was used by his political enemies to smear him, thus it remains a controversial claim. --Diamonddavej (talk) 00:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Lerner V., Finkelstein Y. & Witztum E., 2004. The enigma of Lenin's (1870-1924) malady. European Journal of Neurology, 11(6):371-376.[3]

It was not syphilis. He was examined in 1922 by the best specialists available at the time, and no evidence of physical disease, except exhaustion from overwork, was to be found. I have entered this information in the death section. Incidentally, the same source, russian academician Dmitriy Volkogonov indicates that a great many of the high-level revolutionary actors were suffering by 1922 from stress-related problems (psychological and heart-related issues) brought on by overwork, and that Lenin was undoubtedly the most strenuously engaged of them all. Makes me think karoshi!

iloveads47 (talk) 08:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

However, I have heard this rumor before, and it is widespread enough to where it may be of value to reference it, even if untrue... I'm not doing that since I don't believe a word of it :)

iloveads47 (talk) 08:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Rumors. Lenin suffered strokes from 1922 and onwards, dying at 53 from a brain hemorrhage. That's what I was taught. Dared111 (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

On popular underwear

A cartoon representation of an iconic image of Lenin's speech appeared on men's underwear manufactured by British fashion retailer Next in 2009. The underwear was recalled after complaints from customers who believed the image depicted Adolf Hitler.^[4] Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 10:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

"Bob Ryan"?

The article currently has the mention of one Bob Ryan as the man to whom the assassination attempt gunmen belonged, and also translates Lenin's name at the top of the page as "Bob Ryan". Is there something I don't know, or is this vandalism? Just wanted to make sure, first-time editor here. ~Lexi (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism would be my guess, so I have reverted it.[5] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Red Terror

I find it odd that the so-called "White Movement" is said to have started the Russian Civil War as the section on the Red Terror currently suggests. As the "Whites" were defending the "status quo" and the "traditional" form of Russian government and state, surely the Civil War and the Revolution cannot be distinguished. They are one and the same. The Revolution thus began the Civil War in and of itself, and the "White Movement" was only a reaction (hence, "reactionary") to the Revolution (Kornilov vs Kerensky and then a larger movement against the Bolsheviks). Therefore, I am going to edit this sentence unless someone advances a compelling reason not to: "In 1918, the White Movement started the Russian Civil War against the newly created Russian SFSR." I would replace it with: "In 1918, anti-Bolshevik forces consolidated and began to take military and political action against the revolutionary regime." Also, there must absolutely be a cite (non-Bolshevik) that suggests that the Red Terror was in fact a reaction to the White Terror (who would have thought the Bolsheviks were also reactionaries?) or I will remove it.99.240.139.189 (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Have consolidated these threads, it seems to be the major action item on the article. Please use proper formatting. Lycurgus (talk) 10:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Red Terror too long

The section is too long and goes back and forth. It should be summarized and reduced in length. Biographies about Lenin do not devote one-fifth of the content to a period in 1918 spanning a few months. Kasernewinkt (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Rather than reverting it 6 times, why don't you wait until a discussion has began. You can't just revert things because of your opinion. Get some other editorial support. By the way, for breaking 3RR, expect to be banned. Luna Rain^HowL_Cry 01:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's too long. Let's create a draft here. Brown99 (talk) 04:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

After the Bolshevik Revolution of October 1917, Anti-Communist grouped themselves loosely into the 'White Movement'. In 1918, the White Movement started the Russian Civil War against the newly created Russian SFSR. The mass arrests and summary executions carried out by the White Movement became known as the White Terror. The Red Terror was claimed to be introduced in reply to White Terror. Following the assassination attempt on Lenin and the successful assassination of Petrograd chief of secret police Moisei Uritsky, Stalin, in a telegram argued that a policy of “open and systematic mass terror” be instigated against “those responsible”. The other Bolsheviks agreed, and instructed Felix Dzerzhinsky, whom Lenin had appointed to head the Cheka in 1917, to commence a “Red Terror”, which was officially announced to the public on 1 September 1918, by the Bolshevik newspaper, Krasnaya Gazeta. According to Christopher Read, at this time, due to the assassination attempt by Kaplan, Lenin was lying severely wounded in the hospital and was too ill to advise retaliatory measures. But, according to MI5's official historian at the University of Cambridge, Christopher Andrew, and Richard Pipes, while recovering from his wounds, Lenin instructed: "It is necessary - secretly and urgently to prepare the terror." According to Pipes, Lenin's Hanging Order, which was translated and published by Robert Service Professor of history at Oxford and an outspoken anti-communist, claims that Lenin himself ordered terror on 11 August 1918, before he was fired on.

Lenin remained an advocate of red terror, according to Richard Pipes. In a letter of 19 March 1922, to Molotov and the members of the Politburo, following an uprising by the clergy in the town of Shuia, Lenin outlined a brutal plan of action against the clergy and their followers, who were defying the government decree to remove church valuables: “We must (…) put down all resistance with such brutality that they will not forget it for several decades. (…) The greater the number of representatives of the reactionary clergy and reactionary bourgeoisie we succeed in executing (…) the better.” Estimates of the numbers of the clergy killed vary. According to Orlando Figes and The Black Book of Communism, 2,691 priests, 1,962 monks and 3,447 nuns were executed as a result of Lenin's aforementioned directives. Historian Christopher Read estimates from the records that a grand total of 1,023 clergy were killed in the whole period 1917-23. However, the late Alexander Yakovlev, the architect of glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring) and later head of the Presidential Committee for the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repression, cites documents that confirm nearly 3,000 were shot in 1918 alone. Yakovlev stated that Lenin was "By every norm of international law, posthumously indictable for crimes against humanity."

During the Civil War, atrocities were carried out by both Reds and Whites. According to historian Christopher Read the numbers killed by the White forces were on a comparable scale to the Bolsheviks and can probably be numbered in hundreds of thousands. For instance, the Whites killed 115,000 Ukrainian Jews in 1919 alone. But, according to The Black Book of Communism, the two types of terror were not on the same level. The Red Terror, which was official policy, was more systematic, better organized, and targeted at whole social classes (i.e. Decossackization). The White Terror was never systematized in such a fashion, and was almost invariably the work of detachments that were taking measures not authorized by the military command. Professor Donald Rayfield asserts that only Roman Ungern von Sternberg, Nestor Makhno and some Cossack forces employed terror on a scale comparable to the Red Terror. However, according to historian Evan Mawdsley, the White general Anton Denikin "deserves criticism" for not fully condemning anti-Jewish pogroms. According to Lenin critic Robert Conquest, "Lenin's terror was the product of years of war and violence, of the collapse of society and administration, of the desperate acts of rulers precariously riding the flood, and fighting for control and survival. Stalin, on the contrary, attained complete control at a time when general conditions were calm." The late Australian historian and leftist intellectual Manning Clark described Lenin as "Christ-like, at least in his compassion." Some of Lenin's own writings tend to contradict this view; like in "How to Organize the Competition," which proclaimed the common, united purpose of purging the Russian land of all kinds of "vermin, of fleas—the rogues, of bugs—the rich, and so on" and that "one out of every ten idlers will be shot on the spot." Christopher Hitchens, a former Trotskyite, also describes Lenin as "a great man." According to Hitchens: "One of Lenin's great achievements, in my opinion, is to create a secular Russia. The power of the Russian Orthodox Church, which was an absolute warren of backwardness and evil and superstition, is probably never going to recover from what he did to it." Some social democratic Marxists from Lenin's time, such as Yuliy Osipovich Martov and Karl Kautsky, were highly critical of his regime's use of capital punishment, which Kautsky described as "terrorism". Russian Provisional Government minister Viktor Chernov described Lenin as "a virtual Robespierre."

Red Terror

I note that the subsection on Red Terror includes the following:

"Some of Lenin's own writings tend to contradict this view; like in "How to Organize the Competition," which proclaimed the common, united purpose of purging the Russian land of all kinds of "vermin, of fleas—the rogues, of bugs—the rich, and so on" and that "one out of every ten idlers will be shot on the spot.

Lenin did not publish this. In fact, it was first circulated by Stalin in 1929 – five years after Lenin's death – as a justification for the forthcoming terror that would be instituted under Stalin. Robert C. Tucker, who is not at all sympathetic to Bolshevism, even admits that in all likelihood Lenin had very different second thoughts after rereading the article. In all likelihood, the passage has no bearing on Red Terror.

Anybody may see the text of Tucker's book at

http://books.google.com/books?id=L9pcTIEP1OQC&pg=PA90&lpg=PA90&dq=Lenin+idlers+shot&source=bl&ots=Z0JdBidZ92&sig=hMLJDNv7Rm5QRZZ69QV1Bb7fQJk&hl=en&ei=wKXdSeTuNZKimAeu8NikDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#PPA90,M1

If not, simply enter the phrase

Lenin idlers shot

into Google; the third hit I got was the Tucker excerpt. For convenience's sake, I shall reproduce Tucker's writing right here:

Another document that proved useful was "How to Organize

Competition," an essay written by Lenin in January 1918 and withheld from publication. It appeared in Pravda on 20 January 1929 under the title "Lenin--Banner of the Millions," sharing space that day with Krupskaya's "Ilyich and Kolkhoz Construction.
In one part of this previously unpublished article, Lenin launched into a tirade against "the rich and their hangers-on, and the crooks, the idlers, and the hooligans" and those described as "these dregs of humanity, these hopelessly decayed and atrophied limbs, this contagion, this plague, this ulcer that socialism has inherited from capitalism." He went on: "No mercy to these enemies of the people, the enemies of socialism, the enemies of the toilers! War to the bitter end to the rich and their hangers-on, the bourgeois intellectuals; war on the rogues, the idlers, the hooligans!" As for the way to wage the war, and "to cleanse the land of Russia of all sorts of harmful insects, of the flea-crooks and bedbug-rich, and so on and forth," Lenin had these thoughts to offer: "In one place half a score of the rich, a dozen crooks, half a dozen workers who shirk their work (in the hooligan manner in which compositors in Petrograd, particularly in the party printing shops, shirk their work) will be put in prison. In another place they will be put to cleaning latrines. In a third place they will be provided with 'yellow tickets' after they have served their time, so that all the people shall have them under surveillance, as harmful persons, until they reform. In a fourth place, one out of every ten idlers will be shot on the spot." After appearing in Pravda and other soviet [sic] papers, this short essay was put out as a pamphlet with a circulation of 3.5 million copies.
Why Lenin chose to whithold it from publication is unknown. Krupskaya's much later statement in her memoirs that he did so b ecause he considered it "unfinished" is not convincing; it is as finished as other quickly written pieces that he did publish. Conceivably, he himself was taken aback by its extremism when he reread it on returning from

the brief vacation in Finland during which he wrote the essay.

--Robert C. Tucker, Stalin in Power: The Revolution from Above, 1928-1941. W. W. Norton & Company, 1992 ISBN 0393308693, ISBN 9780393308693. Pp. 89-90; emphasis mine.

Since I am not one of the elect Wikipedians charged with disseminating enlightenment on all subjects, I myself am rendered it incapable of editing the article. I would appreciate, however, if somebody "nuanced out" what is presently written with the addition of Tucker's highly important commentary on this issue.

Even Andrzej Walicki, in Marxism and the Leap to the Kingdom of Freedom (Stanford University Press, 1997. ISBN 0804731640, ISBN 9780804731645. P. 307.), throughly condemning Lenin and Leninist policy, is forced to admit as much:

True, the article containing these practical recommendations never appeared in print

http://books.google.com/books?id=NgZ6vitEjq4C&pg=PA307&lpg=PA307&dq=Lenin+idlers+shot&source=bl&ots=R_5B1_CyEG&sig=nv2pUnfZVREJGtDM3pGzclOkzdg&hl=en&ei=wKXdSeTuNZKimAeu8NikDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9

166.217.251.170 (talk) 09:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• This is described in all textbooks. The orders by Lenin were send as secret ;etters/telegrams to Bolshevik regional authorities and Cheka. It was only much later that the original texts became public. Stalin cited a few of Lenin's letters to justiy the terror and to prove that he was a good follower of Lenin (and in fact he was).Biophys (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Biophys, given the POV advocated in your contributions, you're going to need a source for that. If you have references for the idea that Lenin sent out the same words as those in "Competition" in secret telegrams, we'll accept them. PasswordUsername (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Almost any good Western books on the subject tell about secret telegrams by Lenin (like Lenin's Hanging Order): "Black book of Communism" by European historians, "Russia under Bolshevik regime" by Pipes, books by Robert Conquest, books by many Russian historians like Edvard Radzinsky, and so on.Biophys (talk) 03:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Biophys, I think you'll find that every source you've listed here should be treated with extreme scrutiny given the explicitly Anti-Communist leaning of their authors. All of these historians have drawn themselves into academic controversy for these works, and they've been accused of framing sensationalist histories intended either to sell copies or discredit the Soviet system (Conquest, for instance, received patronage from the CIA*).
  

[*]http://www.cambridgeclarion.org/e/fo_deceit_unit_graun_27jan1978.html

OK, a completely different order, one which is not known to have been actually carried out in actual fact. I find it interesting that of all the books out there you choose to cite a British intelligence agent and a TV host to carry across your point. PasswordUsername (talk) 07:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion is that this § become an article in its own right or have much of its content moved to an existing one if it already exists. Then this section can refer to that article and concentrate on Lenin's role. Please use proper indentation, this thread is very hard to follow. Lycurgus (talk) 10:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It turns out there is already a Red Terror. Have added the main link to the § and will perform edit to focus the § on the subject of this article if no one else does. Lycurgus (talk) 11:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

A posthumously published article which never appeared in Lenin's lifetime is irrelevant and should not be discussed at length. It will be removed per undue weight. Srazin (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You (Srazin) are a banned vandal therefore your opinion is irrelevant. Your latest sockpuppet account will be banned soon enough. But I concur with others here that the Red Terror section is too long. I propose deleting the entire last paragraph.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

White Anti-Semitic Terror

Anyone have any thoughts about this sentence: "For instance, the Whites killed 115,000 Ukrainian Jews in 1919 alone.[79]" (Reed, 2005) Does anyone have Reed's book and can they check the citation? I understand that the Whites were absolutely vicious when it came to the Jewish population but does the mention of "Whites" in this context include Ukrainian nationalists and irregulars, who, while perhaps considered "Whites" by the Bolsheviks, were at various times fighting Germans, Poles, "Whites" proper (e.g. Russians) and Bolsheviks? E.g. I note that the Symon Petliura notes that Ukrainian nationalist pogroms claimed tens of thousands of Jewish lives: "the number of Jews killed during the period is estimated to be between 35 and 50 thousand." Similarly, are some Polish anti-Jewish atrocities being attributed to the "Whites"? 99.240.139.189 (talk) 09:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"Religion" entry in infobox

I don't quite know what's behind User:DR2006kl's objection to the infobox "Religion" entry of "None (Atheist)". It's beyond doubt that Lenin was an atheist – I've provided a single citation from a reliable source to support that, and can find dozens more, if necessary – and also beyond doubt that atheism is not a religion. I read the entry as saying "Lenin did not have a religion, however he was an atheist" or "Lenin did not practice a religion, the reason being his atheism." In other words, "Atheist" is not being supplied as an answer to "Religion", but as a further explanation of why Lenin had no religion. That's how I read it, and I don't see anything wrong with that -- however DR2006kl obviously does, so I've invited him here to explain what his objection is. (I don't think DR's last version, piping to "Atheism" with a display of "None", is a particularly good compromise, since it hides the fact of the matter where it's only seen by someone curious enough to click the link.) Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 11:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No answer from this editor for over 48 hours. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 18:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Technically, Atheism doesn't imply a lack of religion, just a lack of belief in god (and usually as in Chinese society, demons, ghosts, and the supernatural in general). Buddhism (Theravada at any rate) and others are, essentially, atheistic in this sense. So probably the matter of fact, if the highest standards of language usage were in effect would be simply "None". However the thing that caught my attention about this is how you seem to have squatted this article setting this 48 hr. and other various rules which you have made yourself the enforcer of. Editors are not paid here and so your setting a time period for them to respond and two days at that is curious. Just make the change if it's justified and if there's likely to be contention and a time period for response is to be set, unless the subject matter calls for urgency, at least "several" days is appropriate. Lycurgus (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting interpretation. Let's see how it sounds expressed another way: I made an attempt to resolve a conflict, which was not responded to, so after waiting more than a reasonable amount of time, I went ahead and restored the prior status of the article, before the editor began fooling around with it. Seems pretty reasonable to me. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 20:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wait - I remember you now... You're the editor who called me a "stupid asshole" (twice! - once in quasi-German) and then admitted on your talk page that you really didn't know if I was a stupid asshole or not! Have you taken to following me around, or something? Got nothing better to do with your precious volunteer time? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 21:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

|:) Always have tiem for the crusty ole skanks klub. Lycurgus (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Atheism is not a religion. Hence, it cannot be an answer to the religion question. Besides, there is no evidence that Lenin was atheist and not nontheist, for example. Finally, Lenin was baptized into the Russian Orthodox Church, hence he was Christian for at least part of his life. None with a reference to atheism may be fine but I have to think about the issue first. DR2006kl (talk) 09:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well for the purposes of these fora, what a religion is is defined by en.wikipedia.org categories. Since Secular Humanism is not in one of these and furthermore a lot of processing about what constitutes a Religion value in the template not being a good, crusty #1's adjudication should probably stand. Lycurgus (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Whoe started Civil War?

I prefer "In 1918, fighting erupted between the White Movement and the revolutionary regime, the newly created Russian SFSR" to "If In 1918, the White Movement started the Russian Civil War against the newly created Russian SFSR". The former states a fact, the latter is an opinion. One can equally blame reds for disbanding constitutional assembly and therefore starting a civil war. DR2006kl (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

According to Lenin in November 1917 [6]

The civil war was started by a handful of men. It is not over. Kaledin’s troops are approaching Moscow, and the shock troops are approaching Petrograd. We do not want a civil war. Our troops have shown great restraint. They held their fire, and it all began when three of our men were killed. Krasnov was given soft treatment. He was only placed under house arrest. We are against civil war. But if it nevertheless goes on what are we to do?

Srazin (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Trotsky, Lenin and Kamenev at the II Party Congress in 1919

The incription underr the picture says Trotsky, Lenin and Kamenev at the II Party Congress in 1919. In fact the 2nd congress was long bfore 1919.--79.111.130.49 (talk) 10:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

What does this mean?

"...popularized Kautsky's take". Despite being English myself, I don't understand what this combination of words means. Could someone who does understand it please rephrase it? APW (talk) 07:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm under the impression that it simply means: popularized Kautsky's perspective. But I'm not even English.--Pedro magalhaes86 (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Adoption of the name

When did Vladimir Ulyanov start using the name Lenin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.198.250.66 (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Last photo of Lenin

The alleged last photo of Lenin is incredibly dubious. I mean, the guy was paralysed, he couldn't face the camera like that or even stand straight like that, and the photo doesn't resemble him at all. It looks like a Chinese guy in a pyjama. Also, there is no information concerning the author of such photograph. It strikes me as false. --Pedro magalhaes86 (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this below is a genuine photo in his last year. --90.242.116.194 (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead Section

I think the lead section does not give enough information for an article of this length. I think one shouldn't have to read through the entire article to find out his period of leadership or whether he died of natural causes or an assassination. Enisbayramoglu (talk) 07:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead Section

The first picture of Lenin looks eerily similar too actor SEAN CONNERY. It is honestly very questionable as to whether that is a legitimate picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MINTOPOINT (talk • contribs) 23:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

LMAO, I can see what you mean! Maybe Connery should have acted him! 83.254.147.95 (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Nikolai

I have removed this highly dubious assertion:

NOTE: The Western press mis-identified him as "Nikolai Lenin", mis-translating the Cyrillic letter "И" (English letter "I") for the English "N"; thus Ilyich Lenin (Russian) metamorphosed to the (English) "Nikolai Lenin".

If the "Western press" misinterpreted one I, why not both? Why not all letters? And how do you get from N to Nikolai. I have seen the sign-off "N Lenin" in works published in the Soviet Union. I suspect the choice of Nikolai was - like the title What Is To Be Done - a homage to Nikolai Chernyshevsky. Subsequently he kept the famous surname but reverted to his true given names: hence V I Lenin.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

vladimir lenin is a striaght up 'G' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.110.114.100 (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Lenin signed some of his pre-Revolution articles with the name "N. Lenin." The "N" was short for "никто," which is Russian for "nobody." Lenin used this construct to let his readers know that the author was using a pseudonym. He was trying to avoid capture and exile by the Tsar's secret police. Somehow along the line, these articles reached the West and were translated from Russian. For whatever reason, somebody thought the "N" stood for "Nikolai," and that mistake has lingered for nearly a century. Years later, when he came to power, he was widely known as Lenin, and just used his given names attached to his nom de guerre, hence Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, the name his normally known by today. Jsc1973 (talk) 03:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Writings

I added "Left-wing" communism etc. to this list. It is still a very short list tho given that Lenin was a prolific writer.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 13:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this neutral?

"nonetheless, being of the intelligentsia, the Ulyanovs educated their children against the ills of their time (violations of human rights, servile psychology, etc.), and instilled readiness to struggle for higher ideals, a free society, and equal rights. Subsequently, excepting Olga (dead at age 19), every Ulyanov child became a revolutionary.[4]"

in short (?): [ they were some kind of leftists] and as such educated against the ills of their time... that their [the parents] conviction was essentially good is an unspoken premise... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.4.224 (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

So are you arguing a) that this is not what Volkogonov writes; b) that Volkogonov is not a reliable source; c)that only leftists oppose human rights violations; or d) that an alternative reliable source denies these facts about Lenin's upbringing? RolandR (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Minor typo (can't edit)

Ant-Semitic on the photo caption of Jewish children should of course be Anti-Semitic. I'm not allowed to edit this article so...

161.115.86.84 (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Visa Application to US Rejected?

On the Wikipedia article on Allen Dulles, the CIA Director, note the following: "Allen Dulles graduated from Princeton University, and in 1916 entered the diplomatic service. Dulles was serving in Switzerland and was responsible for reviewing and rejecting Vladimir Lenin's application for a visa to the United States.[citation needed]

The article does not state why Lenin reportedly sought a visa to visit the United States, but I recall the year 1920 as being cited as the year in which the request was made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.0.54 (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

What is to be done?

As far as the clean-up tag is concerned? If no-one can say, the tag should be removed as the current state represents a substantial amount of work. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No response so removing. Lycurgus (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

editsemiprotected

{{editsemiprotected}}

The following information should be included in the Later life and death section of Lenin's Wiki article.

According to Trotsky, after Lenin returned to work from the first stroke, he was disgusted to find Stalinist bureaucratization and “how omnipotent it seemed in relation to the masses of the party.” From hereupon Lenin held conversations with Trotsky about the removal of Stalin which concluded on a joint struggle (with Trotsky) against Stalin with the least possible disturbance to party matters. This, however, was not materialized due to Lenin's deteriorating health.

Ref: Leon, Trotsky. "Stalin's victory".Writings of Leon Trotsky 1929. Ed. George Breitman and Sarah Lovell. 3rd ed. Pathfinder Press. 2004. 42-43.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aberex (talk • contribs) 19:39, 6 March 2010  Question: Can you confirm that the direct quoted text is taken verbatim from the book source? I can't find it online.  Chzz  ►  00:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If there are any other online sources which state this, please list them as well.  fetchcomms☛ 01:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Trotsky is clearly very objective and impartial..... NOT! According to Volkogonov Lenin wanted neither Stalin nor Trotsky to seize power, instead wishing for a more diffuse core of leadership. Both were attempting to undermine his political will for Trotsky was in fact the more likely character to.

According to Volkogonov, who cites this particular quote as evidence, Trotsky was pathologically self-absorbed, dishonest and prone to misrepresenting, selfishness and desire to assert his own importance. These publications were meant for western consumption, as the idea that Lenin would be blocking with Trotsky in a "joint struggle" would have been ludicrous to the Russians who recognized as almost unquestionable the authority of Lenin. I don't have the book right in front of me, but I will try to cite this later.

174.30.233.233 (talk) 07:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Lenin's Name

I think there are problems with Lenin's name in this article.

(1) Lenin was born Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov

(2) He was known in revolutionary circles as "Lenin," "N. Lenin" and "V.I. Lenin." As far as I know, he was never known as "Nicolai Lenin" or "Vladimir Ilych Lenin," which is the title of this article. The title should be changed with to "V.I. Lenin" or just Lenin.

(3) To his intimates, including his wife, Lenin was known as "Vladimir Ilyich."

I don't want to make any changes until I hear from others and from the administration.

RED DAVE (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that you mean, the title is currently "Vladimir Lenin", and it should be changed?

My opinion is, I think it should be renamed to "Vladimir Ilyich Lenin", as that seems the most familiar 'official' form in the West.

There seems to be some discussion of this in Talk:Vladimir Lenin/Archive 1 and Talk:Vladimir Lenin/Archive 4#His name, etc, which needs taking into account - but there is no reason we can't discuss it further here, and try to get a consensus.  Chzz  ►  00:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we discussed it extensively, mentioning the standard form in Russian. If I recall correctly the article's name was changed one time already. Thanks Chzz for pointing out that this discussion has been ongoing.

Here is again from the perspective of a native Russian speaker: he nickname "Lenin" under which Vladimir I. Ulyanov went is a Russian Surname. Later when Lenin was no longer threatened by the ochrana, he could go by and went by "Vladimir Ilych Lenin" or "Vladimir Ilyitch Ulyanov." Both would be acceptable. However for identification the middle name (patronymic) is omitted if it is not necessary, so you could shorten reasonably to "Vladimir Lenin" or "Vladimir Ulyanov." You are right that V. I. Lenin is the most common written form of the name, but in coloquial Russian they often use only "Vladimir Ilyitch."

If you want to go for parsimony, the word "Lenin" is sufficient to identify him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.30.233.233 (talk) 07:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

My deletions

I removed huge chunks of text which say not a single word about Lenin. This is lenin's bio, not forks of articles form History of Russia series. The content must be about what Lenin has done, not what has happened when he ruled. - Altenmann >t 05:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually you DID remove huge chunks of text where Lenin is clearly discussed. I'm restoring some of these.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 01:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

POV and Unreferenced

This extract is from the article is unreferenced:

"The Bolshevik "refusal to come to terms with the [Revolutionary] socialists, and the dispersal of the Constituent assembly, led to the logical result that revolutionary terror would now be directed, not only against traditional enemies, such as the bourgeoisie or right-wing opponents, but against anyone, be he socialist, worker, or peasant, who opposed Bolshevik rule".

Suggesting that certain events in history lead "logically" to only one conclusion sounds very unlikely and an extreme POV. If it a POV editorial it should be deleted, if it is quoting someone the source should be given. Colin4C (talk) 09:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Vague and meaningless

The following unreferenced bit in the intro is vague and meaningless:

"Nonetheless, traditional Marxists rejected Lenin’s intellectual œuvre, because of their novel (revolutionary) theories of the nature of imperialism, the vanguard party as required to effect a revolution, and that a developed industrial proletariat was inessential to achieving a Communist State; it is noteworthy that Lenin’s agrarian Russia had virtually no industrial proletariat.[citation needed]"

Who were these "traditional Marxists" and what does it mean that they rejected "Lenin’s intellectual œuvre"? Did they disagree with everything Lenin said? Where's the proof of this? And if Russia had "virtually no industrial proletariat" who was manufacturing the weapons with which to fight World War One and who was building the the railways and the trains? Colin4C (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The following sentence from the article also seems to be meaningless:

"Nonetheless, the prodrazvyorstka resulted in armed confrontations which the Cheka and Red Army suppressed with shooting hostages, poison gas, and labour-camp deportation; yet Lenin increased the requisitioning, whilst the Cheka reported the Russian famine of 1921, which killed some 3–10 million people."

To say that there were armed confrontations with the Cheka doring the Civil War, whilst the Cheka "reported the Russian famine of 1921" is to say something which makes no sense whatsoever...Colin4C (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Quick Fix

One of the picture captions says "Ant-Semitism." I think it should be changed to "Anti-Semitism" or simply "Antisemitism." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.104.97 (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It is mentioned that the Winter Palace in Petersburg was 'stormed'. This never happened: in reality the Bolshevik takeover was relatively peaceful, with only some vandalism occurring and no fighting was involved at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.L. Nijholt (talk • contribs) 15:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, later communist propaganda, including the Eisenshtein picture were made to glorify the takeover which was relatively peaceful. 174.30.233.233 (talk) 07:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph "Russian return"

"In late August 1917, after the failed coup d’ État of the General Kornilov affair, popular support for the Provisional Government collapsed, whilst support for the Bolshevik Peace, Land, Bread programme increased; jailed Bolsheviks were freed.[32] In October, Lenin returned from Finland, and inspired the October Revolution with the slogan All Power to the Soviets! From the Smolny Institute for girls, Lenin directed the Provisional Government’s deposition (6–8 November 1917), and the storming (7–8 November) of the Winter Palace to realise the Kerensky capitulation that established Bolshevik government in Russia."

It is mentioned that the Winter Palace in Petersburg was 'stormed'. This never happened: in reality the Bolshevik takeover was relatively peaceful, with only some vandalism occurring and no fighting was involved at all.

J.L. Nijholt March 23, 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.L. Nijholt (talk • contribs) 15:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Lenin a freemason?

I am repeatedly coming across the assertion that Lenin was a high-ranking (33°) freemason. From where do these claims arise? Do they perceivably have any merit? __meco (talk) 07:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No.72.228.177.92 (talk) 10:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

1894 or 1895?

This article says "On 7 December 1895, Lenin was arrested for plotting against Tsar Alexander III". The article on Alexander III says he died more than a year earlier. Is one of those dates wrong? Was the arrest for a years-before offense? Would somebody knowledgeable please either correct a wrong date, or add a few words explaining the delay. Thank you. StarryEye (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Rumor

It said Lenin met with the current president of the u.s and made some lewd gesture when returning back to Russia true or rumor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkspartan4121 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

A controversial figure

I really don't understand why any reasonable person would object to the description of Lenin as controversial. I know that there is no source but there doesn't need to be one for such an uncontentious statement. Not every sentence in Wikipedia has a link.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 07:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you do not understand why a reasonable person would object to this, is not a reason for including it. I am reasonable, and I do object. Quite simply, you cannot add a contentious statement without any source, and justify this on the grounds that it is "common knowledge". To state that someone "always was" and "remains" controversial, and was both "revered" and "demonised" is unarguably a contentious sweeping assertion, and it requires a reliable secondary source. Your own belief that this is "fair comment", a "harmless and reasonable statement" and "stating the obvious" is insufficient. RolandR (talk) 08:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably won't be hard to find a source for it seeing that he is right. --TIAYN (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

In that case, s/he should find and cite a source, showing that it is their assessment and not Wikipedia's. RolandR (talk) 11:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"Labels such as controversial, scandalous and affair can promote a contentious point of view. The suffix -gate is often used in journalism to refer to a controversial episode. Use these in articles only when they are widely used to characterize the issue, with in-text attribution if in doubt." Wikipedia:Words to watch. RolandR (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Even if there is a source, the statement that he was or is controversial is by itself of little or no use to the reader, merely raising the questions "why?" or "in what way?" William Avery (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Grammar Fix (protected)

The final sentence of the intro: "As a politician, Vladimir Lenin was a persuasive orator, as a political scientist his extensive theoretic and philosophical developments of Marxism produced Marxism–Leninism, the pragmatic Russian application of Marxism" Should be changed to: "As a politician, Vladimir Lenin was a persuasive orator; as a political scientist, his extensive theoretic and philosophical developments of Marxism produced Marxism–Leninism, the pragmatic Russian application of Marxism" (note the semicolon and comma around "as a political scientist") 70.63.146.124 (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Doubts

Toward the end of his life, Lenin doubted that the Proletariat would be able to govern as a class. This pretty significant. It is the equivalent of the Pope doubting the existence of God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.61.194 (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Russian return

Very little information on the interactions and support given by the German government (How? and Why?) --81.84.152.156 (talk) 07:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

An alternative name

I have read that Lenin sometimes called himself "Nikolai Lenin" and even signed his name this way occasionally. Perhaps, this alternative name is something that is at least worth mentioning in this article. And especially since "Vladimir Lenin" was largely a pseudonym, anyway. 98.67.111.148 (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times before, at Old talk, Pseudonym, List of pen names and pseudonyms, Ulyanov's pseudonyms, His name, His name again, and Nikolai. The consensus is that this is irrelevant, since he never used the name himself. RolandR (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Lenin never called himself Nikolai, and never intended for anyone else to. This was an error made nearly a century ago by a translator whose identity has been lost to history, but whose error has persisted to this day. What happened is that Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov signed some of his pre-Revolution articles with the name "N. Lenin." The "N" was short for "никто," which is Russian for "nobody." Lenin used this construct to let his readers know that the author was using a pseudonym. He was trying to avoid capture and exile by the Tsar's secret police. Russian people understood this, but the articles reached the West and were translated from Russian. For whatever reason, somebody thought the "N" stood for "Nikolai," and to some extent it stuck. Years later, when Ulyanov came to power, he was known everywhere in the world as Lenin, so he used his given names attached to his nom de guerre, hence Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, the name he is normally known by today. Jsc1973 (talk) 04:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

NPOV: Red Terror section makes extensive use of potentially biased sources

There appears to be a heavy reliance in this section on 1 or 2 sources from authors who dont represent a NPOV.

"To that effect, among other acts, at Moscow, execution lists signed by Lenin authorised the shooting of 25 Tsarist ministers, civil servants, and 765 White Guards in September 1918." [51] Gellately, Robert (2007). Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler: The Age of Social Catastrophe.

A book titled "Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler: The Age of Social Catastrophe", can we rely on a book which groups Lenin with Hitler in its title to provide reliable accounts of figure which portray Lenin in a negative light?

"In his Diaries in Exile, 1935, Leon Trotsky recollected that Lenin authorised the execution of the Russian Royal Family[52]." This line gives the impression that the source is the diary itself however it actually refers to the following: 'Trotskii, Dnevniki i pis'ma, 100-1, cited in Figes, Orlando (1997). A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution '

So the reference is actually from a book titled "A Peoples Tragedy" which is alleged to by reporting from the diaries of "Trotskii" - how reliable is it that the book spells "Trotsky" incorrectly. That point aside, this author "Orlando" and this volume :A Peoples Tragedy: The Russian Revolution" is heavily relied upon for a number of contentious statements including:

"Earlier, in October, Lev Kamenev and cohort, had warned the Party that terrorist rule was inevitable, given Lenin’s assumption of sole command.[54] "

"In late 1918, when he and Nikolai Bukharin tried curbing Chekist excesses, Lenin over-ruled them; in 1921, via the Politburo, he expanded the Cheka's discretionary death-penalty powers.[55]"

etc.

The remaining sources also leave much to be desired with titles such as "Leggett, George (1987). The Cheka: Lenin's Political Police" and the widely criticized "Black Book of Communism"

All in all the sources presented in this important section fail to present a balanced world-view, being strongly anti-Lenin. Had this been a living persons article such sources would not have been accepted yet in an article about an immensely important world historical figure the page is locked for editing and there are absolutely no indications to the reader that the sources (esp re highly emotive sections) are so very poorly referenced.

This needs urgent attention SensiStarToaster (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Leon Trotsky's name in Russian is Лев Давидович Троцкий. That can be transliterated as "Trotskii." Although it is very rarely done that way, it is not incorrect to do so, and that transliteration was sometimes used in Trotsky's lifetime. Another example is the Russian rocket pioneer Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, or Константин Циолковский in Russian. His name, in his lifetime and for years after, was often rendered as Tsiolkovskii in Western sources. You may have an argument about the sources being too one-sided, but not in questioning a source because it chooses a different way to render a Russian name. "Trotsky" is no more accurate than "Trotskii" for the Russian name Троцкий, it's just typically done that way now because it's more phonetic for an English speaker. Jsc1973 (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The history is completely forged

I here give the objective information.

Revolution of 1917 in Russia: Vladimir Ulyanov and Nikolaj Lenin are different persons.

The scientific article:

Anton Kolmykov. Legal Responsibility for History Falsification. Revolution of 1917 in Russia./ Monthly scientific magazine "Discussion", № 3, Yekaterinburg, March 2010, page 8-11. ISSN 2077-7639; ISBN 978-5-91256; UDC code: 94; 34.096.

Popular article: http://www.cneat.ru/lenin.html [7]

--Antn-Samara (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Kriminalistichesky examination of photos of Lenin --Antn-Samara (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

-Yep, and I can give a link to a study that proofs Putin is a clone of Hitler... what's your point? Neither of those are creditable. 95.27.133.154 (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

re Pull Quote: 'If Socialism can only be realized...'

“ If Socialism can only be realized when the intellectual development of all the people permits it, then we shall not see Socialism for at least five hundred years. ” —  Vladimir Lenin, November 1917

Concerning the pull quote in the 'Head of government' section:

I think that, pulled out of context as it is here, it conveys a certain interpretation of Lenin to the reader (i.e. that he was an anti-democratic totalitarian) and is thus in violation of NPOV. There are plenty of scholars who argue that Lenin did not support the general principle of overruling 'the intellectual development of all the people': try Paul Le Blanc, for example.

You can see the source on Google Books [8]. Lenin (if we believe John Reed, which we might as well) did say this. But he did not say it as a pithy one-liner to sum up his view of Socialism. He said it as part of a longer speech on a specific historical question.

Lenin, as a Marxist, wanted working-class revolution in the advanced Western countries. But he was trying to spark that world revolution in backwards peasant Russia. It is clearly arguable that this refusal to wait for 'the intellectual development of all the people' was not a general theoretical statement that Socialism should be elitist, but a concern that the actual historical attempt at world revolution in 1917 might be hindered by the conditions in undeveloped peasant-dominated Russia.

And, lo, Lenin's speech is precisely on the land question: i.e. about the Russian peasantry. As Lenin says in the very first sentence of his speech: 'At this moment we are not only trying to solve the Land question, but the question of the Social Revolution-not only here in Russia, but all over the world.' You can see from the quote on 'electrification' right here in the Wikipedia article that Lenin was worried about stopping the backwardness of the Russian peasantry from dragging down the revolution.

The quotation in question therefore gives a very distorted picture: not placing the quote in the context of Lenin's entire speech, of his own materialist class-oriented philosophy, or of his historical situation in peasant-dominated early-twentieth-century Russia.

This article definitely needs to objectively cover the massive controversy over the different interpretations of Lenin - totalitarian or democrat, etc. - but this quote is just misleading.

Trying to expand this quotation to fully explain its context and different interpretations will just get silly. It's probably best just to delete it. Let's say I'll do it myself in three days if there is no convincing case made for keeping it.

Jamaber (talk) 10:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. And have redone the explanation above so hopefully it makes more sense. Jamaber (talk) 12:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Minor edit (blockquote)

In the Later life and death section, I think the second paragraph, which is a quote, should be marked up as such. It would be consistent, as well as easier to read, me thinks.

The text to be marked up is:

Lenin was involved in the challenges of delivering fuel into Ivanovo-Vosnesensk... the provision of clothing for miners, he was solving the question of dynamo construction, drafted dozens of routine documents, orders, trade agreements, was engaged in the allocation of rations, edited books and pamphlets at the request of his comrades, held hearings on the applications of peat, assisted in improving the workings at the ‘Novii Lessner’ factory, clarified in correspondence with the engineer P. A. Kozmin the feasibility of using wind turbines for the electrification of villages... all the while serving as an adviser to party functionaries almost continuously.[91]

{{editsemiprotected}}

Done That was already set up as a block quote, but the picture of he and his wife was causing the left edge of the block quote to match the left edge of the normal formatting. I moved the picture up to near where his wife is mentioned and it looks better to me. Celestra (talk) 04:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Lenin and terrorism

Hi everyone, there are many reliable sources linking Lenin with terrorism. For example, Ronald D. Law (a respected historian and Professor of History) writes:

“Frustrated by the conservatism of Russian peasants and impressed by the emergence of a new urban working class, some Populists turned to Karl Marx’s doctrines (typically known to its practitioners as social democracy) in the 1870s and 1880s. Out of the Russian Marxists, came Lenin and the Bolsheviks. They embraced terrorism in a circumscribed fashion while in the underground, but became terrorists “from above” after seizing the Russian state in 1917 … In the wake of the 1905 Revolution, Lenin recognized that terrorism was appropriate in two circumstances: as a means of generating popular support among workers and peasants for the Bolshevik cause, and as a means of raising money necessary for the party’s operations” (Terrorism: A History, 2009, pp. 77, 91).

The above is supported by many other sources like Robert Service (A History of Twentieth-Century Russia, p. 108), Richard Pipes (Communism, p. 39), and Peter Calvert, “Theories of Terror in Urban Insurrections” (International Encyclopedia of Terrorism, p. 141). My attempts to include any of these sources in relevant Wikipedia articles like Communist terrorism have been met with strong (and in my view unjustified) opposition from involved editors. I was wondering whether these sources could be considered for inclusion in the Lenin article. Justus Maximus (talk) 12:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Should there be any doubt, here's another source:

“Lenin had stated that the party should not flinch from the use of terror in order to safeguard the Revolution and implement socialism. Thus he was able to justify his use of terror. The Cheka’s powers were expanded during the Civil War so that counter-revolutionaries could be eliminated. Lenin and Trotsky agreed with the view of Dzerzhinsky, the head of the Cheka, that it was better to overkill than run the risk of being overthrown. Terror was to be used against class enemies although it was also directed against elements within the party, such as ‘adventurers, drunkards and hooligans’. At the end of his life, Lenin seems to have developed an obsession over the use of terror. Letters he wrote in 1922 called for intensified repression against the Mensheviks, including the harmless historian Rozhkov. This seems to indicate that Lenin was developing his own, personal agenda for the use of terror” – Steve Phillips, Lenin and the Russian Revolution, 2000, pp. 135-6. The book is published by educational publisher Heinemann and is therefore mainstream. Justus Maximus (talk) 11:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Seeing that there is no response I assume there is no objection or no interest. I will edit the article accordingly then Justus Maximus (talk) 12:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Spellings

I have a minor issue with all the various spellings/transliterations given in the "Early life" section. How often would he have used the Swedish, Kalmyk, or Hebrew spellings of his names? I have heard that he used Yiddish at times in secret correspondence, but I cannot remember if the source that I encountered it in was reliable or if it was a neo-Nazi rant. The German spelling I perhaps can see being used during his exile, and it does bear some significance, what with his being installed by the Kaiser. But I really do think that we should trim a few of those out. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

'The Sealed Train'

Article references the standard story that Lenin traveled from Switzerland to Petrograd via a sealed train. ("travel through Germany to Russia in a sealed one-carriage train.') Book on the First World War by Oxford Historian Hew Strachan maintains this is a myth perpetuated by Lenin in order to prevent Lenin's collusion with the German govt appearing traitorous. Lenin actually took a four-day trip through Germany on an open train, one car out of several. Less interesting but possibly more accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.228.37 (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Simbirsk was renamed 54 years after his birth, but not 53. Corrected Тиффози (talk) 10:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Minor Edit: Later Life and Death

In the later life and death section, 3rd paragraph, I suggest the phrase "which left him dumb for weeks" be changed to "which left him unable to speak for weeks" or "left him mute for weeks". Later in the paragraph, the term "mute" is used, and linked. 72.21.133.218 (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Done ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 90.204.221.55, 26 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} It states that when Lenin returned on third April 1917 he was greeted with a crowd, however that is incorrect as it was Bolshevik propaganda and in reality he arrived late at night without much notice.

(I am currently studying Russia for my GCSE, info taken from a A - Level book "From Autocracy to Communism: Russia 1894-1941" By Micheal Lynch. 90.204.221.55 (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Several sources attest the presence of crowds. For instance, David Shub, in Lenin: A Biography (Penguin, 1966) writes "A great crowd gathered in the twilight of the Finland Station in Petrograd on 16 April 1917... Lenin was the first to alight...From all sides the crowd surged forward, shouting greetings to the revolutionist who had returned to the liberated capital" (p215). In his classic work To the Finland Station (Fontana, 1972), Edmund Wilson gives a detailed account of Lenin's return, noting that "A great roar of a cheer went up from a crowd that was pressing all around... it was a welcome to Petrograd by the revolutionary workers and sailors." I don't know the text that you mention, but if you have cited it accurately, then it would appear to be mistaken and unreliable. RolandR (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The book the IP is referring to is what in the U.S. would be considered a high school level textbook. "A level" refers to a certain level of schooling done in the UK, with most students around 16-18 (this is all from GCE Advanced Level). In any event, a high school level textbook is never as reliable as academic books, books by professional historians, etc. They're, in fact, notorious for being especially bad at the high school level. As such, RolandR is correct--we would need a much more reliable source to contest the claim currently in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Richard Pipes

The quote against Pipes goes on too long and includes a completely irrelevant POV calling pipes "old fashioned" and "conservative" and "trying to turn back the clock" etc. What is the point of including such invective/slander/opinion? Either the scholarship of Pipes is good or bad. It is enough to say that some disagree with Pipes and think he is biased. But if you are going to include why they disagree or think he is biased, make it a substantive argument. Not some opinionated hatchet job.

Thanks for your time. And keep up the good work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.32.34 (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

No, thank you for pointing that out. You are absolutely correct; the quote does not belong in the main text of the article at all. It serves only to give undue WP:WEIGHT to a particular viewpoint favourable to Lenin by disparaging a critical viewpoint, and is only tangentially related to the article, as its main purpose is to denigrate Pipes. I have moved the quote to a note within the citation; however, the link to which the citation points readers to is not only dead and gone, but is also affiliated with a Trotskijist website and is as such probably unreliable. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 10:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that scholarship has to be either good or bad. It can be problematic but sufficient, or true but only telling part of the story, which is why competing views might be in an encyclopedia in the first place. Certainly, Pipes is not the central biographer of Lenin, and his place in the scholarship is not uninterested. Neither is the review of Pipes' work. I don't see why a point-of-view source is unreliable. Perhaps an alternative would be to find an academic review that makes similar speculation about Pipes' political motives? That way we're reporting on the controversy in the scholarship, which is the role of an encyclopedia insofar as it makes source judgments at all.184.77.32.182 (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Re "I don't see why a point-of-view source is unreliable.": The source marked as unreliable is from a highly-opinionated non-academic fringe website. Please read this quote from WP:RS: :

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties [emphasis mine], which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities.

Academic sources discussing the controversy surrounding the work in question would be acceptable. If they just ciriticise Pipes himself, they belong on Pipes's dedicated page, as adding them here to cast doubt on his historical conclusions would be pure WP:SYNTH. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Name

There is no "Vladimir Ilyich Lenin", nor any "Vladimir Lenin", for that matter. Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov adopted the moniker Lenin, no first name--although on occasion he signed "N. Lenin". As far as I know, the initial does not stand for anything in particular. Unless someone can demonstrate that he regularly used "Vladimir Lenin", or even "V. Lenin" (did he do so even once?) I suggest that the page be renamed "Lenin", or "Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov", redirected from "Lenin". Rickwodz (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I had heard that his pseudonym was "Nikolai Lenin". The article does not address when and where he began to be referred to as "Vladimir Lenin". The name sounds spurious to me too. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

No, he was known as Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, but his real name was Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.68.71.136 (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I often think Wikipedia should organise its talk pages in a different way. This issue has been discussed in the following places, at least:

• Talk:Vladimir Lenin/Archive 1#Old talk
• Talk:Vladimir Lenin/Archive 1#Pseudonym
• Talk:Vladimir Lenin/Archive 2#Nikolai Lenin
• Talk:Vladimir Lenin/Archive 4#Ulyanov’s pseudonym
• Talk:Vladimir Lenin/Archive 4#His name
• Talk:Vladimir Lenin/Archive 4#His name (again)
• Talk:Vladimir Lenin/Archive 6#Nikolai
• Talk:Vladimir Lenin/Archive 6#Lenin’s Name
• Talk:Vladimir Lenin/Archive 6#An alternative name. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The intro

Please change the line that says "...the first officially socialist state." to "... the first official socialist state." for grammar purposes. Thank you Dhesport (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC) August 31, 2011

The intro was pretty terrible so I elaborated upon it, when it was promptly reverted on the grounds that it was POV. If anyone has any complaints about the new intro, please elaborate here. 71.65.71.145 (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with other editors that the intro prepared by the above IP is not fit for inclusion, I do think that the current lead section is rather sparse and does not mention some of the less glossy aspects of his life (e.g. Red Terror) which are certainly highly notable. Furthermore, the omission of the NEP is puzzling to me, given the vague discussion of economic policies. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I want to put my proposed intro here so you can say exactly what you find wrong with it:

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (22 April 1870 – 21 January 1924), born Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, was a Russian Marxist revolutionary and communist politician. Lenin was a persuasive orator, as a political scientist his extensive theoretic and philosophical developments of Marxism produced Leninism, the Russian application of Marxism.

In 1917, in the midst of World War I, the German government permitted him passage to Russia from his exile in Switzerland via a sealed train in the hopes of stirring up trouble for the Russian Provisional Government that had replaced the czar earlier that year. Vastly exceeding German expectations, Lenin capitalized on the Russian public's war weariness and general discontent to lead the Bolshevik's October Revolution which toppled the Provisional government. Lenin immediately withdrew Russia from the war and soon afterwords complied with German demands to cede large portions of the Russian Empire to the Central Powers. Fortunately for Lenin, much of this territory was later recovered after the Allies forced Germany to renounce it's conquests. Meanwhile, various opponents of the Bolsheviks, with foreign support, attempted to reverse the Bolshevik gains in the ensuing Russian Civil War which ended with a Bolshevik victory in 1921 after millions of deaths. During this time Lenin's government killed and imprisoned tens of thousands of suspected opponents of the revolution in what became known as the Red Terror.

Lenin hoped that his actions would ignite a worldwide workers revolution, but communist attempts to gain power outside of Russia were unsuccessful. At home he established a communist dictatorship (a "worker's state" in the view of himself and his followers) and implemented a socialist economic system, but moderated his policies after 1921 to permit recovery from the devastation. In 1922 the parts of the former Russian Empire that were under communist control were reconstitued as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics which remained in place until 1991.

71.65.71.145 (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

This intro does not describe life of a person, but instead picks up specific moments somehow related to his life, some of which are certainly not suitable for the lead. That "German government permitted him passage" reads as if Germany is blamed for .. whatever happened (he would get there anyway, I guess). "Fortunately for Lenin" - is unencyclopedic; the last paragraph is not about Lenin at all. Materialscientist (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The proposed text is completely unsourced, and includes several questionable assertions: "in the hopes of stirring up trouble", "vastly exceeding German expectations", "Lenin capitalised on the Russian people's war weariness and general discontent", "fortunately for Lenin" and more. It also includes unsourced and challenged factual statements regarding the Treaty of Brest Litovsk, the death toll of the civil war, the "Red Terror" and others. In addition to introducing this unsourced contentious material, you have been removing (without any attempt at explanation) sourced material favourable to Lenin. In short, your (misspelled) edit has the appearance of a highly POV hatchet job. You simply cannot use any of this without proper attribution; and most of this is in any case unsuitable for the lead. RolandR (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

While removal of sourced content favourable to Lenin is certainly not acceptable, the lead is curiously devoid of sourced content unfavourable to Lenin at the moment. It also does not provide any meaningful summary of the contents of the article. It seems skeletal and perhaps even a bit whitewashed. I think we should place a priority on expanding the lead to address these issues. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk)

Materialscientist--I don't understand your objection at all. It is a fact (already in the article) that the German government permitted him passage to Russia. That's how he got back in 1917. "Fortunately for Lenin" is completely accurate, but if you think the language needs to be changed I guess it could be changed.

RolandR--Everything I wrote is either already in the article or in the articles that I linked to. It isn't remotely controvertial that the Germans wanted Lenin to stir up trouble (why else would they approve his passage), that he did so more effectively than they originally believed he would (obviously), that the Russian people were sick of the war (stated in every source about the Russian Revolution), that the Treaty of Brest Litovsk ceded large territories to Germany (read the article), that millions died in the civil war (read that article), and that tens of thousand got killed or imprisoned by Lenin & Co (this article says 70,000 people were imprisoned and the Cheka article says that at least 13,000 were killed and probably many more). The only thing I deleted was the TIme magazine thing, which is unencyclopedic and completely unnecessary. 131.238.210.248 (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a statue of Lennon that was moved to Seattle (Fremont) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Lenin_%28Seattle%29 Needs a link under "Statues and city names" heading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricki2wiki (talk • contribs) 15:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Intro

I can't be the only one who sees a major problem with the phrase "As the Bolshevik Revolution is considered the most significant political event in the 20th century, then Lenin must for good or ill be regarded as the century's most significant political leader." No citations (as would be required to support such an easily debatable claim) are provided, the entire thing is unacceptable outside of a Soviet textbook.--ReasonOne (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

A citation is provided, to the Encyclopaedia Britannica (which, last time I looked, was not a Soviet textbook). The original entry there says: "If the Bolshevik Revolution is—as some people have called it—the most significant political event of the 20th century, then Lenin must for good or ill be regarded as the century's most significant political leader. Not only in the scholarly circles of the former Soviet Union but even among many non-Communist scholars, he has been regarded as both the greatest revolutionary leader and revolutionary statesman in history, as well as the greatest revolutionary thinker since Marx."[9] You may not like this, but this is an incontestably reliable source. RolandR (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not an incontestably reliable source. Especially when it is cited without providing an edition, a specific reference within the book, etc. This is about what ought to be written here, not what I like or dislike. Forgetting that, whomever decided to share it has changed a key word from your excerpt: "IF" has become "AS" (Who says it's the most significant political event of the 20th century?). Beyond that, it doesn't necessarily follow that Lenin, even as the leader of the Bolshevik revolution / "most significant" (again, so debatable) political event of the 20th century, would therefore be the century's most significant political leader. That's a fallacy. Leader of the most significant event (many can and do easily disagree with that point) /= most significant political leader. --ReasonOne (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)