Talk:Vladimir Lenin/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Religion = None

I believe this is the right assignment. It appears that Lenin was a deist however. In the announcement of the NEP (§ "The Greatest Miracle Of All"), the sentence "God grant that we manage to stick to the old policy if we have to resort to extraordinary measures to abolish illiteracy." would appear to indicate as much unless it is a mistranslation, which seems unlikely. Lycurgus (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh for god's sake! Even atheists sometimes use this word as a figure of speech. But it is clear that Lenin did not believe in a deity. See for instance his November 1913 letter to Gorky, in which he writes: "God is (in history and in real life) first of all the complex of ideas generated by the brutish subjection of man both by external nature and by the class yoke—ideas which consolidate that subjection, lull to sleep the class struggle. There was a time in history when, in spite of such an origin and such a real meaning of the idea of God, the struggle of democracy and of the proletariat went on in the form of a struggle of one religious idea against another. But that time, too, is long past. Nowadays both in Europe and in Russia any, even the most refined and best-intentioned defence or justification of the idea of God is a justification of reaction."[1] And there is much more elsewhere in this vein. To attempt, on the basis of a possibly loose translation of a single figure of speech, to portray Lenin as a deist flies in the face of all of the evidence. RolandR (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Dunno about 'all the evidence', but this, the given evidence, sans an exculpating analysis of the translation, speaks for itself. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

In more depth. Certainly there are expletives, deprecations, etc., which clearly do not indicate belief and are consistent with a complete lack of belief. On the other hand usages such as "god grant that ... ", "god willing ...", "god bless ...", etc. are implicit positive indications of belief. Your leading example is a somewhat forced and weak example of this latter situation, asserting a god "for whose sake ...". The suppression of religion doesn't in and of itself imply a complete lack of such beliefs, as in the French Revolution, which while rabidly anti-Catholic/Christian nonetheless positively asserted deism. I know this didn't happen in Russia but it wouldn't surprise me to find Lenin had such beliefs, and as I say the quote, in translation, speaks for itself. It might be assumed that Lenin was speaking contrary to his own beliefs to reach a mass audience, but that seems out of character. Note that the time at which this was said is probably a time at which Lenin was contemplating his own mortality. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

"It wouldn't surprise me" is hardly evidence. In the absence of any reliable source stating that Lenin believed in a deity, and in the face of clear evidence that he did not, your speculation is not even worthy of the description original research. It certainly cannot be added to the article. RolandR (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll revisit this later after a review of the Russian text. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Lenin was a jew. username removed 17:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

No. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Under the law he was/is a jew.username removed 18:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

He was of partial Jewish ancestry (as well as Swedish, Tatar, and several others), but he was under no circumstances an adherent to the Jewish faith, which is what is being discussed here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what he adhered to. A jew is a jew under the law and that is that.username removed 18:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Under what law? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph that you added regarding his Jewish roots. Copying and pasting text from a source is a copyright violation. Please take the time in the future to paraphrase what is being said instead of repeating it verbatim. Remember, "©" stands for copyright. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Sour grapes, dude. besides, don't get mad at me. I didn't make the law on jews. See http://frank.mtsu.edu/~baustin/nurmlaw2.html username removed 19:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

...wow. Nazi-era racial codes from Germany ≠ law for Russia and the rest of the world. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Works for me.username removed 00:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you consider the Nazi race laws to be valid, and applicable to Wikipedia, may tell us something about you; but it tells us less than nothing about Lenin. RolandR (talk) 07:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it should tell you that he is a jew. username removed 03:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Why? And why "jew" rather than "Jew"?RolandR (talk) 10:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Aryan Nations. This is pure WP:FRINGE nonsense and should not be treated seriously. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

To be more precise, he was militant atheist. As about remote Jewish ancestry, this might be true, but probably does not deserve inclusion per WP:Due weight. Biophys (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

See this thread which I started has degenerated into "who is a jew?". Nothing is likely to happen on the lede, the tag might as well be removed, here is my version. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I spoke to a native speaker of Russian who found the original text to be "Дай бог как-нибудь держаться со старой". According to this individual Russian has a paucity of expressions for "hope in high need" and that the translation should have god spelled in lower case. In any case, have to accept this speakers attestation that English and Russian differ here. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 10:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Brittanica Quote

I have attributed the Lenin quote in Brittanica to its author, Professor of Northern Illinois Uni, Albert Resis. I am still not sure if the guy is notable enough (even being Professor and a major contributor to many EB articles) that his opinion should be included in this article. On the other hand, his works are used in a dozen wiki articles, so he probably deserved an article of his own Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Kolomna statue photo

Why is there a photo here of a Lenin statue that has birds on its head? Is it meant to make Lenin look ridiculous? I think it should be replaced (unless there are no photos without birds because birds sit on its head 24 hours a day) 24.57.9.7 (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, calm down. It's a statue; birds like to sit on statues. It's not like there's a picture of Lenin the man with a pigeon perched on his head. If it bothers you that much, you could go and take a nice birdless photo of the statue, then create an account and upload it here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Sitting Lenin monument in Gorki Leninskiye.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Sitting Lenin monument in Gorki Leninskiye.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The introduction

It's been acknowledged that the introduction is too short, and I'm sure the issue has been discussed in the past, but I think it's a major problem that needs fixing, and can't just be ignored. The first thing that readers see is the introduction and it really doesn't summarise what is in the article at all.

I would fix it, but I don't even know wear to start in summarising the various topics in the article (the revolution, his leadership in general, his ideology etc.). And that, I guess, is why this issue has been left for so long.

Can a regular editor to this article hash out a slightly longer introduction than the one used currently? Thanks. Peter (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Lenin and the founding of the CPGB (Communist Party of Great Britain)

During his stay in London Lenin attended (chaired?) the inaugural meeting of the CPGB in the upstairs room of the Crown and Woolpack public house in St Johns St Islington. This is attested to by a blue plaque on the wall of what was the pub and is now a noodle bar (at least it was there last time I passed by). Is this worth a mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.56.134 (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Tov lenin ochishchaet.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Tov lenin ochishchaet.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Picture of Lenin's embalmed corpse

The article pays great detail to Lenin's death even showing his funeral van and locomotive, but why is there not a picture of his embalmed corpse? Not even the article about the Lenin Mausoleum has it. Since it plays an essential role how Lenin is perceived visually today, I think it should be added. Pictures with lesser or even no significance such as the Brodsky painting also made it into the article, so why not the most famous picture of him?217.50.239.244 (talk) 10:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Lenin as Freemason

The FM will be delighted to have the Communist leader listed among their ranks:

* Several sources reveal that Lenin became a freemason whilst abroad in 1908. One of these sources is a thorough investigation: Nikolai Svitkov's "About Freemasonry in Russian Exile", published in Paris in 1932.

• According to the Austrian political scientist Karl Steinhauser's "EG - die Super-UdSSR von morgen" / "The European Union - the Super Soviet Union (USSR) of Tomorrow" (Vienna, 1992, p. 192), Lenin belonged to the Masonic lodge Art et Travail (Art and Labour).

• The famous British politician Winston Churchill also confirmed that Lenin and Trotsky belonged to the circle of the Masonic and Illuminist conspirators. (Illustrated Sunday Herald, 8 February 1920.)

• Lenin, Zinoviev, Radek and Sverdlov also belonged to B'nai B'rith. Researchers who are specialised in the activities of B'nai B'rith, including Schwartz-Bostunich, confirmed this information. (Viktor Ostretsov, "Freemasonry, Culture and Russian History", Moscow, 1999, pp. 582-583.)

• Lenin was a freemason of the 31st degree (Grand Inspecteur Inquisiteur Commandeur) and a member of the lodge Art et Travail in Switzerland and France. (Oleg Platonov, "Russia's Crown of Thorns: The Secret History of Freemasonry", Moscow, 2000, part II, p. 417.)

• When Lenin visited the headquarters of Grand Orient on rue Cadet in Paris, he signed the visitors' book. (Viktor Kuznetsov, "The Secret of the October Coup", St. Petersburg, 2001, p. 42.)

• Together with Trotsky, Lenin took part in the International Masonic Conference in Copenhagen in 1910. (Franz Weissin, "Der Weg zum Sozialismus" / "The Road to Socialism", Munich, 1930, p. 9.) The socialisation of Europe was on the agenda.

• Alexander Galpern, then secretary of the Masonic Supreme Council, confirmed in 1916 that there were Bolsheviks among the freemasons. I can further mention Nikolai Sukhanov (Himmer) and N. Sokolov. According to Galpern's testimony, the freemasons also gave Lenin financial aid to his revolutionary activity. This was certified by a known freemason, Grigori Aronson, in his article "Freemasons in Russian Politics", published in the Novoye Russkoye Slovo (New York, 8-12 October 1959). The historian Boris Nikolayevsky also mentioned this in his book "The Russian Freemasons and the Revolution" (Moscow, 1990).

207.119.116.76 (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I have trouble believing that Lenin was a freemason and the evidence above looks particularly partial or circumstantial, e.g. signing a visitor's book of Grand Orient. The evidence presented from a book about how the EU is the next USSR - a particular favourite of far-right conspiracy theories - seems hardly credible. There's nothing here from peer-reviewed journals; it's all random people publishing books and one press cutting which does not itself qualify as a reputable source. On the other hand, the idea that Lenin - a vehement atheist - was accepted by an order that requires belief in a deity, seems a bit unlikely. It seems a bit more likely that anti-Freemason and anti-Bolshevik prejudice might just be mixing here. EuroSoviets (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)EuroSovietsEuroSoviets (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Name

There is no such person as "Vladimir Lenin." The man was born Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov. He took the name Nicolai Lenin. Thus, he can be Vladimir Ulyanov or Nicolai Lenin, but not a hodge-podge of both. Altgeld (talk) 10:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Do we have to go through this same ridiculous debate every other month? He was known as, and called, Vladimir Lenin both during his life and after. There are tem times as many Google hits for "Vladimir Lenin" as for "Nikolai Lenin" (and 100 times as many as for "Nicolai Lenin"). His books are published under the name Vladimir Lenin, which is the name used by historians, biographers and political activists. And individual editor's opinion that this is a "hodge-podge" is of not the slightest relevance to this article or to Wikipedia's naming conventions. RolandR (talk) 11:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I do remember reading that he used the name "N. Lenin" somewhere (say, in a signature?), and since "Nikolai" was a common first name in Russia, he came to be known as Nikolai Lenin. So perhaps the article needs to go over this and also go over why he is now being referred to as Vladimir Lenin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

SadSwanSong

It is upsetting that a page of the importance of this one has been hijacked by a Soviet apologist whose main resource seems to be Russian and Soviet academics of dubious international reputation, and who rejects well-regarded Western academics such as Orlando Figes as biased! This is the kind of thing that makes Wikipedia so unreliable and damages its reputation in the eyes of a lot of people. While there is a very large and well-sourced body of historical writing on the early Soviet state, its use of terror as a suasive weapon, and Lenin's personal complicity in this, I fear that SadSwanSong will regard any edits along these lines as evidence of a vast Western conspiracy against Russia and/or international socialism. Can someone ban this idiot from editing the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.197.114 (talk) 12:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Problems with the article

I have removed Volkogonov and his polemical, revisionist work, which does not represent an academic consensus. Volkogonov was not a historian and therefore his opinions don't carry much significance. See this review by Prof. Paul N. Siegel,

In his biography of Lenin (Volkogonov, 1994) he acts as a spokesperson for the Russian bureaucracy in utterly repudiating the man the Soviet bureaucracy had made into a harmless icon. Rather than a biography, Volkogonov's Lenin is a compendium of anti-communist cliches and calumnies

The "Censorship of Lenin" section engages in attacking straw-men and represents the views of a controversial author like Figes and Pipes as the ultimate truth. There is an attempt to doubt the reliability of his Collected Works on the basis of Pipes' work even though this author has provoked a lot of controversy. The Collected Works of Lenin does not purport to include every single note, telegram, and letter that Lenin ever wrote. This would be an impossible task, and no publisher has been able to publish every single document by any author or scholar. Nevertheless, the Collected Works is regarded as the most comprehensive set of primary sources regarding Lenin. Christopher Read, for example, states in his book that "The best way to get to understand Lenin is to read some of his works. This is a very easy proposition since the forty-seven volumes of his Collected Works are gradually being transferred to the Web."

Donald Rayfield is not a reliable source for this article. He is not an scholar specializing in Russian history and his book was not published by a university press. The same description fits Robert Gellately. We have hundreds of primary and secondary sources written by people with expertise about Lenin, meaning that it makes no sense to cite what the self-published opinions of a Professor or Literature has to say about Lenin.

The Black Book of Communism is a work of pop history that appeared in France by a commercial publisher. It has generated much controversy and has been dismissed as polemical by many scholars. It is not a reliable source for this article.

This is an electronic source by a person with no particular qualifications on the scope of this article, and is not reliable.

The "Red Terror" section amounts to undue weight and does not belong in a biographical article, but rather in articles about the Russian Civil War. SadSwanSong (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: User:SadSwanSong has been found to be a sockpuppet of the banned User:Jacob Peters. Any edits to the page made by him may be reverted without any further reason. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Red Terror section

The following sources do not meet RS criteria and therefore have no place in the article.

Gellately, Robert (2007). Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler: The Age of Social Catastrophe. - This is a self-published book by a specialist in German history. Gellately is a reliable source for German history and the Nazis, but he's not reliable for Russian history. The cited book consists of summarizing controversial research by the likes of Pipes, Figes, and Werth. We have hundreds of primary and secondary sources published by experts about Lenin and Russia, meaning that there is no reason to use Gellately's work, as works of better quality exist.

Black Book of Communism - This is a self-published, commercial work distributed in France by a non-academic publisher Éditions Robert Laffont. It does not represent an academic consensus, as it has been extensively criticized in scholarly journals and elsewhere. For his "Red Terror" narrative, Werth mainly uses primary sources such as Denikin's regime and S.Melgunov to push his POV. Such material doesn't meet RS criteria.

Dimitrii Vologkonov - He was a Russian politician and spokesman for Yeltsin, Not a historian and his work isn't reliable . See this review by Prof. Paul Siegel. In his biography of Lenin (Volkogonov, 1994) he acts as a spokesperson for the Russian bureaucracy in utterly repudiating the man the Soviet bureaucracy had made into a harmless icon. Rather than a biography, Volkogonov's Lenin is a compendium of anti-communist cliches and calumnies

Telegraph news story about the ex-tsar - not a reliable source. We're not dealing with current events, but with deeply researched history. English-speaking newspapers with no particular expertise on Russia are not reliable because countless academic works about this topic exist.

Melgunov, Sergei, Red Terror in Russia (1975) - a pamphlet written by a participant in the Russian Revolution on the anti-Soviet side. It's a primary source and is not reliable.

20th Century Atlas - random, self-published web site. Not a reliable source.

Donald Rayfield. Stalin and His Hangmen: - Rayfield is not a historian and his is a self-published book from a commercial publisher. Rayfield is a reliable source for Russian literature i.e. his area of expertise. But he's not reliable on Russian history.

I have therefore decided to base the bulk of the "Repression" section around the work of Professor I.Ratkovsky from Petersburg University, who has devoted a large part of his academic career specifically about the Cheka and violence during the Russian Civil War. Also helpful is the work of V.P. Portnov and his "VCHK, 1917-1922". These specialist works cannot possibly be compared with self-published material by Werth, Gellately, etc, meaning that such sources should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SadSwanSong (talk • contribs) 00:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

A lot of the contents in this section are not appropriate for a biography of a single person. This article should be about Lenin's life, works, and political career rather than a general analysis of his country's history. We already have a large number of articles about specific events in Russian history and therefore do not need the contents here. In particular, the death of Tsar Nicholas II is discussed extensively in the article about Tsar Nicholas II, and is not necessary here. There is the false statement about Orlando Figes saying that 8,000 priests were executed as a result of Lenin's alleged orders, which Figes never wrote, and therefore should be removed.SadSwanSong (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Robert Gellately is one of today's most prominent historians and a completely reliable source. Most of the above claims are ludicrous; you systematically made up a reason to eliminate every source that didn't agree with your politics. Your attempt to skew this article according to your personal beliefs is unethical and a breach of Wikipedia's policy guidelines.72.198.211.245 (talk) 05:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: User:SadSwanSong has been found to be a sockpuppet of the banned User:Jacob Peters. Any edits to the page made by him may be reverted without any further reason. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Lenin-statue-in-Fremont.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Lenin-statue-in-Fremont.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Lenin-statue-in-Fremont.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Too much soviet history, too little biography

I understand this is a highly topic article for many people, but couldn`t we all agree that a biographical article should focus on the person, his life, thoughts and actions? Too much emphasis has been given to the history of the soviet revolution per se and particularly those elements that are more controversial or "thrilling", like the red terror, the formation of the cheka and assassination attempts. I wouldn`t say we should reduce it (they are an important aspect of his legacy), but give more emphasis to his actions and views on those subjects. I mean, even antisemitism, which is something that doesn`t even make sense, has a whole section dedicated to it with a full citation of Lenin! Here I think it should be reduced. His positions on that issue are not singular in any sense and just reflected the views of most communists about the subject. What bothers me, frankly, is that a full citation is given to his position on antisemitism, which says very little about him, while core issues of his worldview are given less space. The man was an intellectual whose books had a huge influence throughout the 20th century, but instead of an extended account on his ideas we have an extended account of how his books were partly censored by the soviet apparatchik that he helped to build. Interesting, yes, but less so when we are not told what was censored, and how that relates to his legacy during the soviet regime. So, in essence, i think we should give more emphasis to his ideas and intellectual legacy, without which his article seems to be more interested in giving the readers a guide for the judgement of his actions (not antisemite - goood.... red terror - baaad) than providing some depth on the thoughts that made he act like that in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco.natalino (talk • contribs) 06:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Questionable claims

Persistant stories mark syphilis as the cause of Lenin's death. A "retrospective diagnosis" published in The European Journal of Neurology in 2004 stengthens these suspicions.[172] -- This should be re-phrased an better integrated into the death, possibly nearer to the end.

Proposed edit: "A long standing conjecture has been that neurosyphilis may be implicated in Lenin's rapid decline. A retrospective diagnosis published in The European Journal of Neurology in 2004 voices arguments in support for this position, though these are questioned by both neuropathologists and some historians. [172]"

The original sentence misrepresents the linkedn article, in which 3 separate neurologists dispute or obfuscate the 2 researcher's claims. Also it is unclear how N. Krupskaya would have avoided this highly contagious condition... I personally disagree with the findings on the basis of evidence, but this controversy should definitely be cited in the section.

I have contributed to this article before, and I do agree that it has gotten a little unfocused at times, but it is a wealth of good information now as well...

75.73.8.22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

"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"

I referred to Prof. Ratkovsky above, whose authoritative work about this topic shows that in September-December 1918, there were more than 270 executions by Soviet forces in Moscow region, including 167 in the month of September, much less than this 765 White-Guards that Gellately alleges. Because of this contradiction, I am removing the claim.

See table 5

There's also the statement, As a result of this letter, historian Orlando Figes estimates that perhaps 8,000 priests and laymen were executed.

However, Figes makes no such estimate, but instead cites an unnamed source with the unsubstantiated claim of 8000 priests killed. This is false attribution, and doesn't belong in the article.

Then there's this passage from Werth, In Kharkov there were between 2,000 and 3,000 executions in February–June 1919, and another 1,000-2,000 when the town was taken again in December of that year; in Rostov-on-Don, approximately 1,000 in January 1920; in Odessa, 2,200 in May–August 1919, then 1,500-3,000 between February 1920 and February 1921; in Kiev, at least 3,000 in February–August 1919; in Ekaterinodar, at least 3,000 between August 1920 and February 1921; In Armavir, a small town in Kuban, between 2,000 and 3,000 in August–October 1920.

Not only is the Black Book of Communism not a reliable source a shown by the scholarly criticism it has received, but the data above simply cites the claims of coming from Denikin's regime, Melgunov, and others.

About Denikin, Prof. Futoryansky from Orenburg University established that his regime's claims are not reliable: Характер этих, так называемых, документов весьма сомнителен. Большинство из них не подписаны, уйма повторений, не записано кто, почему, где и когда об этом дал показания. В примечании 22 в “Вопросах истории” за 2001 г. № 9 кроме обвинения в ненависти к казачеству со стороны В.И. Ленина мы ничего не находим. Все это чрезвычайно грубо и необоснованно.

Because of this, the Black Book of Communism has no place in the "Red Terror" section.

SadSwanSong (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: User:SadSwanSong has been found to be a sockpuppet of the banned User:Jacob Peters. Any edits to the page made by him may be reverted without any further reason. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Alexander

1886 or 1868 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.197.249 (talk) 18:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Corrected; thank you. RolandR (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Lenin's Swedish, German, & Jewish Ancestry

Sourced information regarding Lenin's ancestry (see below) was inexplicably removed by Midnightblueowl on 15 June 2012 (Diff) with the edit summary "Added referenced material."

He was of Christian Russian, Tatar, German, and Swedish descent, while his maternal grandfather may have descended from the Jewish Blank family. <ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2077413,00.html | work=Time | title=Vladimir Lenin Was Part Jewish, Say Declassified KGB Files | date=13 June 2011}}</ref>

See also: "Moscow Museum Puts Lenin's Jewish Roots on Display" in USA Today

--67.40.211.243 (talk) 01:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Being forms of popular news media, neither Time magazine nor USA Today are always the most reliable of sources to use in a Wikipedia article such as this. It is preferable that we find sources from academic texts to back up such assertions. As it stands, I have re-included some of this information in greater detail, properly referenced to biographies of Lenin written by the likes of Professor Robert Service of the University of Oxford, whose extensive research and expertise makes them more reliable and appropriate for referencing than the likes of USA Today. I hope that this helps and apologise if I caused any offence when this information was origianlly removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Lenin Statues in Eastern Europe

In the "Legacy" section under "Statues and city names" it states: "Although many Eastern European countries have removed most statues of Lenin, Russia and Ukraine retain them". Belarus also still has statues of Lenin. I just came back from a trip to Belarus and Russia and saw them in Minsk.

71.62.58.212 (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 September 2012 article: Lenin

Moved here from Help talk:Contents/Editing Wikipedia. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

by 1897 there were 300,000 Russian citizens in this system, comprising over 5% of the empire's population, and Vladimir was now one of them.[88 As the russian population in 1900 was approximately 132 million, doubt this is correct--suggest removing or recalculating thanks Rocketeli (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. The sentence is referenced to a book but I don't have ready access to it and therefore cannot see which of those figures – 300,000 or 5% – is verifiable. I will say, however, that according to the Russian Empire article the Russian population in 1897 is estimated at 125.6 million; 5% of that is over 6 million. Although it's entirely possible, I have a hard time accepting that the Russian government had 6 million political dissidents in prison in 1897; I'm more inclined to believe the 300,000 number. I therefore removed the "5%" statement and left the "300,000" statement. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I've just checked the quote from the Rice biography of Lenin which is referenced there. It states "By 1897 there were about 300,000 exiles scattered about the various provinces of Siberia, just over 5 per cent of the total population." Maybe, what Rice actually means is that over 5% of the Siberian population were people who had been exiled there? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Spelling Mistake The European Journal of Neurology stengthens should be strengthens. 65.92.207.107 (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Lenin did not "Orchestrate" the Revolution

When Lenin arrived in Russia from Switzerland via Germany (with Churchill's urging in Parliament), the revolution was already begun. The Tzar had abdicated, his brother declined the succession, and anarchy ensued. Lenin knew nothing about what was going on, having been in exile 12 years. He was not in control of anything, nobody was. The Mencheviks were arguing about who should rule, claiming that there was no party with a mandate. At the Congress of Russian Soviets (Soviet = Council) held in the great hall of the Tauride Palace in St. Petersberg, Menchevik leader Irakli Tsereteli said "Give power to us and leave the scene, we will take your place", but he added "Such a party does not yet exist in Russia". Lenin took a bold step, and uttered words that have gone down in history, every Russian child from the USSR era knows them; "There is such a party" ("Yest takaya partiya"). The Bolshevk era began on those words, but already the workers had spontaneously seized property, factories, mines and possessions and businesses and set up local Soviet (council) cells. The centralization of Bolshevik rule with Lenin as the leader took a very long time. The revisionist "History" of the paragraph concerned needs revision! (No, I am not a Communist, nor an admirer, I just like to get it right)Historygypsy (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 January 2013: Typo

The Legacy part: "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 considered 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". Please change "good or ill be" to "good or will be" because it was a typo. Akasagi.phan (talk) 05:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Thanks, but this is not a typo. See this page for the meaning of "for good or ill". Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 09:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

War and politics

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: "War is the continuation of politics by other means," the statement by the famous leader of the October Revolution, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. I would say that times have changed. Today politics is increasingly continuation of war by other means, and especially money.78.2.117.196 (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

What do you want to add to the article? -- Hazhk ^{Talk to me} 17:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The statement was not by Lenin, but by Carl von Clausewitz, and therefore totally irrelevant to this article. I've never heard of Giancarlo Kravar, but that elementary error does not inspire in me any trust in his reliability as a source on anything else. RolandR (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 February 2013

Dilupascooby (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't find an article on Lenin there. I guess you mean this article should be exported to si.wiki. Materialscientist (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 June 2013

Original Text: After his death, Marxism–Leninism developed into a variety of schools of thought, namely Stalinism, Trotskyism and Maoism. Lenin remains a controversial and highly divisive world figure. Detractors have labelled him a dictator whose administration oversaw multiple human rights abuses, but supporters have countered this criticism citing the limitations on his power and have promoted him as a champion of the working class. He has had a significant influence on the international Communist movement and was one of the most influential figures of the 20th century.

Last sentence in text contains a grammar error. "He has had" should read "He had."

Jrodriguez2315 (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Although a case could probably be made for either wording, the simple past tense does seem to me to make more sense there. Rivertorch (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Views

This article doesn't really address his views and seems to give undue weight to anti-semitism.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

in other words you are an anti-Semite Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 05:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not. His views on anti-semitism are notable and excellent, but it is odd that this is the only subsection in this section. As all Marxists of that time condemned anti-semitism (and indeed many Russian Marxists were Jewish), Lenin's position on the topic hardly represents his contribution to political thought.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Taxidermied body photo

When is someone going to add one? Yes, it is relevant, and probably even moreso due to how unusual it is. I mean, how many world leaders, or people period, are embalmed/taxidermied and put on display? Add a photo. --98.246.156.76 (talk) 04:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Lenin seems to have been the first, and I've been unable to find out why it was done - he wanted to be cremated. It would be good to add this to the article if someone has a source. After Lenin it became de rigeur for Communist leaders. Khrushchev put a stop to it in Europe, and buried Stalin, but it was done for Mao, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, and Ho Chi Minh.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Revolutionary activities - Something a bit strange

There are 2 Photos there. 1, A police photograph from 1895, The other, a picture from 1917.

In the earlier photo he seems bald (Kinda naturally), while in the latter, he seems with a fully grown hair (Which is covered by a hat). it's kind of illogical don't u think? Ben-Natan (talk) 09:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you mean bald. Rivertorch (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, sorry, I confused (Fixed). Ben-Natan (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

(Just so this makes sense to future readers: you originally said "bold".) According to the caption of the later image, Lenin was "bewigged". That means he was wearing a wig. Rivertorch (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

He's actually in disguise, to put it more clearly.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

what about "N. Lenin"

OK, he was originally V. I. Ulyanov, and he came to be known as Lenin. Years ago, I recall hearing that he was signing his name as "N. Lenin" (transliteration, because he'd have been using the Cyrillic alphabet). I don't see that acknowledged in this article. He was noted in encyclopedias etc. as Nikolai Lenin, because Nikolai is a common first name in Russia. When was that stopped (and references to him becoming "Vladimir Lenin")? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Nicolai Lenin was a pseudonym used to evade police. He did indeed use "N Lenin" as a sign off. As late as 1920 he was still signing off his pamphlets as "N Lenin", and this has always reproduced in official Soviet/Chinese translations into English (see the text of "Left-Wing" Communism, for instance). I don't know when "V I Lenin" came in, but it might not have been in his lifetime. It certainly became the official Soviet form of his name later, but people such as President Reagan insisted on calling him Nicolai regardless. Similarly his fellow revolutionaries became known as Leon Trotsky and Josef Stalin after the revolution, this being a combination of their revolutionary noms de guerre and their original given names. It's important to bear in mind that Russians tend to use patronymics rather than surnames. People who spoke to Lenin would generally have called him Vladimir (or Vlad?) or Vladimir Ilyich. That's the best response I can give, anyway.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I would just add that a Nikolai Yegorovich Lenin was a real person, a conservative landowner with left-leaning children. One of them stole his father's passport and passed it to Vladimir Ulyanov, who used the passport (probably doctored) during emigration in Switzerland (see e.g. Argumenty i Facty article. Nikolai Lenin, N. Lenin or simply Lenin started as one of myriads of his pseudonyms but eventually became the main pseudonyms and the nom de guerre. During his tenure as the Chairman of the Government he signed as Vladimir Illich Ulyanov-Lenin (appending the pseudonym to the full real name), eventually (most probably in Stalin's times) it became shorthanded to Vladimir Lenin Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I had heard it was derived from the River Lena where Lenin was exiled. After all, Stalin, Trotsky, and Molotov were all nicknames, not false identities as such.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Well Lenin was exiled to Yenisei River (Shushenskoye Village is near the modern Sayano-Shushenskaya Dam, it is thousands kilometers from Lena River. Lenin has never been to Lena River. In my time I was taught in by Soviet school that Lenin name came from Lena massacre but the massacre happened in 1912 and Lenin started to use his pseudonym ten years earlier. to the best of my knowledge Lenin never explained the reasons for taking this particular pseudonym, so we can only guess. That he had a passport on Nikolai Lenin for some time seems to be a historical fact though Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Chairman of Sovnarkom

Did Lenin retire? I can't find this out. Having had a stroke and lost his powers of language, he could not function in the role which was essentially that of Prime Minister/Premier. Was someone acting in the role or did he retire? Some sources suggest one thing, some the other. If he really did retire, what was the date? And if not, why not?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• It looks like in 1923-1924 Lev Kamenev was the Acting Charman of Sovnarkom. At least it is said so in his article. I doubt that there was an official decision relieving Lenin from this position though Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
• In Yakov Sverdlov's bigraphies (e.g. http://www.litmir.net/br/?b=131583&p=44 ) they said that Sverdlov (as the formal head of state) personally forbade elections of the new Sovnarkom chairman until Lenin's death Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

"citing limitations on his power"

I changed this to emphasise that it's both a claim and that it's heavilly disputed by Lenin's opponents. You can't state a disputed claim as fact in the article. Paul Austin (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I've edited the sentence slightly so that it reads better. I've also removed "rule of terror" which I think is not neutral language. -- Hazhk ^{Talk to me} 15:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

What was altered in the photo?

I see this:

"During Lenin's sickness (1922–23), Stalin used this altered photograph as his bona fides claim to leading the CPSU."

But I do not see information regarding what alteration was done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Date of attempt

Miss Kaplan's shooting Lenin is dated to 28/8/1918 and 30/8/1918. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.215.180 (talk) 09:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The article on Moisei Uritsky has Lenin shot on 28/8/1918. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.215.180 (talk) 09:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

See the articles on Kannegisser and Kaplan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.222.5 (talk) 11:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Significance of Philosophical Notebooks and study of Hegel

Worth mentioning or even creating a section for this topic. Lenin's concept of Marxist dialectics remains a controversial issue, given the legacy he left and the more general arguments around Marxism since his death in 1924.

According to Marxologist Kevin B Anderson, "Lenin's 1914-15 Philosophical Notebooks which Lenin never published, show a rich and creative proving into Hegelian idealism as a major source of the Marxian dialectic" (for example when Lenin implicitly criticises himself as well as other Marxists who have not studied Hegel: 'It is impossible to understand Marx's Capital, and especially its first chapter, without having thoroughly studied and understood the whole of Hegel's Logic. Consequently half a century later none of the Marxists understood Marx' (Collected Works, 38, p.180). On the other hand, Lenin's earlier writings on dialectics, such as the 1908 book Materialism and Empirio-Criticism (Lenin, CW 14), which Lenin never publicly repudiated, argued for a crude reflection theory where the idea is determined by the material in a more or less mechanistic manner" (Anderson in Lenin, Bukharin and the Marxian Concepts of Dialectics and Imperialism: A study in contrasts, 1987 Journal of Political and Military Sociology, Vol 15 (fall) 197-212, quote from p.198).

"Some writers such as George Lichtheim (1965), Richard De George (1966) and especially Leszek Kolakowsi (1978) do not see the Notebooks as a terribly serious or original contribution to Marxist thought. Other writers, such as Althusser (1971), David Hillel Ruben (1977), Helena Sheehan (1985) as well as Russian commentators tend to downplay any shift in the Philosophical Notebooks from the earlier Lenin because they admire the positivistic and anti-Hegelian Marxism of the early Lenin" (Anderon, p.198)

"A large group however, including Marcuse (1941), Joravsky (1961), Lefebvre (1967), Michel Lowy (1973), Goldmann (1976) and especially Raya Dunayevskaya (1973, 1982) have argued that Lenin's PN are a significant contribution to dialectical theory, representing a break in Lenin's thought and placing him closer to Hegelian and humanistic Marxism than is usually supposed." (Anderon, Ibid., p.199). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 06:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Childhood - Who is his mother?

This section seems to incorrectly state (to what I information I can find) that Lenin's grandmother (Anna Alexeevna Smirnova) was married to his father (Ilya what-his-face). The product of a poorly done edit in the past? I'd like to correct it, but perhaps someone more educated on the subject can confirm why there are two different wive's listed for Ilya? Bainst (talk) 05:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Lenin's father was Ilya Nikolayevich Ulyanov.

Ilya's father: Nikolay Ulyanov.

Ilya's mother: Anna Ulyanova (born Smirnova).

Lenin's mother was Mariya Aleksandrovna Ulyanova, born Blank.

Mariya's father: Aleksandr Blank.

Rozmysl (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't get it...

Marxism-Leninism was created after Lenin died (and from the lead), it sounds like Marxism-Leninism existed during Lenin's own lifetime. --TIAYN (talk) 14:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

1907 Tiflis robbery

I figured it might be a good idea to add a sentence or two regarding Lenin's role and subsequent hiding as a result of the 1907 Tiflis Bank Robbery to this article. Does any one have any suggestions? Remember (talk) 13:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I have added a mention of it over at Early revolutionary activity of Vladimir Lenin, a page that I am currently in the process of creating and expanding. I hope to copy a highly edited version of that particular article and paste it here at some point, which will include reference to the robbery. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Image of 'clean shaven' Lenin

I don't think there is verification that the image by the The February Revolution section is actually Lenin. It might just be someone that looks somewhat like him. Is there evidence that the image is of him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.116.115 (talk) 06:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It is often reproduced as a picture of Lenin.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Holy Participle Phrases!

I lack the time and skills to do so well, but somebody with copyediting ability should go through and eliminate >90% of the sentence- and clause-initial participle phrases. Just to take a representative chunk (from the University and Political Radicalism section):

Entering Kazan University in August 1887, Vladimir and his mother moved into a flat, renting out their Simbirsk home.[15] Interested in his late brother's radical ideas, he joined an agrarian socialist revolutionary cell intent on reviving the People's Freedom Party (Narodnaya Volya). Joining the university's illegal Samara-Simbirsk zemlyachestvo, he was elected as its representative for the university's zemlyachestvo council.[16]

I imagine these are side-effects of the significant and useful contributions of a Russian L1 writer, but they distract and even muddy the meaning of the facts conveyed. For instance:

Embroiled primarily in disputes between peasants and artisans, he devoted much time to radical politics, remaining active in Skylarenko's group and formulating ideas about Marxism's applicability to Russia. Inspired by Plekhanov's work, Vladimir collected data on Russian society, using it to support a Marxist interpretation of societal development and increasingly rejecting the claims of the People's Freedom Party.[24]

In an chronological narrative, the vague "attendant circumstances" that these participial phrases denote become pretty vexing, particularly when embedded within each other. In what order did these happen: the embroiling, the devoting, the remaining active, the formulating of ideas, the inspiration by Plekhanov, the data collection, its use, or his rejection of PFP claims? As currently written, we might deduce that 1st he was inspired by P's work, then collected data, then used it to support Marxism, but the rest floats around in time like so much dandelion fluff.

Apologies for the 'problem-not-solution' comment, but I figured it might be worthwhile to start the ball rolling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.161.115 (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Why was this section removed from the article?

"According to most reports, in his personal life Lenin was a modest and unassuming man. He liked children and cats...[190]"

It is a sourced section and is relevant to the personal life of Lenin. I can't see a valid reason why it was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.38.193 (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I was the user responsible for this edit, as part of my ongoing effort to sort this article out, and pull it up to GA quality. That particular sentence was removed because most of the information within it already appeared elsewhere in that very same section, and was thus redundant. I can assure that there was no socio-political motivation behind the edit. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Legalized homosexuality?

(1) It is unclear whether or not Lenin supported (or had much thought one way or the other) about the anti-gay criminal law. I am not homophobic, but I do not think he wrote about it or said much about it one way or the other. The nearest thing I can think of is some private comments he made about the main high ranking female party member who supported sexual freedom (often referred to as 'free love'). It was part of a larger revision of the national criminal code (which I believe also adopted more libertarian views on concerning divorce, birth control and abortion). So was it something that he generally supported -- like other policies mentioned -- or was it a reform that he never gave much thought about?

(2) The liberalization of the anti-gay criminal law only applied to Russia itself. For reasons that historians still dispute, it remained a crime in most of the "savage" parts of the larger U.S.S.R. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.245.20 (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, Lenin did not publish any comments on the issue of homosexuality, and did not really know much (if anything) about the subject to start with. However, if any editors out there are able to bring forth referenced evidence to the contrary, then it would definitely be of utility in improving this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midnightblueowl (talk • contribs) 23:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Involvement with repression

I think more sourced and extensive information needs to be added about Lenin's involvement with repression, terror, etc, or if it is not as bad as it is said to be then more information about how his involvement with such actions is commonly exaggerated. Zozs (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. The uncritical, even adulatory tone of the article is bizarre. One might at least mention that Lenin supported mass ie indiscriminate terror from the very early days of Soviet power, had no time for democracy in any recognisable form, for free speech or for oppositional parties or thinking, was in short a totalitarian who laid the foundations for the oppression and mass murder that characterised the Soviet state. However I doubt any such post however well evidenced would long survive the attentions of the Wiki Thought Police, nor will this post. Unraed (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)unraed

As a major contributor to this article, I wholeheartedly agree that we need better written and far better sourced information on Lenin's connection with the political repression and terror campaigns that were undertaken during the period of his administration. In time I hope to be able to ensure that such information is included. However, I fundamentally disagree with Unraed's assertion that this article has an "uncritical, even adulatory tone", and I disagree even more strongly with the assertion that there is such a thing as the "Wiki Thought Police" who go around erasing such things from Wikipedia; that's verging well into the realm of conspiracy theories, I fear.... Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 15 April 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Vladimir Lenin → Lenin – Per WP:COMMONNAME. 76.105.96.92 (talk) 23:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose. We often refer to people by their last names only, yet we name their Wikipedia articles by the first name plus last name. Materialscientist (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose and Speedy Close per WP:SNOW and as non-serious proposal. No evidence that this topic is referred to as Lenin more commonly than as Vladimir Lenin in reliable sources has been provided, as would be if this were a serious proposal. --B2C 00:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC) {{small|added per WP:SNOW --B2C 16:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC))
• Oppose he is not a mononym singer. -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 04:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - not any more common than Vladimir Lenin. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Most relevant guideline here seems to Wikipedia:SINGLENAME "Using the last name as the page title for a person, when the first name is also known and used, is discouraged". NickCT (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose – I oppose moving this page per NickCT's reasoning. Dustin (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - For all of the many reasons that have been stated above. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• I wouldn't go so far as to call this a "non-serious proposal." Conciseness is important, so if Lenin and Hitler redirect to Vladimir Lenin and Adolf Hitler, why not just move them there? Well, as NickCT points out, our naming conventions on people discourage it. And I think there's an important distinction to be made between names like Madonna, Suharto, or Plato and those like Lenin, Hitler, or Shakespeare. In the former case, the people are primarily known only by a mononym. Madonna's last name isn't well known or widely used; Plato and Suharto don't really even have other names. We're not just saying "Suharto" to refer to Suharto Jones, assuming you know who we mean. By contrast, Vladimir Lenin, Adolf Hitler, and William Shakespeare are all so well known that we can refer to them by one name as a form of shorthand. But it's also still plenty common to hear their full names.

This is straying off topic, but I wonder if in the future such historical figures will come to be known primarily by surname alone. There are Roman figures such as Claudius and Tiberius whose fuller names we know but don't often use. That might have more to do with how we refer to monarchs, or have something to do with ancient Roman anthroponymy, but I suspect part of it has to do with their historical importance. And I think that's happening to a certain degree with Shakespeare now. But I digress. To conclude, I might support this move in a few hundred years. --BDD (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Well said! I think I agree! Red Slash 23:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Critical of Russians

"Lenin was privately critical of Russia, describing it as "one of the most benighted, medieval and shamefully backward of Asian countries".[225] He was similarly critical of the Russian people, informing Gorky that "An intelligent Russian is almost always a Jew or someone with Jewish blood", in other instances admitting that he knew little of Russia, having spent one half of his adult life abroad.[254]"

While I see the argument that Lenin was critical of Russian people and their intelligence, what else can be used in support of this view? Indeed, could this not also be used to advance the view that Lenin respected Jewish people for their intelligence? Perhaps, too, he was resentful of Jewish people for their intelligence? What is the broader context of what Lenin was saying here? --14.200.68.118 (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

"Altered photograph"

During Lenin's sickness (1922–23), Stalin used this altered photograph as his bona fides claim to leading the CPSU.

Why does the image caption on this page state that the image is "altered"? I can't find any reference to either it, or an original. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Given Stalin's infamous use of airbrushing photographs (over half a century before photoshopping!), it's generally a safe assumption that photos supporting Stalin's glory were retouched. 07:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.80.51 (talk)

Detailed proof is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.150.234.8 (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a famously doctored photo, and there is one source noted in the file discussion page. It was mentioned, for instance, in a Guardian article on The fake photographs that predate Photoshop, which states "In a 1949 portrait, the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin is seen as a young man with Lenin. Stalin and Lenin were close friends, judging from this photograph. But it is doctored, of course. Two portraits have been sutured to sentimentalise Stalin's life and closeness to Lenin." RolandR (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Neurosyphilis?

I've read somme comments about this, reportedly from scientists or forensic physicians in the last times of USSR, being dissapointed about the Revolutionary Leader's, their brains being destroyed by Syphilis, and also about V I Lenin being pushed by mates in his early youth to use the services of prostitutes, at least once. In the past century, and before Penicillin was discovered being curative for Treponema infections, the disease was sometimes referred to as: 'A disease contracted during his army service'. No info exists in the article about any army activity of V I Lenin. The region cited as 'Galicia', is southern to Russia, it has a long tradition of being inhabited by German-speaking people besides others, and has received also the names: 'Halitza', and 'Alicz'. More info about the supposed contagion of V I Lenin with Syphilis is needed. --Jgrosay (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2014

This article has a Hyperlink to the Poet Robert W. Service, who shares a name with one of Lenin's biographers, but is not the same person. Please remove this hyperlink.Graysunlight (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Graysunlight Graysunlight (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Corrected; thank you for pointing this out. If you register an account, you will be able to make such edits yourself. RolandR (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 05 September 2014

Vladimir Lenin → Lenin – You changed the infobox and intro to the article, so you should also change the title of the article. 71.59.58.63 (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

See above. Materialscientist (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Lenins quote on st.francis real?

Can someone check if the following Lenin quote is real? Its purpoted source is called "Letters on Modern Atheism"( don't know if there are others sources available tough).

"I have deluded myself. Without doubt, it was necessary to free the oppressed masses. However, our methods resulted in other oppressions and gruesome massacres. You know I am deathly ill; I feel lost in an ocean of blood formed by countless victims. This was necessary to save our Russia, but it is too late to turn back. We would need ten Francis of Assisi." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.9.150.40 (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Not the first modern country to legalize homosexuality

There were plenty of countries that legalized homosexuality before Russia, such as france (actually the first), mexico, peru, argentina,and even turkey.

Also,the criminal code,while explicitly allowing early-term abortion just omitted references about homosexuality and adultery, it did not talk address the subject explicitly as the text implies, since homosexualty and adultery continued to be penalized in some USSR states.

This is something I've wondered myself. Definitely, Russia was the first country to legalize abortion, but I'm not sure if it was also the first to legalize homosexuality (even if it's not, it should still be mentioned). There are several sources which say that Russia, under Lenin, was the first country to legalize homosexuality. However, looking around I've seen claims of other countries having legalized homosexuality in a date earlier than 1917. Perhaps this is false or only partial, or maybe there still remained problems in these countries and thus Russia is considered the first one to "really" do it. Homosexuality was penalized way after Lenin's leadership (which this article talks about), under Stalin. Zozs (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a map on Wikipedia pointing the date of continuous legalization (Russia was not the first). it is contained in this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory

References and Footnotes

There are number of long quotes such as #219, #247 and some others in the section "Footnotes", which is actually should be section "References" For better structuring and reading I believe it is better to have separate "Footnotes" or "Notes" for such quotes/comments and leave AS links only in section "References". It will look better also.--Nivose (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The "N. / Nikolai Lenin" factor

Trawling back through the talk archives, we find the constantly recurring question of the names "N. Lenin" and "Nikolai Lenin", which were at some time used either by our subject (at least "N. Lenin"), or in relation to him (definitely). The fact that so many people have raised the absence of any mention of these names in the article, is proof of how widespread the knowledge of them is. I myself have been party to some of these discussions. I continue to wonder why we do not deal with this in the article, even by way of a footnote. Various uncited theories have been mentioned, and the name Nikolai may well be an error that unfortunately took a foothold in the literature. But even so, given that foothold is there, we should be alerting our readers that any source that refers to Lenin as "Nikolai Lenin" is wrong.

The exact truth of the matter may be hard to pin down, which is why I shrink from being bold and doing it myself. But can I make a plea for someone with the right sources to please add a brief mention of this, and help stop the perennial question of why it is not mentioned?

For reference, the earlier discussions are:

• Talk:Vladimir Lenin/Archive 1

Old talk

Pseudonym

• Talk:Vladimir Lenin/Archive 2

Nikolai

Nikolai Lenin

• Talk:Vladimir Lenin/Archive 4

List of pen names and pseudonyms

Ulyanov's pseudonym

His name

His name (again)

• Talk:Vladimir Lenin/Archive 6

Nikolai

An alternative name

Name

• Talk:Vladimir Lenin/Archive 7

Name

what about "N. Lenin"

Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Just add the information about it from what you can gather from these archives. Zozs (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Did some research and every mention of him in the New York Times from 1907 (the first, I believe) to around 1928 uses Nikolai/N. Lenin, usually including his birth name along with it, or just "Lenin." It seems like late in 1928, Nikolai disappears entirely, and he's referred to as Lenin, Vladimir Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, etc. Not sure what prompted the change. At least by the early 1930s, "Vladimir Lenin" became standardized, I'd say. I have some published works of his from then, and they all use that name. The external links mentioned in this article seem to reflect a similar trend. That at least gives an idea of how he was known in the west. Does anyone have any access to Russian sources? Rockhead126 (talk) 05:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2014

citation for quote " instituting open and systematic mass terror" available here: First Published: Soldat Revolutsii (Tsaritsyn), No. 21, September 1, 1918 Source: J. V. Stalin, Works, Volume 4, page 130. Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1953 Accessed via: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1918/08/31b.htm RadioFreeThinker (talk) 23:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 08:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)