Talk:Vladimir Lenin/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Lenin was a Marxist. "Marxism-Leninism" is a Stalinist invention

You don't need to agree with that to recognize that, FACTUALLY, there was no such as "Marxism-Leninism" in Lenin's lifetime so describing the state as having become that under him is entirely false.--[[User:Che y Marijuana|Che y Marijuana]] (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Che y Marijuana, what part of the article are you talking about? MarioGom (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

MarioGom, the very first paragraph: "Under his administration, Russia, and later the Soviet Union, became a one-party Marxist–Leninist state governed by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Ideologically a Marxist, he developed a variant of it known as Leninism." Neither would he agree that there was such a thing as "Leninism". He described himself as a Marxist, and considered Kautskyism to be the variant. And if you've read Marx and Engels instead of what people say about them, you'd agree. Lenin wasn't "more radical", he was restating their radical ideas which had been washed out by the social democrats turning reformist.--[[User:Che y Marijuana|Che y Marijuana]] (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The "Leninist" part is indeed his contribution = The party leadership makes all the national decisions, with no dissent. (to Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat" Lenin added leadership by a revolutionary vanguard party--from top down. Lenin added a central emphasis on use of violence against enemies who all had to be destroyed. Stalin indeed perfected the theme. Khrushchev was not so violent which is why Mao broke with USSR around 1960. Draper persuasively demonstrated that for Marx this "dictatorship" did not have the antidemocratic connotations it acquired in through Plekhanov and Lenin says Robert Mayer, "The dictatorship of the proletariat from Plekhanov to Lenin" Studies in East European Thought 45.4 (1993): 255-280. online Rjensen (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

That's all opinion though. If you actually read Lenin, or follow the history of the Bolshevik party in the period before Stalin, you would notice that Bolshevik democracy was vibrant and there were all kinds of factions throughout its history as a party. It's only in the period of the Civil War that factions were suspended and it's clear that Lenin did not wish for this to be the permanent state of the party. As for the other parties, they took up arms, including their coalition partner the Left SRs. And the Left SRs took up arms because the country wanted peace and they wanted war with germany to continue, so when they lost the vote at the congress of soviets, they literally tried to blow up the german ambassador to continue the war! no one ever really discusses the real events unfortunately, or like his wife Krupskaya they would consider that he would have ended up in one of Stalin's camps had he not died. Lenin tried to have Stalin removed before he died. Stalin and Zinoviev invented Marxism-Leninism to make Trotsky look separate when their ideas, his and lenin's, were much the same.[[User:Che y Marijuana|Che y Marijuana]] (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Agree with RJensen. Ideas do exist before they have a name.  // Timothy :: talk  22:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Stalinist bias.[[User:Che y Marijuana|Che y Marijuana]] (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Cool since there's some stalin shills on this page, i'll just tag it citation needed and move on.[[User:Che y Marijuana|Che y Marijuana]] (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Fix the falsehoods in the first paragraph.

I've tagged it citation needed for now. [[User:Che y Marijuana|Che y Marijuana]] (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Abortion

@Midnightblueowl: Totally agree with your removal here, as Militant is a clearly partisan source. However, may I suggest David, H.,. 'Abortion and Family Planning in the Soviet Union: Public Policies and Private Behaviour', Journal of Biosocial Science 6 (1974), 417-426: 417. The specific quote is:

As early as 1913, Lenin advocated a woman's right to contraceptive information and abortion. On 8th November 1920, the Soviet Union became the first country to legalize abortion on request of the woman during the initial trimester of pregnancy. At that time, abortion liberalization was deemed a temporary measure. It was assumed that, with the development of socialism and the improvement of social conditions for women and children, the demand for abortions would gradually decrease and the problem of unwanted pregnancy disappear (Field, 1956; Geiger, 1968; Callahan, 1970).

I think it's probably worth a mention, being an almost unheard of belief in the period. Perhaps a footnote to say that Stalin later illegalised it. ——Serial 14:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

So long as we have a good quality source, I don't object to any addition along these lines. I think it is worth checking, however, whether the legalisation of abortion was a deliberate policy on the part of Lenin's government, or whether it was simply an unintended result of the mass scrapping of old laws, including those that prohibited abortion. (I probably wouldn't bother with the footnote about Stalin, for Stalin made quite a few changes over the years, and if we add a footnote regarding abortion, we would probably have to do the same for a whole host of other issues). Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Seems clear it was government policy.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Jack Upland and Serial: the source clearly indicates an intentional policy. It also places that policy within a larger ideological framework that's consistent with what we know about Lenin's views. -Darouet (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I concur with Jack Upland, Serial and Darouet. This is relevant material and the source is clearly reliable, even if it is decades old.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Foorgood's Edit Warring

@Foorgood: I appreciate that you are fairly new at Wikipedia, but please stop WP:Edit Warring to force your desired edits into this article, which is rated as a Featured Article and thus has very high standards which need to be maintained. As per WP:BRD, it is incumbent on you to convince other editors of your desired changes. If your edits are reverted the first time round, you must then take your concerns to the Talk Page and try to convince others, not simply edit war to push your desired edits through. As per Wikipedia's policies at BRD, it is up to you to revert your additions and try to seek a consensus. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

We already got consensus on this talk page about the abortion edit with the new source and i followed your instruction to get a reliable source for lenin being the first founder of the soviet union. Which other edit do i not have consensus for that you came to remove after other editors let them remain? Foorgood (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

First, please do not ignore the procedural issue here. As per WP:Bold, Revert, Discuss, you should not have been edit warring to impose your desired edits on the article. You were Bold with your additions, they were Reverted; you should then have brought your concerns to the Talk Page so that we could Discuss them. You should absolutely not have restored them. You appear to be new at Wikipedia, so I and others will probably give you some leeway, but it is imperative that you edit according to the rules. We all have to. Second, all three of the edits which you are repeatedly re-adding involve citations to bare URLs. You have already been asked at your Talk Page not to do this at other pages by User:JBchrch (here), so why are you continuing to do it? Again, it's best to learn the rules and regulations of Wikipedia now so that you won't find yourself clashing with more experienced editors in future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Understood and i apologize sir. Thank you for your corrections.Foorgood (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit Request

Old text: In Europe, this resulted in the creation of new communist-led states in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, and Ukraine, all of which were officially independent of Russia,[322] while further east it led to the creation of communist governments in Outer Mongolia.[323] New text: In Europe, this resulted in the creation of new states in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, and Ukraine, all of which were officially independent of Russia,[322] while further east it led to the creation of communist governments in Outer Mongolia.[323] Comment: These states were not communist-led as that was the point to get rid of communists. Yes, it is true that these countries had some communist thinkers and collaborators but to state communist-led is plain wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paberlennuk (talk • contribs) 19:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The text refers to the creation of these states in 1919-20, not to the post Soviet period. So this request misses the point entirely. RolandR (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Old and New Style issues

Hey Midnightblueowl, I was reading this and found out there are some calendar issues here. Since this is an FA it might be a good idea to solve these issues in this important article.

• First issue here is he was Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the Russian SFSR between 8 November 1917 – 21 January 1924.
• This also applies when he was a Member of the Russian Constituent Assembly.
• holding a final meeting at the Smolny Institute on 24 October Is this Old or New Style?
• attended the Second Congress of Soviets on 26 and 27 October Same as above?
• On 7 January 1918, Trotsky returned from Brest-Litovsk to St. Petersburg Same as above?

These are the small issues here. Russia back then still used the Julian calendar which was 12 days behind at the moment. The Old Style and New Style dates article says that Russia still uses it until 31 January 1918. This means not clear whether or not these are written in Julian or the Gregorian calendar? Is it possible to solve these? MOS:OSNS says "Dates after 4 October 1582 in a place where the Julian calendar was observed should be given in the Julian calendar." which means we should keep mentioning both calenders here I guess. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

You make a fair point; this should be clarified in the article. I'll try and look at the sources and get it sorted, but if anyone else reading this can do it before me then that would also be welcome. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2021

Iwould lik to edit this page for historical purposes. Nadiya P. (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@Nadiya P.: You'll need to make a specific request. Other editors will review it and, if it is appropriate, make the change for you. —C.Fred (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

"Simbirsk Classical Gimnazia"

This should either read "Simbirsk Classical Gymnasium" or "Simbirskaya Klassicheskaya Gimnazia" ("Симбирская классическая гимназия"). Honestly, it's like every damn English-language article about Russia has to be russified for extra scariness or something. Ouf. 76.69.87.99 (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Fixed.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

"Born to a moderately prosperous middle-class family in Simbirsk"

The second paragraph states Lenin was born to a moderately prosperous middle-class family in Simbirsk and it links to petite bourgeois

This is false his father Ilya Ulyanov was a noble who had the title Active State Councillor which is equivalent to Rear admiral Table of Ranks there were only 700 people in the Russian Empire who were wealthier than his father. It seems years ago someone edited this article to change this and it misleads people about Lenin's father who was very successful. 7Prefix7 (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Prison or concentration camp

I think it’s a strange use of language to call soviet prison camps “concentration camps”. That is loaded language at the very best. The people put into those prisons were enemies of the regime, not a specific ethnic group with an eye towards genocide. It is true that in a technical sense people were concentrated in the prison camps, but if that is all the phrase means then almost every country has run concentration camps, and america still runs them. When you use language like that people do not think “oh well they must have put a group of people into a camp like a prison” they think “oh so Lenin did the stuff that Hitler did.” It’s a false equivalency. And for an assertion with no cited evidence I would appreciate an actual reason for a reversion, considering that it appears that one person disagrees with that change and there is no talk page asserting that they were in fact concentration camps. Puma6374 (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree we shouldn't say "concentration camps".--Jack Upland (talk) 02:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

These were concentration camps. This is already sourced in the article and details can be found in the article Red Terror. And Reds called it as such.

For example Lenin:

«Необходимо организовать усиленную охрану из отборно надежных людей, провести беспощадный массовый террор против кулаков, попов и белогвардейцев; сомнительных запереть в концентрационный лагерь вне города» ("Essential to organize stronger bodyguard of handpicked reliable people, launch merciless mass terror against kulaks, priests, and White Guards. Suspicious individuals to be locked up in concentration camp outside city").

— 9 августа 1918 г. (Ленин В.И. Полн. собр. соч. Т. 50. С. 143-144)

I do not have a firm opinion either way, but I think we should see what term the key Reliable Sources discussing Lenin's government use, and then follow their example. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

The obvious issue here is the meaning of the idiom "concentration camp", namely how it was shaped in the years after Lenin's death to almost universally denote Nazi death camps, certainly in the English language. So indeed, IDGAF what phrase Lenin used -- even assuming the translation is kosher...I don't speak Russian! -- because Lenin isn't editing English Wikipedia. "Concentration camp" is inflammatory here, particularly as even the most hardcore commie-haters do not allege a mass murder campaign à la Hitler in Soviet GULAG camps. 76.69.87.99 (talk) 06:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@midnightblueowl If your only argument is one instance of a different language in which the word is used, it’s not really an argument at all. A source that seeks to define the term from a neutral pov then analyze whether it applies historically is what is needed. Since you reverted my edit and said I should “seek consensus” and consensus on the talk page I created seems against you, I am leaning towards once again removing. Can you at least differentiate these “concentration camps” from other prisons around the world that aren’t branded as such? Puma6374 (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Marxism-Leninsim

Why does the end of the first paragraph claim that Lenin developed Marxism-Leninism? Leninism is the tendency drawn from Lenin, Stalin developed Marxism-Leninism from his understanding of Marxism and Leninism. Even the Marxism-Leninism page says so in its second paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.78.118 (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2021

Remove duplicated transliterated text "Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov" from {{lang-rus}} parameter, because it already exists on the lead sentence. 49.150.100.127 (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I don't understand, you want it removed from the footnote? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:23, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

There was no Marxism-Leninism in Lenin's time

To say he was a figure of "Marxism-Leninism" or founded a "Marxist-Leninist state" is 100% false. The term "Marxism-Leninism" was invented by Stalin and Zinoviev in the Troika's fight with Trotsky. Lenin himself never used it, and reverting changes that put the tense of the term as being AFTER his death is pro-Stalinist bias. --[[User:Che y Marijuana|Che y Marijuana]] (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Yea, verily. In Lenin's prime ministership (and I use that time advisedly because the Sovnarkom was modeled on the British cabinet - natch), the term was either Communist (preferred by Lennie), or Bolshevik. Probably the most "scientific" term is "Communist Party (Bolshevik)". I cannot advise on the Russian, Ukrainian, Georgian, or German term as I am not a knowledgeable linguist.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Blatant minimizing

"According to historian Petrovsky-Shtern, it is likely that Lenin was unaware of his mother's half-Jewish ancestry, which was only discovered by his sister Anna after his death"

Is this a joke? This doesn't belong in the early life section. It is simply put there to minimize any relation to ((them)). 220.76.183.4 (talk) 08:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

No, it isn't a joke. As is fairly well-known, his sister was actually quite enthusiastic when she discovered that Lenin had a Jewish grandfather, and suggested to Stalin and others in the Soviet leadership that it be publicized to combat anti-Semitism. Said leadership evidently disagreed. --Ismail (talk) 11:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Born to a upper middle-class family in Simbirsk

His father had hereditary Nobility with a rank equivalent to rear Admiral this makes Lenin a noble not from an upper middle class family. Even his fathers Wikipedia page cites his fathers position & links to the rank of hierarchy in the russian empire. 7Prefix7 (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Lenin did not "recommend Trotsky" for General Secretary in his Testament

There are a lot of issues with how Lenin's Testament is summarized. Currently it reads:

"During December 1922 and January 1923, Lenin dictated "Lenin's Testament", in which he discussed the personal qualities of his comrades, particularly Trotsky and Stalin.[395] He recommended that Stalin be removed from the position of General Secretary of the Communist Party, deeming him ill-suited for the position.[396] Instead he recommended Trotsky for the job, describing him as "the most capable man in the present Central Committee".

Well, it's true the Testament was written during Dec 1922-Jan 1923, that Lenin recommending removing Stalin from General Secretary, and that he did describe Trotsky as "the most capable man in the present Central Committee" . But the rest of the above ranges from editorial to plain false.

The most blatant error here is stating that Lenin "recommended Trotsky for the job." That does not happen anywhere in the document. I'm assuming the misconception occurred because Lenin does, at points, heap praise on Trotsky, but nowhere does Lenin suggest that means Trotsky should become General Secretary, or promoted in any way for that matter. In fact, the document reveals that the reason Lenin writes about Trotsky is because he believes the conflict between Trotsky and Stalin threatens to split the Central Committee.

Before discussing any personal qualities Lenin states:

"I have in mind stability as a guarantee against a split in the immediate future, and I intend to deal here with a few ideas concerning personal qualities. I think that from this standpoint the prime factors in the question of stability are such members of the C.C. as Stalin and Trotsky. I think relations between them make up the greater part of the danger of a split, which could be avoided, and this purpose, in my opinion, would be served, among other things, by increasing the number of C.C. members to 50 or 100. "

Nowhere in the Testament does Lenin state that Trotsky should be General Secretary. On Trotsky, Lenin stated: "Comrade Trotsky, on the other hand, as his struggle against the C.C. on the question of the People's Commissariat of Communications has already proved, is distinguished not only by outstanding ability. He is personally perhaps the most capable man in the present C.C., but he has displayed excessive self-assurance and shown excessive preoccupation with the purely administrative side of the work."

Lenin states multiple times in the Testament that its primary goal is to guard against a split (not name a successor). Personal qualities are mentioned only to describe why he believes the C.C. is in danger of such a split. The remedy for which, he states repeatedly, is not in choosing the perfect General Secretary but in expanding the Committee.

A more apt summary of the document might go something like:

"During December 1922 and January 1923, Lenin dictated "Lenin's Testament", in which he warned about fears of a split in the Central Committee due to rising tensions between Stalin and Trotsky. Lenin advocated for increasing the number of Central Committee members "to 50 or 100", as he believed this would prevent such a split. Lenin also recommended Stalin be removed from the post of Secretary General, stating that appointing a successor who was 'more tolerant, more loyal, more polite, and more considerate to the comrades' would also be important to prevent a split. Lenin did not propose a specific successor." — Preceding unsigned comment added by VioletWriting (talk • contribs) 20:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes. It should be noted that at that time General Secretary was not the key role.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

"On the other hand his critics have accused him of establishing a totalitarian dictatorship which oversaw mass killings and political repression."

Isn't this just a fact? Probably doesn't need to say it's critics making allegations. Wojacks (talk) 09:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's widely agreed that Lenin's regime was totalitarian, unlike with Stalin's regime. Mellk (talk) 09:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I think remove totalitarian then and have the rest just stated rather than an allegation by critics. Wojacks (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit request, February 2022

Please change

He also issued a requisitioning order for disincentivised peasants to produce more grain than they could personally consume, and as a result production slumped.

to

The requisitions disincentivised peasants from producing more grain than they could personally consume, and thus production slumped.

The latter was the text that was originally in the article, but it was changed in an edit in December ([1]) that claimed to be "fixing an incomplete sentence". But the original form of the text meant the same as "The act of requisitioning disincentivised peasants…", and the sentence was not incomplete. 2601:601:1A00:6C80:C8DB:33DB:69BD:F28 (talk) 03:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Done, thanks!--TZubiri (talk) 05:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Holodomor Image

"Famine in Russia 1921 The Corner Of The Cemetary In Wasted Country. Buzuluk, winter 1921/22 year. The image has also a known Holodomor hoax photo. Original Postcard Published In Brussels To Raise Funds For The Famine Relief Efforts by a Famine Relief Committee. Mr. Nansen was from Norway and was appointed the High Commissioner for the Soviet Famine Relief effort".

The image shown that represents the Holodomor states in it's own description that it is a hoax image. It should be replaced with a reputable image of the famine to make the article more accurate and neutral. - Finton the magical salmon (talk) 03:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit: removed image until suitable replacement can be found Finton the magical salmon (talk) 04:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The caption does not state that it is a hoax photo, but that it has been misused as such. And it is not presented here as a Holodomor image. Sop I will restore it to the article, where it accurately depicts what it claims. RolandR (talk) 09:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

You are right, sorry the grammar was a bit poor and I did not understand it fully. I am unsure, do I delete this thread?

- Finton the magical salmon (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

No, you should return upstream, young salmon!  :) SN54129 23:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not get what you mean. I just want to be sure as I only have about 100 edits and barely use the talk page. Finton the magical salmon (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Contradictory statement

"In these early days of the new regime, Lenin avoided talking in Marxist and socialist terms so as not to alienate Russia's population, and instead spoke about having a country controlled by the workers." This seems like a contradictory statement, since a country controlled by the workers is a clearly Marxist concept. PatGallacher (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

He was just avoiding the buzzwords that often put off people from a subject. I.e. if you say to someone that we should have a nation where don't need to work and that all work is voluntary, people will likely be open to the idea if you give evidence to this system. However, if I said that I wanted Anarchism, people will become close minded due to propaganda from those who it would negatively affect; i.e. Oligarchs, Billionaires, Popular figures, Corporations, and any systems run by the aforementioned groups. It is a method of avoiding indoctrination and buzzwords. Finton the magical salmon (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

That comparison doesn't work though, since the Bolsheviks were an avowedly Marxist party and Lenin's public speeches and articles made clear they supported socialism. Not to mention they openly denounced the Mensheviks, Socialist-Revolutionary Party, etc. as traitors to socialism. Which is also why the statement that "Lenin avoided talking in Marxist and socialist terms" makes no sense. --Ismail (talk) 08:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Spelling mistake at end of top paragraph

"Ideologically a Marxisst, the theories he developed are called Leninism."

Extra s in Marxist 82.6.41.132 (talk) 23:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you for drawing that to our attention. HiLo48 (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Link 'Sasha' to article on dimunitives

"Russian given name#Full (formal) and short forms | Sasha" should replace Sasha in 'At the time, Lenin's elder brother Alexander, whom he affectionately knew as Sasha' as an internal link (enclose it in square brackets). TypistMonkey (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Worst famine since 1891?

The article says "Caused in part by a drought, the Russian famine of 1921–22 was the most severe that the country had experienced since that of 1891–92, resulting in around five million deaths.". Yet if you click that article, it says 'only' 400,000 people died in the 1891-92 famine, less than a tenth of the number that died in 1921-22. To give context to the scale of the 1921-22 famine a previous famine that killed more people is needed. This article on famines does not have one, but doesn't have much detail. LastDodo (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The assertion is attributed to Christopher Rice's Lenin: Portrait of a Professional Revolutionary, and is indeed made in that book. That is a reliable source; another Wikipedia article is not. It would be unacceptable synthesis to challenge a sourced statement in this article on the basis of a statement in another Wikipedia article. RolandR (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The source of the claim in the other article is this http://people.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1994-5/Lilly.htm which appears to be a legitimate academic paper. Is it really possible more than 5 million people died in the 1891 famine (as opposed to the 400,000 that article suggests)? Let us at least acknowledge we appear to have a contradiction here. LastDodo (talk) 11:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

This source appears to be an undergraduate essay. It cannot be considered a reliable source, and certainly cannot justify the removal of an assessment from a peer-revied acknowledged expert on the subject. You will need to find a better source if you wish to pursue this edit request. RolandR (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Alright, how about this one: 'In 1891, southern Russia experienced a famine which affected 30–40 million people in an area the size of France, killing 650,000 in the highest estimates.' https://academic.oup.com/histres/article-abstract/89/246/824/5603502?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false LastDodo (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

So, what do you think? I I will remove the claim as it stands, though I don't have the evidence to replace it with another comparison. This Quora answer is useful though obviously can't be used as a source: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-history-of-famines-and-starvation-in-Russia-1850-present-day. It seems Lenin's famine was probably the worst in Russian history in terms of absolute death toll, and the worst since 1600 in proportional terms. LastDodo (talk) 11:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

With no response, I have gone ahead and removed the obviously wrong claim. In its place I wrote that the famine was the worst since 1603, which I am fairly certain is correct (see the above Quora example for example), however I cannot find a definitive source, hence I have added citation needed tags.LastDodo (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2023

Lenin with the Russian working class founded and headed the world's first Socialist Political system. 42.111.144.140 (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The Ethnic ancestry of Lenin's Father and Mother are mis-matched (Freudian Slip Probably)

There was a Freudian slip with the section on Lenin's parental ancestry. There is controversy over his MOTHER's ancestry, but not his fathers. Lenin's father was half-Russian and Half-Kalmyk, but the article assigns that ancestry to his Mother.

This is correct in the article for Lenin's father himself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilya_Ulyanov# 2601:646:103:1B0:9C0:DFB8:364A:77CA (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2023

FelixEco (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Plese apcept I don't want to introduce any vandalism or hooliganism in this article, but write well

I respect all Wikipedia peoples Thank you!

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Tollens (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

About the dates

This article is supposed to use Gregorian Calender dates right? Why does the October Revolution section use Old Style date then? Billcipher123 (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2023

change 'cell bent' to 'hell bent' or synonymous phrase IronicStrings (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I think "cell bent" is intentional, as in: joined a revolutionary cell [which was] bent on assassinating the Tsar.

If the current wording is too obscure, how about "joined a revolutionary cell which was hell bent on assassinating the Tsar." Or maybe "joined a revolutionary cell which planned to assassinate the Tsar."

Other views or alternative wording welcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I think "bent" or "hell bent" is unencyclopedic - maybe just say "planned".--Jack Upland (talk) 04:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

menage à trois ?

Diane Ducret published (in 2011) her book femmes des dictateurs. There she writes that Lenin had a menage à trois with two women (who liked each other) and that Lenin was very jealous.

Does so. have english sources for that ? I only have found Washing Lenin's dirty linen: embezzlement and a ménage à trois?

LDV-GS (talk) 08:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Factually wrong map

The map illustrating Lenin's train journey thru Sweden to Russia in April 1917 is not correct. On the map it looks as if Lenin and his entourage travelled on the "East Coast Line" along the coast line north of Gävle. He didn't however, because this railway line was only built in the mid-1920s. His trip took him far inland from Gävle and in the early morning hours the Russians would have changed trains in the tiny junction town Bräcke.

How can this be corrected? 86.49.75.17 (talk) 11:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any sources to back this up?--Jack Upland (talk) 02:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Change in the lead picture.

I propose the current lead picture be changed to the official portrait of Lenin issued in 1918 with group consensus. The current picture has a number of issues with the 1) close up frame which is fairly blurry and 2) emotive appeal which projects a menacing image of the Soviet leader. This alternative portrait seems to present a far more neutral tone in terms of emotional and visual projection.

WikiUser4020 (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that the current image (File:Vladimir Lenin.jpg) is better. The peripheral parts of the image are blurry, but they aren't as important as Lenin's face, which is sharper than in the one you propose. Your image also has the characteristic, heavily-airbrushed style of Soviet official portraits, which I think we should try to avoid as much as possible on Wikipedia. Also, I don't agree that the current picture projects a "menacing" image of Lenin, but rather one of boldness and determination, which I think is consistent with his image in popular imagination. It's true that "emotive" elements should be minimized in the interest of neutrality, but all things considered I think the image we are using currently is the best available from Commons. — Goszei (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@Goszei Those are some valid points but I still have a differing view on the current lead picture which, in my subjective view, will evoke more strong, emotional reactions of Lenin among viewers. This could range from the descriptions which you mentioned above or more easily play into the negative, one-dimensional portrayals of him as a “dark”, and “dangerous” fanatical figure. I think the proposed picture is still the better alternative which adheres to a more neutral representation of Lenin. However, we can wait from others before making a consensual decision. There may be a third choice which is preferable to the pictures which we have both discussed. WikiUser4020 (talk) 06:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the angle of the current photo is a bit weird, although the quality is much better. Personally, I'd advocate a change to the photo used on the Chinese Wikipedia. Yue🌙 19:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@Yue Assuming there is no consensus for my proposed choice then I would also support the third picture you mentioned as a compromise option. WikiUser4020 (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with Goszei on everything. The current image is a quite sharp and quality photograph with face features in focus. –Vipz (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Vipz@Goszei Can we at least agree on the third picture suggested by @Yue as an alternative ? WikiUser4020 (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I still prefer the current image, but I think the one proposed by Yue is also acceptable. — Goszei (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Goszei In that case, I’ll change the lead picture with the agreement with @Yue and yourself. WikiUser4020 (talk) 01:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I have uploaded another fairly-famous official portrait of Lenin to Commons, which I think combines the best attributes of the images discussed here; his face is sharp and the composition and his expression are more conventional. — Goszei (talk) 01:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Goszei Yes, we can go with that picture instead. WikiUser4020 (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Goszei WikiUser4020 Yue Absent a decisive showing otherwise, I think I speak for a sizable group of the Wikipedia community when I say the desire to change the infobox photo seems to be coming out nowhere. Seeing as how the current image has remained the infobox picture for at least two years, it doesn't make sense without changing it unless a sizable subsection of the Wikipedia community thinks otherwise. Get an Rfc first and then decide on whether to change it. Anything else is premature.Emiya1980 (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Goszei Do you want to proceed with the Rfc with your proposed image?, I think it's a much better choice than the current lead image. WikiUser4020 (talk) 22:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not particularly inclined to open an RfC, but would offer my opinion if someone did. — Goszei (talk) 23:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Goszei@Emiya1980 I'll open the RfC for the view of others. I believe the lead image should be changed. WikiUser4020 (talk) 03:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@Goszei@Yue Yes, it would be helpful if both of you could make a vote on the RfC and any constructive comments below. WikiUser4020 (talk) 12:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Lenin's legacy in the lead

I think that the current description of Lenin's legacy in the lead, which states that his supporters view him as a figure who brought about progressive policies that institutionalized universal literacy, universal healthcare and equal rights for women, is too limited. I have checked the cited sources and they confirm that these social reforms were implemented, but not that they constitute his legacy among his supporters. While it is true that many people support these aspects of Lenin's policies, this version leaves out what his socialist supporters (and Lenin himself) view as the primary gains of the October Revolution – the fundamental changes to property relations and the (initial) establishment of democratic control over the means of production, which flows directly from his influential Marxist theories mentioned earlier in the lead. I think that we should include this broader perspective, as well as the current listing of social gains, to better inform the reader on the range of views. My proposed wording is: viewed by his supporters as a visionary whose government established soviet democracy and a "dictatorship of the proletariat" which took steps towards socialism.

I also think that the description of the views of Lenin's critics, which states that they accuse him establishing a totalitarian dictatorship which oversaw mass killings and political repression, needs revision. Not all critics agree that a totalitarian dictatorship was established under Lenin, though most agree that he used authoritarian and repressive methods and centralised great power in the party and the state. At the least, critics argue that he paved the way for Stalin's dictatorship, which is far more often described as totalitarian. My proposed wording, to better capture the range and specific points of criticism as included in the article, is: critics argue that his regime was characterized by authoritarianism, severe political repression, concentration of power, and the development of an oppressive state apparatus, accusing him of leading or preparing the way for a totalitarian dictatorship in the Soviet Union under Stalin.

Thoughts? — Goszei (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Goszei I agree with your proposed changes. It presents a far more nuanced and balanced view of his legacy. The revised paragraph highlights these elements of his political legacy from the eyes of his supporters and critics.I think the sources which discussed the establishment of universal education, healthcare and women’s right should be combined with the views of his supporters in the lead section. WikiUser4020 (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree on a few grounds. 1. We have historical evidence that Lenin went out of his way to try and stop Stalin's seizure of power. It would be historically inaccurate to pin the crimes and totalitarianism of Stalin on Lenin's head as he tried to warn the party. Lenin did not roll out the red carpet for Stalin to come down as the sentence implies. Stalin ultimately succeeded due to Lenin's failing health. Secondly, we should try to make the lead as general as possible. 2. Dictatorship of the proletariat is a political term and is widely misunderstood in the general public who have no idea as to what that term means. However that does not mean that I disagree with you on the importance of this term as it applies to Leninism and 20th century history. This is why I attached the dictatorship of the proletariat article to the words "socialist ideals". That way, if readers are curious the link takes them to the page for further clarification. 3. Secondly your wording choice comes across as repetitive; you say Lenin centralized power twice but in different terms. Totalitarian/ authoritarianism and centralizing of power is the same thing. As is severe political repression and oppressive state apparatus. 4. Here is also where I must disagree with the use of the term soviet democracy. The way soviet democracy was supposed to work was very different to how the Bolsheviks set up the Soviet Union itself. Rather than have competitive parties and candidates; the one party Soviet Union skirted this system via fraudulent elections and a corrupt civil service. I say we keep the same wording because it was the original language in the featured article and the other language can be misleading. I have noted your previous criticisms and have incorporated them into a concise but pointed sentence I look forward to your response.

FictiousLibrarian (talk). 18:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2023

"Lenin was the posthumous subject of a pervasive personality cult within the Soviet Union until its dissolution in 1991." i feel this is a strange line, the way it's worded feels overtly charged to sound as though it's wrote in a way to critique Lenin but could this not be said for many many many others? he was face of the Soviet Union it's not unfounded to name cities after people especially posthumously, in the US the capital is named after Washington

this is less to "defend" lenin so to say and more i feel this is charged in a certain politically biased manner Unothief (talk) 06:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC) Unothief (talk) 06:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

What do you think it should be changed to? Deauthorized. ^(talk) 12:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

It's true that naming cities after the "founding fathers" of a country (whether Washington, Lenin, etc.) isn't unusual. But when people talk about the personality cult the CPSU built around Lenin posthumously, it goes well beyond that. For example, one author writes that "following Lenin's hundredth anniversary in 1970 there was a new boom in erecting monuments to the 'deathless' leader. Statues were put up not only in all the republican and regional centres, but in every town, factory, university and army unit." The author adds that in April 1983 the Politburo decided to put a stop to what it termed excessive expenditure on such commemorative monuments, yet months later the Politburo effectively ignored its own prior decision and instead opted "'To erect a monument to Lenin at October Square in Moscow', even though there were dozens of similar ones in the capital already." (Volkogonov, Autopsy for an Empire, p. 355) --Ismail (talk) 03:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Lenin's Irish accent

Here's a fun one for you.

It has been suggested that Lenin picked up an Irish accent when speaking English on account of his English tutor having been of Irish origin; this is in the book by Robert Service (Lenin: A Biography), which calls it an unconfirmed suggestion but nonetheless found it worth a mention. Also, Lenin's wife stated that a London speaker with an Irish accent was easier for them to understand.

Service's book was published in 2000. Since then some reports have come out corroborating that Lenin may have had an Irish accent, stemming from Roddy Connolly's claim, who had personally met Lenin and more precisely claimed that Lenin had a "Rathmines accent" (see here, here, here, and here).

Interestingly, this claim was also supported by the Russian embassy to Ireland in 2012, who claimed that H. G. Wells had reported Lenin's Irish accent in 1920 (I haven't seen wherever Wells may have written such a claim but this is also mentioned in the London Review of Books for instance).

Altogether I think this personal attribute is corroborated well enough that it could use a brief mention in the "Personal life and characteristics" section (which already lists which languages he spoke). If so, it shouldn't be worded such that we're certain, but rather that he "probably"/"may have" had such an accent in English, or that some people who had met with him reported that he had such an accent. VintageVernacular (talk) 01:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I added that in the personal life. FictiousLibrarian (talk). 22:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

It's just trivia, at the end of the day. We don't specify Lenin's accent when he was speaking French or German (or even Russian, for that matter), so why include the way he spoke English? As per WP:BRD, I've removed the addition. An RfC can be held if others think it really belongs in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Plenty of his personal characteristics that we do include could be seen as "trivial": it's a biography, after all. I think it helps mediate a mental image of Lenin, and how he might've interacted with the world particularly when visiting English speakers (and as that section mentions he seems to have been more fond of Western European culture than Russian culture). If we know what accent he spoke in other languages, that could be interesting to include as well, but I've never heard anything about that and not sure it's known. Matter of fact, I wonder if he had a regional accent when speaking Russian. In comparison, Stalin's Wikipedia page notes Stalin's strong Georgian accent when speaking Russian. VintageVernacular (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Should this article not include in ‘early years’ that Lenin was ethnically Chuvash, as people will assume he was ethnically Russian? And if you’re answer is “Chuvash is Russian” than you must also consider Estonian the same as Russian for example Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

His father was Chuvash (primarily), and was committed to building a Chuvash-speaking school, and his mother was Kalmyk or Kyrgyz Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

• While we are at it, "risen to middle-class status" surely considerably understates his father's rise :" In 1882, Ulyanov was promoted to the rank of Active State Councillor, which gave him a privilege of hereditary nobility and was accompanied by the award of the Order of Saint Vladimir, 3rd Class.[5]" (according to Wikipedia). In the table of ranks he equated to a major-general or rear-admiral. Johnbod (talk) 02:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Lenin could have had a rather chequered ancestry. Ethnicity is a complex issue, but it's not clear that his father was primarily Chuvash; he did build a Chuvash school, but he did build schools for other minorities. PatGallacher (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

RfC on Lead section (amendments)

RfC withdrawn by creator with no other editor in support. See RfC below on one of the specifics.

Should the opening, lead section be amended or remain in its current form ? WikiUser4020 (talk) 05:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC) Context This RfC seeks consensus to change the current lead paragraph to this proposed version [2] written by @Goszei and myself. This version was later reverted by @Midnightblueowl due to suggested issues with lengthening and the additional content causing confusion. I strongly disagree with the latter point as it provides essential context for readers. Midnightblueowl has already trimmed the rest of the article hence lengthening for the lead should not be an issue at this stage. Assuming that some users have varying views on each proposed amendment, please can you also state which of the proposals 1, 2,3,4 you share the most or least agreement with in your comments. This will be informative in case further RfC discussions are needed. Proposed changes - examples Paragraph 1: (proposed sentence additions) “Over the course of the Russian Civil War, Lenin's government centralised power in a one-party state governed by the Communist Party.” “ Ideologically a Marxist, his developments of the ideology, particularly its theories of party, imperialism, the state, and revolution, are known as Leninism.” Paragraph 2: (proposed sentence additions) “Lenin's government redistributed land to the peasantry, nationalised banks and industry, withdrew from the First World War by signing the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk ceding territory to the Central Powers, and promoted world revolution through the Communist International.” “The Bolsheviks initially allowed elections to the multi-party Constituent Assembly and shared power with the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, but amid the civil war suppressed opposition and consolidated power in the renamed Communist Party.” Paragraph 3: (proposed sentence additions) “His health failing by late 1921, Lenin suffered two strokes in 1922, and that year allied with Leon Trotsky against the party's growing bureaucratisation and the influence of Joseph Stalin.” “After a third and incapacitating stroke in early 1923, Lenin died at his Gorki mansion in 1924, with Stalin succeeding him as the leader of the Soviet government after a power struggle.” Paragraph 4: (proposed sentence additions) “A controversial figure with a highly divisive legacy, Lenin is viewed by his supporters as a champion of the working class whose government established soviet democracy, defended socialist ideals and introduced progressive policies which institutionalized universal education, universal healthcare, and equal rights for women.” “Meanwhile, Lenin's critics argue that his regime was totalitarian in nature, violated human rights during the Red Terror and was characterized by mass killings and political repression.” WikiUser4020 (talk) 05:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC) Responses Support. The proposed lead (the linked revision) improves on the current one in several respects. I think it is vital that the first paragraph mention the Bolsheviks, the October Revolution, and the founding of the world's first socialist state, which are all near-synonymous with Lenin and his legacy. As the most influential Marxist theorist after Marx, the lead should also include some detail on his ideas (accomplished via a short list of "party, imperialism, the state and revolution"). Similarly, mentioning his view that WW1 was an "imperialist war" and his April Theses (and its famed slogan) help explain the basis of Bolshevik opposition to the Provisional Government. The paragraph on Lenin's government features numerous improvements: highlighting civil war conditions as one cause of the Soviet state's centralization of power and repression, introducing the topics of war communism and grain requisitioning/conflict with peasants (which is necessary when the NEP is mentioned), providing a more neutral characterization of the wars with pro-independence/nationalist forces, presenting a clear timeline on his strokes and ultimate incapacitation, and illuminating Lenin's concern about the bureaucracy near the end of his life as well as his relations with Trotsky and Stalin, the two other most important figures of this period. I do see some room for possible shortening (Tambov and Kronstadt, ban on party factions, etc. could be trimmed). The last paragraph on legacy again adds crucial detail, though I think there is substantial room for improvement with respect to the points of praise and criticism mentioned. — Goszei (talk) 08:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC) Oppose but it would be far more appropriate if each of these additions/expansions was dealt with one at a time, in separate RfCs, rather than as a single take-it-or-leave-it bunch. It is important to state that the present lead is (more or less) that agreed as a result of the lengthy process to get this article to Featured Article (FA) status back in 2016. There needs to be a really compelling reason to change that status quo, and I don't see a compelling reason being presented here. There are multiple issues with the proposed additions. First, they collectively make the lead far too long. At present, the lead length matches that of other major FA-rated political biographies like Nelson Mandela and does a good job of summarising the most important points about Lenin's life and influence. Lengthening the lead will put off readers and unnecessarily lengthen an article that is already (in its FA-rated state) in excess of Wikipedia's recommendations on Wikipedia:Article size. Second, several of the proposed additions, especially in the opening paragraph, result in repetition. There is really no need to add mention of the Russian Civil War and the Bolsheviks to that first paragraph (as the proposed expansion would do), given that we go on to introduce these topics in the second and third paragraphs. Namechecking them in the opening paragraph, before we actually explain what they were, is just confusing for the reader. Third, some of the proposed additions are simply unnecessary padding. The opening paragraph currently says, clearly and cleanly, "Ideologically a Marxist, his developments to the ideology are called Leninism." Expanding that into "Ideologically a Marxist, his developments of the ideology, particularly its theories of party, imperialism, the state, and revolution, are known as Leninism" is fairly pointless and does not give the reader crucial, core information about Lenin. Similarly, the proposed additions would twice mention that Lenin suffered from strokes at the end of his life, which again is not vital information necessary for the lead. The reader can learn more about this sort of detail if they choose to read the whole article. Fourth, there may be slight political bias in some of the proposed changes. Changing the lead to state that Lenin only "suppressed opposition[...] amid the civil war" implies that these suppressions were solely a result of external circumstances, rather than arising from authoritarianism inherent in Lenin's ideology. Similarly, adding the claim that Lenin "allied with Leon Trotsky against the party's growing bureaucratisation and the influence of Joseph Stalin" is putting far too much stress on a point that is strongly promoted by Trotskyists but is more debatable and complicated in reality. All things considered, I don't think the changes benefit the article. However, as I said, it would be better to deal with the suggested changes/expansions one by one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC) (Summoned by bot) Oppose (mostly): I was going to say that changes such as the ones proposed should be decided one-by-one, but after reading through the proposal (diff, by the way) I've decided that I disagree with the proposed changes entirely enough to outright oppose (except a few substitutions of "Lenin" for "him" and another minor change or two that I've forgotten). Overall, the older version is more precise where it counts, concise, and utilizes better word choice. In specifics, Midnightblueowl has a good handle on the lede. I agree that the lede should be concise due to its large size already (regardless of the length of the existing article, which is quite quite long). Some of the changes to the opening paragraph don't need to be there since they aren't crucial and are included later. One specific addition that I disagree with is the mention of Stalin's power struggle after Lenin's death since Lenin had nothing to do with the power struggle after he died because... he died. I don't think that belongs in the lede that should be concise. Some details aren't necessary, such as the Tambov and Kromstadt rebellions and the April theses. Although those events could be important, the lede really shouldn't be expanded without good reason, and I don't think those details are quality enough. Lastly for my examples, the stroke timeline does not need to be included. It's a detail that is not necessary to understand the outline of Lenin's life. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 05:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

RfC on lead picture

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

* Concluding statement: The majority have voted to replace the existing lead picture with the proposed alternative. The lead picture will now be changed. However, taking into account the lively discussion above and the sizable minority that still favoured the preexisting photo. I will move the previous photo to a more appropriate sub-section in the article rather than outright remove it from the article.WikiUser4020 (talk) 04:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Should the current lead picture be replaced with the proposed, alternative image of Lenin (see below) ?

Issues raised in the talk discussion with the current lead picture related to the emotive imagery, the level of brightness, and acutance (sharpness) of the image.

This proposed image to present a more formal, neutral tone. The talk discussion above further specifies these areas of concern.WikiUser4020 (talk) 04:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

• 
  Current image
• 
  Proposed image

• Support The current image is not particularly suited for the purpose. Half of the face is in the shadow, parts of the image (including the face) are blurry. The proposed image is properly lit and sharp. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support The improved lighting in the second picture provides a clearer view of Lenin's facial features, making him easier to recognize. Ghosts of Europa (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: The alternative is noticeably grainier and provides a more detailed view regarding Lenin's facial features.Emiya1980 (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding concerns about Lenin's face in shadow, I have retouched the current image so that his face is more visible.Emiya1980 (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@Emiya1980 I have moved your retouched version into the comparison box. WikiUser4020 (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The current image is fine. I find the argument that it is menacing and non-neutral ludicrous; it is simply a sharp image of the subject's face. Curbon7 (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support.(Summoned by bot) The proposed replacement image is of substantially higher quality, with the lack of focus and resulting blurriness of the current image being quite pronounced--and not just with regard to the torso, but in fact with all but the front-most and most central portions of the face as well: the lens is clearly hyper-focused on the man's nose. The lighting also leaves quite a bit to be desired. The photo is in fact quite amateurish in these respects, to the point that I find it almost curious that it was preserved. I also agree that the slouching position is a little atypical for formal portraiture photography.
  Mind you, none of these nitpicks would be sufficient to disqualify the photo as fitting for the lead image if we had no better images, but since we in fact do have at least one better framed, better-focused, better-lit and all-around higher quality image, I don't see the argument for not going with that one. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, I do agree there is a certain aesthetic value to the current image. Far from finding the composition to be 'menacing', I think it's fairly dignified: Lenin appears focused and intent. I also think the angle, focal length, and lighting are more favourable to his bone structure, accenting the contours of his face with a more angular dynamic. If we were picking Vladimir Lenin's headshot, this would maybe be the way to go. But for the lead image of an encyclopedic biography, I have to go with the photo that is more technically competent, and thus slightly more revealing. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose As noted, the current image both suits the article topic and complies with our image guidelines. SN54129 12:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The status quo is a high quality image and the alternative isn't an improvement. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support. The alternative is more conventional in composition, and more evenly lit and focused. — Goszei (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose – the current image is clearly high quality and I don't find the argument of its lack of neutrality at all convincing. Besides the clearly subjective nature of that observation, if neutrality was ever a prominent factor for lead images, then we wouldn't have every US president ever with an official white house portrait (a clearly non-independent source). – Aza24 (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I believe WikiUser4020 is referring to Lenin's more "neutral" expression and the less dramatic pose/lighting, rather than the independence of the image's source. — Goszei (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@GoszeiExactly right! WikiUser4020 (talk) 04:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not talking about an independent source for Lenin. I'm saying that "neutrality" in general has never been a factor for lead images, as far as I'm aware, illustrated by the US presidents example. Aza24 (talk) 07:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I would like to add that all photographs are inherently non-neutral because the photographer as an artist intends to capture some sort of message; this is especially the case in portrait photographs, where everything is carefully manufactured. This portrait of Lincoln, for example, is clearly trying to expressing that he is stoic despite the adversity. Curbon7 (talk) 07:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, not necessarily. There are actually schools of thought on this among portraiture photographers: many actually align with the notion of 'naturalistic' photography, who feel the goal (or at least their own goal as artists) is to capture the subject as faithfully as possible as the photographer finds them, and that the photographer should do as little as possible to contrive a particular look or image, thereby stamping a false reality over top of the subject.This was actually the dominant outlook in the era in which any of the images discussed here thus far were taken, though of course there were photographers who adopted a more active role in attempting to curate a particular quality or message from pretty much the beginning of photography as an art form.

But it is worth noting that, with the exception of wildlife photography, formal portaiture, especially of state figures, has historically probably seen more concerted loyalty to the naturalistic school than any other genre of photograph. It's entirely possible--likely even--that the photographer in question for your Lincoln photo would tell you that the man appears stoic because he was stoic and because he (the photographer) did his job correctly.

Anyway, that little art history lesson aside, I do think we can say that it would be hard to find many photos of this sort (formal portaits of state leaders) where everyone agreed as to what the mood or implications of the photograph's composition and the subject's perspective, which is close enough to your original point to make effectively the same editorial argument you were leaning into (about wringing our hands over "neutrality" too much). However, I do think that this is a point that has it's limits. If we had an image of Lenin's face contorted in rage, or with him sticking his tongue out, obviously that would not be the ideal image for a lead photograph on an encyclopedia article--and while those are extreme examples, there is certainly a range in between them and the present images where editors may have very realistic concerns about the kind of tonal "neutrality" you are talking about.

That said, it's just not the case here: compositionally, either of these images is fine without unduly influencing the reader--and neither of these images is anywhere near the line of being problematic in that respect, imo. Really the only good reason to oppose the current image is that it has some (to my eye) quite glaring technically flaws which (I agree with others above) are a little distracting to the reader in their own right. But clearly a slight majority here disagrees with that assessment so far (or at least feels those elements are minimally intrusive), so...meh? I'm not going to lose any sleep over either image going into the infobox: they both get the job done, ultimately. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, current image is fine and is of better quality. Artem.G (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
• (summoned by the bot) Support as the unusual angle and lighting of the current image are distracting and give the reader a less clear idea of the subject's appearance. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, the current image follows the criteria of portraits while the proposed image has a lower quality. GodzillamanRor (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support - The proposed image is more of a portrait, appears more natural, and seems to have less artistic license with the subject than the current image. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support The alternative appears more documentary. It may be grainier, but the current image is itself blurry in many areas. The loss of focus in the current photo gives it a more artistic and less formal quality. Senorangel (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support – The current photo focuses on Lenin's face, but the shadow on half of it is enough to convince me to vote the other way. Yue🌙 01:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support, I prefer the current image as a work of art and think it should stay somewhere in the article, but the new one is clearer and follows portrait conventions better.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
• Comment – I can't come to a preference, but I would like to add that the current photo could be interpreted less as conveying a "menacing" feeling, and more of a certain "seriousness" which Lenin was known to have as a personal trait. Granted, the fact it feels somewhat emotive in any direction could be taken as a neutrality issue. But given the relative sharpness of the face, I'm hesitant to weigh one advantage over the other. Anyway, I also want to say that there are third options on the Wikimedia Commons that could potentially be used. VintageVernacular (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support – much like SnowRise I feel the composition leaves something to be desired. If you passed him on the street you'd see a man who looked like the second image, not the first, and the photo should reflect what he actually looked like, not how he could look with a close up narrow focus shot. ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 20:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Support The proposed image has a more consistent angle on the subject without zooming out on different parts Leevine65 (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support The proposed image is a better image. The current image has a lot of shadowing. TarnishedPath^talk 11:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support. The above comments reflect my opinion that the proposed image is a lot more formal. The older one looks a bit more "demonizing", almost comparable to Trump's mugshot, and could at a stretched interpretation, violate NPOV. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

  How in the world is it demonizing? Curbon7 (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support The current image is slightly threatening and a large part of his face is in shadow. PatGallacher (talk) 23:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support. The proposed alternative has much better lighting, and it is easier to make out Lenin's facial features. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment – Thanks all for the constructive points and inputs in the RfC discussions which have been ongoing for nearly a month. I'm planning on ending the discussions on Monday (2nd October) per WP:RFCEND with a closing discussion. Hence, any editors, who as of yet, have not been involved in the discussions should make any final comments or votes before that date.WikiUser4020 (talk) 09:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support: Proposed image makes Lenin much more recognizable considering the current image has half of his face in the shadow. ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 12:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

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