Talk:Vladimir Lenin/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

RfC on Lead section (sentence on Lenin's legacy)

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.

There is no consensus to effect change such as those the RfC suggests. There is general opposition to such changes being effected. Serial 10:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Should this sentence in the lead section be amended or remain in its current form ? WikiUser4020 (talk) 05:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Current sentence

• "A controversial and highly divisive historical figure, Lenin is viewed by his supporters as a champion of socialism and the working class. Meanwhile, Lenin's critics accuse him of establishing a totalitarian dictatorship which oversaw mass killings and political repression."

Proposed sentence

• Option A- “A controversial figure with a highly divisive legacy, Lenin is viewed by his supporters as a champion of the working class and anti-colonial activism 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.”

• Option B - “A controversial figure with a highly divisive legacy, Lenin is viewed by his supporters as a champion of the working class and anti-colonial activism whose government established soviet democracy, 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.”

• Option C - “A controversial figure with a highly divisive legacy, Lenin is viewed by his supporters as a champion of the working class and anti-colonial activism whose government established soviet democracy, and introduced a set of progressive policies. 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.”

Context

• This RfC seeks consensus to change the sentence above in the current lead paragraph to this proposed version [1] written by @Goszei and myself.
• Originally, the RfC was opened to feature several amendments but I have decided to focus on each sentence one by one in light of feedback from other users. This RfC builds upon the previous discussion raised by @Goszei in the sub-section "Lenin's legacy in the lead" above and will be the first of hopefully four RfCs.
• The current sentence could be interpreted as politically biased rather than providing a full and neutral characterisation of his legacy. I believe the current sentence gives a vague description of his support for socialism. It does not specify his contributions in this sense and arguably places more detail/specificity on criticisms of his leadership.
• Also, the current sentence does not recognize the variation in the criticism of his leadership as some historians regarded his government as authoritarian with inter-party democracy during wartime conditions rather than totalitarian in the Stalinist sense with a one-man dictatorship.
• @Midnightblueowl and @Goszei, please provide your votes and thoughts on this new RfC discussion which has a sole focus on Lenin's legacy. WikiUser4020 (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Responses

• All other users should, as per the case with RfC discussions, state whether they support, oppose or are simply commenting on the proposal. WikiUser4020 (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
• Those who support the proposal, please indicate whether you favor options A,B or C in terms of wording and formatting.WikiUser4020 (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

This part "Meanwhile, Lenin's critics accuse him of establishing a totalitarian dictatorship which oversaw mass killings and political repression" shouldn't be worded like an opinion, so it should be more like: "Establishing a totalitarian dictatorship which oversaw mass killings and political repression for Lenin's critics vastly overshadows his achievements on other fields". Marcelus (talk) 07:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus Can you state whether you support, oppose or just providing a comment on the RfC proposal? WikiUser4020 (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support The sentence as proposed by WikiUser4020. The proposed text is useful because it helps explain why Lenin continues to have a favorable following in many places in the world. The text maintains a description of why Lenin is also criticized. One crucial piece missing from the proposed text is Lenin's place in anti-colonial struggles. I'd propose this amendment but if other's don't favor it, I still support WikiUser4020's proposal:

A controversial figure with a divisive legacy, Lenin is viewed by his supporters as a champion of the working class and anti-colonial activism whose government established soviet democracy, defended socialist ideals, and introduced progressive policies including 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.

-Darouet (talk) 14:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I see no sources to support the notion that “Lenin continues to have a favorable following in many places in the world”. I mean, Im sure he has supporters out there but that is true of any historical figure. Volunteer Marek 05:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment @Darouet I think you raised a key and overlooked aspect of his legacy. Ill amended the proposed sentence above.WikiUser4020 (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
• I think the proposal goes too far in the other direction. I think the examples after "...introduced progressive policies" should be cut. Not only are they links to very generic pages (so not particularly helpful to readers), their neutrality is suspect given that we don't give examples of (e.g.) the human rights violations in the criticism sentence in a way nearly as clear or prominent. I think the move towards more context is useful in general though since his legacy is an important aspect of the biography. — Wug·a·po·des 18:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Wugapodes Can you explicitly state whether you support, oppose or just providing a comment on the RfC proposal ? WikiUser4020 (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  All three, to varying degrees. If my opinion could be summarized by a single bold-type word, I'd have skipped writing the rest out. — Wug·a·po·des 20:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, per MOS:LEADCLUTTER: "Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject; instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." While I can appreciate the use of the added facts to establish WP:NPOV, cramming it all into the lead sentence does not improve this article and goes against the WP MOS. Pistongrinder (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Pistongrinder The sentences are not the lead sentence, rather the last few. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 03:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Danre98, thanks for that clarification! I still think the sentence is too crammed, but I am less-inclined to oppose the change knowing this information. Pistongrinder (talk) 23:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose (mostly) I do agree that the support sentence should be given more specificity. Thought the critic sentence is little more specific, the mass killings and repression part does a lot of lifting without anything on the support side doing the same. However, there are some things I disagree with. Firstly, I doubt that the anti-colonialism belongs because it is too vague when it stands on its own. The rest of the sentence deals with socialism or socialist policies, and anti-colonialism sticks out. Secondly, the changes to the critic sentence modify and weaken the critical point of view presented. The older version focuses on how some critics see him as the establisher of a soviet dictatorship-government, and those dictators perpetrate mass killings and repression. The newer version limits this criticism to Lenin himself and diverts attention from the regimes that follow his, the regimes formed under the government he established (according to his critics). Thirdly, the proposed wording focuses on the support too much to make it non-neutral, especially if the older critic sentence (which I prefer) is used. Lastly, I prefer the older version's first few words (this is minor and not important).

My preferred solution is to insert the phrase whose government introduced progressive policies after the working class in the original wording. It provides enough specificity so that it isn't as bland as the current wording, and it keeps the lead shorter and more succinct (I did not include the socialist ideals portion like Wugapodes because the original wording already includes that Lenin was a champion of socialism. I left out Soviet democracy to keep it shorter, but perhaps it could be included if another phrase is added to the critic sentence to keep it balanced). —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 04:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Danre98, my sense is that the text explaining support for Lenin is already quite concise, and trying to cut it effectively misrepresents his legacy. While I understand your objection to anti-colonialism as possibly incongruous with other domestic aspects described in the same sentence, I think this is a minor problem that solves a bigger issue: making sure we include a mention of Lenin's biggest (favorable) legacy globally.

So I don't think we should cut those portions.

However, I agree with you that our text fails in one important respect on the "criticism of Lenin" side, if I'm understanding your concern. The text mentions his association with the Red Terror. But you note that the regime that followed Lenin's death - the Stalinist USSR - is attributed by many to Lenin's revolution (to make a long story short) and his actions.

Setting aside your desire to reduce the text describing positive receptions of Lenin, would you consider additional text stating that his critics link him to Stalinism and its crimes? This viewpoint is well sourced in scholarly literature and I think we are justified in raising it. I don't think adding a clause or several words indicating this would make the second sentence too long, and it might address your concerns about balance. WikiUser4020, would you also be open to this?

As a preliminary proposal, I'd suggest the following for the second sentence (added text bolded for reference):

Meanwhile, Lenin's critics argue that his regime was totalitarian in nature, violated human rights during the Red Terror, was characterized by mass killings and political repression, and contributed directly to the crimes of the Stalinist Soviet Union.

Curious for both of your thoughts. -Darouet (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment- @Darouet, I personally agree with the need to highlight specific and constructive areas of Lenin's legacy which are clearly understated in the current lead section (IMO). However, I think your suggestion may violate guidelines on WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:BALANCE. I'll also refrain from delving into the discussions as this is an RfC proposal which is open to voting.

WikiUser4020 (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@Darouet: Based on the article, which the lead is supposed to be based on itself, including that phrase would effectively summarize only one sentence (maybe two) from the article; the word "colonial" only appears once. I doubt that leaving it out is a gross omission, especially considering that it isn't supposed to be a complete description of his legacy to begin with. The second sentence is somewhat of an improvement over the proposals (you do understand part of my concern), but doesn't flow as well as the current sentence. In addition, I prefer the way the current sentence is worded over the addition. (I'd also like to add here that Midnightblueowl has added valid concerns since I last commented here.) —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 04:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose the unnecessary expansion of the lead, which in its current form is succinct and clear. Part of the proposed addition, namely that of the Red Terror, essentially repeats what is already found in the third paragraph of the lead. I also have concerns that some of the proposed additions could mislead readers. The introduction of the term "universal healthcare" suggests that Lenin introduced a more fully-operational national healthcare system than was the case, while "equal rights for women" also could be interpreted as meaning universal suffrage, despite the fact that Lenin's government largely eroded representative democratic structures. I am also unsure if "progressive" is an appropriate word here, given that Lenin's Marxist ideology was distinct from progressivism as an ideology, so that could also confuse things for the reader. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per commenters above. Edward-Woodrow • talk 14:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I.e. support status quo. Also any attempt to list “progressive policies” while pretending that the Red Terror is just an “argument” is inherently POV. Volunteer Marek 05:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Similar argument applies to Lenin’s supposed “anti colonialism” or this contrived euphemism of “Soviet democracy” (how long did rule by Soviets exactly last before the Bolsheviks crushed it? Seriously all the proposals are in violation of policy. Volunteer Marek 05:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

To add - as written all three proposed Options would actually contradict other information presented in the text of lede. And to further make it worse, the lede is summarize the article - there’s nothing in the article about “universal healthcare”. Volunteer Marek 05:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• I would say the current lead appears more balanced than the proposals. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 10:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose to all versions. "a champion of the ... anti-colonial activism"! Are you kidding? He has created the Soviet Empire through enslavement of a number of countries which were later known as the "Soviet republics". He did it by using war (a direct conquest by Red Army) and political repression including genocide of cultural and political elites in these "republics". My very best wishes (talk) 02:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  Comment- The RfC discussions seem to have devolved into an ideological diatribe rather than a constructive discussion on the proposals. @My very best wishes The Soviet Union was neither a formal “empire” nor had an “emperor”. The concept of a “Soviet Empire” derived from conservative, Western historian Richard Pipes. A nuanced and balanced view would recognize that the Soviet Union provided financial and military support for national liberation movements throughout the world including Asia, Africa and Latin America. These regions had been colonized and occupied by universally recognized Western, imperial empires. Also, your characterization of the Russian Civil War as a “conquest” would be disputed by some scholars considering the opposing armies were largely conservative, monarchist, anti-semitic and ultranationalist forces. You have cited no other sources for the other incendiary claims. I’ll try to minimize my responses and steer the focus on the technical suitability of the amendments rather than political views. WikiUser4020 (talk) 04:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

You said: Soviet Union provided financial and military support for national liberation movements throughout the world. Like they did in Afghanistan? Why Pipes? This is Nikolay Berdyaev who said that Third International (created in 1919) is a Russian/Soviet version of Third Rome. And they are still fighting for their "Moscow, third Rome" in Ukraine. As about Russian Civil War, yes, that were nationalist separatist forces in Ukraine, Caucasus and Central Asia who temporary created their own national republics, so that Red Army had to conquer them back. Only Finland and Baltic Republics succeeded during the civil war. My very best wishes (talk) 14:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not a fan of any of the proposed sentences, but I also think that the current version is quite problematic too, and should be used as a basis for improval. I think that relevant part of the current last sentence being replaced with "...his regime was totalitarian in nature, violated human rights during the Red Terror and was characterized by mass killings and political repression" from Option C is an improvement, but I think that the common criticism of Lenin as being anti-socialism (once in power) through things such as dissolving the worker councils (thereby transferring the control of the means of production to the state, instead of the workers — the very definition of socialism) ought to be mentioned as well. I'm also not a fan of how it portrays both sides as being monoliths; there are different criticisms made of Lenin depending on the ideology doing the criticism, for example, Nazis would view his regime being totalitarian in nature as a positive. I think we should phrase it as "Critics often criticize Lenin for..." and "Supporters often argue that...". I think that's a far better phrasing and better reflects the reality of the diversity of opinion while not giving UNDUE weight to UNDUE criticism. A Socialist Trans Girl 12:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I also think the current lead is more balanced than all proposals. And agree with arguments made by Volunteer Marek above. W9793

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.

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2024

PlasmaGunner134 (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Vladimir Lenin was from Chuvash descent it is not mentioned in this article

 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. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2024

Please add the following, as the penultimate sentence in the sub-section entitled "Death and funeral: 1923–1924".

In November 2018, Sergey Malinkovich, the central committee secretary of the Communists of Russia political party, called for the criminal prosecution of Vladimir Petrov, a lawmaker in the Leningrad region, for insulting religious believers by calling for Lenin’s preserved body to be buried. He said Petrov's proposal had violated the Criminal Code of Russia by insulting religious feelings and inciting hatred, and that he planned to "keep hounding" Petrov for his remarks. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:90C5:84C7:E1DA:1A9 (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: This information would be out of scope on this article. I would put it on Lenin's Mausoleum#Contemporary instead (not semi-protected). — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 02:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Syphilis

why is not mentioned here, that he probably got infected with Syphilis? At younger age during his european stays? See Valerij Novoselovs documentary. Russia refused to disclose official medical records about Lenin till 2024, but all ancillary evidence points to this diagnose. In other languages Wiki it is mentioned. 213.81.198.147 (talk) 12:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2024

Replace {{family name hatnote}}, and place {{family name footnote}} in the lead sentence. 103.119.55.216 (talk) 12:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. I think it is better to have the visibility at the top of the article. RudolfRed (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The number of delegates at the First Congress of the Comintern

The current version of this article states that there were 34 delegates at the First Congress of the Comintern. However, having looked through different sources, i found that there are discrepancies regarding the number of people attended the meeting. For example:

• Shub (1966, p.390) states that there were "thirty-five delegates and fifteen guests."
• Service (2000, p.386) states that there were "thirty-four delegates."
• Furthermore, The Comintern by McDermott & Agnew (1996, p.12), not cited in this article, states that "Only nine of the fifty-one cold guests arrived from abroad [to attend the meeting]."

That being said, could someone here ascertain the exact number and correct the statement accordingly? - Billcipher123 (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

An easy solution would be for the article to omit mentioning an exact number of delegates, since it isn't really required. That being said, one book specifically about the First Congress gives 34 delegates with a "decisive vote" and 18 with a "consultative vote," making for 52 in total (Riddell, Founding of the Communist International: Proceedings and Documents of the First Congress, p. 67.) Another book dealing specifically about the first and second congresses likewise states that 52 individuals "participated" in the first (Hulse, The Forming of the Communist International, p. 17.) --Ismail (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, as you said, i think omitting this bit of info makes the most sense since this articles doesn't have to go into that level of detail anyway. Billcipher123 (talk) 12:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)