Talk:Vladimir Lenin/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 13

"Religion = None" vs. "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (atheist)" in infoboxes.

Per WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT, This comment concerns [1] and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vladimir_Lenin&diff=636966227&oldid=636583693 this revert].

(Please note that nobody has a problem with the use of "Atheist" in the article text. This only concerns infoboxes.)

"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." --Penn Jillette

"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position." --Bill Maher

There are many reasons for not saying "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (atheist)" in Wikipedia infoboxes. They include:

It implies something that is not true

Saying "Religion = Atheist" in Wikipedia infoboxes implies that atheism is a religion. It is like saying "Hair color = Bald", "TV Channel = Off" or "Type of shoe = Barefoot". "Religion = None (atheist)" is better -- it can be read two different ways, only one of which implies that atheism is a religion -- but "Religion = None" is unambiguous.

It is highly objectionable to many atheists.

Many atheists strongly object to calling atheism a religion,[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] and arguments such as "atheism is just another religion: it takes faith to not believe in God" are a standard argument used by religious apologists.[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]

It goes against consensus

This was discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 142#Changing "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" on BLP infoboxes. Opinions were mixed, but the two positions with the most support were "Religion = None" or removing the Religion entry entirely.

More recently, it was discussed at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?, and again the consensus was for "Religion = None".

On article talk pages and counting the multiple "thank you" notifications I have recieved, there are roughly ten editors favoring "Religion = None" for every editor who opposes it. Of course anyone is free to post an WP:RFC on the subject (I suggest posting it at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion) to get an official count.

It is unsourced

If anyone insists on keeping "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (Atheist)" in any Wikipedia infobox, they must first provide a citation to a reliable source that established that the individual is [A] An atheist, and [B] considers atheism to be a religion.

It attempts to shoehorn too much information into a one-word infobox entry

In the article, there is room for nuance and explanation, but in the infobox, we are limited to concise summaries of non-disputed material. Terms such as "atheist", "agnostic", "humanist", "areligious", and "anti-religion" mean different things to different people, but "Religion = None" is perfectly clear to all readers, and they can and should go to the article text to find out which of the subtly different variations of not belonging to a religion applies.

It violates the principle of least astonishment.

Consider what would happen if Lady Gaga decided to list "Banana" as her birth date. We would document that fact in the main article with a citation to a reliable source (along with other sources that disagree and say she was born on March 28, 1986). We would not put "Birth date = Banana" in the infobox, because that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Banana is not a birth date...". Likewise we should not put anything in an infobox that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Atheism is not a religion..."

In many cases, it technically correct, but incomplete to the point of being misleading.

When this came up on Teller (magician), who strongly self-identifies as an atheist, nobody had the slightest problem with saying that Teller is an atheist. It was the claim that atheism is a religion that multiple editors objected to. Penn Jillette wrote "Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby", so we know that Penn objects to having atheism identified as a religion.

In the case of Penn, Teller and many others, they are atheists who reject all theistic religions, but they also reject all non-theistic religions, and a large number of non-religious beliefs. See List of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episodes for an incomplete list. Atheism just skims the surface of Penn & Teller's unbelief.

In my opinion, "Religion = None" is the best choice for representing the data accurately and without bias. I also have no objection to removing the religion entry entirely. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

You are clearly wrong in my opinion, and on many of the articles you make this identical change to. If an individual has said "I am an atheist" or "I am agnostic" this is clearly different to an individual stating "I am not religious" or "I have no religion". Including "None (Atheist)" or "None (agnostic)" gives more information than simply "None". This does not mean that Atheism or Agnosticism is a religion, but is clearly important if we want to include information on the religious point of view of a person. Atshal (talk) 10:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Atshi is quite right, Lenin was deeply involved in religion -- but he did not think a belief in god was good for people. Rjensen (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Atshal and Rjensen are incorrect. Atshal says adding "None (Atheist)" gives more information than "None". Not really; it conveys only a little more information (that the subject can be identified with one of the many competing definitions of atheism), but also disinformation. It perpetuates the misinformation that "atheism" is a category of religion (yes, that's a "thing" these days -- some actually try to describe it as just another religion). Adding "atheism" to the inappropriate |Religion= field adds more confusion than information, and is a net loss for the reader. As for Rjensen's faulty assertions; Lenin certainly was not "deeply involved in religion" (he actually had zero religious involvement and considered religion to be a tool used to oppress) and this article does not convey that Lenin "did not think a belief in god was good for people" -- only that religion was bad. Maybe we should try to insert those personal opinions into this article and see how they fly? Atheism is mentioned in just a single sentence in this whole article. I do, however, see that there is a "See also" link to an article on Marxist–Leninist atheism, and I further see that the lead paragraph on Lenin in that article describes his position as "Antireligion", so I'll correct the infobox accordingly. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Lenin was demonstrably an Atheist e.g. "Atheism is a material and inseparable part of Marxism" is a direct quote from Lenin. Riensen is also correct that Lenin was deeply involved in discussion on religion - he spoke and wrote many times about his atheism and the harm he believed religion caused. I am going to revert the change you made until the discussion on this matter is resolved at the template page. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_person#Religion_means_what.3F ) I would suggest you participate in this discussion and see the outcome before making changes to the Religion field at the moment. Atshal (talk) 10:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood me. Of course Lenin was an atheist; I didn't say otherwise. He was also a communist. He was also a somnambulist. But I didn't comment on any of that, just his stance on religion, or more specifically the "Religion:" infobox field here, so let's get back to that. His stance on religion, according to reliable sources, is that he is opposed to it. As you noted, he believed religion was harmful. He was anti-religion. So I noted that in the field for "Religion:". Now if you would like to open a discussion about his belief in gods (or lack thereof - his atheism), we can certainly do that too, and we can even propose that an infobox field be created for such information, if you'd like.

Regarding reverting to a preferred version while the latest discussion (one of many identical discussions, actually) continues: I'm sure that wasn't your intent. If your intent was as your edit summary states, "(Undoing this change back to its original state until template talk on this field is resolved)", then please allow me to assist. The "original state" before this dispute over the "Religion:" field began was to not use the field, as displayed in this June 2008 version. Leaving that field unused was the stable original state for many years. The dispute over that field (in this article, at least) began with this insertion of "Atheist" into an inappropriate field. That edit was reverted here, and to help prevent future confusion, that editor inserted a comment in that infobox field here, noting that "atheism is not a religion". Yet subsequent edits ignored that fact, and the war was on. The discussion you linked (and I've already commented there, BTW) is just one part of one recent battle in that ongoing war. In agreement with your edit summary, I've returned this article to its "original state" before this edit warring began, pending a resolution. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Support Xenophrenic's decision. Even though it isn't my preferred version, going back to a version that was stable for years is the right thing to do when there is an edit war. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The religion field has stably been None (Atheist) for the last couple of years, until Guy Macon recently made mass edits to a large numbers of pages deleting the "atheist" part of the field on multiple pages. This action that has not so far been supported by the discussion on the Template page. Please discontinue from trying to delete the Atheist part of this field until the discussion is complete. Atshal (talk) 10:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

[EC] You have been reverted by three editors[21][22][23][24] and are edit warring.[25][26][27][28]. Local consensus overrides discussion on template talk. I have placed a warning on your talk page[29] and will open a case at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring if you continue edit warring. -Guy Macon (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Three of your statements are incorrect. 1) That field has been unstable for years, at least since 2008. Just six months ago there were several changes and reverts to it. There have also been discussions on that field in 2013 and 2012 (and probably more - I just did a cursory review). 2) Removal of "atheist" from that field has received more support (and backed by stronger reasoning) than all of the "sneak atheist into the field" options combined. 3) "the Atheist part of the field" is a nonsensical statement; there is no Atheist part of the |Religion: field. The field is for the person's religion. Why can't we spend this energy on developing a solution, instead of edit warring? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment. I'm not really that interested in defining "atheism" as a belief or not, but it is clear that as the term has stayed unopposed in the article for nearly three years - November 2011-December 2104 - then it is this version that should be considered the "original" before the debate started, not a previous one. While you make valid points about the term being removed back in 2008, the other side of the coin - that it was reinserted and stayed for 3 years is also indicative of stability. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Good point. I have no problem with your revert,[30] after reading your reasoning. Good use of WP:BRD, in my opinion.--Guy Macon (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

...assuming, of course, that the 3 years of stability is real (see below). Anyone up to making a timeline? If not, I will make one up tonight or tomorrow -- i am a bit swamped with work right now. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens, I'm not seeing the "unopposed in the article for nearly three years - November 2011-December 2104". I only had to go back 6 months (June) to see yet another revert war over that field. And more tweaking and reverting in Nov 2012. This June 2009 episode also spawned another Talk page discussion. Am I misunderstanding you? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that the |Religion= field in the infobox has been a persistent source of concern. This article is just one symptomatic example. It is a waste of energy arguing over which method of using the field has enjoyed the most uptime in this specific article; it isn't an article-specific issue. Revert-warring over the present state of this article while the matter is being discussed is not productive, and serves no purpose - unless editors are entertaining the hope that discussions will stall without resolution, thereby leaving the fate of the article in the hands of persistent edit warriors. I'm not going to touch the article anymore while the discussion is still active; you guys should do the same. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It is just a bit sad that this page was linked to from the ongoing discussion as an example, and then a number of editors descend from the Template Talk discussion before it is complete, to disruptively edit the page. Very clearly WP:point and completely inappropriate. In my opinion you should self-revert and wait until the discussion has finished - the majority opinion is currently in favour of keeping the religion field. Atshal (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect again. I'm not sure which editors you are accusing of descending here to disruptively edit, nor do I need to know - your unfounded accusations are in violation of policy, so please refrain. Macon and RolandR's edits in this matter predate the very first mention of Lenin at the Template discussion; and the edits by Rjensen, Lewis and Riens appear to be good faith attempts at improvement just as much as your edits and mine, and I see no evidence of intent to disrupt or make a "point". As for your assertion, "the majority opinion is currently in favour of keeping the religion field" - everyone on this page already agrees with that, and that isn't the major disagreement in the discussion. The disagreement is over what additional stuff (if any) we should allow in the Religion field beside the subject's Religion. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Please stop removing the sourced Religion field in the info box. There is an ongoing debate on this issue at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_person . The current majority opinion is that the Religion field should be included for non religious people, that "atheist" is perfectly acceptable to include in this field in the format "Religion: None (atheist)", especially if there has been significant attention on this issue, that there clearly is with Lenin. If you feel that the Religion field should be removed entirely, you need to fully justify this in talk, and get the agreement of editors on this page. Anything else is, in my opinion, very close to vandalism - hence my repeated reverts. Atshal (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect. The current majority opinion is that Atheist/Atheism not appear in the field designated for a subject's Religion. (Oh, did you mean the Straw Poll tally? Still incorrect; the preferred methods of "blank" and "none" outnumber all 4 of the suggested methods to insert atheist into the field meant for Religions - combined. Oh, and BTW, I think you'll find this very informative: WP:NOT VANDALISM. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I have been reverted again. I will not reinstate the material again, to avoid continued edit warring, but the unwarranted deletion of sourced content, against consensus, is not justified. It very much suggests WP:point given that the two original changers of this content are involved in an incomplete discussion on this very issue at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_person . Atshal (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect yet again. (I really should create a template for that.) You were not reverted again. Your preferred version still exists in the article. Sourced content was not deleted from the article. "against consensus"? Please provide a link to where that consensus was developed, as I'd like to review the thoughtful discussions that resulted in reaching that consensus. As for your misinterpretation of WP:POINT, I can only suggest that you re-read that page with a little more care, with particular attention to the last sentence. I do not see a single example of an editor making an edit with which they do not agree. Lots of Wiki-editors misunderstand that guideline, you aren't the first. Idea: how about we get back to trying to find a solution to the |Religion: field issue? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Husband of Krupskaya

In the article about Nadezhda Krupskaya, it states that she was "the wife of Vladimir Lenin from 1898 until his death in 1924." in the first paragraph. Conversely, this should be stated in the same manner in the first paragraph about Lenin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CenoRIX (talk • contribs) 13:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't, for the same reason that the article Chelsea Clinton begins "Chelsea Victoria Clinton ... is the only child of former U.S. President Bill Clinton and former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton" but the article for Hillary Rodham Clinton does not mention Chelsea anywhere in the lead. --JBL (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Krupskaya's claim to fame arises in large part because she was the wife of Lenin. Conversely, Lenin was famous and historically notable in his own right for his own achievements. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

You Can't See the Forest for the Trees

This article appears to lack Gestalt; I can't see the forest for the trees. The major movements/events in Lenin's life need summarizing in the introduction.

There is a paragraph which is out of order, which needs moving:

"Lenin declared in 1920 that "Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the entire country" in modernising Russia into a 20th-century country:[167]

We must show the peasants that the organisation of industry on the basis of modern, advanced technology, on electrification, which will provide a link between town and country, will put an end to the division between town and country, will make it possible to raise the level of culture in the countryside and to overcome, even in the most remote corners of land, backwardness, ignorance, poverty, disease, and barbarism.[168]" (EnochBethany (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC))

Advising against GAN at present

Having noticed that this article has recently been nominated for GAN, I would like to offer my opinion that it is simply not ready for that at this stage, as it is currently experiencing a multitude of proeblems. I am the editor responsible for bringing Early revolutionary activity of Vladimir Lenin up to GA status, and have also brought other biographical articles devoted to left-wing political figures (such as Fidel Castro, Nelson Mandela, Muammar Gaddafi, and Ken Livingstone) up to GA: I think it fair to say that I am thus fairly experienced in this area! I am more than happy to help out here and ensure that it is pulled up to GA quality over the coming year or so but I would stress at at this stage we must not be hasty in trying to get the article an award that it does not yet merit. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Rural climbing?

Is it my lack of proficiency in English or the sentence "The stress made Lenin ill,[72] and HE ESCAPED ON A RURAL CLIMBING HOLYDAY[73]" makes no sense at all? I would edit it, but 1) I don't know how to edit it; 2) I can't even imagine what the author of that phrase wanted to say.

I think that the confusion arises because of a particular English idiom. In British English at least, it is often said that one "escapes" on holiday, a reference to the idea that one is 'escaping' from the stresses and strains of everyday working life. However, I can certainly appreciate that this is not going to be clear to a great many readers, so shall endeavour to rectify this piece of prose within the article. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Why not just answer his question? The answer is "Yes, it is your lack of proficiency in English". Frankly the idiom is not all that exotic, and there is a limit to how far we should or can simplify our language to suit non-native speakers - doing this properly is actually a very complicated business, requiring training that hardly any of our editors have. I'd imagine most decent dictionaries would provide a sense for "escape" that covers this. Johnbod (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for enlightning me on that matter, Midnightblueowl. If you guys think this form is enough for most English native speakers to understand so I'm sure it is. So let it be as it is now if that's what you think. I, for one, am still trying to imagine how is that a holyday climbs something, rural or otherwise... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.75.66.74 (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

A "rural climbing holiday" refers to a holiday in which one goes climbing or hiking in a rural area (for it is typically difficult to do so in an urban setting). Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

We didn't realize that was a difficulty. A link in the text would have helped, and a dictionary certainly would have done. Johnbod (talk) 03:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Naming of Lenin in Wikipedia

In virtually no source, especially Russian sources, is Lenin termed 'Vladimir Lenin'. The conventional naming of Lenin is either simply 'Lenin' or 'V I Lenin' or, in full, 'Vladimir Ilych Lenin'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.212.245 (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the article would be more appropriately titled simply as "Lenin" considering that Ulyanov's alias of Lenin was originally Nikolai Lenin and "N. Lenin" is how his name is signed on many of his works. Vladimir Lenin may be how he's commonly referred to in modern English speaking culture, but if historical accuracy is to be prioritized above the current convention, the title should be changed. --Mundopopular (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree: a plain "Lenin" is perfectly clear to everybody. Rjensen (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Lenin is best, it is clear. Spumuq (talq) 10:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Historians evaluate Lenin

The section seems to arbitrarily take quotes from three historians. It seems to give undue weight to the opinions of these writers. Is such a section necessary for a political and historical figure like Lenin? The literature dedicated to the topic is vast and from many perspectives. I don't see how arbitrarily taking some quotes from a couple historians useful for this article. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 07:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The quotes presents opinions from three different angles. I think we better add more evaluation (if needed) rather than blanking the existing ones Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

How well-respected historians who have devoted years to the issue evaluate Lenin is a major theme and a major reason users come to this article. The quotes are NOT "arbitrary" --they represent a full range of evaluations (not "opinions"), favorable & unfavorable, by leading scholars. Rjensen (talk) 08:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

They are cherry picked quotes, how exactly do they represent a "Full range" of evaluations. Leading scholars? Many many "leading scholars" wrote about Lenin, how were these selected without giving them undue weight? Arbitrarily picking a favorable and unfavorable opinion is NOT encyclopedic. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Xcuref1endx is invited to provide some non-cherry-picked quotes about Lenin's importance. The Wikipedia definition is: Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. what Xcuref1endx needs to do is find significant RS quotes that contradict all the positions in the quotes used here. Let's see if you can do it-- I doubt it very much. Rjensen (talk) 06:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess this is the section Vladimir Lenin#Legacy. Doesn't seem to be that good a selection. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems an odd selection of quotes to describe Lenin's legacy. Robert Service in particular is known to be partisan but not particularly accurate.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Lenin did not "personally sign the decree legalizing homosexuality"

This part of the article is intellectually dishonest. because lenin did not sign a document explicitly legalizing homosexuality, but implicitly. He signened a document which nullified the old penal laws of czarist Russia, which included penalization for adultery and homosexuality. The article states that he actually wrote a decree specific to homosexuality, which he did not. He signed the nullification of all czarist sexual penal laws, homosexuality included. Russia was not the first nation to legalize homosexuality. it was already legal many decades before in many others countries such as france, Denmark and even turkey. Also, Lenin was socially conservative regarding sex and marriage. the Soviet Union released this new legal code which, differently from the codes from the tsarist era, the penal codes did not mention any legal punishments on matters such as homosexuality and the subject was legally absent. However other states in the USSR continued to legally ascribe punishments on sodomy. more correct for the article would be to state that lenin nullified the czarist penal codes, thereby making adultery and homosexuality legal. what the article state is that he created laws specific to these subjects, which he didn't.

Generally, that's what legalisation means.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

but that's not what the article claims. it claims he created a specific law. thats intellectual dishonesty.and as I said earlier, Russia was not the first country to legaliise homosexuality. and male homosexuality was not made legal in all of the ussr.

I have removed that sentence. I think the statement about the decree was correct, but it was misleading. The statement about the Soviet Union being the first nation to do so is wrong, as you say. The statement about gay Soviet leaders also seems questionable. Who were they? Let's just say homosexuality was legalised.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

well, that was not the only thing he did. he elaborated a whole new penal code which did not contain penalizations for abortion, sodomy or divorce. but that was only in Russia. in socialist Kazakhstan it kept being illegal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.9.51.69 (talk) 08:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Lenin was Jewish (source, Lenin's Sister), and Stalin tried to cover it up

Lenin had Jewish roots. Especially interesting is that Stalin tried to keep this a secret.

Please add to the page.

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2077413,00.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.51.5 (talk) 06:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

It already says in the article that his mother's mother was Jewish. Therefore, Lenin was only a quarter Jewish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.207.231.158 (talk) 23:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Being a quarter Jewish still makes him Jewish and it should say that in the start of the article. Trotsky was too just for the record. This is not insignificant in understanding the October Revolution. Most of the Bolshevik leadership were Jewish but this is often ignored in wiki articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.62.214.233 (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Total horsecrap. Lenin's maternal grandfather (not grandmother) was a physician born Jewish but converted to Christianity as a young man, long before Lenin was born. Lenin's mother was not raised Jewish. Though 25% Jewish by ancestry, Lenin was not a Jew in any way, shape or form. He was not Jewish as defined by the Russian empire, and he was not Jewish as defined by Jewish law. He didn't speak Yiddish or Hebrew, he didn't study Judaism, he did not observe Jewish customs in any way whatsoever. Trotsky was of Jewish origin, though an atheist like Lenin during his entire adult life. So please do not attempt to introduce disinformation into this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Further, even if this had been true, it would indeed have been totally insignificant in understanding the revolution. RolandR (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Lenin being a quarter Jewish is significant in understanding the October Revolution? Take your anti-semitism and conspiracy theories elsewhere. --Mundopopular (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

For what it is worth this theme was developed by Vladimir Soloukhin, see Footnote 10 to the introduction in Sargent. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

It was Lenin's sister, Anna, who, in 1897, while on a trip to Switzerland, discovered that Blank was a Jewish name. Lenin, on his part, admired the intelligence of Jewish people, but had no cultural Jewish inheritance from his grandfather Blank. See location 715 in the Kindle edition of Sargent. User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Why is this part of WikiProject Judaism???--Jack Upland (talk) 10:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2015

In "Failed assassinations" picture

Vladimir Pchelin's artwork about assassination, 1927

Ahmet Turhan (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Done with a slight change in the wording of the caption. Kharkiv07 (T) 00:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

GA nomination

I notice in the list of articles awaiting GAN that this one was nominated on 8 May this year. The nominator does not, as far as I can see (and my apols if I'm wrong), seem to be one of the major contributors to the article, and I wonder if any of the latter would be prepared to deal with any queries a GAN reviewer might raise. If so I'll gladly review; if not, I'll leave it alone. Tim riley talk 08:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tim. My opinion is that this is an example of an article that really shouldn't have been nominated for GAN at this stage. I have been working on the article for some time now (albeit quite slowly), in tandem with other articles, such as Revolutionary activity of Vladimir Lenin (which I did pull up to GAN), and do certainly wish to see it reach GA status in the next few months and hopefully it will be an FA by the time of the 2017 centenary of the October Revolution. As you can see from reading the article, so far I have rewritten the first half of it using solid academic references, but the post-1917 information still needs a lot of work. The editor who nominated this article had not consulted myself or any other significant contributors to this page prior to issuing the nomination, which perhaps is bad practice but is certainly forgivable. I think that this might be a good example of an article that could be brought to GAN, and then taken to Peer Review, although if you think that that process could be reversed then do let me know. Best for now, Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Midnight (if I may be so informal). I see another editor has quick-failed the current GAN, which takes any time pressure off your upgrade. There's no settled norm for when to go to PR, but it seems to me sensible to do so before GAN. As it can take months to get an article reviewed for GAN, the advantage of going to PR first is that you can canvass opinion there on whether the article is ready to go straight to FAC, and if you get good feedback on that then you can cut out the lengthy GAN process altogether if you are so inclined. I am currently doing just such canvassing at the peer review of Arnold Bax (all comments welcome, if anyone cares to look in), where I had GAN in mind, but am encouraged to contemplate going to FAC instead. Tim riley talk 18:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Tim. Your suggestions sound sensible to me, and I think that it might be a good idea to try a Peer Review first, at the appropriate juncture. (I'll also have a quick peek at the Bax article!) Best Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit request on October 7 2015

Within the "Red Terror"-section under the "Lenin's Government"-section, the same source (The Anatomy of Revolution Revisited: A Comparative Analysis of England, France, and Russia. Bailey Stone. Cambridge University Press, 25/11/2013. p. 335) is cited twice for the same claim (The "Estimates for the total number of people killed in the Red Terror range from 50,000 to over a million"-claim). Isn't that redundant? Shouldn't one of them be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.23.43.88 (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Be careful with the word 'propaganda'

I was reading the article on Vladimir Lenin and noticed some subtle biases. A plain-as-day political cartoon was called a 'propaganda poster.'

Virtually any political cartoon or satirical poster can be described as 'propaganda' so it would be nice to keep the Western revisionist history at a minimum. Mechnesium (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that "propaganda" means what you think it means. For Lenin, the term was not pejorative, and had a clear meaning, distinct from "agitation". Agitation referred to getting one idea across to a large number of people, while propaganda meant explaining many ideas to a small number of people. For Lenin, these terms were not contradictory, but complementary, and he coined the term "agitprop" to express this process. In this context, to refer to the poster as propaganda would be misleading, but not because because the term is biased. It is far more of an agitational argument; or, indeed, a piece of agitprop. RolandR (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Any?

Under "Political ideology":

The pragmatic realities of governing Russia amid war, famine, and economic collapse resulted in Lenin deviating from any of the Marxist ideas that he had articulated prior to the October Revolution.

Is that supposed to be "many" rather than "any"?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• Well spotted! I shall correct the prose accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Gorki

The article mentions Gorki (the locality) nine times. This implies it was a major place, whereas at the time, as far as I can see, it was just an estate outside Moscow. This is particularly the case in the infobox which states that Lenin died at "Gorki, Russian SFSR, Soviet Union". This could lead a reader to believe that Lenin had died in Nizhny Novgorod (formerly known as Gorky) or some other city or locality away from Moscow.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Although Gorki might not be a particularly important place given Russia's wider geography, it undoubtedly served an important role in Lenin's later life. It was after all the location of his dacha, the place where he spent much of his final years, and the place where he eventually died. I believe that this factor explains why the location is mentioned nine times within the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't explain that very well. The issue is not how often "Gorki" is mentioned. The issue is that referring to "Gorki" without clarification is misleading. Gorki, Russia is a disambiguation page, and it doesn't even mention the Gorki on the Ob River. And the talk page of Nizhny Novgorod (previously called Gorky or Gorki) shows that some people have erroneously believed Lenin died there. Lenin's dacha was only 10 km outside of Moscow, but that is never mentioned in the article. Any casual reader would assume that Lenin died away from Moscow and probably in a city of that name. Pedantically, it would be incorrect to say that Lenin died in Moscow, but that would be more informative. I definitely think the infobox should be changed to "Gorki, Leninsky District, Moscow Oblast" or something like that, and there should be a mention of where Lenin's dacha was in relation to Moscow.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh I see what you mean. Yes, I am in total agreement. I shall make some alterations to the prose accordingly. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Lenin's death

1. Syphilis. The article mentions this twice. The NYT article cited says, "The new thesis is not so much a breakthrough as a historical rumor revived and reframed." How can this new thesis have "strengthened" the suspicion? As the NYT article shows, most historians do not support the theory. It's basically a smear.
2. Lenin's Testament. The article states that Trotsky minimised the Testament, but the citation given is only a quotation from Trotsky, not a secondary source. This is pushing an individual editor's point of view. It would be better to say that party leaders (which also includes Lenin's wife) agreed to suppress or downplay the Testament.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Both of the sections that you refer to are in a terrible state. I aim to replace them with better content soon, as I have done for much of the rest of the article. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, I thought you might be going to, so I didn't try to edit the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The article still mentions syphilis twice. This seems to be undue weight in an article of this size. Also, the fate of the Testament doesn't seem to be mentioned at all now.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Upland and Midnightblueowl: Volkogonov is cited with "various claims have arisen that his death was brought about by neurosyphilis," but the actual text says "on the basis of the autopsy the notion, sometimes suggested, that his disease was syphilitic in origin is unsustainable." Definitely a WP:Weight problem if one source is contradicted by a less reliable one within the same sentence. A more recent source [31] also cites documentary evidence, rather than speculative pathology. Qzd (talk) 03:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

What does that source say?--Jack Upland (talk) 04:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

"Lenin's medical issues did not stem from the lead in the bullet or overwork (nor, for that matter, from syphilis: Lenin's test had come back negative, although he was nonetheless injected with arsenic, the remedy of the day)." He cites Valentinov. To be fair, while the diagnosis is discounted, it is also consistently addressed by biographers. Qzd (talk) 07:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

But that source has almost 1000 pages, and Volkogonov's book has over 500, etc. Mentioning it here gives it a prominence it doesn't deserve. Similarly — though it is obviously different — is Lenin's Jewish ancestry. This (which is somewhat true) is mentioned three times, while Lenin's Central Asian ancestry isn't at all, even though it was important for his father being promoted to the "nobility". These details are essentially noteworthy as smears, whether of themselves, or by the claim that they were "suppressed" by the USSR. I think the only justification for mentioning them here is that it's inevitable that someone else will insert them. If they are mentioned, the mention should be as brief as possible.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

As for the issue of Lenin's putative syphilis, it is only mentioned twice, both in the "Death and decline" secton; the first mention is when it is listed alongside other possible conditions for why Lenin was so ill in the final few years of his life, the second mentions that after his death many have considered it to be his cause of death. I think that the first option should obviously remain, however I am open to maybe merging the second mention into it? For instance, we could have "The symptoms continued after this, with Lenin's doctors unsure of the cause; some believed that he was suffering from neurasthenia or cerebral arteriosclerosis, although others suggested that he had syphilis, the latter being an idea supported in a 2004 report by a team of neuroscientists, who suggested that this diagnosis was later deliberately concealed by the government." Would that be an improvement? (As for Lenin's Jewish and Central Asian heritage, let's discuss that in a separate section). Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's better.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Lenin's Government

The portrayal of Lenin's government given here is biased. Focussing on the establishment of the Cheka and the Red Terror ignores everything else he did.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

For example, a recent edit removed the suggestion that non-Russians were permitted to secede. What about Estonia and the Treaty of Tartu?--Jack Upland (talk) 10:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The article currently has two sections: "Cheka and Red Terror" and "Red Terror". Many of the statements in the "Cheka and Red Terror" section do not specifically refer to the Cheka.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully this issue has been sorted by my recent rewrite. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Ethnic background

Odd that this article doesn't mention Lenin's diverse and partly Turkic (Chuvash) ethnic background, which ought to be of a lot of interest to those dabbling in ethnology or just interested in his background. --141.76.249.179 (talk) 10:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

This is something that is probably worth a brief mention when discussing his father, however I think that we need to be cautious as there seem to be quite a few conflicting claims with regard to this side of his ancestry. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I've relied on Service's book for guidance here, and produced the following opener: "Lenin's father, Ilya Nikolayevich Ulyanov, was the grandson – and possibly also the son – of a serf, although his ethnic origins remain unclear; he was possibly Russian, Chuvash, or Mordvin. Despite this lower class background he had risen to middle-class status, studying physics and mathematics at Kazan State University before teaching at the Penza Institute for the Nobility." Does this work? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone say that Lenin's father was "purely" Russian? I think it's clear that he had mixed ancestry. Would it be possible to use the term "Central Asian" or "Turkic/Mongol" ancestry? His mother (Lenin's grandmother) had Oirat or Kalmyk ancestry, which is proudly mentioned the 2013 book, The Kalmyks by Elza-Bair Mataskovna Gouchinova. I don't think we need to adjudicate between these claims here, because it is possible, indeed likely, that all the ancestry claims are true. As I pointed out above, Lenin's father's work with the Asian minorities was the reason he became a nobleman. This ancestry also, as I said before, seems as relevant and real as Lenin's "Jewish" ancestry (which is very much a matter of definition) which is mentioned several times. I think this is noteworthy in that the USSR is often described as a Russian empire, whereas virtually none of its founders were "pure" Russian. So I think it's worthy of a succinct mention.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that a succinct mention is definitely worthy of inclusion, hence my recent addition. However, I do think that we need to be cautious. After all, Service states that "Although the family's ethnic and religious background is not completely clear..." (p. 21) and "the possibility that they came from Nizhni Novgorod, one of Russia's greatest cities, has given rise to the suggestion that they were Russians. Quite possibly they were. But... it cannot be excluded that the Ulyanovs belonged to one of the indigenous ethnic groups conquered by the Russian tsars in the sixteenth century. Thus the Ulyanovs could have been Chuvashes or Mordvinians". (pp. 21-22). I'm guessing that a lot of the material discussing Lenin's paternal ancestry is in Russian (which I sadly cannot read) and hence I am relying upon the English-language sources, of which Service's is perhaps the most thoroughly researched. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't realise it had not been established. Incidentally, I noticed a poem in The Kalmyks, that book I mentioned:

Lenin — it resounds in all languages.

Lenin — simple and great.

The Kazakh says that Lenin is a Kazakh,

But I say — a Kalmyk!

The Kumyk says that Lenin is a Kumyk,

The Chuvash says Chuvash,

Indisputably, friends, he is of course yours,

But really he is a Kalmyk!

This recalls Einstein's famous comment that if he was right, Germans would call him German, and if he was wrong, Germans would call him a Jew. Many of Lenin's enemies likewise call him a Jew.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Improvement program

As those who keep an eye on this article may well have noticed, I have been working on a wholesale and systematic re-write of it since June 2012, having scaled up my efforts since late 2015. Given that this was what the article looked like before I began this project, and this is what it looks like today, I hope that many people will share my view that the improvement – to the lede, prose, comprehensibility, and referencing – is frankly obvious. While Wikipedia is indeed a collaborative effort, in instances like this I do believe that Wikipedia is best improved by the hard work of just one or two editors who are able to invest a large amount of time into improving a particular page, and who are capable of using the apposite academic historical and biographical studies rather than relying largely on whatever sources can be freely accessed online in a higgledy-piggledy manner. There are a few more bits and pieces that I would like to work on here, in particular by cutting down and streamlining the prose in a few of the later sections, however once that is achieved I intend to nominate this for GAN, after which I think that we should consider PR and FAC. If all goes well, the article might be able to be a Featured Article of the Day on the centenary of the October Revolution in 2017. Any comments on how to best tidy it up and smooth off the rough edges would be very welcome. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You have undoubtably improved this article. One-person management provides consistency and neatness. One drawback of this kind of improvement, however, is that the article ends up relying on a small range of sources. I think "Legacy" is one area that needs more information. Currently, we have several general statements that Lenin was important with little that is specific. In particular, his influence outside of the USSR is only touched on very briefly. Also, I wonder if information about the personality cult could be separated from the rest.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

With respect, this article currently uses seventeen main sources (plus a few additional web sources); this includes all of the main biographical studies of Lenin as well as some of the key texts on the Russian revolutionary period. For me, such judicious usage of the main sources on a subject is clearly preferable to an approach whereby hundreds of sources are used, but many of which are seemingly randomly selected citations taken from books, news items, and whatever free sources various editors can find. While I am certainly open to the prospect of citations being added from further reliable sources (perhaps articles from peer-reviewed journals like Revolutionary Russia) I would not want to see the article clogged up with randomly selected bits and pieces as it was before. Keeping things clean and concise is important.

With regard to your point about the Legacy section, I am in agreement. I think that we could certainly do with a little bit more on his impact on the global communist movement. If any good academic sources appear that explore this area then I would be happy to use them in bolstering and expanding this particular section. Regards, Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

However, there are 7 sources that seem to predominate – Service, Fischer, Pipes, Volkogonov, White, Shub, Read – and without them the references would be almost non-existent. I'm concerned when I see this in important articles. Incidentally, the Nikita Khrushchev article is much worse. Not doubt this is in accordance with current Wikipedia laws. This is only a personal comment. However, when I see you citing Service as the ultimate authority on the question of Lenin's ethnic origins, my concern seems validated. Diversity is strength, at least in terms of sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Pipes quote

"He informed Gorky that "an intelligent Russian is almost always a Jew or someone with Jewish blood", believing that the country's Jewish community had helped to modernise Russia through their artistic, cultural, and scientific achievements, further expressing pride in having some Jewish ancestry.". The original Lenin wording is different: "Русский умник почти всегда еврей или человек с примесью еврейской крови." It translates as "In Russia any smartass is almost always either a Jew or a halfbreed." Not very respectful.--Lute88 (talk) 14:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment Lute88, but do you have a reliable reference for that translation? Moreover, would not the Service information still stand even if the quote had been mistranslated by Pipes? Remember that the likes of Pipes and Service spent a great deal of time reading through all of Lenin's private and public writings; accordingly they should have a very good understanding of Lenin's personal beliefs and views, including with regard to his view of Jewish Russians. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

It is mentioned by Yohanan Petrovsky-Shtern in his Lenin's origin study, but I don't have a page #. The quote is too WP:UNDUE I think.--Lute88 (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Google translate (for what it's worth) renders that as "Russian nerd almost always a Jew or person with Jewish blood admixture". The quotation clearly does not use a bald term like "half-breed", which is offensive in contemporary English. умник (umnik) could be translated as "nerd", "smartass", or "clever man". See [32]. It seems clear that it is a slang term. The difference here concerns the tone of Lenin's comment (which cannot be discerned from the mere words) and the interpretation put on it. It was clearly true that many of the intellectuals, or educated professionals, in the Russian Empire had some Jewish ancestry, as exemplified by the Old Bolsheviks themselves. I agree that quoting a casual comment here gives undue weight. Lenin's political stance against antisemitism is important. As I said previously, I think his supposed Jewish ancestry should be noted only briefly and in the context of his mixed ethnic background. But this quotation isn't notable and it is possibly misleading.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, an intelligent person is UMNITSA, and a person who pretends to be intelligent is an UMNIK, as Lenin has it. PRIMES' is not an admixture, but has a nuance of an impurity.--Lute88 (talk) 04:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Volkogonov (or rather his translator) says "the clever Russian is almost always a Jew or has Jewish blood in him." Interesting quote but I agree probably WP:UNDUE. Qzd (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced by the arguments presented (due to a lack of reliable sources provided), but there seems to be a broad consensus in favour of removing the prose in question. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

An "umnik" is NOT a "smart-ass", though it is may be used sarcastically like anything else. An umnik is a clever or smart fellow. Anyone who can read a Russian dictionary should be able to verify this definition. Note that I am talking about the traditional - literary definition, one that is closer to Lenin's Russian. Of course in modern-day Russian vernacular, umnik is frequently used sarcastically (Russian vernacular is notorious for using positive words to imply the opposite of the formal definition). Volkogonov's translation is correct and stylistically accurate. Pipes is also correct, but less stylistically accurate. Lute88's unsourced translation is way off.Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

As an update, I have procured a copy of Yohanan Petrovsky-Shtern's Lenin's Jewish Question and have relied upon it when discussing Lenin's relationship with his Jewishness. Interestingly, on page 98 it states that "Lenin mentioned to Gorky that a clever Russian "was almost always a Jew or a person with mixed Jewish blood."" Again, it goes for "clever" rather than "smartass", although is not referring to that term as if it were a direct quote. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

YPS transslation is a bit "polite": http://dictionary.reverso.net/russian-english/%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA . But the consensus seems to tend to WP:UNDUE anyway.--Lute88 (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Considering Lenin worked with Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bela Kun etc, I don't think he was an anti-semite. Having read various works by Lenin, I don't think he would be fazed by being called a "smartass". It's not an insult in his book(s). However, I think we should stick to unambiguous sources. With regard to his ancestry, I would describe it as Russian, Central Asian, and Jewish, and there are abundant sources which back this up.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think that anyone can present a serious argument that Lenin was anti-Semitic (and nor am I aware of any historians specialising in revolutionary Russia that have done so, although I could be wrong). As Petrovsky-Shtern's (very interesting) book makes plain, there is definitely evidence that Lenin himself identified as an ethnic Russian. This is accompanied by clear evidence that he had maternal Jewish ancestry, but it is unlikely that he was aware of the latter, which was only brought to light by the genealogical research of his sister Anna that she undertook after his death. Although treated as undisputed fact in some published sources, Lenin's paternal ethnic links to the non-Russian peoples of Central Asia seem more speculative; certainly Service suggests that it remains a case of 'not proven' and thus I think that in this article we should follow his lead by not presenting it as if it were an undeniable fact. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

When you say that Lenin himself identified as an ethnic Russian, what do you mean? What did he actually say...?--Jack Upland (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2016

Lenin has never organized Gulag or sent people to Gulag. This concentration camp was established six years after his death under the rule of Stalin. 162.44.245.110 (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The anonymous claim is factually untrue. We have reliable sources testifying to the fact that the Soviet concentration camps were initially established under Lenin's government. They may well have been expanded under Stalin's regime, but their origins can be found with Lenin's administration and its Cheka. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Essentially, a "gulag" is a prison. Lenin's Russia/USSR had prisons. But so what? Case closed.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I have changed Gulag labor camps into concentration camps to avoid anachronism. They were not named like this in Lenin's time. I kept the wiki link to Gulag as more useful than concentration camp Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

"Concentration camp" is not appropriate and therefore shouldn't be used.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vladimir Lenin/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Caeciliusinhorto (talk · contribs) 21:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a seriously thorough article. I'd better get cracking, especially as you have already been waiting two months. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks, Caeciliusinhorto! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll begin by getting some of the easy stuff out of the way:

• You have some inconsistencies in spelling (e.g. using both "honour" and "honor", "criticise" and "criticize"

• I have standardised the spelling to American English in both of those cases. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)  Done

• The article links to Battle of Warsaw, which is a disambiguation page. It looks like the link should be to the Battle of Warsaw (1920).

• Corrected! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)  Done

More soon. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I have now read up to the end of the subsection on the October Revolution. I've done some (hopefully uncontroversial) copyediting, but I have a few more comments for you to look at:

• The infobox lists Lenin's siblings as Aleksandr, Anna, Dmitry, Maria, and four others; however, the article only mentions two more (Olga and Nikolai). The article on Ilya mentions that there were two Olga's, one dying as an infant, but even so that only brings us up to seven siblings for Lenin. Was there an eighth, or is this wrong?

• I believe that this is a mistake, which I shall correct. Perhaps it is based on the fact that there were eight children altogether, including Lenin. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)  Done

• I don't understand the use of names for Lenin, here. In the section on early life, he is called Vladimir throughout, except in the last sentence where he is referred to as Lenin. He continues to be referred to as Lenin until the final paragraph of the subsection on "early activism and imprisonment", in which he is referred to as "Ulyanov". He is then referred to twice as Ulyanov and once as Lenin before 1901, when we are told that "Ulyanov adopted the pseudonym Lenin". I think that probably the best solution would be to call him "Vladimir" when referring to him as a child, "Ulyanov" as a adult before the end of 1901, and "Lenin" for the rest of the article, but I don't really care so long as the solution you choose is more consistent than this one. When the name he is being referred to by changes mid-paragraph for no clear reason it is distracting.

• Generally, I was trying to avoid using the name "Lenin" when describing the period of his life before he actually adopted that pseudonym. Thus I preferred to use "Ulyanov", but then in the earlier sections I did not want to cause confusion given that both his father and brother (also with the surname of "Ulyanov") are mentioned. For that reason I went with "Vladimir". However, as you point out the current situation is confused and muddled, and so I think I might be best if I change all usages of his name to "Lenin", regardless of what period in his life is being discussed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)  Done

• In the subsection on Lenin at university, we read that:

Interested in his late brother's radical ideas, he joined both an agrarian-socialist revolutionary cell and the university's illegal Samara-Simbirsk zemlyachestvo, being elected as its representative for the university's zemlyachestvo council.

This is fairly confusing, as unless someone knows what a zemlyachestvo is (and it has been a while since I have studied Russian history, so I had forgotten), it sounds like it's another radical revolutionary organisation. It wasn't until the next sentence reminded me that all student societies were banned that I went back and realised.

• This is tricky given how precise the meaning of "zemlyachestvo" and the fact that we have no comparable term in the English language. I've tried to deal with the problem by changing the prose to "Interested in his late brother's radical ideas, he joined both a zemlyachestvo, or group of men from Samara-Simbirsk – which elected him as its representative for the university's zemlyachestvo council – and an agrarian-socialist revolutionary cell." However, if you feel that this does not do the job either then I can try to rephrase it again. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)  Done

• In the section on the 1905 revolution, we hear that the Tsarist government disbanded the Second Duma. It's not made clear in the article what the Dumas were, or why it mattered to Lenin/Russian radicals that the Duma had been disbanded.

• I've reworded this sentence to the following, which I hope better explains the situation to the reader: "However, as the Tsarist government cracked down on opposition – both by disbanding Russia's legislative assembly, the Second Duma, and by ordering its secret police, the Okhrana, to arrest revolutionaries – Lenin fled Finland for Switzerland." Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)  Done

• In the section on the October revolution, the article mentions "the Bolshevik ship Aurora". Again, this is unclear: the ship was not Bolshevik-owned, it was part of the Russian navy, and was crewed by enough Bolsheviks that it took part in the revolution. As it stands, the article could be read as saying that the Aurora was a ship owned by the Bolshevik party or the MRC.

• I've changed the wording here to "the cruiser, Auroroa, which was controlled by Bolshevik seamen". Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)  Done

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments for the second half of the article:

• Why is giving the Left SRs five posts on Sovnarkom only "partially conceding" to calls to form a coalition government?

• The original calls had been for the Bolsheviks to form a pan-socialist government, i.e. with the Left SRs, the SRs, and the Mensheviks. In the end, the Bolsheviks only agreed to a coalition with the former. I've made some alterations to the prose accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)  Done

• Why "although" in "although in December Lenin holidayed briefly in Halia"?

• Good point. Rewritten. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)  Done

• Free universal education for all children: what ages does this apply to?

• Unfortunately, the source cited (Service) doesn't specify this. I'll have a look to see if it is mentioned in any other sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't matter that much. If all Service says is 'universal free education', I can live with our article saying it. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• In the section on anti-Kulak movements, the Cheka, and the Red Terror, you might want to start the section by giving some context. At the moment, it reads:

Many of the cities in western Russia were facing famine as a result of chronic food shortages.

It's not clear when this refers to, and it is only two sentences later that the reader finds that this is in Spring 1918, when the previous section was talking about the end of WWI in November that year. Try something like:

By the spring of 1918, many of the cities in western Russia...

• Good idea. I'm changing the prose accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)  Done

• The article talks about Kulaks "allegedly hoarding their produce": perhaps give some context on the idea that Kulaks were hoarding grain?

• I've changed this sentence to the following: "Lenin claimed that the blame for this problem lay with the kulaks, or wealthier peasants, who were allegedly hoarding the grain that they had produced to increase its financial value" Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)  Done

• In the same paragraph, we hear how this policy provided "much fuel for the developing civil war", but the beginning of the civil war isn't covered until the next subsection. It might be better to give some more context than just pulling "developing civil war" out of the blue.

• I didn't want to expand too much here, given that there is already a whole section devoted to the civil war, but I've changed the wording to "providing much fuel for the development of the civil war". I know that this is not a major change, but I hope that it rectifies the issue to some extent. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• And then the subsection on the civil war has lots of detail, but much of it doesn't really concern Lenin. There's a whole paragraph on the makeup of the White armies, for instance. I know some context is needed, but the article is long as it is, but three of the eight paragraphs in this section don't even mention Lenin once! (and three more mention his name only once)

• It's a difficult balancing act. However, I do think that mention of the forces that Lenin's armies were fighting does provide some important background information on the conflict itself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand that it's difficult to thread this needle. You might consider cutting down the paragraph about the makeup of the white armies and concatenating it with the previous one, something like this, but then you do get quite a long first paragraph, and there's not anything obvious to trim. I suppose you could cut out the things about the Greens, because as interesting as the Green army factions were, and as much as they would add to an article about the Civil War, I'm not sure how relevant they are to Lenin's life... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

In the end, I decided that the best bet was to trim both the paragraph on the White armies, and that on foreign armies, and merge the two together. The result is a paragraph that isn't really about Lenin himself, but does provide vital background information and is at least confining itself to a single paragraph rather than two. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• In general, there are a few more paragraphs throughout the article which don't really concern Lenin, but the civil war subsection is the worst offender. Elsewhere, the paragraph which deals with the Kronstadt rebellion looks like it would be better off in the biography of Trotsky, and at least a couple more paragraphs never mention Lenin (though their importance is more apparent).

• Again, it's a difficult balancing act. Certainly, military affairs were primarily orchestrated by Trotsky, but Lenin was the head of government at the time and thus I do think that these things do require a mention. Where possible I have added a little extra information into the article, trying to ensure that Lenin's relationship with the event is included in the article, so as to better reflect that this is the article about Lenin himself, rather than Sovnarkom. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• In the section on Lenin's political views, we read that:

his main concern thereby being how to convert Russia from capitalism to socialism.

I thought that a key point of Lenin's politics (and a point of contention with the Mensheviks) was that Russia could move from feudalism to socialism after the February revolution without bothering about letting capitalism get properly established? (Though I may be wrong, here; it's been a while since I studied the Russian Revolution)

• As I understand it, Lenin certainly believed that Russia had capitalist elements to its economy and moreover, he saw it as being run by a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie following the February Revolution. At the same time he also recognised the strength of the 'feudal' aristocracy and Tsar as well as the pre-capitalist, small-scale agrarian nature of much of the Russian economy. Nevertheless, I have taken your point into consideration and changed the prose in the article to the following: "with his main concern thereby being how to convert Russia into a socialist society". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)  Done

• This line:

The Bolshevik leader expressed an attitude of cultural superiority between different nations; at the top was Germany, followed by Britain and France, and then Finland, with Russia coming beneath them.

is comprehensible, but reads really badly. I'd strongly suggest that you re-write it, because it's just not as good as the rest of the prose.

• I've gone with "The Bolshevik leader expressed an attitude of cultural superiority between Europe's nations, with Germany as the apogee of superiority and Russia as a largely inferior country." Do you think that that works okay? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

How about "The Bolshevik leader believed that other European countries, especially Germany, were culturally superior to Russia"? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks good. I'll make the change.  Done

I think once all of that has been dealt with, we can dispense with criterion (1a) and get onto the rest... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for these comments, Caeciliusinhorto. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

You are very welcome, @Midnightblueowl:. I think I'm happy with the article's prose, now. The article passes all of the other GA criteria, too (I learnt a lot about US copyright law and the public domain over the last few weeks making sure criterion 6 was okay!), and so I'm going to pass this as a Good Article now. Congratulations! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

In that case, thank you both for the GA, and for taking the time to review it in the first place, Caeciliusinhorto. I hope tat it brought back (good) memories of studying Russian history! Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: It did indeed bring back good memories, though I have to admit that it's a little out of my usual way these days. Ancient history and women's history for me mostly recently. Not much chance of either of those in this article! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Caeciliusinhorto: - ah, it's good to see someone working on women's history here at Wikipedia. It's a subject that I really must try to contribute to more often. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Kalmyk

I was directed here after trying to make a referenced addition to the text, which was removed. According to Orlando Figes, Lenin's ancestry was Kalmyk. I can't see that any of the other ethnic claims listed is referenced, so I do not understand why a referenced suggestion is removed.--Simen113 (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Simen113 and thanks for bringing this to the Talk Page. There were various reasons as to why why I removed your recent additions (which can be seen here). First, this article is currently undergoing FAC, so we need to be cautious about any significant alterations or additions of text at this point, unless they are specifically required by the FAC commentators. Second, the text added was just too lengthy and introduced too much extraneous information on Lenin's childhood; we already have Early life of Vladimir Lenin for that extra material. Third, the referencing system used was different to that which this article employs, which creates inconsistency and would again cause problems at FAC. Fourth, the claims being made my Figes are not necessarily accurate. Figes' book is a general overview of the Russian Revolution, not a biography of Lenin specifically. Thus, can we believe him when he claims that Lenin's paternal ancestry was partly Kalmyk, particularly when biographers who have investigated this area in far greater depth, such as Robert Service, don't mention this at all, but rather cite other ethnic groups as possible antecessors? I'm not so sure. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Orlando Figes is known for being his deep knowledge on the subject of the revolution, and there are no one more central to it than Lenin. I am therefore sure he can be cited on this. I do agree that it is not a book focusing on Lenin, but considering how Figes is known for diving into archives and uncover new material, one cannot exclude the possibility that this is something he has found clear indications for. Considering the book was written in 2014, it is also pretty recent. As for the reference style, I suggest you (with better knowledge of the format) convert my reference into the system used. As Figes has written deeply on the Revolution, the book is sure to be referenced again. --Simen113 (talk) 03:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

See "Ethnic background" above. Many people appear to claim he was Kalmyk.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

What evidence does Figes provide to support his claim about Lenin's Kalmyk ancestry? If we can find good evidence then I'm more than happy to see it incorporated briefly, but I do think that we need to be cautious on this one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

There are no footnote directly after the claim in question, but the closest one, situated at the end of the paragraph, reads as follows: "Kerensky, Crucifixion, 13; Volkogonov, Lenin, 5, 8–9, 13.". I therefore assume it is from Volkogonov Figes gets his information regarding Lenin, at least where he decides to cite it too (it may obviously be something he has found other places as well), and that the footnote is relevant to the claim as it cites several pages and sources.--Simen113 (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for checking, Simen113. I don't have a copy of Volkogonov's biography to hand but will try and check it out in the next few days. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for being receptive of my feedback and comments. As for the other information, I will add it to the article on his chilhood and early life. Awaiting your reply upon checking Volkogonov in the meantime. Have a good day!--Simen113 (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Simen113 - I've accessed a copy of Volkogonov, and (on page 7) he does indeed suggest a Kalmyk origin for some of Lenin's ancestors. I'll add this into the article, alongside the mentions of the Chuvash and Mordvin. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, good luck on the rest, and have a good day! I will add my information to the Early life of Lenin article.--Simen113 (talk) 01:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Second paragraph begins "Born to a wealthy middle class family" -- this is not accurate

Hello,

There is no such thing as a "wealthy middle class family"; if a family is "wealthy", then you could say "Born to a wealthy family". Lenin's family was middle-class; if they were doing very well as a middle-class family, then you could say "Born to a well-to-do middle class familY..."

Thank you,

Kim Iannone American Public University Touro University Moscow facebook.com/kim.iannone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.172.244.99 (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Aren't "wealthy" and "well-to-do" simply synonyms? Google certainly seems to think so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Generally we say Upper-Middle for middle class people that make several hundred thousand dollars a yr - lower-middle class are people that have risen above the financially lower-class but still have to watch their wallets. 98.67.180.196 (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

It seems biased in context (in the lead). His father was a child of serfs of a mixed, non-white ethnic background. The lead also says he died in a mansion. It sounds like the lead is trying to emphasise how wealthy Lenin was.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't impose clueless American concepts of class identity on a Marxist topic. The middle classes are professionals, the bourgeoisie, while the upper classes are the nobility and the large landowners, the leisured classes. Remember that the means of production are owned by the bourgeoisie; how can this be possible if the wealthy aren't in the middle class? Nyttend (talk) 13:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

He wasn't wealthy in a Russian context, which is what matters.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Or was he? Reading Orlando Figes, he seemed also to suggest that his family was rather wealthy. They family owned an estate, Lenin was therefore also a squire. He even sued his peasant neighbours for damage to the family estate in 1891, during the famine. He also lived 'handsomely of' the 'rents and interest from the sale of his mother's estate.' At one point in Geneva 1904, Lenin described himself as a 'scion of the landed gentry', during an argument where Olminsky attacked Valentinov for his gentry background, as Lenin himself came from a gentry background and had engaged in a nostalgic discussion with Valentinov. In the same quote he also elaborates on how he enjoyed eating strawberries and drinking fresh milk despite he not having planted/milked it. The Ulianov family's life is described as 'charmed' at one point too. Considering the extreme and widespread poverty of the Russian peasantry, which constituated most of Russia's population, the family was indeed wealthy. I think trying to say otherwise is to impose on him more humble origins than he had, when he by most aspects lived as a nobleman, priding himself at one point in writing 'hereditary nobleman' in front of his name signing a document. And, as I said, considering the general poverty of Russian society, his family was indeed wealthy.--Simen113 (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

He was a "hereditary nobleman" in that his father had been given the Order of Vladimir for his services to the education of ethnic minorities. A son of a school inspector did not really qualify as a "hereditary nobleman"! I think that document you are referring to was a personal favour to someone else, and he was trying to influence officialdom by claiming nobility. "Gentry" is more accurate than "nobility". Which means middle class. He was better off than the peasants, but far beneath the top nobility who owned most of the land. Saying "wealthy middle class" is unnecessary. And possibly confusing. It could be used about the Fabergé family...--Jack Upland (talk) 02:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Issues with the Lead

Under Lenin's government, the Bolsheviks renamed themselves the Communist Party and established a one-party state. His regime abolished Russia's elected Constituent Assembly...

The state was not a one-party state at that point. The Constituent Assembly was abolished in favour of the soviet system, which was also elected. The summary seems to be biased and historically inaccurate.

...critics on both the left and right see him as the founder of a totalitarian dictatorship responsible for civil war and mass human rights abuses.

Is there really any support for this??? In particular, was Lenin really responsible for the civil war??? Would other parties have really not started war if Lenin had adopted different policies???--Jack Upland (talk) 12:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the establishment of a one-party state was not something that happened as soon as the Bolsheviks took power — they were in a coalition with the Left Socialist Revolutionaries for six months or so — but I nevertheless feel that this is the best place to mention it in the lede (bear in mind that we have to keep things very concise and to the point in that lede). That being said, I'm open to suggestions if you feel that it would work better elsewhere. Perhaps we could replace "established" with "gradually established"?

Whether Lenin actually was or was not responsible for civil war is somewhat immaterial on this point. What is significant is that he was accused of having some responsibility for it. Indeed, as we mention in the article, the Mensheviks accused him of trying to foment civil war before it had even broken out! On a personal level I think it likely that reactionary and pro-Tsarist forces would have probably launched attacks on the government regardless of what policies Lenin pursued, but there appears to be a fairly strong argument that Lenin's antagonistic attitude toward other socialist and perhaps even liberal groups (Mensheviks, Socialist Revolutionaries, Kadets etc) really didn't help things. He had the opportunity to establish a pan-socialist coalition when he took power, and deliberately chose not to, despite the fact that the Socialist Revolutionary Party clearly held greater public support than his Bolsheviks. Instead he decided to crack down on many rival socialist groups, and certainly didn't seek to enter peace talks with them after the conflict broke out. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The Left SRs left the government because they didn't accept the peace treaty signed with Germany. They then tried to assassinate Lenin, killed the German ambassador, and joined the other side in the civil war. It wasn't the Bolsheviks who established the one-party state; it was other parties that abandoned the polity. The text in the lead is about present-day critics (who "see him as"...). However, the Legacy section quotes several people who deny Lenin was a dictator, and there is no mention of the civil war. That's why I asked what is the support for this.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The idea that the Bolsheviks were not responsible for establishing a one-party state is highly debatable and very contentious. It is not a statement that I agree with; after all, the Bolshevik administration banned various rival parties like the Kadets and interned the members of many others, like the Mensheviks, in labour camps. However, this really isn't the place to discuss our respective opinions on such things. As to the idea that Lenin was responsible for civil war, we do cite that this was what the Mensheviks believed in the "February Revolution and the July Days: 1917" of the article. Admittedly however, we don't provide any evidence that later critics have charged him with responsibility of the Civil War. So perhaps a change is required on these grounds; either we remove mention of civil war from that final sentence in the lede, or we change the wording so that it is no longer only in the present tense. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The Mensheviks weren't banned until 1921. It would be better to say "gradually established", rather than just "established". But, in context, the word "established" implies something like the Article 6 of the Soviet Constitution. This is misleading. Is it even necessary to mention it here? The lead has already said, "Under his administration, Russia and then the wider Soviet Union became a one-party communist state governed by the Russian Communist Party." This is factual and undeniable. Why return to this point again? On the Civil War, I think the last sentence is an attempt to summarise the "Legacy" section, and that's what it should do. This sentence also implies that left and right critics agree, which isn't necessarily true. There are other issues in the same vein. "His regime abolished Russia's elected Constituent Assembly..." Well, it was his regime which held the election in the first place. Also, as I said before, the lead doesn't mention the soviets, which were also elected. "Ruling by decree...". The article Rule by decree, which is linked to, states, "Rule by decree allows the ruler to arbitrarily create law, without approval by a legislative assembly." But the "decrees" mentioned were passed by the Congress of Soviets. I understand the need to summarise, but the lead seems slanted towards the view of Lenin as a totalitarian dictator, rather than something more nuanced.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm open to removing "one-party state" from that third paragraph if you feel it necessary, Jack. That would perhaps allow us greater space to make mention of the soviets, which I agree are worthy of a mention. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I have now done this. Other issues are perhaps a little more controversial. Yes, the Constituent Assembly was elected under Lenin's period of governance, but he had personally opposed this election and it was, in effect, a hangover from the Provisional Government who had promised it in the first place. Conversely, the Assembly's abolition was all the work of Lenin and the Bolsheviks; so, in having to summarise things for the lede, I would say that the abolition is noteworthy, the establishment probably isn't. Moreover, I'm not sure that it is fair to say that the lede is "slanted towards the view of Lenin as a totalitarian dictator", for I have tried very hard to steer a neutral path while sticking to the Reliable Sources (bear in mind that many editors would have it start with "Lenin was a Russian communist dictator" etc and I have to bear their attitudes in mind). Also bear in mind that most (not all) Reliable Sources produced by historians specialising in this period do tend to the view that he led a totalitarian dictatorship; that is, effectively, the "standard view" of Lenin. Sure, he has some admirers in the Marxist-Leninist movement and other sectors of the global Far Left, but even in that milieu he is widely despised by more libertarian-oriented Marxists, anarchists, and socialists, and certainly as you move toward the centre-left, into the centre and then on to the political Right you will find him vilified. Lenin is, on the whole, a pretty unpopular figure. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The question isn't whether he is popular. Readers can make up their own mind. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and factual.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Very true, and I have always attempted to ensure that the lede and the article does provide an overview of the facts of his life, but we also have to rely on the Reliable Sources and not push fringe ideas. According to Wikipedia:Fringe theories, "Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence. A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is." My point being that 'Lenin as leader of a totalitarian dictatorship' is the standard interpretation among his biographers and experts of this period of Russian history. The image of 'Lenin the radical democrat' is — comparatively speaking — a fringe perspective, held by very few people, the majority of them being Marxist-Leninists or adherents of other Far Left sects. I certainly wouldn't want to see the latter perspective eclipsed from the article, but at the same time it should not be given a prominence that it does not accord. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for accepting some of the changes I made. I don't think I was attempting to portray Lenin as a radical democrat, or anything else. I think we have to set out the facts, and people can make up their own minds. Unlike "reliable sources", Wikipedia has a NPOV policy. This is a significant difference. Neutrality can be difficult, but it can also be easy. The Constituent Assembly (for example) is hard to weave into a seamless narrative about the Russian Revolution. But we don't need to do that. We don't need to interpret it. Facts are facts. And, as Lenin himself said, facts are stubborn things.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that we are pretty much on the same page here with regard to how we want this article to look. However, I am perhaps not so eager as yourself to say "Facts are facts" and leave it that. Facts are indeed stubborn things. We have to select which facts to include in the article, which to put in the lede, and which to omit. We have to choose how to phrase information. We also have to acknowledge people's opinions, and present the existence of their opinion as a fact. It all gets quite complicated, for facts are intertwined in a whole quagmire of interpretation and subjective perspective. I hope that the page as it currently looks is pretty good though; certainly it is receiving a lot of support over at FAC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Lede image in infobox

As part of the process of getting this article through FAC (which is still ongoing), I've found that there is a real issue in attaining a good quality portrait image of Lenin for the infobox. While we have plenty of old, black-and-white portrait photographs of Lenin circulating on Wikipedia and Wikimedia, it appears that in almost all cases the "Public Domain" tags that have been placed onto them are spurious: just because an image is old, taken in the 1920s or before, doesn't mean that it is in the public domain either within the Russian Federation or in the United States. Accordingly, I have been forced to resort to File:19190501-lenin speech red square.jpg, one of the few images that can be verified as being in the public domain (this is because we can ascertain that its author died prior to 1942, which makes it PD in Russia). However, this image isn't the best portrait of Lenin, and so I was hoping that anyone with a good understanding of PD issues and (ideally) access to original Russian language sources might be able to help choose a more appropriate alternative that can be properly verified as PD. For instance, a whole load of Lenin portraits can be found here, but in almost every case the PD claims are dubious and need to be bolstered. Any help would be gratefully appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I hope you get one, because that current image makes it look like he is giving a Nazi salute (Trump-style!).--Jack Upland (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Yep. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe so, but the current image has to remain until we can find an alternative that has an appropriate Public Domain tag on it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I've added a new image that doesn't appear to have a copyright issue. -- Hazhk (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I've checked this new image. It has the same copyright problems. Someone has stuck a PD tag onto it but not provided the proper proviso for why this is the case. Accordingly, I've reverted to the previous image. Sorry, but it has to be done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I've done some delving and this image (File:Lenin1897.jpg) would also be usable as we can clearly demonstrate why it is in the Public Domain. It shows Lenin's face in a clearer manner than the present image, although unfortunately depicts him in his younger years, long before he became Soviet leader. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Further delving has produced this image, which I am pretty sure is PD too. This depicts Lenin's facial features in far better detail and was taken only a year before he took power in Russia. It seems like our best bet right now, so I'll stick it into the lede infobox. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Sources?

A few of the sources on the more controversial things during Lenins reign seem to lead nowhere, no books online to be found with the referencing etc... Perhaps it would be smart to have ACTUAL references instead of misinforming people? Also a few of the statements in the introduction (Well all of them have no references) and when searched for in the body for their statements I find references that lead nowhere. Putting random words down in the references does NOT count as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:7000:9404:E381:C8A8:E7A2:60DE:DA53 (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I presume you mean references that do not link to other websites, which many do not. The sources used are books! Graham Beards (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

wrong, missleading lemma

His name was "Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov", not this combination of his firstname and hins nickname. His nickname was purely "Lenin", wothing more but "Lenin".
Lemma should be Lenin (russian theorist and politician) or something alike. --2A02:8109:9A40:1778:0:0:0:2 (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• "Vladimir Lenin" is indeed a combination of his real forename and his nickname, although it is still very widely used in the reliable sources. Wikipedia is therefore not alone in referring to him as "Vladimir Lenin"; other sources that do the same include BBC History, Encyclopedia Britannica, and Russapedia. The situation is not dissimilar to the way in which Wikipedia titles the article Mahatma Gandhi rather than his actual name, Mohandas Gandhi. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

After the revolution he called himself that and was called that in the USSR (or more commonly V I Lenin).--Jack Upland (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Ilyich

Following on from JackofOz's edit that was reverted, perhaps we could make the point that Ilyich is a patronymic, not a given name.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• We would require a reliable source in order to do so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

We do not have a source for the note on the top of the Mao Zedong article ("This is a Chinese name..."), for example, and we don't have a source for saying this at the Ilyich page, but it shouldn't be hard to find one. What about Lih p 7?--Jack Upland (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I still have a problem with what we have now:

• The couple had two children, Anna (born 1864) and Alexander (born 1868), before Lenin was born as Vladimir "Volodya" Ilyich in Simbirsk on 10 April 1870, and baptised several days later. They were followed by three more children, Olga (born 1871), Dmitry (born 1874), and Maria (born 1878). Two later siblings died in infancy.

To readers uneducated in Russian naming conventions, this says that the full names of the children were:

• Anna
• Alexander
• Vladimir Ilyich
• Olga
• Dmitry
• Maria

and they would have no reason to suppose that "Ilyich" also formed part of the full names of the other sons, or that the daughters also had other parts of their names ("Ilyinichna").

It looks like Vladimir was marked out as special at birth by being given a middle name, something that was bestowed on none of the other children. People not educated in such matters would not know that it was not possible for a son of an Ilya not to have the patronymic Ilyich (sorry for the quadruple negative, but I think my point is made). It really needs changing. I suggest, as I did in my edit (now reverted), that the "Ilyich" patronymic simply be dropped from that location, as it potentially causes more problems than it seeks to resolve.

Also, I do not believe we need a source for saying (somewhere) that Ilyich is a patronymic and not a middle name as such. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Volodya was not a special middle name given at birth but rather his nickname within the family, according to Volkogonov. There are plenty of sources mentioning, in glossary or parenthetical, the patronymic name if it's deemed necessary. Qzd (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Should we go for a completely sentence stating that "Ilyich" was the patronymic and that "Volodya" was his nickname? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

After making my comments above, I noticed that the article does have a head note saying that Ilyich is a patronymic! Sorry about that. I agree with JackofOz that it would be better for Ilyich to be dropped from the text about the children.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the name "Ilyich" from this section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)