Talk:Vladimir Lenin/Archive 9

Not so good article

Fischer 1964 as the main source

I don't know the book, but:

Fischer was a journalist, not a historian.

Many Soviet documents were top secret in 1964.Xx236 (talk) 13:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Lenin is viewed by Marxist-Leninists

There are almost no Marxist-Leninists in Poland. Where are there so many of them to be mentioned here?Xx236 (talk) 13:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

united Russia

Not united but invided and annected.Xx236 (talk) 13:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Responding to wartime devastation, famine, and popular uprisings

Rather Responding to the destruction of Russia due to his own crazy ideas of a society without economy Xx236 (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

A number of these points fail to make any coherent sense so I'm not really sure what is actually being conveyed. What on Earth does "There are almost no Marxist-Leninists in Poland. Where are there so many of them to be mentioned here?" mean? It is also apparent that there is a level of anti-Lenin WP:Advocacy going on here and statements like "his own crazy ideas of a society without economy" demonstrate a complete lack of familiarity with Lenin's actual beliefs. As for the claim regarding Fischer, his major biography of Lenin is only one of several used here; it is not the "main source" by any means. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

What is the source of your knowledge? Do you have any knowledge of Lenin's economical dreams? Xx236 (talk) 12:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I admit, I'm anti-Lrenin, like I'm anti-Stalin and anti-Hitler.Xx236 (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Xx236, you very obviously want to rewrite this article so that it reflects your own passionately anti-Lenin views. You wish to foreground everything Lenin did that you regard as morally reprehensible. In doing so you display utter contempt for the Reliable Sources written by Lenin's biographers and historians of Russian history, because you appear to regard many of them as being insufficiently damning in their assessment of Lenin. In doing so you demonstrate that you really do not understanding how Wikipedia works. I would strongly suggest that you read, and contemplate, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:Advocacy, and WP:Verifiability, not truth. Let me be perfectly clear. Wikipedia does not exist to serve your anti-Leninist crusade. You are more than welcome to create your own website to give your opinion on Lenin, if you so wish. However, if you persist in trying to reshape this article in accordance with your opinions but in contravention of Wikipedia policy then I have no doubt that administrators will see fit to administer sanctions against you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the use of Fischer is problematic, given the age of his book.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Russian

If I translate the russian article, it is clear not much work has been done on the English one, also they have FACTUAL SOURCES. Considering this is one of the most famous communists I seem to be lead into dislike for him based on what is written and which historians/journalists are used for the sources that work. Maybe he knew he would be demonized in countries run by the bourgeoisie? Maybe because he is a part of Russian history, so they are actually motivated to have true information on his life? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:7000:9404:E381:C8A8:E7A2:60DE:DA53 (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

...And your point is? Most of what you have written above is unintelligible. Graham Beards (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Graham, the point being that the article relies on verifiable sources whose historicism might be faulty, and that the semantics are highly disfavorable. I think that comes across pretty clear and I'm not even a native English speaker. But then again, wikipedia's politics are extraordinarily libertarian so I'm not surprised that one of its shills is conveniently blind to any inherent ideology in the articles. /Revan  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.69.13 (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC) 

Image sizes

I thought this would be a good place to ask Midnightblueowl what the merit of selectively enlarging a picture of a house is. Over to you. --John (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I was merely restoring the longstanding image size. Having the image slightly larger allows it to better fit within the given space vis-à-vis the adjacent text and permits the reader a clearer view of the building featured in the photograph. Without the slight enlargement the image is too small to make out any level of detail. Moreover, the enlarged image size has been a longstanding part of the article and was present when it passed as an FA, so it is not something that has attracted any opposition or criticism over the past year or so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The size the image displays at is a function of the particular device one views it on. I see this was discussed at the FAC last year. It is better to leave them at standard. Sometimes one is left bigger in thumbnail view if it is important to reveal detail without clicking on the image. I've seen this used for a map, for example. This is a picture of a house and to me it doesn't seem to matter if the reader can see the detail without clicking on it. Am I missing something? --John (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

POV

One of the main sources is a 1964 book by a journalist Louis Fischer. At that time many documents were closed in Soviet archives.Xx236 (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The other source - Sandle about Soviet Socialism. Which part of Soviet was Socialist - mass executions, starvation, rapes, atomic weapons?Xx236 (talk) 12:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

responsible for mass human rights abuses. - no rights abuses are able in lowlessness.Xx236 (talk) 12:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

a champion of socialism and the working class - has he ever met the working class? The working class in Poland destroyed his system.Xx236 (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I have removed Lenin was anti-imperialist, and believed that all nations deserved "the right of self-determination". because Lenin created the Soviet empire annecting many nations, eg. Georgians, Red Army invasion of Georgia.Xx236 (talk) 12:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

People, stop your dreams about good Lenin. Xx236 (talk) 12:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

A lot of the stuff you're talking about happened after Lenin died, like atomic weapons and Polish Solidarity. And this page is not supposed to be a pro- or anti-Lenin rant. Lenin's positions on imperialism and national self-determination are important and need to be included. Equally Lenin's policies in consolidating the USSR also need to be mentioned. But it's shouldn't be a matter of point-scoring.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The text has plenty of issues and you don't address any of them. Xx236 (talk) 05:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Lenin himself created the basis of Stalinism.

As far the point-scoring works creating a biased featured page.

Xx236 (talk) 05:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Vladimir Lenin is a featured article

accuracy, neutrality, completeness, and style

Bad joke.Xx236 (talk) 05:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

This article will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 22, 2017.

Very bad joke.Xx236 (talk) 06:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

So tell us what's wrong with it.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Under Trotsky's leadership, the Red Army put down the rebellion

This page is about Lenin and Lenin decided to fight against the revolutionaries. Doesn't Under Trotsky's leadership move responsibility?Xx236 (talk) 06:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

No. It simply mentions that the Red Army was led by Trotsky. Lenin was still the head of government. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Dialectic

An article about Lenin doesn't even mention dialectic or diamat. It's certainly not a featured article.Xx236 (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Just because this article is about a Marxist does not mean that it has to include an in-depth discussion of dialectical materialism and other aspects of Marxist theory. Discussing those would be tangential to this article. Readers interested in learning more about Marxism can go to the appropriate article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Ryan's opinions are controversial

http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=43183 Xx236 (talk) 06:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

10,000 victims of Red Terror? 50,000 according a Russian historian.

All victims of Soviet repressions - about 2 million.Xx236 (talk) 06:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

This source provided does not support the claims that you are making. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I consider Ryan's thoughtful academic work on early Soviet repression to be one of the most balanced works on the subject, which says a lot given it is generally a highly polarized field of study. And it should be noted that Ryan's source for the 10,000 to 15,000 victims of the Red Terror (p. 114) is Nicolas Werth's chapter in The Black Book of Communism (p. 78).--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I have quoted an academic opinion about Ryan's book. Please answer on the same level.Xx236 (talk) 11:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Xx236, all you've done is found a random book review online and then claimed that it makes statements which it actually doesn't. There's nothing more to discuss here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Non-communist legacy

I have questioned the value and sourcing of this section with the author. As they are reluctant to discuss it here, I am doing so for them. --John (talk) 10:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it should be removed as it is badly written and trivial.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Brianboulton, Ian Rose, Tim riley, SchroCat, Nikkimaria, Maunus, Graham11, Алый Король, Dank, Dudley Miles, Graham Beards, Laser brain, Iridescent, and Amakuru, all of whom edited the FAC for this article in 2016, plus Jimfbleak, one of the TFA coords, not included in the above list. I'm aware a couple of these editors have since retired, but am pinging everyone, including the opposer, to get as broad a range of commenters as possible. This article will be on the main page in a couple of days, and it would be good to get this discussion resolved before then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Trivial are parts of the existing page, since many years.

Badly written - yes, I wasn't allowed to learn English at school because it was a Communist school and English was the language of our enemies.

Pissing Lening is the reaction on 45 years of Leninist terror and cultural terror. The page contains Communist legacy. It's obvious bias. You have created biased page, now you are told - it's biased and you answer: your critics is badly written and trivial. Generations of Polish people opposing Leninist propaganda, beaten, imprisoned, expelled from universities, aren't trivial. Xx236 (talk) 11:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• Indeed it should be removed, and notwithstanding Xx236's use of English, which is not an argument foer deletion. If WP:RS tell us tat there is such a thing as a non-communist legacy, then folow them But they don't, and the reason for that is that there is no 'Non-communist legacy'- even the things mentioned (children's books, peeing Lenin etc (He would've liked that!) etc) are only the result of his being known / notable / famous for his role in the Bolshevik Party, the revolution, and communism generally. If there was a 'Popular Culture' section (and I'm glad to see that there int), this would be where the material would go. But, fundamentally, there is no non-communist legacy- his legacy is purely based on his connection to that thing- so the section should, likewise, also not exist. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 11:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Leninist terror creates Leninist legacy - mass graves, censorship, destruction of academy. Unborn children of Lenin's victims don't create any legacy the way Communists do - T-shirts, Zizek. What about Good Bye, Lenin!? Is it a legacy or not?

Kołakowski has written at least several pages about Lenin's ideology. What about mentioning him? Xx236 (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Either we accept Adolf Hitler#Legacy and accept similar part of Vladimir Lenin#Legacy or we remove/correct Adolf Hitler#Legacy. Xx236 (talk) 12:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't commenting on anyone's command of English. I was just saying that the section was badly written. Starting with the heading, it was hard to understand what the section was trying to communicate.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

It was trying to communicate terror and censorship. Xx236 (talk) 12:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Mike, thanks for ping. I think Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi has summed it up perfectly, it's just a trivia section, which no longer has a place in any graded article, let alone an FA, I'm happy to see that section go asap Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that parts of the article don't deserve to be FA.

Anti-Communist opposition wasn't trivia, but fight for freedom.Xx236 (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, maybe; but this is not 1919, and we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, Xx236. The point of view of the encyclopaedia is that when this article was upgraded to featured article status, this section was not part of the peer review. Therefore, it cannot just be unilaterally inserted, but has to go through the same review and commentary the rest of the article did. Which is what is happening right now. This is your opportunity to persuade those involved in ugrading the article that your edits are worthy of inclusion- but I woud suggest that appealing for justice on behalf of Georgian kulaks is probably not the best strategy. Just my 2p you understand. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The added content should be removed because it is poorly sourced and tantamount to trivia. I suggest reverting to this version. [1] Graham Beards (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

References

• I think it is a good idea to have a section on how Lenin has been remembered outside of the USSR countries and the communist movement - but it should probably be based on scholarly evaluations of his work and his influence on non-communist thinkers (Steve Bannon for example has been described as influenced by Lenin), and it should definitely be based on high quality scholarly sources. The version included by Xx236 was indeed a list of trivia with no clear notability and based on low quality sources, which did not match the quality of the rest of the article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

So there is Kołakowski's book. Very academic non-trivia.

I'm sorry but my comments answered the existing biased page, especially the poor lead. Xx236 (talk) 11:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to provide some closure in this section to future readers, all of the WP:Trivia on Lenin's "non-communist legacy" which Xx236 added into the article was removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Correct the page

The page is based on several controversial sources and contains erors. My cricis has been ignored since December 2016.Xx236 (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

What is a cricis? --John (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I suspect "criticism" or some variation is what was intended. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Xx236, we have all read your various comments; no one is ignoring them. Frankly it is often difficult to understand what you are trying to convey given your poor grasp of the English language coupled with your highly erratic spelling and sentence structure. However, more significant is the fact that other editors generally do not accept your criticisms and views as being valid. You accuse mainstream, WP:Reliable Sources produced by historians of Russian history and biographers of Lenin of being "controversial sources" merely because they do not conform to your highly specific, extremely anti-Lenin stance. You completely and flatly ignore Wikipedia policies on issues like WP:Advocacy. You clearly are not interested in the presentation of a nuanced and balanced article about Lenin that draws neutrally upon the reliable sources produced by historians and other specialists. All you want is for this article to be reformulated into an unrelenting condemnation of Lenin and a lionisation of anti-Lenin and anti-Soviet figures. In short, you don't appear to be here to build an encyclopedia; you appear to be here to 'right great wrongs', and that is not what Wikipedia is about. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

we have all read - who is we all?

Thank you for your opinion about my English languge, it's nice to obtain something for free.

My poor Englsih is the result of Lenin's success. In Communist countries any contacts with the ouside world were punished. I had to learn Russian, which gave me some knowledge of Soviet/Russian history. Is my knoledge more important or your perfect English?Xx236 (talk) 06:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Changing TFA date

See here; I'm planning to pull this as TFA for April 22, in order to be able to run it on November 7. Since this is going to run in just over 24 hours I need to do this tonight (US east coast time). Please comment asap if there are objections to pulling this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

No objection to running it in November; Iri's argument makes a lot of sense. --John (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Done, and I've left a note on Midnightblueowl's talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Good call, folks. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Mind the gap

In ===Civil War and Polish–Soviet War: 1918–1920=== there is a significant gap in the timeline: this gap corresponds to the Soviet westward offensive of 1918-19. The misleading effect is that military operations according to the current state of the article start in 1919. I have recently inserted a short summary, which has been deleted. Please justify history on this front starting in 1919., or revert the revert. Gravuritas (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you have WP:Reliable Sources to support the inclusion of this information? Your original inclusion of this information lacked any supporting citations, reliable or otherwise. This is not acceptable anywhere at Wikipedia, let alone on a Featured Article. As someone who has been editing since 2013, you really should be familiar with the basic rules by now. Moreover, given that this offensive does not appear to be mentioned in the biographies of Lenin, is it really crucial for inclusion here in this article? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:RS- of course- e.g. see the linked article, but I 'll make a more detailed response in a few days.

Gravuritas (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article does not constitute a WP:Reliable Source that can be cited in other Wikipedia articles. That is even more the case in a situation like this one, where the Soviet westward offensive of 1918-19 article is barely referenced itself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The Russian page quotes 26 (Russian and other) sources and several portals.Xx236 (talk) 07:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Current version: " The Polish–Soviet War broke out that year, after Poland tried to annex parts of Belarus and Western Ukraine". From:Davies, Norman, White Eagle, Red Star: the Polish-Soviet War, 1919–20, Pimlico, 2003, ISBN 978-0-71-260694-3. "In official Soviet histories, as in works by EH Carr & AJP Taylor, the 'outbreak' of the Polish-Soviet War occurs in April 1920. The earlier fighting is frequently overlooked or dismissed as mere frontier skirmishing. The error cannot be passed over lightly. .... The dramatic action of 1920 is part of an unbroken sequence of events which began... on 14 February 1919." So the current version cannot stand: either mention must be made that Davies considers this to be an error, or, my preference, (as it otherwise becomes unduly long), I'd take Davies version as a correction to earlier works.

Gravuritas (talk) 05:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the book reference, Gravuritas. I'll take a look at it and see if there is anything in there that can be utilised in this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent removals from lede

User:Gravuritas has twice now removed "and granted independence to non-Russian nations under Russian control" from the lede ([2] [3]). They have stated that this wording was not present in the 17 April version which the article has been reverted to, but this is completely untrue. This wording is present both in the 17 April version ([4]) and in the September 2016 version that passed FA ([5]). If Gravuritas wishes to remove or amend this then they need to discuss it here first with other editors and gain consensus for their actions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I have checked twice the version on 17th April, to which you referred when you inserted that phrase, and I couldn't find that phrase in that version. I also checked the article as it was in Sep 2016 on the date when it was FA-rated, and I could not see that phrase. I will check again and, if I have been mistaken, I'm sorry.

Gravuritas (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem. We all make mistakes. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

You are right- my mistake. Apologies.

Gravuritas (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

in lede: "and granted independence to non-Russian nations under Russian control."

How cute and magnanimous from Lenin! Too bad that almost all those non-Russian nations actually had to fight a war against bolsheviks to get them recognize their independence, and those nations who lost war were quickly re-annexed. How did this propaganda BS literally in the lede pass a FA review?--Staberinde (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Woah, woah, woah, cool your jets, Staberinde. There's really no need for such heated language as "How did this propaganda BS literally in the lede pass a FA review?" If you find the current wording problematic, we can always discuss it politely and without hyperbole. As it stands, I think that the present wording is the best possible option for describing the situation without going into excessive detail.

First, Lenin believed—or at the very least espoused the belief—that each and every national group should have the right to self-determination. This was a view that he discussed in a number of his published writings. He even acknowledged that national groups may wage legitimate wars to gain independence from socialist states. In this he was an anti-imperialist, not a Russian nationalist. On this point, Lenin was at least partially sympathetic to the idea that the Finns, Georgians, Estonians etc could break away from Russia. Accordingly he issued the Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia in November 1917; it was only after this that Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Transcaucasia, and Poland declared independence for themselves. His regime certainly backed Marxist revolutionary groups within those countries and welcomed their later reintegration in the form of the USSR (by which point he was largely mentally incapacitated and no longer leading the government), but that does not negate the fact of his initial declaration.

I'm certainly not trying to whitewash any of the actions carried out by Lenin's government or paint an unduly rosy picture of it. However, I believe that the current wording—"granted independence to non-Russian nations under Russian control"—deals with the situation succinctly, accurately, and neutrally in a manner that is appropriate for the lede. There is nothing there that intrinsically suggests that Lenin behaved "cute and magnanimous[ly]", as you describe it. Do you have a suggested wording that you feel is an improvement? Perhaps "acknowledged independence" or "recognised independence" might be preferable to "granted independence", but at the same time these alternatives might suggest that Lenin only recognised the independence of these nations after they had declared it, which is simply not the case. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I provided more accurate wording [6] but it was reverted. While it is true that Lenin's rhetoric was positive towards self-determination, that has little weight compared to fact that as soon as Germans were out of way Red Army tended to invade (Estonian War of Independence, Latvian War of Independence etc.) nations that had declared independence, and actual recognition for those as independent countries came through various peace treaties (Treaty of Tartu (Russian–Estonian), Latvian–Soviet Peace Treaty etc.). Current wording basically implies that Lenin handed out independence to all minorities simply because he was nice guy, then in reality whole western-border of Russia was determined by military realities, and independence movements that weren't particularly lucky were just rolled over (Red Army invasion of Georgia, Basmachi movement etc.).--Staberinde (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Isn't it however true that part of the Bolshevik platform was national self-rule, or some kind of autonomy, within a Soviet system? A reason it attracted many non-Russians, especially Georgians and Armenians? If this is encompassed in that sentence, then maybe the word independence is a poor choice, or maybe the national treaties on the Western Front and the national self-determination have been mixed together into one sentence.--Simen113 (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The alternative proposed wording ("but Soviets were forced to recognize independence of several non-Russian nations.") has various grammatical errors and also emphasises the idea that the Soviet government was forced to recignise independence, which is an arguable point. As specified above, Lenin supported self-determination for ideological reasons and was not necessarily forced into doing so by circumstance. I also disagree that the longstanding, FA-rated wording "basically implies that Lenin handed out independence to all minorities simply because he was nice guy". I don't think that it does that at all. It just states the basic facts in a plain, simple manner. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Which countries do you believe the Soviet government 'granted independence' to; and for which do you believe that being forced to recognise independence is only 'arguable'? The set of countries which the Soviets were forced to recognise as independent is clearly not empty, so the current wording is inappropriate. Further, I don't see that 'granted independence...under Russian control' can ever be anything other than a weasel statement. What does it mean?

Gravuritas (talk) 20:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Lenin's position on national self-determination was genuine, but he qualified it by saying that supporting the right of divorce doesn't mean that everyone should get divorced. This genuineness is shown by the way that he polemicised against other leftists on the issue, including attacking Rosa Luxemburg in his pamphlet "The Right of Nations to Self-Determination" (1914) and recommending from his deathbed that Stalin be sacked for his handling of Georgia. Lenin's pen was his sword, and his words need to taken notice of. In terms of actual warfare, Lenin could have continued to fight to control Finland, the Baltic states, and Poland, as others wanted. He could have rejected the idea of a federation and found ample Marxist rationale for a single unitary Soviet republic. His position against imperialism and for the right of national self-determination was stronger than most on the international left at the time. This shouldn't be brushed away.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@JU & MBO. This is poor, chaps.

• No defence has been posted of the weasel statement.
• The current version refers to 'the new government', so JU's purple prose about Lenin personally is not relevant.
• Given the number of wars floating about at that time, the emphasis on Lenin's PR of years earlier is wildly inappropriate.
• Lenin's capability to 'fight on' on all these fronts is a laughable suggestion. What was he going to do: throw his mighty pen at the winners of various wars?
• It is not 'arguable' that Lenin's government was forced to recognize e.g. Poland's independence, it's plainly true.
• It is not even arguable that what was granted to the Caucasus was independence- independence was taken away.
• Snickety comments about grammar to a non-native English speaker, especially when he has his facts right and you don't, is poor manners.

So the current version cannot stand. Our friend's suggestion, with a couple of 'the's added, turns into "but the Soviets were forced to recognize the independence of several non-Russian nations". Anyone got any substantive objections, not Lenin's press releases?

Gravuritas (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

How about "and accepted the independence of ...[list the names]"? This is more neutral, more accurate, and more specific.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't accept the more neutral or, particularly, the more accurate. A successful war of independence forces the imperial power to accept/ recognize a nation's independence, so our friend's version is more accurate. I have no major problem with a list of the nations, beyond the following two thoughts:

• this is an article on Lenin and such a list may be straying into too fine a level of detail
• while I know of several nations that would clearly be included, I don't know whether grey areas, particularly of timing, will bog us all down in arguments as to whether Nation Y or nation Z should be included.

Gravuritas (talk) 10:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that a list of nations would be far too lengthy and unwieldy for the lede. We really don't need any additional length.Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

So what options do we actually have on the table other that the longstanding "granted independence"? "acknowledged the independence"? "accepted the independence"? "recognised the independence"? "allowed the independence"? "conceded the independence"? As it stands I favour the current wording most although think that "recognised the independence" might be an acceptable replacement and should deal with the concerns expressed by Staberinde. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

You and Jack have fought a long rearguard action in defence of the indefensible, and your preference for the current wording is supported by neither logic nor facts. Staberinde has provided a concise and accurate phrase. Why on earth are you fighting it so hard? - neither of you has scored a point against it, despite multiple attempts, apart from your dislike of his grammar. Just concede the phrase and let's get on with some of the other inaccuracies in the article.

Gravuritas (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Generally politicians change their politics according to the situation. It's true that Lenin was sometimes more pragmatic than many fanatics. But stories about ant-imperialistic Lenin are funny. Lenin wasn't able to terrorize any nation of the world, he had to limit the extermination according to his resources. And he died before he was able to implement his ideas. If Adolf Hiler died in 1938, we would have remebered him as a great politician.Xx236 (talk) 11:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

"but [the] Soviets were forced to recognize [the] independence of several non-Russian nations" is putting a particular slant on the nature of the facts. It is emphasizing the idea that the Russian government was forced to acknowledge the independence of non-Russian nations. In doing so it totally negates Lenin's longstanding beliefs regarding national liberation. I'm not saying that there were not significant external pressures pushing Lenin's decision to issue the Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia in November 1917, but at the same time I do not think that prose should be amended to emphasise those while ignoring the influence of his ideological beliefs. Lenin is a very controversial figure and clearly there are those who would wish to push this article in a far more blatantly anti-Lenin direction: I can't help but see the amendment of longstanding, FA-rated prose as part of that. I would not describe myself as a Lenin fan but I believe strongly in keeping this article as neutral as possible and I don't want to see it reformulated into a piece of anti-Lenin and anti-communist vitriol. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The slant is entirely on your part. When Soviet Russia occupied, or tried to occupy various geographical spaces and lost some if the resulting wars, saying that they were forced to recognise the independence of those nations is a plain vanilla statement of the facts, unlike the current wording which is mendacious. When the Soviets successfully occupied a (non-Russian) space, it did not become independent. These are as plain, neutral and unslanted as sentences can be. As you think that these are 'anti-Lenin', let alone 'anti-communist vitriol' then frankly your claim to 'not be a Lenin fan' must be marked: Highly dubious.

Further, the relevant section in the body of the article contains the hilarious assertion that various countries declared their independence because Lenin told them they could. I've marked it cn. There are some sources quoted, but I'd like page numbers for these fairy-tales.

Gravuritas (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

On one hand it is true that Lenin was more accepting to minority rights in Soviet system than his predecessors or successors. On other hand this cannot be confused as an automatic acceptance of non-Russian nations becoming independent countries, as practice showed that almost all the countries that did achieve independence did so after fighting a war against Red Army and signing a peace treaty afterwards. We can't really give excessive weight to Lenin's declaration in 1917 then few years later a "real talk" was done with bayonets. That said, I have an another idea which could allow us to avoid getting stuck on issue how "forced" he really was, while still recognizing that the countries that gained independence were active players and not simply receiving gifts: Anti-Bolshevik armies, established by both right and left-wing groups, were defeated in the Russian Civil War from 1917 to 1922, but several non-Russian nations secured their independence. Comments?--Staberinde (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

OK with that suggestion.

Gravuritas (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

This sentence has to be read in the context of the whole paragraph, which later mentions the formation of the USSR in 1922.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that "several non-Russian nations secured their independence" is certainly acceptable wording for the lede, Staberinde. My concern however surrounds how well it flows on from "Anti-Bolshevik armies, established by both right and left-wing groups, were defeated in the Russian Civil War from 1917 to 1922". Perhaps it would just work better as a short, self-contained sentence: "Several non-Russian nations secured their independence from Soviet Russia" or something of that nature? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Yea, as long as its placement remains the same I am fine either way.--Staberinde (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change.--Staberinde (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Staberinde. Moving that passage interrupted the prose flow in the third paragraph, so I restructured some of the nearby sentences to compensate. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Genealogical tree

What is controversial with the digram/tree I have no idea. To be clear it was not entirely invented by me, but doubled checked against a book dedicated to Lenin's genealogy. His genealogy has been investigated far and wide, even if there is some disagreement among researchers in some details, namely the dates of births and deaths of some great-grandparents, the overall picture is absolutely clear and uncontroversial. There is few things that one could add or delete from his genealogy. It's always hugely upsetting, when you've worked many hours researching and carefully drawing (it's not that easy, I must say), then you add your often unique (there hasn't been such a digram) contribution with the best intentions, but it's reverted in less than an hour with one click by a person who even does not bother himself reflecting on the contribution made. After looking at the revision history I have a serious reason to suspect that I've just faced WP:OWN. I clearly see no reason why it's me who has to prove my contribution to be worthwhile before even making it, and not vice versa - an editor who opposes it must prove that my contribution is wrong.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

This is a featured article. Any addition is going to require greater scrutiny than it would on a non-FA. You were WP:Bold and added the image without discussing it with anyone here at the Talk Page first. It's a controversial addition and so I removed it until it could be discussed on the Talk Page; this is the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. So let's have that conversation - and please, cut the androcentric assumptions and the accusations of WP:Ownership. Starting your conversation in that manner doesn't do you any favours.

First things first, no academic citations have been given testifying to the accuracy of the information in the image. I'm not saying that the information is intrinsically incorrect, but you need to demonstrate that it is indeed accurate. Give us some good, academic citations. Second, the addition of the image was aesthetically unpleasant. As you can see, it clogs that initial "Childhood: 1870–1887" section, which already has one image located in it. Moreover, as it sits in the article, the text in the image is so small that the reader cannot actually make out any of the information in it - it is totally and utterly illegible. Any reader desiring to read the text in the genealogical tree would have to actually click on the image, thus bringing it up in a new webpage and taking them away from the Lenin article itself. This being the case, the addition of this family tree in this form really adds absolutely nothing of value to the article. Rather, it actually takes something away by making the opening section look really rather messy. I do appreciate your good intentions, Lüboslóv, but we do have to have stringent standards to protect FAs from gradually declining in quality. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The lead

united Russia with ...

Bad imperialists invide and annect, good Communist Russia unites. Xx236 (talk) 10:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Lenin promoted economic growth

Or maybe rather accepted the total failure of his politics and temporarily tolerated the New Economic Policy. Please prove, that the change was real.Xx236 (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It redistributed land among the peasantry and nationalised banks and large-scale industry.

Lenin despised peasantry, so the distribution of land was pragmatic. The first Communist who accepted peasantry was Władysław Gomułka after WWII in Poland. See "Knowledge and Ignorance: Essays on Lights and Shadows" by Folke DovringXx236 (talk) 11:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Everyone is able to nationalise. The problem is how to run economy without basic tools like money, ownership. Sklaves aren't creative. Xx236 (talk) 11:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, there have been some very creative Slavs, such as Dmitri Shostakovich, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, and Mikhail Kalashnikov. But I think you are making commentary on the text, not criticising it.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I meant obvioulsy Slaves.

Not all Slavs are Russians, like your examples of creative Slavs suggest.Xx236 (talk) 07:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

one-party socialist state

Please explain the word socialist. If socialism means mass extermination, hunger, censorship - O.K., but if you want illusions of democracy, trade unions, freedom - please don't.Xx236 (talk) 06:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Old biographies

Lenins Legacy by Robert G. Wesson (not mentioned here) Page 288, note 6 lists 5 old biographies:

• Ulam (not mentioned here) The Bolsheviks, The Intellectual and Political History of the Triumph of Communism in Russia [7]
• Wolfe (not mentioned here)
• Fischer (quoted here many times)
• Schub (quoted here)
• Possony, Lenin: The Compulsive Revolutionary (not mentioned here) - antimythical, [8].

Summarising - of 6 old books one is quoted frequently, one quoted, four ignored.Xx236 (talk) 08:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

About Fischer and Possony: [9] Xx236 (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that the problem with old books is that they are old. New information does surface occasionally, especially after seismic events like the fall of the USSR. I think Fischer is over-used, but I guess this is more due to the availability of the book than to any other bias. The article on Nikita Khrushchev is far more extreme.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

'Any over-usage creates bias, the same total rejection does.

The SU controlled any fact about Lenin, so many facts, eg. Lenin's texts, surfaced later.Xx236 (talk) 06:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

World revolution

Seeking to promote world revolution, Lenin's government created the Communist International, waged the Polish–Soviet War, and united Russia with neighbouring nations to form the Soviet Union in 1922.

So says the lead. I assumed the phrase "Seeking to promote world revolution" had been misplaced, as it only referred to the Comintern. But it appears Midnight Owl does not agree. Everything Lenin did was to promote world revolution (and by the way, I think the lead overuses the word "promote"), but why single out these examples? The Polish-Soviet War was started by Poland, not by Lenin as a Communist crusade. The creation of the USSR seems a fairly obvious move to consolidate all areas under Communist control.--Jack Upland (talk) 13:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The Polish-Soviet War was started by Poland? Xx236 (talk) 07:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I think our views are poles apart.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

But one view is grounded in the facts, and your view is not. The Polish/Soviet conflict had been going on since late 1918, and trying to segment it into two wars only serves the PR of the Soviet side. The flare up misleadingly referred to as the 'start' of the war, with a Polish incursion, was preceded by a major build-up of Soviet forces, planned by Lenin, of which the Poles were fully aware as they had cracked the Soviet codes. So, 'started by Poland' is bollocks. Now see if you can dig up a fact to support your view.

Gravuritas (talk) 08:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Jack. The current wording has been in place for quite some time without raising any issues (including during FAC), and while I am open to seeing it changed, I would like to discuss it first if that is okay. The Polish-Soviet War may have been started in large part by Polish territorial expansionism, but at the same time Lenin hoped that the Polish proletariat would rise up in support of the Red Army as part of his predicted world revolution. Similarly, the creation of the USSR can be seen as part of the consolidation of revolution outside of Great Russia itself. For that reason I feel that "Seeking to promote world revolution" sits nicely enough at the start of the sentence. Moreover, moving it here, as you did, renders the sentence in question a little clunky (or so I feel); it inhibits the smooth running of the prose. Does anyone else have any thoughts? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

You're both wrong, and by artificially choosing a start date for the military activities which is too late then you are perpetuating the error that Davies identified. From Soviet westward offensive of 1918-19 "The offensive in the Vistula River direction by the newly created Western Army had the aim of establishing similar Soviet governments in Belarus, Ukraine and Poland and to drive as far west as possible in order to join up with the German Revolution and to ignite the World revolution." The current "Seeking to promote world revolution, Lenin's government created the Communist International, waged the Soviet Westward offensive of 1918-19, the Polish–Soviet War, and united Russia with neighbouring nations to form the Soviet Union in 1922" should have the addition I highlight, and of course the relevant section in the body also needs corresponding change.

I don't really think that adding "Soviet westward offensive of 1918-19" to the lede will really improve it. The lede is long enough already, it does not require additions that lengthen it. At the same time, the 1918-19 offensive appears to have been a fairly minor military engagement (at least by the standards of the time). If we mention that in the lede then we will also be required to mention similar Russian military operations that occurred in the Caucuses, Mongolia, etc, and the whole thing will just be unwieldy. The First World War, Russian Civil War, and Polish-Soviet War were far more serious military events impacting Lenin's life and government, hence why they warrant mention in the lede. (Bear in mind that I am just talking about the lede here; I have no intrinsic opposition to mention of the 1918-19 westward offensive in the main body of the article, on the condition that it is properly cited). Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I have an alternative possible alteration that it would be good to head your thoughts on. At present we have the following two separate sentences: "Several non-Russian nations secured independence from Russia." and "Seeking to promote world revolution, Lenin's government created the Communist International, waged the Polish–Soviet War, and united Russia with neighbouring nations to form the Soviet Union in 1922." These could be reformulated slightly to something akin to the following: "Lenin's government promoted world revolution, created the Communist International, and waged the Polish-Soviet War" and "Several non-Russian nations secured independence after 1917, but three re-united with Russia through the formation of the Soviet Union in 1922". Any thoughts on this approach? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Alternately, I have moved mention of world revolution and the Communist International into a sentence with the peace treaty that brought an end to WW1. My reasoning is that these all took place largely in the first few years of Lenin's regime (1917-19) and all focus on 'foreign affairs'. I have then moved mention of the Polish-Soviet War into the same sentence as the Russian Civil War, because these are obviously thematically connected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks good.By the way,I don't think that "The current wording has been in place for quite some time without raising any issues (including during FAC)" is a strong argument. We know that hoaxes have survived in articles for a long time. And internal reviews like FAC often are conducted by people with no knowledge of the subject who concentrate on stylistic issues.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

That's a fair enough point. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Censorship under Lenin

The page doesn't discuss Lenin's politics regrading freedom of press and censorship. And the cleaning of libraries.Xx236 (talk) 06:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Not quite. The issue is mentioned, albeit briefly, in the first paragraph of the "Social, legal, and economic reform: 1917–1918" section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, you are right. However lack of freedom of press was only small part of the totalitarian Soviet censorship system, which included any printed matter and removal of books from libraries and individual collections.Xx236 (talk) 07:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

that was under and since Stalin if anything.--Crossswords (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

That Stalin was worse, doesn't make Lenin's critics impossible.Xx236 (talk) 09:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

No one is claiming that Lenin can't be criticised because "Stalin was worse", Xx236. You're misrepresenting the views of other editors (again). What Crossswords was basically saying is that because this is an article about Lenin, it would be improper to start mentioning policies and events that happened in the Soviet Union after Lenin's death, during the Stalin period. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

So. "....closed many opposition media outlets deemed counter-revolutionary." , you are suggesting, was the full extent of censorship under Lenin? Or not?

Gravuritas (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

This page should inform about censorship introduced under Lenin, it doesn't.

Lenin destroyed economy, state, family, religion, freedom, constructing foundations of Stalinism. Yes, it's not the right place to describe censorship under Stalin, but it's the right place to describe Lenin's responsibility for the results of his rules.Xx236 (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

"This page should inform about censorship introduced under Lenin, it doesn't." I just cited you a passage in the article that does just that, Xx236. Granted, the article does not go into any great detail on censorship under Lenin's government. But it does not go into great detail on any component of Lenin's administration. This article serves as a biographical overview of Lenin's life and legacy. Those who want greater detail can easily go to the many sub-articles that are only a click away. Moreover, the article is already rather lengthy. Expanding further on particular aspects of Lenin's government would be unnecessary and would accord undue weight to certain issues. Again, I think that these comments reflect yet more anti-Lenin WP:Advocacy. You want the article to have more information on censorship under Lenin's regime, but mention nothing about having greater information on his healthcare or education policies. Your desire is clearly to emphasise any information that helps to cultivate the image of the "bad Lenin", while at the same time minimising things that might be used in the construction of a "good Lenin". That's not how Wikipedia works. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The body ?

Does the page inform that Lenin's body is still exposed in Moscow?Xx236 (talk) 06:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• It was but not very clearly, I have just made it a bit more explicit, mentioning the mausoleum. Cloud200 (talk) 09:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• We would need RS to bolster any such claim. We can't just have unreferenced information in an FA-rated article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Defending omissions doesn't help this article.

Wikipedia is based on cooperation. Please don't remove obvious facts as unreferenced. You may use cn or you may discuss the subjest here.Xx236 (talk) 06:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

THis page doesn't deserve to be FA. A group of editors imposes their POV. It's against basic Wikipedia rules.Xx236 (talk) 06:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Poppycock. Many longstanding and experienced editors examined this article at GAN, PR, and then FAC over the course of 2016. They scrutinised it extensively and clearly thought that it was a quality piece of work; for that reason it was awarded FA status. The article fairly and neutrally reflects what WP:Reliable sources authored by historians and Lenin biographers say about this controversial and polarising figure. It states the most pertinent facts about his life and legacy and gives an overview of what both his supporters and his opponents think about him. No experienced and accomplished editors have claimed that it has a pro-Lenin slant or that it breaks "basic Wikipedia rules". The only one making such accusations is you, Xx236. This is despite the fact that you have no experience in getting articles to GA (let alone FA) status. Moreover, your accusations are ironic given that (from your constant, blatant WP:Advocacy of strong anti-Lenin and anti-Soviet perspectives) it is clear that it is you who have very little understanding—or respect for—"basic Wikipedia rules". Rules like WP:No original research and WP:Neutral point of view. I'm sorry to be so blunt but your constant stream of baseless accusations and clear ignorance of Wikipedia rules are really becoming disruptive. Midnightblueowl (talk)

Anything you list (Many longstanding and experienced editors examined this article at GAN, PR, and then FAC) doesn't make an editor an expert in a subject. To know a subject, people study.

I'm against mass crimes, slave work, ethnic cleansing, censorship, terror. You call it anti-Soviet . Shall I understand that you support the crimes?

Pleae name one acceptable result of Lenin's life. Soviet Union, kolkhoses, censorship, world revolution - everything caused terrible sufferings.

Your blantant advocacy is OK, my critics is blantant advocacy. It's simply unfair.

You attack me instead to quote reliable sources.

It's enough to find bias and errors in an article.

I understand history of Soviet Union and logic. If Wikipedia rejects them, it's a problem of Wikipedia not mine. Xx236 (talk) 06:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Slow down, MBO. Whatever scrutiny this article passed to get to FA status, a number of points have been raised by Xx236 and one or two by me, and none of those afaik have actually been shown to be incorrect. Those points have been met by mockery of Xx236's English, (for which you and others should be ashamed); calls for WP:RS to back up the points (fair enough); and by a good ignoring when it doesn't apparently suit your world view. As an example of the latter, take Davies' shooting down of the errors of other authors, which I quoted and which you said you were reviewing two weeks ago. In disproof of your assertion that Xx236 is the only one making assertions of a proLenin slant, then include me. On a couple of points that I can see, then the article is not in agreement with the facts, and in such a direction as to unduly present lenin in a favourable light. You and another editor mounted a huge rearguard action to avoid deleting the obvious bollocks that Lenin's government 'granted' independence. That's a pro-Lenin slant. There is an opinion on this talk page that, even though Lenin built a massive empire, he wasn't an imperialist because he made a speech denying it. That's a pro-Lenin slant. There's a defence that Lenin didn't really do something bad, because Stalin did it worse. That's a proLenin slant. I suspect that Xx236 is correct in his other assertions of bias, and if you really want to produce a good article, as opposed to a neatly-set out regurgitation of a few tired biographies, then you would engage positively with Xx236. And if you're looking for poppycock, take the beam out of your eye before looking for the speck in someone else's.

Gravuritas (talk) 06:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Lenin had some constant opinions, eg. hated peasants, but he acted dialectically', so he was pro-peasant till Monday and anti-peasant since Tuesday. He was against British empire, but wanted to control the whole world and it wasn't imperialistic. He allowed any nation to be independed as long the Red Army wasn't able to liberate the nation. Xx236 (talk) 06:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

These edits are disruptive. We have a whole talk page here dominated by incoherent rants which have very little to do with improving the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The page Vladimir Lenin is biased, contains errors. Are this rants incoherent? What have you done recently to improve the page? Xx236 (talk) 08:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

"What have you done recently to improve the page?" If you really want to know, Xx236, I've transformed the page from this into this. Along the way I studied a broad range of academic historical texts on Lenin's life and Soviet history (so you can quit the accusations that I am ignorant on the subject). Moreover, let's clarify what I think are some misunderstandings. No one is criticising you for being anti-Soviet and for being horrified by the invasions, concentration camps, suppression of freedoms etc that were brought about by the Soviet government. You are as entitled to your opinion as everyone else - I for one would never regard myself as "pro-Soviet", "pro-Lenin", or "pro-Stalin". I think that the world would quite possibly have been a better place had the October Revolution never happened. However, I am committed to following Wikipedia policy by relaying—fairly and neutrally—what the Wp:Reliable Sources actually say. That means that when a Reliable Source says that Lenin had anti-imperialist views, I include said information in the article, rather than declaring that the Reliable Source must be wrong because I think that the Soviet government's actions, both in Lenin's time and after it, were pretty imperialistic. It also means that I include the information that Lenin's biographers deem to be pertinent, but I do not then start adding in information that is fairly tangentially related to Lenin himself (as you did by adding a trivia section about Polish anti-communist groups, all because you think that readers should read more about the Polish struggle against Soviet domination, or by encouraging the addition of information about policies and events that happened in the Soviet Union after Lenin died, because you think that Lenin was ultimately responsible for them). What you have been doing is WP:Advocacy; what I have been doing is not. If you really sit down and read the WP:Advocacy article and contemplate it, then (hopefully) you will understand what I mean.

As for Gravuritas' point about Xx236's English, I again think that there is a misunderstanding. I at least have never "mocked" Xx236's poor use of the English language (others may have, but that's a separate point). However, I do believe that their inability to articulate themselves in a clear and (in many cases) even comprehensible way has caused a lot of problems for communication on the Talk Page. There are points when I really don't even know what Xx236 is trying to say. This is not just because their English is poor; it is also because their comments are, as Jack pointed out, mostly "incoherent rants which have very little to do with improving the article". I'm not saying that Xx236, Gravuritas, and others can never have a good point - I'm certainly open to listening to concerns and working with concerned editors to improve the article. If there are concerns that a particular wording carries a pro-Lenin slant, then I would certainly like that to be raised. But I am also committed to sticking to Wikipedia's rules and regulations (on WP:Advocacy, WP:Neutral point of view, WP:Verifiability not truth etc) and I have concerns that other editors just have not familiarised themselves with these and other policies and are more interested in simply telling the reader how awful Lenin and the Soviets were. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

You don't cooperate with me to correect the page:

If you don't understand me - please ask.

You reject almost anything I write. It's hostility.

Xx236 (talk) 06:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You did not mock Xx236's use of English, you rejected out of hand his suggested wording as having "several,grammatical errors" when its intended meaning was absolutely clear and all it needed was two definite articles to fix the grammar. Given that the sentence you were defending "...granted independence.." can either be described as bollocks or, more encyclopediaically, as an insult to those who died fighting for independence from Soviet imperialism, then that was a pretty mean- spirited response. Your points about his comprehensibility and rants might have some force if you could demonstrate that you welcomed Xx236's contributions when their meaning is clear, but I haven't seen any examples. And I would suggest that your broad range of studies is widened further to include non-Soviet history: your centre of gravity as seen in the comments on this talk page, is displaced and your NPOV, not N. Start with Davies book that I quoted from, and I hope that we will see no more dogged defences of the indefensible.

Gravuritas (talk) 12:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Xx236's contributions are—as well as being poorly written—often so obviously pulsating with blatant bias that it is difficult to act upon them (Lenin's "crazy ideas of a society without economy"; " I'm anti-Lrenin, like I'm anti-Stalin and anti-Hitler."; "People, stop your dreams about good Lenin"; "Sandle about Soviet Socialism. Which part of Soviet was Socialist - mass executions, starvation, rapes, atomic weapons?" etc). I mean, just look at the latter point. Xx236 is dismissing an academic study of early Soviet history because it has "Socialism" in the title. Again and again, they have shown that they do not understand Wikipedia's rules and guidelines on things like WP:Advocacy and that has made their comments difficult to deal with. They are not trying to ensure a fair presentation of information about Lenin based on a neutral overview of the reliable sources; they are trying to ensure that this article is used to promote "anti-Lenin" ideas which dismiss any possible concept of a "good Lenin". Their accusations of bias have to be seen in this light; for Xx236, anything that does not push an "anti-Lenin" message is 'biased' against 'the truth'.

As for the books used; to construct this article I have primarily utilised specific Lenin biographies (Service, Volkogonov, Read etc) as well as wider histories of the Russian revolution and early Soviet state (Sandle, Pipes etc). I did not make use of military histories, such as the Davies book that you suggest. I am certainly open to the utilisation of said texts (and have obtained a copy of Davies) but would argue that—given the specific biographical theme of this article—these military histories are of lesser utility and should not be given undue focus.

Finally, I really do not know what "dogged defences of the indefensible" is all about. I appreciate that you consider many of the actions of the Soviet government to be morally "indefensible" (I don't necessarily disagree) but that does not mean that we can bypass Wikipedia policies. It is important that we explain the events of Lenin's lifetime, including his own motivations and explanations. These cannot simply be dismissed away as "indefensible" because you (or anyone else) disapproves of said actions on moral grounds. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The question of 'Undue focus' on military histories should have is a straw man, and in any case, is not the point. The point is that, when errors of e.g. military history have been included in Lenin's bios, which cover much wider ground, and those errors are discussed and corrected in more specialist works, the error corrections need to be given due weight (not 'undue focus'- what a silly thing to allege) when editing the article. And for goodness sake drop the pretence about not understanding the dogged defense of the indefensible. Regardless of what some plonker has written, it really requires very little effort of the imagination to understand that independence is rarely 'granted', and certainly never was by Lenin. So just admit you wasted time, apologize and let's move on to the next set of errors and omissions in this glorious-because-it-isFA-rated article.

Gravuritas (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I think Midnightblueowl and others have spent more than enough time wading through wave after wave of incoherent ranting, trying to decipher the cryptic, elliptical comments floating on the tide and somehow connect them to this article. Largely, the comments express a desire to editorialise about Lenin, which we should not do. Wikipedia is a voluntary project. No one is obliged to do this work. That is a waste of time.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• True - noone is oblidged to correct misinformations.
• False - misinformations should stay, because they exist. If you don't like to correct, let's remove the most biased phrases.

Removal of blantant Soviet propaganda is a minimal demand from an FA. If you don't like to cooperate, please accept that the FA will be removed.Xx236 (talk) 06:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

If you want to correct misinformation, I suggest you use the following format: The article says_____. This is misinformation because_______. Here are some sources:______. Not ranting off on a tangent, and not dropping hints about horses, sex etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

oversaw the Polish-Soviet War

• oversaw or lost?
• The war wasn't authonomic, the Soviets wanted industrialized Germany, not poor Poland.Xx236 (talk) 06:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The body of the text is also misleading, with "The Polish-Soviet war broke out...." in 1919 being incorrect, ignoring the Westward offensive of 1918. The Davies book corrects these errors, but I don't have it with me to add the cites at present.

Gravuritas (talk) 06:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

This page is biased. Please correct.Xx236 (talk) 06:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Russia ceded territory to Poland - Russia ceded part of Belarus and part of Ukraine (previosuly Austrian). Why do you believe that Soviet Russia owned the lands?Xx236 (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Government of Vladimir Lenin

The page is linked only from Vladimir Lenin, which is very strange, it's almost an orphan.

The page is parallel to Vladimir Lenin and History of Soviet Russia and the Soviet Union (1917–27) (not linked !). Please explain the need to discuss the same questions several times.Xx236 (talk) 06:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The Government of Vladimir Lenin article goes into greater detail than the Vladimir Lenin article and has a slightly different focus, as its name suggests. This division is not unusual; Wikipedia for instance has an article on Barack Obama and the Presidency of Barack Obama, David Cameron and the Premiership of David Cameron etc. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Does the ilness and funeral belong to Lenin's government?

Presidency of John F. Kennedy has a short section Assasination, and JFK was killed as an active politician. Lenin was senile during a long period, so he wasn't governing. Xx236 (talk) 06:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The lead He served as head of government ... to 1924. Obviously to 1923. Even basic facts are wrong, even in the lead. FA - really.Xx236 (talk) 07:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Lenin officially remained head of government until his death, even if—in his final year—his health had deteriorated to the extent that he could not take an active governance role. There are many similar examples where a head of state or head of government have remained in their position even though ill-health has resulted in them taking a backseat role (Nelson Mandela for example was essentially a ceremonial figurehead for the last two years of his Presidency, leaving the actual governance to Thabo Mbeki). For this reason there is no inaccuracy in the lede and nothing needs to be changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

In March 1923, Lenin suffered a third stroke and lost his ability to speak - was he a backseat or rather ceremonial politician? Xx236 (talk) 10:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Putin about Lenin

Some editors believe that critics of Lenin is anti-Russian. Is Vladimir Putin anti-Russian? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/25/vladmir-putin-accuses-lenin-of-placing-a-time-bomb-under-russia Xx236 (talk) 09:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• No editors have claimed that critics of Lenin are intrinsically anti-Russian. Not a single one. This is patently untrue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to be not accused to be anti-Russian. Xx236 (talk) 06:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

three (nations) re-united with Russia

How did they do it? Did the nations vote? Or maybe the Red Army annected them?Xx236 (talk) 07:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic was hardly a nation. It was an artificial creature.Xx236 (talk) 07:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Aren't all nations artificial? What wording would you suggest as an alternative? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Three "republics" perhaps?--Jack Upland (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

"countries"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Jewish

The article currently discusses Lenin's Jewish origins in four separate places, which seems excessive.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I personally think that each case can be justified, but am happy to discuss it further:

• The first instance is in the "Childhood: 1870–1887" section, where we make mention of many of Lenin's ancestors (including one who was Russian Jewish); I think that that is perfectly legitimate as it is part and parcel of explaining Lenin's family background. Any omission here would seem conspicuous.
• The second instance is in the "Personal life and characteristics" section, where we mention that Lenin identified as ethnically Russian and was probably not aware of any Jewish ancestry. This is, arguably, the least necessary mention of the issue, but I thought that it was interesting, nonetheless.
• Third, we have it appearing in the "Within the Soviet Union" section, where we mention that information on Lenin's Jewish ancestry was deliberately suppressed by the Soviet authorities after his death. I think that that is highly significant for the information it provides on his legacy and the way that he was portrayed domestically.
• The fourth instance is in the same section, and mentions that the Russian far-right (a fairly significant force in the Russian Federation) has latched onto his Jewish ancestry as a point of emphasis. Again, I think that this tells the reader something important about the way that Lenin has been received and interpreted in the post-Soviet era.

It is also worth noting that Lenin's Jewish ancestry has been of sufficient importance to result in the production of a whole academic book on the subject (Petrovsky-Shtern' Lenin's Jewish Question). It is, therefore, not an insignificant issue and I just think that we need to be cautious not to minimize it here (although at the same time, we should be cautious not to over-emphasise it, as you think that the article currently does). Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I would amalgamate the first and second mentions, and third and fourth. I think it is an interesting fact, and nothing more. By the standards of his milieu, he wasn't Jewish at all.--Jack Upland (talk) 13:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm certainly happy with the proposed mergers. Unless there are any objections, should I go ahead and do so? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: I've merged the third and four instances but am not quite so sure how to do so for the first and second mentions. Do you have any recommended wording? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I would simply combine the two sentences in the "Childhood" section with mininal editing: "Well educated and from a relatively prosperous background, she was the daughter of a German–Swedish woman and a Russian Jewish physician who had converted to Christianity. It is likely that Lenin was unaware of his mother's Jewish ancestry, which was only discovered by his sister Anna after his death."--Jack Upland (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: I've made the change that you suggest. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The goal of Likbez

What was Lenin's goal explains Kenez in chapter 7 of [10] . Xx236 (talk) 09:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC) These efforts may have made adults more conversant citizens of the new regime, but hardly any more truly literate as readers and writers.[11] Xx236 (talk) 09:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Inessa Armand

The page quotes academic source, so the story about conservative Lenin is problematic.Xx236 (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I really have no idea what you are talking about, Xx236. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

About sex. Xx236 (talk) 12:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

[12] Xx236 (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that because Lenin had an extra-marital affair with Armand, that means that he could not have had a conservative attitude toward sex and marriage (as two reliable sources attest)? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Love triangle wasn't quite conservative in Russia of that time. Xx236 (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

You need to read WP:No original research and WP:Synthesis. If WP:Reliable sources state that Lenin had a conservative approach to sex and relationships, then this article states that Lenin had a conservative approach to sex and marriage. The only way that that might change is if we had other reliable sources that explicitly say that Lenin did not have a conservative approach to sex and marriage. In such a case, we would probably state that biographers are divided on the issue. We cannot simply ignore what reliable sources say because a particular editor does not agree with their conclusions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Armand is very relevant, but I would like some clarification of what the text means (and what the sources mean). Under the rubric "Personal life and characteristics", the article says "Lenin also had a conservative attitude towards sex and marriage". (This is after we are told Fischer described him as "a lover of radical change and maximum upheaval".) This characterisation jars with the fact that under his government: "Religious marriage was replaced by civil marriage, divorce became easy to obtain, and unwed mothers received special protection. All children, whether legitimate or illegitimate, were given equal rights before the law, women were granted sexual equality under matrimonial law, inheritance of property was abolished, and abortion was legalized" (taken from Family in the Soviet Union). His government also decriminalised homosexuality (see LGBT history in Russia and LGBT rights in communism). It also saw the development of such things as factory-kitchens. All this was not conservative at the time, not in Russia and not in the "liberal" West. Is the article saying that Lenin personally disagreed with these policies of his government? Or that he was conservative relative to some of his fellow revolutionaries? Or that he was conservative compared to today's Wikipedians? Or that he was personally conservative (which is what the placement of the text implies) even if he was politically not? (I'm not sure what that last option actually means.) Or that he stuck with his wife??? The sentence isn't easy to understand.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: I don't have access to Read right now, but this is what Fischer says (p. 79): "Coming from Lenin, the conservative, the declaration that he would "gladly throw away this letter" and "have a talk," seems very meaningful, rather impulsive, free. In man-woman relations Lenin was a restrained, nineteenth-century Victorian. He put that stamp on Soviet Russia... Bolshevism made him a political radical, but political radicalism may cohabit with personal conservatism." Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but it doesn't really explain what Lenin's opinions were.--Jack Upland (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I have read a little so I'm able to answer some of my doubts.

It's possible that some authors quote Zetkin's text Lenin on the Women’s Question.

Lenin rejected the glass of water sterotype, because revolutionaries should work for the revolution and sex would disturb them. So he was conservative comparing e.g. to feminist Klara Zetkin, who organized Berlin prostitutes.

Regarding Inessa Armand - the Soviet state concealed informations about the affaire till about 1985. The phrase some biographers suggest that they had an extra-marital affair from 1910 to 1912 misinforms according to Volkogonov, details in his book. Lenin had also an another lover in Paris, financed later by Checka/GPU.

Xx236 (talk) 11:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad someone else knows about the glass of water doctrine! Yes, I think a lot of people cite Zetkin on this issue. But even if their interpretation is correct (which I doubt), this only means that Lenin was more conservative about sex than Clara Zetkin...--Jack Upland (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

respected

When we approach a horse, we hide a riding crop, to respect horse's feelings.Xx236 (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, Xx236 - what on Earth are you talking about? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

You know what it means, even though a definite article is missing. Say goodbye to the good Lenin!--Jack Upland (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

You don't have to worry about that if it's dead. Britmax (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Read this Talk page, please

Vladimir Lenin is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it,' please do so.

Avoid personal attacks. At least two editors attack me rather than my critics.

Xx236 (talk) 06:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Other editors are indeed reading your criticisms and responding to them, Xx236. That people are not generally endorsing your criticisms and are pointing out that they are clearly motivated by your strong anti-Lenin WP:Advocacy does not mean that editors are attacking you rather than your criticisms. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Basic question

I have asked the question (April, 25) and got no answer - what is a socialist state?. If we don't define basic ideas, we may write anything. If you aren't able to write the lead, why do you write the whole page and reject any critics?Xx236 (talk) 07:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

If the above text isn't undesrstandable, please ask me, I'll explain.Xx236 (talk) 07:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

A socialist state is a state described by our scholarly, reliable sources as a socialist state. Britmax (talk) 07:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

And your scholarly, reliable sources are?

A name like Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic is a name, not a prove that the state was socialist.Xx236 (talk) 07:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

My question is explained here [13].Xx236 (talk) 07:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Here comes an academic text JOKES AS THE TRUTH ABOUT SOVIET SOCIALISM. Xx236 (talk) 07:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The article on the Soviet Union describes it as a "socialist state". It would be more appropriate to raise the issue there.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You are right, I have asked several questions at Talk:Socialist state.Xx236 (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

This page says that Lenin created a socialist state. Did he? Or rather created the basis only?

The Socialist state says constitutionally dedicated to the establishment of socialism. But the first Soviet constitution was declared in 1924. Was Soviet Russia constitutionally dedicated? Probably yes, but it should be explained.Xx236 (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

There are obviously issues with regard to the definition of "socialism". Different self-proclaimed "socialists" often have very different understandings of what the word means - or at least, should mean. Marxists for example use it in a manner distinct from many social-democrats or anarcho-socialists. The "socialism" of Bernie Sanders is not the same beast as the "socialism" of Noam Chomsky, Muammar Gaddafi, or Pol Pot. There will therefore be many socialists (and perhaps non-socialists) who declared that the Soviet Union was not practicing socialism. Indeed, even in Lenin's lifetime there were many socialists—including some Marxists—who argued this point, claiming that Lenin's regime was too autocratic to be truly socialist. But as with all things at Wikipedia, the key is that we turn to the reliable sources and follow their lead. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

And your sources are?Xx236 (talk) 05:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Who is Hill and John Rees?

Are they Western or British?

Is John Rees a historian or rather an activist?

Christopher Hill (historian) is an English Marxist historian, which isn't exactly a historian. Communist Party Historians Group under Stalin, intelectual degeneration.

Christopher Hill was a leading and well-repected historian. He was a Fellow of All Soul's, and Master of Baliol College - hardly a marginal figure or an outsider. RolandR (talk) 10:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

As I have written - Their subject was the English Revolution, not October one.

If someone is a Communist under Stalin and starts to understand Communism in 1957 - did they study Source criticism?

It seems that British historiagraphy hasn't researched the Communist background of it's figures yet. 60 years since 1957, how mnay yet?

Their subject was the English Revolution, not October one.

Hill has published a text about Lenin in 1947, rather obsolete. Xx236 (talk) 07:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, Xx236, this is pure WP:Advocacy. The article currently cites Stephen J. Lee's Lenin and Revolutionary Russia when it states that "Conversely, various Marxist observers – including Western historians Hill and John Rees – argued against the view that Lenin's government was a dictatorship, viewing it instead as an imperfect way of preserving elements of democracy without some of the processes found in liberal democratic states." It's not stating that this Marxist view is correct or that the reader should adopt it, but it is simply acknowledging that some Marxists hold this view. By arguing that Rees and Hill are not historians—or at least, not legitimate historians—purely because they are Marxists, you are leading to the suggestion that this information should be removed from the article altogether. This is yet another example of your attempts to remove virtually anything from the article that might be used in the construction of a "good Lenin". You are accompanying these with attempts to add selected information which contributes to the image of the "bad Lenin". I've said it before and I'll say it again: this is not how Wikipedia works. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

De-Leninization

There exist De-Stalinization page. De-Leninization wasn't so sharp, but it has already taken place in more than 10 nations and recently came to Ukraine as Demolition of monuments to Vladimir Lenin in Ukraine. I'm not able however to find general sources for the De-Leninization page.

Similarly there is Stalin's cult of personality but no page summarizing Lenin's cult. This page lists:

• List of places named after Vladimir Lenin
• List of statues of Vladimir Lenin
• Leniniana

Xx236 (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

If there are WP:Reliable Sources that discuss "De-Leninization" then there should be no barrier to the creation of a page devoted to the subject. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Gravuritas and the Polish-Soviet War

Over the past 48 hours, User:Gravuritas has tried to change the longstanding mention of the Polish-Soviet War in the lede to "the Polish-Soviet conflicts of 1918-1921" ([14] [15] [16] [17]). They have described the longstanding variant as "biased garbage" and insisted that I "can't counter the argument" and thus their "argument wins nem con" (???). They have not gained consensus for such a change at the Talk Page, and rather than edit warring further, I have asked them to explain their reasoning for the change here to see if they can attract support for the alteration. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

To clarify my position, I do certainly appreciate that Soviet Russian troops did clash with their Polish counterparts at various points between 1918 and 1919, amid the context of the First World War and Russian Civil War; however, these are usually considered separate from the 'official' beginning of the Polish-Soviet War in 1919. I am not therefore claiming that Gravuritas' edit is factually inaccurate. However, I do believe that their wording places undue emphasis on these Polish-Russian skirmishes. The fact is that Soviet Russian troops were clashing with all manner of national groups around and within Russia's borders during those years, from Finland and the Baltic states in the west to Mongolia and Japan in the east. Acknowledging the Polish skirmishes in the lede while ignoring those involving other ethnic/national groups would be undue weight. The Polish-Soviet War proper was a much more substantial conflict, hence why it warrants inclusion in the lede itself, but I see no reason why the earlier skirmishes do. That is why I think that we should retain the older, longstanding prose. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussed weeks ago and covered by my quote from Davies, which you said at the time you would 'review'. All the blah above ignores Davies. Now get real and engage with the meat of the point and stop the 'long-established' smokescreen. My edit results in fewer characters and is a more comprehensive statement- why are you fighting it so hard?

Gravuritas (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

First, your edit does not "result in fewer characters" ("Polish-Soviet conflicts" is clearly six characters lengthier than "Polish-Soviet War"); this is not of supreme importance but it is enough to push the paragraph in question from eight to nine lines long on many standard-sized laptops. Second, the issue of a change to the lede prose was most certainly not "discussed weeks ago". The only section [18] discussing the Polish-Soviet War arose because you were adding unreferenced text on the subject into the main body of the article, contravening Wikipedia's policies on referencing. In that Talk Page discussion, the lede was not even mentioned.

You claim that I "ignore" the work of Davies, but in what way? He has written a book all about the Polish-Soviet War in which he argues that the War started in 1919 rather than 1920 and acknowledges that earlier skirmishes occurred in 1917 and 1918. Where is the great relevance of that for the lede of this article? You claim that I am hiding my arguments behind a smokescreen, but I have provided a number of points as to why I disagree with your additions; you have not responded to any of them. However, let's see what other editors think: if they agree with you, then fine, it will be changed, but until then, please be patient and not change wording that has been in place for many months (without causing concern to any of the readers who have scrutinised this article at GA, PR, or FAC). Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

How about an RfC? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Pinging users who have commented on the Talk Page in recent months to see if they have a view on this issue: User:John, User:Graham Beards, User:Xx236, User:Cloud200, User:Crossswords, User:Staberinde, User:Jack Upland. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, User:Amakuru, User:C.J. Griffin, User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, User:Jimfbleak, User:Mike Christie. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for the ping. I broadly support Midnightblueowl here, but as always the true solution will likely be a compromise. Let's think towards that. --John (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
• What about naming the link Polish-Soviet War but linking to Polish-Soviet War? Usually in Wikipedia we're trying to link articles as much as possible, not unlink them. I don't see any added value in unlinking Polish-Soviet War as this is the right place for the reader to find out more about the conflict and its origins. Cloud200 (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
• Our article on the war calls it the Polish-Soviet War and gives the starting date as 1919. Norman Davies, who Gravuritas cites with approval, also calls it the Polish-Soviet War and gives the starting date as 1919. There is no reason for this article to adopt a novel term or date, and I don't see a reason to compromise.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
• I dont undertstand why Poland should be highlighted for some reason in the title, if there are various other articles about different countries in the civil war, see here. If anything the allied intervention of the combined capitalist powers should be added in the title.--Crossswords (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, several people have rushed in, and I would like the opportunity to state my case. Under 'Mind the gap' further up the page, I quote from Davies' book, which is rather more authoritive on this specific question than the generalised bios are. He says that it is an error to split the conflicts. The Polish-Soviet wars at that period started with the withdrawal of the German forces, and even though the earlier period involved smaller forces, the clashes were of very major significance- not just to Poland & the Ukraine, but also to Marxism; to the Soviets; and to the history of all Europe. When the Russian revolution happened, one of the reactions of Marxists was surprise. Their prophet had foretold that socialism/ communism would take over when capitalism had run its course, and so a success in relatively unadvanced Russia- was embarrassing. Lenin amongst others wanted the revolution to join up with the strong communist party in Germany (so sort of justifying the Marx view of socialism succeeding in advanced capitalist states)- hence the Soviet Westward offensive of 1918-19 and the continued desire to drive through Poland (I don't think the Soviets were particularly interested in Poland as such). Clearly, if the Soviets had joined forces with the German communists a lot of C20 history would have come out differently. For that reason, all of this series of conflicts is significant in an article on Lenin.

The relevant section in the article needs work, which I will do at some point when I'm in the right time zone to access my references. Meantime, let's deal with the non-arguments above. Yes, MBO, it's fewer characters because WP currently incorrectly splits the conflicts into two, so I took the link out (4 characters) because linking to only one of them is perpetuating the error. Yes, MBO, you are ignoring the work of Davies. If you take note if his book, the current article is misleading as is the lede. Try reading it all. You would then understand why the failed Soviet drive to the West was particularly important. I hope that also covers Crossswords' point. Upland's comment is misleading and in using the term 'novel term or date', dishonest: he's clearly read the Davies extract and chosen to ignore it. The only point now, and probably previously, of starting the history of that conflict as currently shown is to favour a pro-Soviet line that the Poles started it. And MBO when in factual trouble, runs for the 'long-established' line as, yes, a smokescreen.

So I suggest that my edit is restored.

Bear in mind that Davies' book on the Polish-Soviet War was first published in 1972 - 45 years ago! That means that it was available (and undoubtedly used) by the many Lenin biographers and historians that have come along since then (Pipes, Read, Lee, Service, Rice, Volkogonov etc). In none of their books are the early clashes between Soviet Russia and Poland accorded great importance. Forgive me if I misunderstand, but your argument appears to be that—from your reading of Davies' book-the Soviet-Polish conflicts which occurred in 1917-1918 (prior to the 1919 outbreak of the Polish-Soviet War) is of crucial importance to the history of Marxism and thus warrants a mention in the lede of this Lenin article. But that's just not what the WP:Reliable Sources devoted to Lenin's life and legacy say. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, Unless those historians have addressed and rejected Davies' points head-on then it is likely that they have simply followed the structure of earlier bios of Lenin, and their ignoring Davies is just a continuation of the same old error. Have you seen any such rejection in the bios you refer to? Then let me correct the misunderstanding. My fundamental point is Davies' one: that the division into separate wars is artificial. I think the start was actually 1918, not 1917 as you say above, but references not to hand. Thus, if the division is artificial, we should not be referring to the latter part alone- "the" Polish-Soviet war- as in the lede currently. In the lede we either should refer to the conflicts as a whole, or not refer to them.

My subsidiary point is that these campaigns were of significance. Because the significance is negative for Lenin and the Soviets, (he didn't join up with the German communists, etc), then it is easy to overlook, particularly in the swirl of military actions, groups, and ethnicities which occurred during that period. I suggest that means that they should be mentioned in the lede. But I have no problem with this WP article according the campaigns whatever weight an appropriate mixture of RS accords them as a whole.

Gravuritas (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any factual issue here. As Midnightblueowl asked previously, what is the great relevance of Davies for this article? This article is about Lenin, not the Polish-Soviet War or Poland.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Gravuritas and Lenin's attitude to democracy

Recently, User:Gravuritas has made additions to the article ([19]; [20]) suggesting that a particular passage discussing Lenin's views on democracy—cited to Mark Sandle's A Short History of Soviet Socialism—is misleading. I have asked that they discuss their views here at the Talk Page first before making such alterations. I'm not averse to modifications or changes but we would need Reliable Sources refuting Sandle's view. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The piece in question says: "He regarded his "dictatorship of the proletariat" as democratic because it involved the election of representatives to the soviets, workers electing their own officials, and the regular rotation and involvement of all workers in the administration of the state", and I would highlight the words 'it involved'. That makes the statement one of fact, and the facts are so clearly contrary to this statement that I am surprised you are still defending it. My guess is that Lenin indeed made a statement along those lines, but as there is no quotation mark around e.g."involvement of all workers" then it parses to mean that all workers were in fact involved, not that Lenin regarded them as involved. So I suggest you have a look at this with some precision: is Sandle just reporting a speech / writings of Lenin, or is he alleging that these things (elections. rotation, all workers..etc) actually was happening? Please be clear in what you are saying that Sandle is saying. If Sandle is genuinely saying that all of these things were really happening, then have a look in some other randomly-chosen source, and you will find that Sandle is incorrect.

Gravuritas (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I don't have a copy of Sandle to hand but I will try and look it up in the next few days and then we can hopefully straighten this out. If anyone else had any thoughts on this then that would be appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

For clarity, quotation remarks around the remainder of section would at least show that it's Lenin who is asserting elections etc, and that the WP article is not asserting that these assertions were true. If these are not exact quotes from him, then some other wording needs to be found to make this clear.

Gravuritas (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

It follows on from a quotation from Lenin, and it is clear from the context that this is Lenin's opinion. I don't see any problem with this sentence.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

If it's Lenin's opinion, why did Lenin fail to implement his opinion?

I see the problem - we shouldn't quote lies without a comment.Xx236 (talk) 06:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@JU here's two sentences:

• I regard you as old-fashioned, because you tuck your shirt into your trousers.
• I regard you as old fashioned, because I believe you tuck your shirt into your trousers.

Do you not understand that the second half of the sentence in the first version is stated as a fact? Do you really believe that all workers [were involved] in the administration of the state?

Gravuritas (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and no one would ever say the second sentence. We do not need to introduce convoluted syntax into the text merely to satisfy your desire to make Lenin look as bad as possible. This incremental attack on the article, attempting to recast every sentence in order to paint Lenin as black as night goes against Wikipedia policies and against common sense.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Interesting set of attitudes. You state earlier in this thread that the current wording makes it clear that the election etc wording is just Lenin's assertion. I parse the sentence differently, and so I wish just to make it clear that the election etc wording is indeed Lenin's assertion, no more. But that apparently is painting 'Lenin as black as possible'. So please explain, as I can't reconcile your statements:

• 1. Do you agree with me that all of the stuff in question should be reported as Lenin's assertions, without any implication that this matched the reality?
• 2. Or are you saying that Lenin's assertions matched the reality? Then sources please.
• 3. Or are you just a Lenin fanboy who wants the implication of Lenin's assertions matching reality (i.e. the current wording), to remain without going to the trouble of finding sources for this fantasy?

Please select 1,2, or 3.

Gravuritas (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Your two sentences sum up the issue perfectly. "I regard you as old-fashioned, because you tuck your shirt into your trousers." That is clearly an opinion. It doesn't need to be altered to make that clear. The only reason you would edit it as you did was to suggest that opinion was ill-founded. There is no need to do so. The reality of Lenin's government is amply discussed in the article. The passage here is only about Lenin's opinion. We should not edit the article by adding as a rider to every sentence something like, "but Lenin was a bad dude". Readers can make up their own minds.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

So that's option 3 then

Gravuritas (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Ideologically a Marxist ????

Lenin selected a part of Marxism. Xx236 (talk) 05:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

That's rather absurd. The Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute, set up by Lenin in 1919, was responsible for the collection and publication of the Marxist texts on which Marx's reputation today rests, including the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 which were used by the New Left. Lenin emerged as a leader in the global Marxist movement. He only became at odds with the movement, firstly, because of his opposition to World War One and, secondly, over the Russian Revolution itself. However, the rest of the Marxist ceased to exist. The German Social Democratic Party has long since abandoned the pretence of being a revolutionary Marxist party. Since the revolution Lenin has been central to Marxism. There have been very few self-proclaimed Marxists who were not Leninist or Lenin-influenced, apart from a few academics.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The Institute wasn't allowed to do any theoretical research. [21] Xx236 (talk) 06:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Any sources?Xx236 (talk) 06:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you believe in the results of work of terrorized people publishing under total censorship?Xx236 (talk) 06:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• Both of you are missing the point -- what do professionally published mainstream academic sources call his ideology? Debating whether or not he embodied Marxism is like trying to debate whether or not the Crusades were carried out by the followers of Jesus, or whether the so-called "Islamic State" is either of those things. We stick to self-identification and to sources. It's pretty obvious those sources (even if we ignore sources are just extended mouthpieces of his) would overwhelmingly identify Lenin as a Marxist (even if some might aptly label him as a bad Marxist). Ian.thomson (talk) 07:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Please quote the obvious statements.

NSDAP was socialist, but overwhelmingly wasn't identified as such. Where is the border between propaganda and science?Xx236 (talk) 08:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Did you even read this article? Or are you here to argue for your personal beliefs based on original research? The section on Lenin's political ideology and the stand-alone article on it cite plenty of professionally-published mainstream academic sources.

The Nazi Party was national socialist, not simply "socialist." They themselves made it clear that they prioritized nationalism (and racism) over socialism. One of their founders even objected to the term "socialism" until they agreed to only provide welfare to "Aryans." Ian.thomson (talk) 08:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The Soviet socialism was a class socialism, it prioritized party activists and exterminated/enslaved the majority. Xx236 (talk) 08:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

This allegedly FA article doesn't quote Kołakowski. Xx236 (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Soviet socialism still explicitly proclaimed itself to be Marxist. Again, this is like trying to argue that the Crusades weren't carried out by Christians. Kołakowski's view of Marxist history is controversial. That's not so suggest that he couldn't or shouldn't be added, just that he should not be given any weight beyond what other authors agree with him on. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The linked section presents different opinions, your title is your OR. Xx236 (talk) 07:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• I wasn't "missing the point"; I was coming at the question in a non-bureaucratic way. Of course we can find sources saying that Lenin was a Marxist!!! Leading Marxist theoreticians Louis Althusser[22] and Georg Lukacs[23] said Lenin was a Marxist. Of course, you can say that they aren't real Marxists, but then who is the real Marxist?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The way you imply to be bureaucratic is the only one that matters per WP:V and WP:BURDEN. And the point I made is that we're not in any position to argue that anyone is or isn't a Marxist, any more than we can argue whether or not Jesus was happy to watch the Crusades -- just because some editors (or even a few authors) disagree with the actions taken by a group doesn't mean that we can necessarily ignore their reliably sourced self-designation. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

My summary:

• Marxism existed only outside Soviet Union (Althusser, Lukacs), it was banned in the SU.
• According to you critics of Marxism is controversial (Kołakowski), Marxism isn't controversial (Althusser, Lukacs). However Barry Hindess (anti-Kołakowski) criticised also Althusser. Xx236 (talk) 06:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

If you're going to make strawman arguments and completely ignore the sources in the article, go find a different site. This is not a forum for you to whine on. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

An example of the alleged critics of Kołakowski He criticized Kołakowski's lack of sympathy for Marxism.

I have just reread the first part of Volkogonov, he writes exactly the same what I do. So who ignores Volkogonov? Xx236 (talk) 07:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

You are Cherry picking historians you agree with and ignoring the variety of historians cited in the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• Excepting Marx himself, any Marxist "selects parts of Marxism". The argument presented here is specious and probably should just be disregarded.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Marx would probably also have reviewed his work in the light of later knowledge, as most of us do. Britmax (talk) 08:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

In any case, this issue belongs in the Leninism article. It certainly can't be featured in the lead of this article, which the start of this discussion suggested.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

By the way, Ralph Miliband also considered Lenin a Marxist. It seems that almost all famous Marxists think Lenin was one too...--Jack Upland (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

https://chomsky.info/1986____/ Xx236 (talk) 10:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

First, Chomsky himself is not a Marxist; he is an anarcho-syndicalist/libertarian-socialist who is critical of Marxism. In that link, as elsewhere, Chomsky argues that the Soviet Union was not truly socialist (in his understanding of the word). He never says that Lenin was not a Marxist. So to present this link as evidence that Lenin was not a Marxist is misleading. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

It is certainly the case that some people, particularly some Marxists and others on the far-left, do not regard Lenin as a Marxist or at least as a true Marxist. They believe that he sufficiently deviated from what they regard as "orthodox" Marxism to no longer be regarded as a Marxist. At the same time, many Marxists have sought to distance Lenin from Marxism out of a fear that the Soviet atrocities would tarnish the Marxist name. But for etic academics, it seems fairly obvious that Lenin was a Marxist, and that is why they refer to him as such in the WP:Reliable Sources. He referred to himself as a Marxist, he cited Marx and Engels to legitimate his actions, he believed in dialectical materialism and class struggle as the engine for social change, he believed in proletariat revolution as a force taking humanity away from capitalism and towards socialism, and eventually communism. That he emphasised the need for a vanguard party to lead the proletariat revolution does not suddenly undermine all of his more obviously orthodox Marxist perspectives. A comparison might be seen with the current situation of the Muslim community and Islamic State. Many mainstream Muslim thinkers and groups believe that IS sufficiently deviates from 'true' Islam to not be Islamic. Similarly, they seek to distance themselves from IS atrocities by repeatedly saying that IS are not really Muslim. But etic academics can point to the fact that IS are in many ways highly Islamic: it believes in Allah and the prophet Muhammad, it holds the Quran as sacred scripture, etc. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Interestingly, in all this discussion we have yet to find a source which says Lenin was not a Marxist. Kołakowski actually argues that Lenin was a revisionist, not that he wasn't a Marxist.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Biased lead

Responding to wartime devastation, famine, and popular uprisings, in 1921 Lenin encouraged economic growth - so the wartime devastation, famine, and popular uprisings simply did happen (maybe UFO caused them ?) and Lenin encouraged economic growth. But he destroyed the economy first.

Opponents were suppressed in the Red Terror - so some day the Red Terror finished? The problem is that Lenin constructed the system of terror, lawlessness and censorship, later perfected only by Stalin. Lenin prepared the infamous paragraph 58.

Xx236 (talk) 06:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Lenin, not the continued adventures of the Soviet system. Where would you like it to stop? Perestroika? Britmax (talk) 07:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

My first statement is about Lenin.

My second statement is about Lenin plus later perfected only by Stalin.

If you insist:

Opponents were suppressed in the Red Terror - so some day the Red Terror finished? The problem is that Lenin constructed the system of terror, lawlessness and censorship. Lenin prepared the infamous paragraph 58. (Volkogonov).

Xx236 (talk) 10:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

So how much Soviet history do you want to shoehorn into the lead of Lenin's article, then? Britmax (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

It's a question of the type How many people have you murdered ?. Thank you for you openness.Xx236 (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

No, it's really not. Britmax (talk) 10:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)