Talk:Vladimir Lenin/Archive 4

message: The following sentence, while true, seems to have a biased tone. I would suggest rewriting it to a more neutral format. Darktravesty 20:46, 03 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cheka Sentence

message: I'm not sure whether this is really that important, however, I was surprised to see such a large reference/citation for ReferenceNo.1! If this length is commonplace I would really appriciate knowing, otherwise, how could this be corrected? Eps0n 10:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a somewhat lengthy, if interesting footnote. The argument goes that material peripheral, but important background to the subject should go into a footnote, however if it's that peripheral, should it be mentioned at all? - particularly, if it has the length of a full blown article in its own right. Ultimately, it's a matter of taste, but it might be better if the author could paraphrase the principal argument of the quotation. Kbthompson 11:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference no.1

message: I am not sure why this sentence is in the supporter, criticm section: 
:Leon Trotsky stated that a "river of blood" separated Lenin from Stalin's actions because Stalin executed many of Lenin's old comrades and their supporters, grouped in the Left Opposition. This was indeed to include Trotsky himself.
Thanks. Travb (talk) 10:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clunky sentence

message: According to Zvi Gitelman in the 1920's the Soviet regime made a serious attempt to combat anti-Jewish prejudice:
'Never before in Russian history - and never subsequently - has a government made such an effort to uproot and stamp out antisemitism' (Z. Gitelman 'Soviet Antisemitism and its perception by Soviet Jews' in Curtis (ed) 'Antisemitism in the Contemporary World (1986))
By contrast the White regime saw the Jews as part of a demonic world conspiracy and massacred over 100,000 of them - men, women and children often in an obscenely brutal fashion only the SS would approve of (see Wistrich, R, 'Anti-Semitism the Oldest Hatred' (1991) pages 171 to 191). Colin4C 17:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lenin and the Jews 

message: I've made a number of changes, amendments and alterations.  I am willing to discuss any of these with a view to establishing a degree of consensus.  I realise that not everybody will agree with my revisions, but it is necessary to achieve some balance, and I hope I have tried to be fair.  After all there still remains much with which I do not agree.  Anyway, here we go.
1.  Iskra was co-founded with Julius Martov.
2.    Lenin's goal in WWI was not specifically the defeat of the Tsarist government, but the transformation of an 'imperalist war' into a 'war between classes.' This, of course, would embrace all of the combatants.
3.   The story of the 'sealed train' is a myth: it was 'sealed' only in the sense that those inside were allowed to travel without the usual inspection of documents and passports.  It was the German goverment's belief that Lenin would cause political upheaval in Russia.  I doubt that Kaiser Wilhelm even knew he existed.
4.   Lenin's opposition to the Provisional Government made the Bolsheviks a likely refuge for all those opposed to its policies.  An 'obvious home for the masses' reads as if it has been lifted straight out of the Thoughts of Chairman Mao.
5.   The previous version on the dismissal of the Constituent Assembly was, as I have said possibly the worst piece of bias and political manipulation that I have ever read on Wikipedia.  I have now merely left it that it was closed down by force because the Bolsheviks lost the elections, an historically exact statement.  I have followed this, though, with a sentence emphasising that this marked the beginning of a process of political repression, again an accurate statement of the facts. The long and tedious quotes from Lenin do not serve to advance the position in any meaningful sense.
6.  The left-wing opponents of Lenin, in particular the Social Revolutionaries, did not seek to 'overthrow the Soviet state' but to end the Bolshevik dictatorship. Lenin did not respond by 'shutting down their activities' (how does one shut down activities?), but by initiating widespread persecution of dissidents of all shades of opinion.
7. The Cheka was established to challenge not just 'counterrevolutionaries' but political opponents of all kinds.
 
8. Lenin started the Civil War first by seizing power in October 1917, and second by dismissing the democratically elected Constituent Assembly in January 1918.  To talk of 'deliberate continution' of the Civil War by anti-Communist forces and the Allied Powers is politically biased nonsense, as is the 'Stalinist' suggestion that this was the cause of the 1921 famine, which reached its height after the war ended.  The famine was caused, in large measure, by Bolshevik policy towards the peasantry, in particular forced grain requsitions.  
9.  I've given one detailed example of Lenin's support for Cheka excesses.
10. The White armies were not exclusively 'Tsarist' in composition.  
11.  The section on Lenin and imperialism concluded with this intellectual gem; This would allow these countries admittance into the Soviet Union rather than simply forcing them to become part of Russia as would be in imperialist practices.  Excuse me?  The people of Georgia and Armenia might have a different view on this question.
12.  NEP for Lenin was at best a tactical retreat.  There is no reason to suppose that he would not have approved of Stalin's reversal of the policy in 1928.
13.  Lenin's statement on anti-semitism cannot be allowed to stand in some abstract Platonic sense without reference to the actual fate of Jewish people under early Soviet rule.  Otherwise it is no more than vacant propaganda.
I have thus removed-or balanced out-some of the 'agitprop' elements of the previous version, though what remains is far from ideal.  Much more needs to be said about Lenin's early political influences-not all Marxist-his relationship with-and treatment of-former comrades in the RSDP, and the growing dictatorial and terrorist tendency within Russian Communism under his guidance.  Above all, it is important to understand that Lenin laid foundations built upon by Stalin, by far his greatest disciple.
White Guard 08:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just imagine if in your own country-wherever that is-a particular party or group seized power in a military coup, proceeding to eliminate most of the opposition and the established and legitimate forms of rule and governance?  Now imagine further if in subsequent elections this same party obtained only 24% of the national vote and then simply dismissed-again by force-the newly assembled parliament or congress? Do you imagine your fellow countrymen would simply accept this situation, offering no resistence whatsoever?  If you are honest I think the answer has to be no, and the obvious result would be civil disobedience at a minimum level and civil war at a maximum.  Well, this was the situation in Russia in 1918.  So on an objective level Lenin's actions must be said to have started the Civil War.  I think, if you will forgive me for saying so, your view of both the Revolution and the subsequent Civil War is a little old fashioned.  The Bolsheviks may have had majority support among the industrial working class in 1917 and early 1918, but this is far from saying that they had the support of the 'people' in the widest sense.  Most of the peasants-by far the biggest sector of the population-supported the Social Revolutionaries.  The counter-revolutionaries, moreover, were not all 'Tsarist reactionaries', but made up of a wide variety of groups and interests, which largely accounts for their ultimate defeat.  What was strongest in 1918 was the peasant desire for land-not socialism-and that was the chief factor in the whole process underway.  The Bolshevik promise of land-which in the end was to prove to be a lie-combined with the fear that the landlords might return determined the immediate political shape of Russia.  Allied intervention was both peripheral and of minimal impact. White Guard 22:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amendments and alterations 

message: There is a reference in The_Gulag_Archipelago that 'original decrees issued by V.I. Lenin shortly after the October revolution' were the framework for the Gulag system. Shouldn't it be included here?
Blufox (talk) 13:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation of Gulag 

message: How is there only a single sentence on Lenin's literary productions?!  Scarcely any mention of things like "Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism," which continues to be discussed in academic circles today.  Lenin, whatever else may be said about him, contributed a serious body of intellectual work on imperialism and Marxist theory, which should be noted in this article. Nicolasdz 11:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When a politician and an important historical figure also produces a body of theoretical work the problem then arises of what to include and what to leave out.  A life of Marx, for instance, could focus on theoretical work to the exclusion of all else; that of Lenin clearly could not.  Ultimately, its a question of proper balance and, above all, ensuring that the whole thing does not become too unwieldy.  There is, I think, some mention of Lenin's theoretical work; but by all means work in some more specific references-or a dedicated section-where you feel this is appropriate.  White Guard 22:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will look into expanding the section on "Imperialism..." soon either here or the Leninism page as I've just finished a dissertation on it and should (theoretically) be able to fill it out a bit. I schneider 01:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lenin's Theoretical Work 

message: I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information.  I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list.  Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article.  Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here.  Regards, Durova 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cultural depictions of Vladimir Lenin]] 

message: This section does not belong here. More improtantly, it is devoid of any scholarly, objective sources. Seems that there has been Zionist inflitration of this page. It will be removed because if Lenin's stance on Jews is to be vividly described, then there should be equal emphasis given to other nationalities.
:Those Zionists. I tell ya. They have their hands in everything! Incorrigable scamps! 9/11? The Jews. The Holocaust? The Jews (for some reason). Your mom's hernia? Masons. But them Jews must have had a hand in it. I'm surprised they aren't draining your precious bodily fluids as we speak...MEIN FUHRER! I CAN WALK! --Yossarian 30px| 04:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Semitism 

message: At Polish-Soviet War there is a quote attributed to Lenin that we cannot verify online. Perhaps somebody familiar with works not online, or with a better translation, can help in verifying the following quote: "That was the time when everyone in Germany, including the darkest reactionaries and monarchists, declared that the Bolsheviks would be their salvation." It refers to the period of somewhere in 1918-1921.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotation verification request

message: First off, Leggett in his 1981 work long before any archival information was released does not cite a figure of 250 to 300 thousand killed by the Cheka. Rather, this figure concerns those allegedly killed by the Cheka in addition to casualities from violent insurrection in which both sides endured heavy losses. The Cheka of course had nothing to do with the campaigns in Kronstadt, Crimea, and Tambov as they were famously commanded by Tukhachevsky, Antonov-Ovseyenko, Frunze, and others. Leggett instead favours a figure of 140,000 executed by the Cheka. However, this is not based on any original material but is instead regurgitation of partisan white emigre memoirs and on propaganda from the "Denikin Commission." Leggett's volume in 1981 was written long before archives were published. Let's take a look at Leggett's sources for his Appendix section:
"The Denikin Commission" 
Melgunov - "The Red Terror in Russia", 1925, Paris 
Vishniak, M.V - "Chernyi god", Paris, 1922 
Chernov, V.M - "Che-Ka", Berlin, 1922 
Malsagoff - "An Island Hell", London, 1926 
Voronovich - "Sbornik materialov i dokumentov", Prague, 1921 
Based on a misunderstanding that there actually were executions in Crimea, the scholar Mozohin finds that there were 50,000 executions by the Cheka overall between 1918-21. 
В последние годы встал вопрос о числе жертв органов ВЧК. Из книги в книгу попадает цифра Роберта Конквиста - 140 тысяч человек. Так ли это? Статистические материалы свидетельствует, что число расстрелянных органами ВЧК в целом соответствует тем цифрам, что приводил Лацис за 1918 и семь месяцев 1919 года: соответственно 6300 и 2089 человек. Расхождение наблюдается только по количеству учреждений, представивших сведения. По Лацису, сведения представлены из 20 губерний, статистические таблицы свидетельствуют - из 34 губерний в 1918 году и из 35 - в 1919 году. По 17 регионам сведения не перепроверялись. В 1921 году по статистике были расстреляны 9701 человек. За контрреволюционные преступления в 1918 году были расстреляны 1637 человек, за семь месяцев 1919 года - 387 человек /31/. Таким образом, почти за три года органы ВЧК уничтожили 17,5 тысяч человек. Вне всякого сомнения, эти данные не полные. Сюда не вошли жертвы Крымской и Кронштадтской трагедии. На наш взгляд, число жертв органов ВЧК составило никак не более 50 тысяч человек. 
In regard to the Crimea, the claims put forward by the white emigre memoirists has ultimately been discredited Lenin distinctly said that 300 thousand bourgeois would be spared: 
For instance, there are at present 300,000 bourgeois in the Crimea. These are a source of future profiteering, espionage and every kind of aid to the capitalists. However, we are net afraid of them. We say that we shall take and distribute them, make them submit, and assimilate them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.151.38.178 (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be more careful with your edits.  You are adding redundant information, and you are removing valid references that appear to contradict your own POV.  Rklawton 23:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Why do you persist in removing sourced information from this article?  Rklawton 23:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I provided a second, separate source for this information - a source you persist in removing without explanation.  A source that clearly and unambiguously states the figures cited.  Rklawton 23:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: First of all, there is no reason to to believe Lenin's words were converted into action.  It was, after all, only a speech.  Second, he said this in the middle of the period cited.  He could have changed policies a day, week, or month later and we'd still see the same results by 1922.  Removing information you don't like or sources without impeachment is highly inappropriate, so please stop.  Rklawton 00:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: ...and the only source you have to indicate otherwise is a speech by the person leading the revolution responsible for the slaughter in the first place.  Rklawton 04:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: And the only source you provide is from Lenin himself, and no one is going to consider that reliable.  In the mean time, we've got rules about how to edit wikipedia, and you are breaking several of them.  Rklawton 18:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: And the Russians have a long history of white-washing their history.  Rklawton 18:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no excuse for deleting for example Rummel who has published in academicp press. You may disagree according to NPOV if you give a source, but not delete sourced material. Are you user:Jacob Peters?Ultramarine 19:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: He has published an academic book and gives his own best estmate, of course using other sources. Again, are you user:Jacob Peters? Ultramarine 20:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Rummel has published an acadmic book on this. If you are critical, cite your own sources.Ultramarine 20:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, Rummel has punblished an academic book. if you are critical, cite sources. Personal opinons of anonymous editors are not interesting. Again, are you user:Jacob Peters?Ultramarine 20:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misreprentation of sources. Dubious statements 

message: On page 467, Leggett writes that 250 to 300 thousand were executed. However, the source cited for this is a Russian emigre agitator named Vladimir Brunovskii whose literature was published in Germany in the 1920s. The appropriate source is: "Delo bylo v SSSR (Stranickha iz vospominanii byv. "smertnika")', Arkhiv russkoi revoliutsii, Vol.XIX, Berlin, 1928, pp. 5-156. It is incorrect to say that it was reported by the Bolsheviks that there were this many executions because the Bolsheviks reported 12,733 executions in 1918-20. In fact, 250-300 thousand is only alleged by emigre Russian activists in the West. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.102.211.115 (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems we have a few choices.  We could represent the views of the revolutionaries.  Of course, they stand accused, thus they have every reason to hide the extent of their crimes.  We could represent the views of the victims, but they have every reason to exaggerate their injury.  Significantly, western academics support the victim's accounts, but I suppose this could be construed as Western propaganda – academicians' reputation for leaning left notwithstanding.  The more reasonable approach here would be to represent both views with relevant sources, and that's an approach generally supported here at Wikipedia.  Rklawton 20:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed to Emigre Russian Literature 

message: Wikipedia is not the place to analyze primary documents. To characterize a primary source of what Lenin allegedly instructed as a "hanging order" is a personal interpretation. From another point of view it could simply be seen as Lenin calling for an insurrection to be suppressed with its instigators punished: The revolt by the five kulak volost's must be suppressed The quotation is far too long and tries and drown out other viewpoints. There has to be a consensus to make such a controversial change. So far you have not established one.
Sparrow8 00:45, 10 January 2007 GMT
:This "Hanging Order" has its own article with its own sources, and it has survived a deletion challenge.  As a result, it's appropriate to reference the article and the analysis constained therein.  Rklawton 21:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hanging Order" 

message: First of all, I think the presence and size of this section is a little ethnocentric. IMO, this issue simply doesn't deserve so much space. Lenin's attitude to Jews was in no way different from the attitude of other Bolsheviks, Marxists or simply leftists at the time, and there is absolutely nothing remarkable about it (and of course, it wasn't just one speech on the radio, he has certainly made hundreds of statements against anti-Semitism in his life). More importantly, I see no reason to separate it from their overall attitude towards minority nationalities in Russia, apart from a few lines that should stress the unusually high number of Jews among them. The point of the whole section seems to be to answer the question "what does Lenin mean for us (American) Jews", which is funny, because (American) Jews are really a small minority in the world population. Next I would expect sections such as "Lenin's stance on gay marriage", "Lenin's stance on abortion - pro-life or pro-choice", "Would Lenin vote Bush or Kerry in the most recent presidential election?". This reminds me of the Hannibal article, where the issue of most interest was whether Hannibal was an African American hero of Michael Jordan stature, or Joan of Arc, whose importance as a historical figure appears to be minimal in comparison with her significance as a ... role model for (American) transsexuals!
As for the previous discussion about Lenin's actual stance: the argument that any opposition to Judaism (even due to principal atheism) equals anti-Semitism, an argument which assumes that no Jew can be an atheist, that any atheist is an anti-Semite, (implying that any atheist Jew is a traitor, "self-hater" and renegade) can only stem from a highly conservative, traditionalist POV. While it is true that Judaism has been particularly important historically for the Jewish nation, religion and nationality are still two separate things. The difference between nations in that respect is quantitative, not qualitative, as nations that border on "alien" religions tend to rely on their own as as part of their identity; Russian conservatives say that Eastern Orthodoxy is essential for a person to be "a true Russian", Catholicism is supposedly a must for a Pole, not to mention Islam etc.. In all these cases, intolerance and group pressure are used as a means to enslave the individual. With the current (especially Russian) post-Communist trend of communism- and atheism-bashing and the slogan "Retrogrades (or even xenophobes) of all brands, unite!", Dmitriy Volkogonov's reasonings are not in the least surprising. --Anonymous44 12:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've had this discussion before, I don't want to go through it again. The conclusion anyway was to keep this section. The reason is that many rightist and anti-communists claims that Lenin and the Bolshevisk were Anti-Semites and wanted to kill all the Jews. (Richard Pipes is one of those people.) That is why it is important to point to Lenin’s own statements which clearly explains that he was not an anti-Semite, and that he in fact did a lot to combat the anti-Semitic remnants of the old russian-tsarist regime.  Bronks 13:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you say so. Though I suppose there will always be someone who accuses him of being a practitioner of black magic in a footnote or something. If these accusations are common, maybe it would make sense to start the section with them rather than vice versa. I still doubt it's prominent enough. Oh, now I remember another similar case - Karl Marx had also a huge section about his attitude towards the Jews; at least that one was moved to a separate article. I don't know why the article about Trilobites doesn't explain the trilobites' attitude towards the Jews. :) --Anonymous44 21:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lenin and anti-Semitism 

message: Some of my edits to the page were reverted, so I am going to explain my reasons for them in more detail.
1. I added two attributions to the Black Book of Communism in the body of the text rather than just the footnotes, because that book in itself has been criticized as regards its neutrality and reliability, and the readers should know that the statements are derived from it. I think attributions are generally to be encouraged, and when a claim is supported with only one source, I am perfectly entitled to make an attribution and to use a neutral wording of the type "X states that Y is true" rather than "Y is true". 
2. When Lenin says that "the proletarian state was a system of organized violence against the capitalist establishment", I think it is quite relevant to add that he "similarly defined the bourgeois state as a system of organized violence against the exploited". I certainly see no reason to delete it. You may request a source if you doubt it. 
3. Kamenev and Bukharin do need to be wikified.
4. I moved one reference to the text that it is used to support. As things were before, alleged statements about imperialism from 1917 and 1921 were "sourced" with a text from 1916. There is no source left for the claim that Lenin said " that the inclusion of those countries (Armenia and Georgia) into the newly emerging Soviet government would shelter them from capitalist imperial ambitions", so I placed a  tag. 
5. I added the motivation of the policy of war communism ("to maintain food supply to the cities and the army in the conditions of economic collapse"), which basically repeats the statements from the article about war communism. The previous text implied that the evil Bolsheviks requisitioned food just for fun or something. 
6. I changed "in retaliation, Lenin ordered the seizure of the food peasants had grown for their own subsistence and their seed grain" to "Then, the Bolshevik requisitions came to affect the food that peasants had grown for their own subsistence and their seed grain." The previous wording seemed to suggest that Lenin intentionally tried to starve the peasants to death "in retaliation for reducing the crop production"; this is absurd, and it's obvious that once the peasants had "drastically reduced their crop production" as the article says above, the reqisitions would affect the remaining product for substinence without any additional diabolical malice on the part of Lenin. It's clear that Lenin's orders were to requisition a certain quantity of grain; these orders didn't say: "requisition all their food and starve them to death". --Anonymous44 15:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice that I am lapsing into unproductive wikiholism again, reviewing my edits again and again, hour after hour. I'm afraid I can't afford this now, so I am going to have to take another wikibreak. Sorry to abandon several ongoing discussions and an edit conflict like this, but this stuff is too addictive and I have to save my real life before it's devoured by Wikipedia :). Have a nice day/week/month/whatever! --Anonymous44 21:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My disputed edits 

message: Lenin criticized Stalin and Trotsky in his final testament; why is this deleted from the article and I am accused of 'vandalism' for pointing this out?
Here is the quote:
"Comrade Stalin, having become Secretary-General, has unlimited authority concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution. Comrade Trotsky, on the other hand, as his struggle against the C.C. on the question of the People's Commissariat of Communications has already proved, is distinguished not only by outstanding ability. He is personally perhaps the most capable man in the present C.C., but he has displayed excessive self-assurance and shown excessive preoccupation with the purely administrative side of the work. 
These two qualities of the two outstanding leaders of the present C.C. can inadvertently lead to a split, and if our Party does not take steps to avert this, the split may come unexpectedly."''
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/congress.htm Hu!tz!l0p0chtl! (talk • contribs) 18:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC
:You're right. But don't forget that Stalin was the only one whose removal was proposed in the testament (see below in the same web page that you cited). At that point, Stalin-Zinoviev-Kamenev had aligned themselves together against Trotsky. So the practical significance of Lenin's testament was rather clear. All of this is already explained in detail in the article Lenin's Testament, so what we are doing is basically adding the same details here and making the main article longer. It's quite unnecessary. --Anonymous44 21:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lenin's Testament

message: The Tatina Alexsinskii quote in the "Revolutionary activity, travel and exile" section contains a blatant bit of bad English in this sentence: "He bowler hat fell off, revealing his bare skull, perspiring and glistening under the sunlight." Of course we should probably change "He" to "His", but this makes me suspect the source a bit. 
The quotation was added by User:Malplaquet in the 13:23, 14 February 2007 revision. Malplaquet has been quite active since November and has had a number of contribs reverted due to source issues. The citation points to "La Grande Revue,XXVII,No, 8, (Paris, August 1923)" which I can't imagine was printed in English. Perhaps Malplaquet is a French speaker as the name implies (see Battle of Malplaquet) and produced this translation independently? I don't know if there's a policy problem with that or not, but it just seems a little fishy. Anyway, I haven't been able to verify the source in my university's library or anywhere online. Does somebody else have access to a copy of this -- on microfilm, maybe? --RockRockOn 20:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tatiana Aleksinskaya is a wife of Grigory Aleksinsky, I haven't found that he was the "head of the Bolshevik faction of the Second Duma", just that he was its member in the early 1900s. According to his biography in Russian , in the early 1900s Aleksinsky was among radical Bolsheviks, but later edited monarchist newspaper "Russkaya Volya", and supporter of Aleksander Kerensky. He accused Bolsheviks of being "agents of the German staff". In 1918 he fled from Russia along with his wife. I believe, that a large citation of "the first encounter with Lenin" by a wife of such a radical opponent of Bolsheviks cannot be NPOV and hence I removed it from the article. Cmapm 01:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "He bowler hat fell off"? 

message: As Lenin used a number of these it would be useful to have several of the more prominent of these listed (or a link to a list of them) - eg Jacob Richter in London. 
Jackiespeel 19:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of pen names and pseudonyms

message: Well, I tried to improve the article for FA standards :)) as I voted on WP:ARCAID for it. I did a couple of edits, but after reading the article through, I'm giving up. I believe, there is a very long way to go even to Good Article standards for this article. 
I just should remind, that Lenin was the head of the Soviet government until 1924, and this his activity has huge uncovered gaps here. Bolshevik Initial Decrees, that all were signed by Lenin as the head of the government are not even mentioned (just a little example - one of them introduced Gregorian calendar in Russia in 1918). Hence it is by far incomprehensive. Plus a lot of POV issues, for example, widely citing Black Book of Communism, it doesn't cite Russian or Soviet historians on respective issues. I don't want to waste tons of times on expanding and/or rewriting large portions of the article. Just stating, that there is long, long way to go to a good appearance for this article in my view. Cmapm 03:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As well as the Black Book, we have also got plenty of quotes here from die-hard anti-communists Pipes and Shapiro, with no-indication about where these latter two are coming from ideologically. One is tempted to think there are a lot of editors here who are using this page to promote their own right-wing POVs by turning Lenin into some kind of demon-king figure. Colin4C 19:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Long way to go even for GA

message: Is it worth trying to find the last picture ever taken of Lenin? The one that was banned by the Communist Party because it showed him such an extraordinary state? And has that picture ever been used to clarify exactly what he died of? Is a blackened face symptomatic of a serious stroke? Darkmind1970 14:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Last picture

message: The article says nothing about where Lenin took his pseudonym from. From what I know, from the name of the river Lena in Russia, but am not sure. Anyone? Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 18:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Addendum: Discussing it here. --Ouro (blah blah) 18:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ulyanov's pseudonym 

message: The hanging order mentioned in this section and it's coupling with information complied by an author who demonstrates a CLEAR bias against the Russian Revolution distorts this section's interpetation of history into once who clearly unfairly defames Lenin. Using author Orlando Figes in this article violates neutrality, and until the references to Lenin being an advocate of "mass terror" are removed, I would recommend that a NOPV tag remain in place on this section.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.160.146.108 (talk) 
:Actually, your point of view is pretty much the same as a rather well known sock puppeteer.  Give it a rest.  Rklawton 02:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, my point is view is well respected by many academics. The information put forth by Figes and others is directly contradicted by information in "The Bolsheviks Come to Power" by Alexander Rabinowitch. I will continue to dispute the neutrality of this section. 75.160.146.108 02:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet another WP:SPA and likely JP sock.  Blocked.  Rklawton 03:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty offended by this accusation since I don't even who this person is. I'm a student of political science at Portland State University, and I'm concerned about the neutrality of this section of the article as it clearly demonstrates an anti-Leninist bias. One of the references (26) links to information from the equivalent of the Russian Secret Service - not exactly a balanced source. I'm sure this section will be tagged for NPOV again. 75.160.146.108 05:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed that reference.Ultramarine 06:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to say to User:75.160.146.108 that IMHO it might be better if you registered with the wikipedia. Though there is no rule against unregistered users, its just that a vast lot of them seem to be vandals and/or sockpuppets, so that even bone fide edits made by unregistered users come under (sometimes unjustified) suspicion. Anyway, that is just my personal opinion...Colin4C 11:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV Dispute: Section on Lenin and the Red Terror

message: FYI - I noticed this animated gif of Lenin on Wikipedia.  Might be useful for the article. :Image:Lenin.gif. Morphh  (talk) 21:14, 06 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Animated image

message: The author of this article states that syphillis may have been pandemic in Old Russia.  If that is the case then it would explain the madness of the politburo and the actions of Lenin and Trotsky during the Red Terror.  It seems tertiary syphillis induces mania.  see  General paresis, otherwise known as general paresis of the insane, is a severe manifestation of neurosyphilis. It is a chronic dementia which ultimately results in death in as little as 2-3 years. Patients generally have progressive personality changes, memory loss, and poor judgement. More rarely, they can have psychosis, depression, or mania. Imaging of the brain usually shows atrophy. at  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurosyphilis
here's a photo which seems to indicate dementia in Lenin    http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/photo/1923/007.htm
:Which article? There's certainly nothing in the wikipedia article which mentions that syphylis was pandemic in 'Old Russia'. If the Bolsheviks all had it, as you claim, its somewhat surprising that despite 'memory loss' and 'poor judgement' they managed to launch a successful revolution and win a Civil War against overwhelming odds. Colin4C 15:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There s little or no factual basis for this argument and the photo of Lenin you have linked was taken when Lenin was recovering from a serious stroke. Never mind the implausibility of suggesting that dementia can be spotted from a photograph. I schneider 01:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syphillis and World Revolution 

message: I think some of guys should write at conservepedia
:And I think some guy should learn to write the word Conservapedia.JBarreto 19:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Lenin and Red Terror" ?? 

message: Is there a list of them? Jackiespeel 18:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pen-names

message: I edited the section on Lenin's return from exile and the part leading up to the revolution to correct the erroneous explanation of the terms Menchevik and Bolchevik which stated that Bolcheviks 'The Majority' were actually in the majority at that point in time. They weren't. Neither were the Mencheviks 'The Minority'. The terminology arose after a single (and singular) vote on revolutionary strategy which caused the split. Still not entirely happy with the text as it fits in the article, but I don't have time to rework or restructure the piece. 62.177.195.238 09:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mencheviks and Bolcheviks 

message: I serious problem with this article is that it has no mentioning of the dual power in Russia in 1917: i.e. the balance between the offical power of the provisional government and the growing power in the soviets - and how the soviets became strong enough to take power. This is the most important aspect of the october revolution. Bronks 11:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dual Power

message: I'm thinking that the Red Terror was intimately associated with the Civil War, so perhaps these two sections should be merged to make the story more coherent? What do people think? Colin4C 19:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red Terror and Civil War 

message: Just to say that this is a deeply controversial work with even some of its own editors disowning it as anti-communist propaganda. Colin4C 17:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black Book of Communism 

message: This was published before the fall of the Soviet state before the Russian archives were opened, therefore its not the most reliable source on the numbers executed by the Cheka. Since the opening of the Russian archives inflated estimates of deaths by Leggat, Conquest etc have been revised downwards. Colin4C 18:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leggat's Book on the Cheka 

message: THe article begins, "His decisive use of terror against counter-revolutionaries, together with his successor Stalin, created the word's most powerful proletarian dictatorship, which officially lasted for over seven decades."  this reads like it comes right out of a Soviet textbook.  I would suggest somethign less biased, perhaps "Hiss decisive use of terror against political enemies created the world's most powerful totalitarian state...  any suggestions  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.213.170.144 (talk) 03:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole sentence is filled with POV forks, I removed it altogether.--Miyokan 03:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Begining

message: :Image:Lenin 1887.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 11:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Lenin 1887.jpg

message: Lenin & co. was so crucial to German war policy that the German government would invest more than 40,000,000 gold marks in him.  An analysis, dated February 4, 1918, among the German documents of Foreign Office expenditure overseas for propaganda and special purposes, gives an allocation to Russia of 40,580,997 marks, of which by January 31, 1918, a sum of 26,566,122 marks had been spent.  So it wasn't thanks to the good offices of Swiss comrades that two railway cars and a train-ride was arranged, but the other way around ....
---Nt351 14:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Return to Russia 

message: I heard (it could be plain old propuganda though ) that lenin was able for example to read documents just by taking a few glances at the paragraphs among other things , are there any sources for that?
:Certainly a photographic memory is no "special" ability. Just about anyone can do it if you practice on it. You can read up more on it. Whether this was true in Lenins case (through practice or natural talents) I have seen no references of it (other than "eye witness" accounts).
-G  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roumored intellegence and talents 

message: The text of the (bad) translation of Lenin's so-called 'Hanging Order' given in the article says that the hostages should be 'executed'. However better translations such as this by Robert Service translate the Russian word as 'designate'. I propose to replace the bad translation with the good one, unless anyone objects. This is Service's translation:
Comrades! The insurrection of five kulak districts should be pitilessly suppressed. The interests of the whole revolution require this because 'the last decisive battle' with the kulaks is now under way everywhere. An example must be demonstrated.
*1. Hang (and make sure that the hanging takes place in full view of the people) no fewer than one hundred known kulaks, rich men, bloodsuckers. 
*2. Publish their names. 
*3. Seize all their grain from them. 
*4. Designate hostages in accordance with yesterday's telegram. 
*Do it in such a fashion that for hundreds of kilometres around the people might see, tremble, know, shout: they are strangling and will strangle to death the bloodsucking kulaks.
Telegraph receipt and implementation.
 
Yours, Lenin. 
Find some truly hard people (Translation of 'hanging order' by Robert Service, page 365 of his Lenin a Biography (2000). London: Macmillan) 
Another translation I have seen (in Richard Pipes (1999). The Unknown Lenin: From the Secret Archive. Yale University Press) also uses the word 'designate' instead of execute. Colin4C (talk) 12:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lenin's Hanging Order 

message: :Image:Lenin-address.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Lenin-address.jpg

message: :Image:Lenin-sign.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Lenin-sign.jpg

message: This debate has been allowed to lapse, but it should be revived. I move that the article be moved to Lenin, since he was never called or refered to as "Vladimir Lenin", and never used this formulation himself. As pointed out above, his name was always Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov. His revolutionary pseudonym was "Lenin", "N. Lenin" or "Nikolai Lenin". Even after 1917, when his "official" name was "V.I. Lenin," he was never called Vladimir Lenin or Vladimir Ilyich Lenin as though Lenin was his surname. This can all be explained in the article. I will wait a day or two for comment, and then make the move (if I can figure out how to do it). Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 05:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Either name would work, so I say just leave it the way it is. Questioning81 (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia practice is not to name articles based on "what's correct", but rather on what's most common. Even if it's "wrong", I would say that Vladimir Lenin is more commonly used in English than Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov. See WP:UCN. —Gabbe (talk) 07:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Just one point, which won't change the outcome of this discussion, but it's not unimportant.  Lenin was never, never, never known as "Nikolai Lenin", except by some misinformed Western writers.  True, his name sometimes appeared as "N. Lenin" - but the N did not stand for Nikolai, or indeed any given name starting with N.  Referring to someone as "N. <surname>" is a Russian practice sometimes used when a person does not want his first name to be disclosed, or it's irrelevant in the context.  A Russian would know immediately that a person referred to as "N. Petrov" would have the surname Petrov but they would have no idea what his first name was, or even what letter it started with.  Chekhov used this device quite a bit.  If Lenin was ever referred to in the same form as "J. F. Kennedy", it would always have included both initials - "V. I. Lenin", never just "V. Lenin" - because the patronymic (Ilyich in this case) is an integral part of the name, it's derived from the father's first name, it's unchangeable, and it has greater cultural import than Western middle names have.  --  JackofOz (talk) 11:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Not everyone seems to agree, and why settle for an incorrect name if correctness is the reason for the move? LENIN, VLADIMIR ILYICH ULYANOV would be correct . Questioning81 (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

text: To answer your query on "Nikolai Lenin", I understood it arose because someone read "N. Lenin", assumed incorrectly the N stood for Nikolai, and others copied the error endlessly.  As I say, this error was confined to the West.  There was a similar discussion a couple of years ago, and someone dug up a Russian reference to "Nikolai Lenin", but that would most definitely have been the exception rather than the rule in Russia.  --  JackofOz (talk) 02:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For some time Vladimir Ulyanov lived in Germany under the passport of Nikolay Yegorovich Lenin (in reality a dead Collegiate Assessor whose passport was either stolen  or was given by Lenin's  children  to Ulyanov). Ulyanov used pennames and nicknames N. Lenin and then simply Lenin. After the October Revolution he used to sign documents as Vladimir Illich Ulyanov (Lenin). I think currently the most used English name is Vladimir Lenin and it should be used Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This suggests that he himself considered his entire pseudonym to be plain "Lenin", and not "Vladimir Lenin" or any other variants.  This is something I've often heard but was never entirely sure about.  If we're to be educationally encyclopedic, we should make "Lenin" the title, as suggested by our intelligent toad-like friend.  We can give his original name (Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov) and all the variants and other pseudonyms he used, in the body of the article.  --  JackofOz (talk) 06:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: His name (again)

message: Do we really need such a huge footnote from a single POV-source?:
:Yuri Slezkine. Princeton University Press, 2004. “But of course the most sensitive ‘nationality’ [ethnicity] of all was Lenin’s. In 1924, Lenin’s sister Anna discovered that their maternal grandfather, Aleksandr Dmitrievich Blank, had been born Srul (Israel), the son of Moshko Itskovich Blank, in the shtetl Starokonstantinov [Old Konstantinov] in Volynia [Volhynia, now Ukraine]. When Kamenev found out, he said, ‘I’ve always thought so,’ to which Bukharin allegedly replied: ‘Who cares what you think? The question is, what are we going to do?’ What ‘they’, or rather, the Party through the Lenin Institute, did was proclaim this fact ‘inappropriate for publication’ and decree that it be ‘kept secret’. In 1932 and again in 1934, Anna Ilinichna [Lenin’s sister] begged Stalin to reconsider, claiming that her discovery was, on the one hand, an important scientific confirmation of the ‘exceptional ability of the Semitic tribe’ and ‘the extraordinarily beneficial influence of its blood on the offspring of mixed marriages’; and, on the other, a potent weapon against anti-Semitism ‘owing to the prestige and love that [Vladimir] Ilich [Lenin] enjoys among the masses.’ Lenin’s own Jewishness, she argued, was the best proof of the accuracy of his view that the Jewish nation possessed a peculiar ‘“tenacity” in struggle’ and a highly revolutionary disposition. ‘Generally speaking,’ she concluded, ‘I do not understand what reasons we, as Communists, may have for concealing this fact. Logically, this does not follow from the recognition of the full equality of all nationalities.’ Stalin’s response was an order to ‘keep absolutely quiet’. Anna Ilinichna did. The enemies of the regime were deprived of additional anti-Semitic ammunition” (pgs. 245–246) — “All advanced Jews supported assimilation, according to Lenin, but it is also true that many of the ‘great leaders of democracy and socialism’ came from ‘the best representatives of the Jewish world’. Lenin himself did [have Jewish ancestry], through his maternal grandfather, although he probably did not know it. When his sister, Anna, found out, she wrote to Stalin that she was not surprised, and ‘this fact’ was ‘another proof of the exceptional ability of the Semitic tribe’, and that Lenin had always contrasted ‘what he called its “tenacity” in struggle with the more sluggish and lackadaisical Russian character’.” (p. 163) — “And in 1965, all archival documents relating to Lenin’s Jewish grandfather were ordered ‘removed without leaving any copies’.” (pg. 338)
The reference even does not give the book title BTW. Is all this staff highly relevant to the early childhood of VIL? Maybe we can write an article Blank family? - if I remember correctly one of Lenin's maternal great uncles was notable by his own right. Another possible article will be Jewish roots of Lenin in propaganda material there we could talk how different powers were trying to hide or enlarge Lenin's Jewishness? Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's from Slezkine's book The Jewish Century.Boodlesthecat Meow? 00:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish roots of Lenin 

message: This sentence "'Medicine.'{{Fact|date=March 2008}" was in the first setence of After death and im assuming its a grammical error. --Maant (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit

message: It looks like this article gets barraged by vandals since you took the lock off. Maybe it should be re-instated?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.94.177.89 (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Why was the semi-protect lock removed?

message: The transcription of Lenin's Hanging Order in this article is mostly a reproduction of another article: Lenin's Hanging Order. I feel it is redundant to include virtually all the material contained in another article. For instance the material on the Cheka etc etc is mostly referred to the appropriate article rather than copying out the whole thing here. It is also unbalanced and POV to only the quote this one order out of the thousands that Lenin was responsible for. Colin4C (talk) 10:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lenin's Hanging Order 

message: Beyond any doubt, Lenin was killed by syphillis.He was mad since at least, ten years before the Russian Revolution .Agre22 (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Neuro-syphillis killed Lenin