Talk:Useful idiot

message: I was surprised this article made no mention of the phrase in connection to modern Russia and in particular Putin, because we often saw it used that way over the past decade or so, describing Trump and many in the GOP. Indeed, given the phrase's height of popularity during the Cold War describing USSR fellow travelers, it's a natural extension from the USSR to Russia. So I found a recent article in The Economist in particular it names Putin as the one who finds "idiots useful" to his aims. A lot more should be said about this then the current one sentence.  -- GreenC 18:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is behind the paywall, but the visible blurb speaks of what is known as Putinversteher in Germany. Is it possible to expand it with the info from economist article? - Altenmann >talk 18:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This should work. But the concept of Putinversteher covers it well, so no need to expand too much in this article, other than somehow linking to Putinversteher. -- GreenC 20:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Vladimir Putin's useful idiots" 

message: Google ngram shows two blips on its radar for 1820-1830 and for 1860-1870 ranges. The second blip is likely in our article. Anybody up for hunting down the first one? Turning "smoothing" off, the pinpoint is 1824. - Altenmann >talk 04:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: A better search is at archive.org because they search 100% of each book whereas Google has more limited search within each book. Go to archive.org -> click on the second search box (not the wayback machine) -> click the "Search text contents" radio button -> enter "useful idiots" (in quotes) -> sort results on date of publication -> resort based on earliest first (the up and down arrows on the left side). It brings up many 19th century results, like Congressional Records from 1873. -- GreenC 15:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried; It looks like this tool messes with publication  dates mightily. - Altenmann >talk 20:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The term has a lot of hits so it's going to bring up a lot of false positives on the early date edges due to metadata entry problems, this is to be expected (like OCR errors "1785" instead of "1985"). But this is a good sign it means it's getting a lot of hits because of in-depth complete searching, unlike Google Books which has few hits in the early period. It's not difficult to scroll past them visually to find real sources. -- GreenC 15:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Earliest usage

message: Here we go again. Trump was added and removed and added and removed here. (reminds me Wikihistory - a strongly recommended read. :-)
I dont think it is a good idea to throw in political wrangles here. Yes, opponent call Trump a shill of Putin, but done so without solid evidence that Trump is indeed a useful idiot is IMO a violation of WP:BLP. I can bring lots of examples someone called some visible person fascist, dictator, nazi, and whats's not, but we are not going to litter wikipedia with such examples, do we?- Altenmann >talk 18:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That has been already debated at this talk page (Talk:Useful_idiot#"Vladimir_Putin's_useful_idiots", and you seem to agree with the inclusion. That was widely published. Let's just follow WP:PUBLICFIGURE, please. My very best wishes (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:PUBLICFIGURE say: . There was no incident nor an allegation of an incident, just a political slander. An incident or allegation would go like, e.g., "Trump did this and that, which played Putin's hand  and made Trump Potin's "useful idiot" The key missing part is "Trimp did this". Without that, it is just an empty slander. If you have examples of "Trump did this... useful idiot", they are IMO welcome here. - Altenmann >talk 18:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

text:  - that was not about Trump. "Putinversteher" is exactly what I am saying: the article explains reasons why some people are called "Putin-understanders". - Altenmann >talk 18:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are cited sources: ,,  (plus two articles in NYT). They do not call it "slander", this is your personal interpretation. This is a well-sourced contemporary usage of the term that is the subject of the page. Yes, one can call it a "claim", but this is a well-sourced, widely published and relevant (to the subject of the page) claim. And as such it is BLP-consistent, at least on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  You call it "claim", I call it "political slander", because it is claim without factual grounds. - Altenmann >talk 18:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

text:  P.S. from the sources you cited, I see something that fits my opinion: I saw something about Trump denying Russian interference into American elections. That would be not an empty slander. Can you formulate this into the article properly? - Altenmann >talk 18:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not matter if it was proven or not. In fact, if someone was or was not a "useful idiot" can never be proven, this is just a popular terminology used to express a personal opinion. It only matters, this is a notable claim, it was widely published and well sourced, and it is about the contemporary usage of the "useful idiot" expression, which is the subject of the page.  My very best wishes (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. You almost convinced me. Now what remains is to substantiate your claim "widely published and well sourced". Meaning you have to provide a WP:SECONDARY source to this end, not just refbombing (i.e., not only 2-3-4-5 persons called Trump useful idiot, which would be WP:UNDUE). - Altenmann >talk 19:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SECONDARY are sources that contain "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas" [provided by other sources]. These sources qualify as such. Importantly, the authors are former top-ranking USA officials, hence they are not directly involved. What counts is not the number of sources, but an author being someone notable and an expert on the subject. So, I believe that Madeleine Albright, Michael Morell and Michael Hayden do count as such. They know what they are talking about. The fact that all of them are notable and make the same assertion makes this example very much notable. My very best wishes (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

text: P.S. That was a policy-based argument. Personally though, I do not think he is "an idiot". Come on. He knew what he was doing. My very best wishes (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

text:  The persons you are talking about are non-neutral with respect to Trump (talking about political wrangles). We need  neutral secondary sources that state that political opponents of Trump call him "useful idiot". - Altenmann >talk 20:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Neutral sources aren't required, many would argue that there is no such thing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I stand corrected, you are right: WP:BIASED. However this guideline recommend to indicate bias when expected:  "The conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...". - Altenmann >talk 20:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

text: That is not a BLP violation in any sense. Its inclusion is due, we don't censor stuff just because it happens to be connected to messy political wrangling. This objection is without reasonable grounds. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is a BLP violation, but user My very best wishes argued that it does not apply to public figures, and I am OK with this. No, we dont censor stuff, but we dont add use of each and every insult into Wikipedia. - Altenmann >talk 20:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If it falls within the BLP policy then it is not a BLP violation. This is not a minor use of the term... Yes dozens of notable people are characterized as useful idiots each year in all sorts of contexts, but when it comes to Trump we have a lot more coverage than we do for basically anyone else. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "a lot more coverage" is what I am asking to prove with secondary sources, so that it would not be WP:UNDUE. - Altenmann >talk 20:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There was "a lot more coverage" in secondary sources in the section you removed so you are aware that it exists. In that context I don't know why its existence would have to be proven to you. Its clearly not undue. I hope you are not playing games. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trump 

message: Following the Trump case, can someone enlist Tucker Carlson here you should know why? - Altenmann >talk 22:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tucker Carlson 

message: I removed another chunk about Lenin's words. Per WP:COATRACK: this article is abouta  specific phrase. Lenin wrote and said plenty of disparaging things, but the subject of this article is not Lenin's swear words. - Altenmann >talk 16:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The rope issue comes up in sources when Lenin and this phrase are discussed. It's not a coatrack, it's a legitimate part of the history of this phrase in terms of the connection to Lenin. Some sources even imply the rope phrase is the real origin of useful idiot, which is another way of saying the same idea, originating with Lenin. -- GreenC 16:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Then write an article about rope. Yes it is a coatrack because it is tangential. Not to say that Lenin didnt say it either. That they may be discussed in the same piece of text does not mean they are related. The piece I deleted does not say that rope is a possible origin of idiot. As I say, you are welcome to write an article Lenin's misquotations; Lenin already did it himself :-). - Altenmann >talk 16:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

text: @GreenC. Yes, of course. These are actually different variations of the same or very similar ideas and expressions. The cited sources (not we) make direct connection to the subject of this page. Hence, this arguably belong to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Lenin's colorful expressions