Talk:Vladimir Lenin

Comment

In the Books 'The Unseen Hand' and 'Wall street and The Bolshevik Revolution'it is clearly demonstrated to me that Jewish support of comunism was mostly involuntary. The second mentioned work uses only mainstream sources;US congressional Record and the NY Times, et cetera to illustrate the vast sums expended to defeat the White and the Green Armies; as the super-rich Mellons, Rockefellers and such were afraid of the Green Army's 250,000 men establishing a new free republic even less authoritarian than the USA. Such a new republic and a rise of freedom and individualism in Russia would have negated the decades that monopolists had worked to cartelize what industries and markets could be controlled in the atmosphere of laissez-faire which had contributed so much to prosperity and power for America. Only after the Scottish and AngloSaxon power brokers had threatened the Jews did they mostly accede to the 'requests' to help the Reds destroy Russian chances for freedom. To this day Rssia has suffered the ill effects of their slavery under the religion of communism. Pollution is rampant in the commons destroyed by incompetents and tyrants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.40.186 (talk) 02:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong kind of "Green". Here Green means nationalists.radek (talk) 02:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Lenin and Anti-Semitism

Would the editor who put the tags in the above section like to discuss his motivations in so-doing here on the Talk page? 16:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason is simple. Lenin's stance on anti-Semitism is not a notable aspect of his life and there is no controversy on this issue. The entire section should be moved to History of the Jews in Russia and the Soviet Union#Under Lenin (1917-1924). --84.70.147.108 (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

There was massive controversy over the issue. The enemies of the the Bolsheviks - the Whites and the Fascists made great play over what they termed 'Jewish Bolshevism' and the astonishing (for them) spectacle of Jews in power in the Bolshevik government. Hitler invaded the Soviet Union on a crusade against 'Jewish Bolshevism' and killed over 20 million Russians in the process. That is serious. Colin4C (talk) 07:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

But this article is about Lenin's life and work, not about his enemies' racist propaganda. And Hitler invaded the Soviet Union 17 years after Lenin's death. Lenin did not have any notable (for this biography) or controversial views regarding anti-Semitism as he was against all forms of racial discrimination. This section is totally off-topic. --62.136.177.83 (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Lenin's anti-anti-Semitism was controversial as was his Jewish ancestry. Even today Solzhenitsyn, on behalf of the anti-Semitic Eastern Orthodox Church is ranting away about how the Jews should feel guilty for supporting and joining the Bolsheviks. Lenin's hatred of the the Eastern Orthodox church had a lot to do with how the latter supported the pogroms against the Jews by the Black Hundreds. Colin4C (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Lenin's views and actions provoked a lot of things, but what has all this got to do with his life and work? And since when was it "controversial" to oppose anti-Semitism? --84.69.110.10 (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

In Russia it was and is controversial. Before the revolution the Jews were not granted the smallest civil employment, even as postmen. Tsar Nicky hated them and tried to convict one of them for the supposed ritual murder of a child. The Tsarist authorities gave more than a nod and a wink to the pogroms of the Black Hundreds - they actively encouraged them. The Jews were confined to a pale of settlement in the west. The Bolshevik revolution saw a massive change - with Jews employed in the central government. The reactionary Whites saw this as almost the end of the world, but in line with the prophecies of the fraudulent Protocals of the Elders of Zion which asserted that the Jews were going to take over the world. To cope with this nightmare situation the White Armies indulged in indiscriminate genocide of Jewish men, women and children. A good job they didn't win the Civil war basically because they were ahead of Hitler in the anti-Semitic game. But even in Soviet Russia anti-Semitism has persisted - to the present day. Lenin's thoughts on the matter of anti-Semitism - which he recorded on a gramophone record - were concealed. Basically the mainstream thought that being pro-Jewish (like Lenin) or having a Jewish ancestry (like Lenin) was disgraceful and had to be hidden away like a terrible secret. Colin4C (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This is all very well Colin, but this has got nothing to do with Lenin's life and work. Why not have a section called "Lenin's stance on the Working Class" or "Lenin's stance on monarchism", etc? We could go on forever. --84.69.110.10 (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you want to remove this section because it reveals Lenin in a good light? I.e. not the demonic hate figure of contemporary American propaganda? Colin4C (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, I happen to be a Leninist. This stance is not a notable part of Lenin's life and work. He had many more notable stances which are not included in this biography. --84.66.28.123 (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ comrade. IMHO Tsarist/White Russia was well on the way to its own version of Hitlerite Fascism. Vis the sickening pogroms, the accusations of ritual murder directed at the Jews and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion forged by the Secret Police. If it hadn't been for Lenin and the Bolsheviks I think the Holocaust would have started in Russia rather than Germany. The White forces' genocide of Jewish men, women and children in the Civil War was only halted by the victory of Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Lenin stopped this Fascist trend in its tracks, and we should thank him for that, if nothing else. Colin4C (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I hear what you say, but again this does not conform to biographical standards. This is a specific issue of Jewish history, not of Lenin's life. There were far more significant events affecting Russia after 1917, and it is a given that a communist should be opposed to all forms of racism. --84.68.245.219 (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've made the title more relevant to the historical context. --90.240.236.150 (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

1. I agree with 84.68.245.219 above about the overall relevance of this topic to this particular article. A separate article may be more appropriate. 2. The word "emancipation" is inaccurate and inappropriate. It smacks of non-NPOV. More importantly it is inapplicable here - to emancipate means to free from slavery, bondage, etc. While Lenin might have been anti-anti-Semitic he did not free the Russian Jews from slavery, lead them out of Egypt or anything like that. Hence "Lenin's opposition to antisemitism" would be better... 3. except that the body of the text does not unambiguously support even that phrasing with references to some historians viewing Lenin's record in this matter as "highly uneven", admission that the Red Army also carried out pogroms and so on. 4. The tag to "anarchists" in this section links to Nestor Makhno. It's been awhile since I did the reading but I was under the impression that the allegations against Makhno were unsupported and essentially a product of Bolshevik propaganda. Makhno himself, once in exile bitterly denied any antisemitism on his own part or that his men carried pogroms. Someone with more knowledge here should comment. As this is also a kind of thing that can make the article grow unnecessarily it is also a good illustration as to why this whole section should essentially be its own article, per #1 above.radek (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The 'reasons that this section should have its own article' are mostly POV also, in that it suits American anti-Communists to portray Lenin as 'Mr Satan'. Therefore any info which contradicts the American Party Line has to be deleted from History and wikipedia readers brainwashed into believing that Lenin never did anything just or right. By the way the bit about the Red Army conducting pogroms comes from a very biased anti-Leninist source. People just don't want to admit that their White 'freedom fighter' heroes got their kicks from murdering, torturing and raping thousands of Jewish men, women and children and that the beloved Tsar Nicky tried to get a Jew convicted for 'ritual murder' of a child and that the Eastern Orthodox church gave whole-hearted support to the Black Hundred pogroms of Jews. If the Whites had won they would have murdered, tortured and raped a whole lot more Jews and pre-empted Hitler. The Whites were murdering fascist scumbags. Lenin (plus, the Jew, Trotsky) stopped them in their tracks. Good for him. Colin4C (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The reasons why this section should be its own article are simply that this particular issue is a fairly minor one in relation to Lenin's overall impact and life. That's it. You are making up reasons, attempting a mind reading pretty much, of why some editors feel differently than you do. This goes against Wiki's 'assume good faith' policy and is implicitly insulting to others. I don't know what the "American Party Line" is. I also don't know what would've happened if the Whites had won, and Wiki is not a place to speculate about that. Try one of the 'alternate history' website. The second half of your rant pretty much constitutes Original Research (actually, not even that - more like Original Speculation) and as such is not a sufficient basis for including this section in this article. As an aside, you should keep in mind that the "Whites", while they did include "murdering fascist scumbags", did also include non-Bolshevik socialists, anarchist, democrats and other non-fascists. It appears, if you allow me to do a bit of mind reading of my own, that in your attempt to ascribe a black and white worldview to others ("American anti-communists" or whoever) you seem to hold just such a view yourself. And seriously, find me someone, outside of Russia, who finds Tsar Nicky "beloved". What are you talking about?

For now however, I am merely objecting to the use of the word "emancipation" as it is clearly inappropriate, inaccurate and hyperbolic.radek (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You have just deleted the whole section! Why are you deliberately misleading us here about your intentions? And who gave you the right to mass delete material against concensus? Colin4C (talk) 07:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The section was deleted per user 84.70.147.108's comments above. Since I stated at the outset that I agreed with his comments I don't see any "misleading" here, deliberate or not.radek (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

On repeated attempts to catgeorize Lenin as a Jew

An editor has repeatedly attempted to argue that Lenin was a Jew by analogy with Harrison Ford.

Ford is recognized as a Jew because his mother was a Jew. On the other hand, Maria Ulyanova was not a Jew — her mother was not a Jew, nor was Maria a convert to Judaism. The fact tha Maria's father was a Jew (by way of matrilineal descent) doesn't change that.

Someone might object that “Jew” ought to be defined so that partrilineal descent and matrilineal descent counted equally, but saying (or even somehow proving) that things ought to be some way doesn't make them so. —SlamDiego_←T 21:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No biographical reliable sources consider Lenin to have been Jewish. We go by what reliable sources say. There is mention of his Jewish ancestry in some reliable sources, but that is quite different from categorizing him as Jewish. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No reliable sources consider him Jewish because he just doesn't fit an ordinary definition of “Jew” — he doesn't actually have unbroken matrilineal descent, and he wasn't a convert to Judaism. —SlamDiego_←T 23:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"No reliable sources" well that's a lie revert this all you want it's vandalism and you all know it. --Blackeagles (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If you produced a reliable source, that would immediately prove the claim that there were none were untrue. Again, for Lenin to be a Jew, he would either have had to have been a convert, or born to a Jewish mother. He wasn't a convert. For his mother to be a Jew, she would either to have been a convert or born to a Jewish mother; she wasn't a convert, and she wasn't born to a Jewish mother. The fact that her father was a Jew doesn't change that.

As to reverting, I feel no need to revert, as others are correcting your repeated damage. I just wanted to ensure that the issue were clearly and explicitly explained on the talk page, so that your persistence would either end or be shown to be in bad faith. —SlamDiego_←T 01:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Cause of death disputed?

This article is in the category "Cause of death disputed", but the article doesn't appear to mention what the dispute is, if there is in fact any. Should it be removed from this category, or is there a legitimate dispute about the cause of death that should be mentioned? norm77 (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Vladimir Iljits Uljanin

His father was Mordvin from one of Mordvin Uljanin villages. When moved to Simbirsk changed his name to Uljanoff. His mother was Volga German with fixed Kalmuk and Swedish roots. Where are the Jewish roots? Please do not try to make Jew of him in every corner. Thanks. This is proved in his own words to his friend Oskar Enberg who spend the exile time with him in the same village when both were deported to exile near Krasnojarsk in Siberia. This is well known in many written Finnish sources. Oskar held even the Orthodox wedding crown above Krupskaja´s head in their wedding seremony and later Krupskaja´s mother noted in her diary, "Oskar with his spendind sence of humor safed the whole ceremony to be a wedding instead of funerals." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.197.222 (talk) 11:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

His mother was half-Jewish. There's an entire article on his mother's family, which converted from Judaism to Orthodox Christianity to avoid persecution. --Humanophage (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

German Trains on Time

Pure nonsence that the German trains, despite on going World War in 1917, did not run on time. About 90 per cent run on time. The sealed train carrying Uljanin and his croup through Germany was ahead of its scheduled time when arriving to Sassnitz. The passenger coach where Uljanin travelled had its doors locked inside Germany. When pulled into Sassnitz - Trelleborg train ferry its doors were opened. In Sweden Uljanin´s coach was coupled onto ordinary Trelleborg - Malmö - Stockholm express train. North of Stockholm to Haparanda he travelled on Stockholm - Haparanda ordinary express train. In The Grand Duchy of Finland over journey from Tornio to Valkeasaari (Beloostrov) (- Petrograd) he travelled in ordinary express train, having meal in the evening on restaurant car between Kemi and Oulu. Next morning he had his breakfast between Haapamäki and Tampere and made public speech at Riihimäki junction station. The last 41 km the Tornio - Petrograd express train (with Finnish locomotive and rolling stock) run over the Russian soil through North Ingermanland. The American built 4-6-0 locomotive, Finland´s State Railways Nr. 293 (Richmond Works 2991 / 1900) hauling the express train from Viipuri to Petrograd was driven by locomotive driver Hugo Jalava who helped also later Uljanin out from Petrograd, arrived even on time (do you want the scheduled arriving time?) to Finland Station in Petrograd where Uljanin made his speech to Petrograder. He was helped to the roof of then few running cab automobiles outside station building. In fact, this locomotive was presented after receiving full repairs at Hyvinkää Works in 1957 to Soviet Union and is still preserved at St.Petersburg Finlandski Vokzal. Pehaps it is better to trust the people who eye-witnessed the whole episode than to the myths which appeared later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.197.222 (talk) 13:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Recurrent vandalism and edit warring

User 84.69.119.254 (and other associated ip addresses), you're in violation of the 3RR. Furthermore, your use of multiple, anonymous, IP addresses constitutes sock puppetry. On top of that you have made personal insults when making some of the changes. You also have tried to disguise your edits - changing "Lenin's stance on anti-Semitism" to "Lenin's emancipation of the Jews" - by acting like you're making non controversial edits in other parts of the article. Strangely enough, right before you revert the article somehow manages to get vandalized by anonymous users with an UK ip address just by coincidence and then you claim to revert vandalism when in fact you're actually reverting non-vandalism edits you don't like. I know, I know, I should assume good faith, but you've pretty much eroded that. As I stated above, I actually think the whole relevant section belongs in a separate article but in the spirit of compromise have left it in and merely changed the title to something NPOV and less hyperbolic. Since you continue to engage in uncooperative behavior however, I see no reason to continue in being nice. If you keep reverting I will simply remove the section, per tag. And no, you did not change the title to something "more historically accurate". You changed it to something blatantly POV. I would also be quite happy to have an administrator look at this matter and even lock down this page if this continues.radek (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I cannot cooperate with someone who is incapable of accepting the overwhelming evidence. You are the vandal here, and your reactionary Polish nationalist sympathies are plain for all to see. --84.68.92.208 (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

What the hey are you talking about? radek (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Mass deletions

I have just restored all the material Radek has mass deleted without warning:

"Lenin's emancipation of the Jews The chaotic years of World War I, the February and October Revolutions, and the Civil War were fertile ground for the antisemitism that was endemic to tsarist Russia. During the war, Jews were accused of sympathizing with Germany and often persecuted. Russian anti-semitism continued even after the lifting of official anti-Jewish restrictions by the February regime and the Bolsheviks. Pogroms were unleashed throughout the Civil War, perpetrated by virtually every competing faction, from anarchists, to Polish and Ukrainian nationalists to the Red and White Armies. Continuing the policy of the Bolsheviks before the Revolution, Lenin and the Bolshevik Party strongly condemned the pogroms, including official denunciations in 1918 by the Council of People's Commissars. Opposition to the pogroms and to manifestations of Russian anti-semitism in this era were complicated by both the official bolshevik policy of assimilationism towards all national and religious minorities, and concerns about overemphasizing Jewish concerns for fear of exacerbating popular anti-semitism, as the White forces were openly identifying the Bolshevik regime with Jews.

Lenin was intrigued with technology and in 1919 recorded eight of his speeches on gramophone records. Seven were later re-recorded and put on sale in the Khrushchev era. Significantly the one which was suppressed outlined Lenin’s feelings on anti-Semitism:

Lenin standing in the courtyard of the Kremlin in 1919.

“ The Tsarist police, in alliance with the landowners and the capitalists, organized pogroms against the Jews. The landowners and capitalists tried to divert the hatred of the workers and peasants who were tortured by want against the Jews. … Only the most ignorant and downtrodden people can believe the lies and slander that are spread about the Jews. … It is not the Jews who are the enemies of the working people. The enemies of the workers are the capitalists of all countries. Among the Jews there are working people, and they form the majority. They are our brothers, who, like us, are oppressed by capital; they are our comrades in the struggle for socialism. Among the Jews there are kulaks, exploiters and capitalists, just as there are among the Russians, and among people of all nations… Rich Jews, like rich Russians, and the rich in all countries, are in alliance to oppress, crush, rob and disunite the workers… Shame on accursed Tsarism which tortured and persecuted the Jews. Shame on those who foment hatred towards the Jews, who foment hatred towards other nations. ”

Lenin was supported by the Labour Zionist (Poalei Zion) movement, then under the leadership of Marxist theorist Ber Borochov, which was fighting for the creation of a Jewish workers' state in Palestine and also participated in the October Revolution (and in the Soviet political scene afterwards until being banned by Stalin in 1928). While Lenin remained opposed to outward forms of anti-semitism (and all forms of racism), allowing Jewish people to rise to the highest offices in both party and state, certain historians such as Dmitri Volkogonov argue that the record of his government in this regard was highly uneven. A former official Soviet historian turned staunch anti-communist, Volkogonov claims that Lenin was aware of pogroms carried out by units of the Red Army during the war with Poland, though the whole issue was effectively ignored. Volkogonov writes that “While condemning anti-Semitism in general, Lenin was unable to analyze, let alone eradicate, its prevalence in Soviet society”. Likewise, the hostility of the Soviet regime towards all religion made no exception for Judaism, and the 1921 campaign against religion saw the seizure of many synagogues (whether this should be regarded as anti-Semitism is a matter of definition since Orthodox churches received the same treatment).

However, according to Jewish historian Zvi Gitelman: “Never before in Russian history — and never subsequently has a government made such an effort to uproot and stamp out anti-Semitism”."

Do other editors here agree? Colin4C (talk) 07:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I gave warning. There has been consensus to delete it previously, yourself excluded of course. And the material duplicates, word for word, that found in History of the Jews in Russia. If you want to put in a few sentences on the subject somewhere in the article and direct readers to History of the Jews in Russia then please go ahead.radek (talk) 13:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That is just plain incorrect. There is no concensus to delete it. Or do you think one editor putting a tag on something is an indication of a concensus? Colin4C (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You and your sock puppets seem to be the only objectors. I would quite welcome the input of other editors and administrators on this issue as I'm getting tired of reverting your vandalisms. The material may be sourced but it is also a word for word duplicate of that found in History of the Jews in Russia where in fact it properly belongs. As I've indicated above, if you want to have a sentence or two somewhere in the body of this article along with a "see also: History of the Jews in Russia" that would be fine. As others (including Lenin's sympathizers) have noted above however, in THIS particular article this topic is given undue attention. And this isn't even to mention that the word "emancipation", as I've stated before, is incorrect just from the point of view of the English language (I'm assuming you speak it well enough, if not, my apologies - it's still incorrect however).radek (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I am reporting you to the admins forthwith unless you withdraw that personal attack and untrue statement now. A vandal is someone who deletes valid referenced material against concensus and thoughtlessly trashes other editors hard work. In those terms you are the vandal, not me. I am restoring the valid NPOV referenced material right now. Selectively deleting all the material in the article which shows Lenin in a good light, and then hiving it off into a subsidiary article, is an incredibly disingenuous way to high-light a conservative 'killer-demon' picture of Lenin. Basically it is just plain POV. Over the past two years I have made many positive contributions to this article and am a serious student of the subject and longstanding editor here who has been praised for many of the articles I have contributed to. Your only 'contribution' so far is to indulge in mass deletions and engage in untrue personal attacks on other editors. Can an admin sort this guy out? Colin4C (talk) 07:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Colin, in the light of your numerous personal insults (most of them in Edit summaries, not on this talk page) and your consistent failure to Wikipedia:Assume good faith on my part, your complaining about my calling your edits vandalism is absurd. Furthermore, I have explained my edits on this talk page numerous times. You have not explained yours, but rather have questioned my motivations and imagined my "ideology". My reasons for removing the material are pretty much the same as those indicated above by other users. Additionally, once again, allow me to point out that the relevant portion is a *word for word copy* of material found at History of the Jews in Russia - an issue which you have not addressed even once. You have also repeatedly removed a 'merge' tag placed there by myself and other editors, which constitutes a clear case of vandalism. I have already contacted an administrator and requested a third opinion.radek (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is such an example of a bad faith lie:

• (1)"You and your sock puppets seem to be the only objectors." (Radek)

Here is another lie:

• (2) "You have also repeatedly removed a 'merge' tag placed there by myself and other editors". (Radek)

A third example of a bad faith lie is:

• (3) "There has been consensus to delete it previously". (Radek)

But maybe truth doesn't matter to you? Just POV pushing, wikilawyering and harassing and personally attacking good faith, constructive editors who know something about the subject? Once you have got rid of them you will be free to spread your anti-Leninist hate campaign POV to the benighted multitude without hinderance and get your Ronald Reagan anti-Communist of the year award whilst making love to your Margaret Thatcher rubber doll. Colin4C (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Please. Continue.radek (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC) And just so it doesn't get lost in the internet ether, here are Colin's previous comments, which he chose to edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vladimir_Lenin&direction=prev&oldid=237598064 Apparently he thought bringing a M.Thatcher rubber doll into this discussion was more appropriate and mature than accusing me of helping Stalin with the Doctor's Plot. I really don't know what to say, except to reiterate my comment above: What the hey are you talking about?radek (talk) 23:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

But, even worse than that you still haven't answered me why you have made the following untruths in order to make your points rather than engaging in rational discourse. Viz:

• LIE 1: "You and your sock puppets seem to be the only objectors." (Radek)

Truth - I am not the only objector and I do not have any sockpuppets.

• LIE 2: "You have also repeatedly removed a 'merge' tag placed there by myself and other editors". (Radek)

Truth - I have never removed the merge tag, check edit history.

• LIE 3: "There has been consensus to delete it previously". (Radek)

Truth - there is no concensus to delete the material. The only person deleting the material is Radek. Colin4C (talk) 06:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

third opinion to the "mass deletions" argument:

1. I believe the material is duplicative with other articles.
2. The material is not clear and succinct, nor did I find it on-topic. Therefore, I believe that Radek's deletions should be re-instated. --Chrisknop (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

One more, mostly agreeing with Chris, also from WP:3O (which would make a fourth opinion?). I think Radek's suggestion: "a sentence or two somewhere in the body of this article along with a "see also: History of the Jews in Russia"" is probably the best one. It's worth a few sentences and a see-also, but not a large section of copied text. Compare Napoleon: Napoleon and the Jews; George Washington: George Washington and religion. As leaders of large countries, they all had a lot of influence, so it's worth a few sentences; but they are not remembered mostly, or even in a particularly large part, for their influence on Jews, so it's not worth a section. --GRuban (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Most of the material was copied into other articles from this one, not vice versa. This is a common practice amongst lazy editors and should not be used as an excuse to delete the original material. Lenin and the Bolsheviks policy towards the Jews was a radical departure from the previous history of Russia and the whole subject has a bearing on Lenin's harsh attitude towards the church mentioned elsewhere in the article. Lenin saw the Orthodox church as the prime mover behind the Black Hundreds who initiated pogroms against the Jews. The whole issue of anti-Semitic pogroms was a live issue during the Revolution, with the Reds warning that they were a manifestation of right-wing White terror and the Whites using them as an instrument of policy in actual pogroms and also vis-a-vis their proposed bloody mass pogrom of what they saw as a Jewish/Bolshevik government if they had ever captured Moscow (as per the reaction after the Paris Commune in 1871). White Anti-Semitism was a popular rallying standard for right-wing opponents of the Bolsheviks. Basically the Civil War was a stand off between the extreme right and the extreme left. The liberals didn't figure either in numbers or military strength. Ant-Semitism and anti-anti-Semitism it is an issue of a fundamental importance to the history of the time. Just out of interest do the deletionists think that in articles dealing with the history of the Third Reich that 'Hitler's attitude to the Jews' is an unimportant matter which should be relegated to a peripheral article? The Whites practised the same genocide against the Jews as Hitler. Lenin's attitude towards the Jews was therefore as important in historical terms as Hitler's attitude. Colin4C (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

As a comparison this is about a quarter of the material on Hitler's attitude to the Jews in the Hitler article:

"Hitler said he first became an anti-Semite in Vienna,[13] which had a large Jewish community, including Orthodox Jews who had fled the pogroms in Russia. But according to a childhood friend, August Kubizek, Hitler was a "confirmed anti-Semite" before he left Linz, Austria.[13] Vienna at that time was a hotbed of traditional religious prejudice and 19th century racism. Hitler may have been influenced by the writings of the ideologist and anti-Semite Lanz von Liebenfels and polemics from politicians such as Karl Lueger, founder of the Christian Social Party and Mayor of Vienna, the composer Richard Wagner, and Georg Ritter von Schönerer, leader of the pan-Germanic Away from Rome! movement. Hitler claims in Mein Kampf that his transition from opposing antisemitism on religious grounds to supporting it on racial grounds came from having seen an Orthodox Jew:

There were very few Jews in Linz. In the course of centuries the Jews who lived there had become Europeanized in external appearance and were so much like other human beings that I even looked upon them as Germans. The reason why I did not then perceive the absurdity of such an illusion was that the only external mark which I recognized as distinguishing them from us was the practice of their strange religion. As I thought that they were persecuted on account of their faith my aversion to hearing remarks against them grew almost into a feeling of abhorrence. I did not in the least suspect that there could be such a thing as a systematic antisemitism. Once, when passing through the inner City, I suddenly encountered a phenomenon in a long caftan and wearing black side-locks. My first thought was: Is this a Jew? They certainly did not have this appearance in Linz. I carefully watched the man stealthily and cautiously but the longer I gazed at the strange countenance and examined it feature by feature, the more the question shaped itself in my brain: Is this a German?[13]

If this account is true, Hitler apparently did not act on his new belief. He often was a guest for dinner in a noble Jewish house, and he interacted well with Jewish merchants who tried to sell his paintings.[14]

Hitler may also have been influenced by Martin Luther's On the Jews and their Lies. In Mein Kampf, Hitler refers to Martin Luther as a great warrior, a true statesman, and a great reformer, alongside Wagner and Frederick the Great.[15] Wilhelm Röpke, writing after the Holocaust, concluded that "without any question, Lutheranism influenced the political, spiritual and social history of Germany in a way that, after careful consideration of everything, can be described only as fateful."[16][17]

Hitler claimed that Jews were enemies of the Aryan race. He held them responsible for Austria's crisis. He also identified certain forms of Socialism and Bolshevism, which had many Jewish leaders, as Jewish movements, merging his antisemitism with anti-Marxism. Later, blaming Germany's military defeat in World War I on the 1918 revolutions, he considered Jews the culprits of Imperial Germany's downfall and subsequent economic problems as well."

All of this and more is in the main Hitler article - not in a peripheral one. Colin4C (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The difference, of course, is that Hitler is remembered for a very large part due to his actions in relation to Jews. --GRuban (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Lenin's attitude was just as important. If it hadn't been for him genocide of the Jews would have started in 1918 rather than 1941. The Jewish question was as big an issue in Russia as it was Hitler's Germany. The Protocals of the Elders of Zion, which Hitler believed in, was originally a Russian document and was read by the White generals. Tsar Nicky records in his diary how much he approved of it. He was reading it with great delight during his confinement by the Bolsheviks at Ekaterininburg, shortly before he was executed. It is only due to the untiring efforts of anti-Communists that the disgusting mass genocide, murder, torture and rape of hundreds of thousands of Jews by the Whites in the Civil War has become a forgotten 'detail of history'. As Adolf said on another occasion: "Who remembers the Armenians"? [referring to the forgotten Armenian genocide perpetrated by the Turks]. Colin4C (talk) 06:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

See, the difference is that you are arguing that Lenin's Jewish relationships were just as important. I'm saying that doesn't really matter; what matters is that the world doesn't think of them as such. There are more books about Lenin than you can shake a stick at, and relatively few of them focus on his relations with the Jews. They mention them, of course, so should we; but relatively few books that focus on, and trying to give a comprehensive overview of, Lenin, devote any reasonable fraction of their length to them. Same with Napoleon, and Washington, and Alexander, and ... Maybe they should, from logic and fairness and equality and whatnot; but they don't. We're not here to change what the world thinks about someone, just to document it. Now if you can find a couple of books that do cover the subject well, feel free to write a separate, well referenced, article about Lenin and the Jews like Napoleon and the Jews, and the Lenin article should link to it, per Wikipedia: Summary style. It may well be important as a subject in and of itself. But devoting so much space to it here doesn't really reflect the impact it has had, relative to all the other things the world knows about Lenin; it is undue weight. --GRuban (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The "things the world knows about Lenin" are mediated by American Imperialism, Global capitalism, Polish Anti-Semitism, Zionism, a whole barrage of lies. The CIA has full time operatives working on the wikipedia just to make sure the truth never appears. What I have to say has no importance in this scheme of things. My only message to you is: do not be a dupe. Colin4C (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Nazism was/is defined in large part by its anti-semitism; Communism was/is not. Proportional amounts of information should be used. Colin, you might have a point, and I applaud your effort to get the word out, but isn't it something you can say (summarize) in one or two sentences? The passages you want in the article are simply too long and do not seem on-point. --Chrisknop (talk) 08:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You are right Communism wasn't defined by its attitude to the Jews, but for Lenin, which this article is about, the matter of the Jews was very important. Robert Service in his recent biography of Lenin makes special and repeated comment on it. Ironic that his comments on the Jews have been censored twice. First time by Stalin and the second time by wikipedia editors. Colin4C (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Please note that as plagiarism of copyright material is not allowed on the the wikipedia and that I have therefore reverted material which is taken word for word from a book without using quotation marks. See Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Colin4C (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I wasn't sure how to rewrite the sentence, the quote and the sentence after it, to better convey the gist of the relevant paragraph in Mawdsley's book so perhaps my wording was a little too close to the original (it was not word for word). Here's the relevant bit:

http://books.google.com/books?id=LUhXZD2BPeQC&pg=PA191&lpg=PA191&dq=russian+civil+war+chinese+experts&source=web&ots=-vlr7sBO1g&sig=U6NCzsmFV9ZEbCvBhnK4mguLNms&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result

It is obvious that the speaker quoted by Mawdsley (from a source by Leggett which I do not have access to) is racist and anti-semitic. However the paragraph that the quote is taken from is not about embellishment of reporters which is the impression that the text in the Wiki article gives. Rather it is about Cheka's atrocities.radek (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

In relation to my text:

"Many lurid and often embellished accounts of these atrocities were produced. A British observer claimed that "The evidence of wholesale executions...of the cold-blooded and refined tortures carried out by Chinese experts and of the revolting sadism of young Jewesses is irrefutable"."

I would say that positing Chinese torture experts and sadistic Jewesses is an embellishment of the original data on the atrocities. Unless you truly believe that the Cheka DID employ Chinese torture experts and sadistic Jewesses on its payroll....Colin4C (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course the quote is lurid and embellished. The problem is the "Many" that precedes these two adjectives. The way you reference it makes it seem as if the cited work (Mawdsley) is reporting numerous such instances but in fact the paragraph from which this quote is drawn is actually about Cheka's atrocities and if anything, Mawdsley seems to offer this quote (off-handedly, in parentheses) precisely because it is peculiar - i.e. untypical. However, in order to make a display of good faith here, I've left it in as you wrote it.radek (talk) 05:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Censorship

Please note that a dedicated edit warrior is needed to censor this valid referenced material, three times a day for the next three months, at least, because it reveals Lenin in too good a light. The question of anti-Semitism was very important in Russian history, but American capitalist propaganda is the main priority here. The party line to follow is that "the White massacres of Jews were entirely unimportant and that besides everybody was doing it". Hundreds and thousands of murdered men, and Jewish women and children being tortured and raped was just high spirits on the part of the White freedom fighters and should never be compared to Hitler and the Nazis! The only evil people were the Communists. Here is the offending material:

Lenin was intrigued with technology and in 1919 recorded eight of his speeches on gramophone records. Seven were later re-recorded and put on sale in the Khrushchev era. Significantly, the one which was suppressed outlined Lenin’s feelings on anti-Semitism[36]:

“ The Tsarist police, in alliance with the landowners and the capitalists, organized pogroms against the Jews. The landowners and capitalists tried to divert the hatred of the workers and peasants who were tortured by want against the Jews. … Only the most ignorant and downtrodden people can believe the lies and slander that are spread about the Jews. … It is not the Jews who are the enemies of the working people. The enemies of the workers are the capitalists of all countries. Among the Jews there are working people, and they form the majority. They are our brothers, who, like us, are oppressed by capital; they are our comrades in the struggle for socialism. Among the Jews there are kulaks, exploiters and capitalists, just as there are among the Russians, and among people of all nations… Rich Jews, like rich Russians, and the rich in all countries, are in alliance to oppress, crush, rob and disunite the workers… Shame on accursed Tsarism which tortured and persecuted the Jews. Shame on those who foment hatred towards the Jews, who foment hatred towards other nations. ”

Please delete at will. Note also that according to the new wikipedia definition whimsical mass deletions of other editor's hard work in favor of your own personal POV is never be classed as vandalism. The true vandals are those that painstakingly add referenced valid material to the wikipedia and put a lot of hard work into it. Colin4C (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again. As it has been explained to you numerous number of times, and as editors from 3OO have stated above, the problem was 1) the fact that the text is a word for word duplicate of that found in another article, and 2) undue weight. Now, what you've put in above is much shorter than the copy-paste that was there before. I would still prefer that the paragraph(s) on the subject be rewritten so that we don't have an exact duplicate in two separate articles but for now I think this is fine and the length is not of undue weight. So I'm going to leave it in. And you really really need to work on your issues with basic civility and assuming good faith.radek (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The stuff was copy-pasted FROM here, not TO here. I know, because I wrote most of it HERE! Unlike some editors I do not confine my activity on the wikipedia to mass deletions of other editors hard work. I am a constructive editor who values knowledge. As for civility and good faith, unlike some editors I could mention, I do not instantly make false accusations about 'sock-puppets' as soon as one of my edits is opposed. I prefer to use reason rather than employ personal abuse. I have read many books on the subject of Lenin and think we should discuss the issues rather than wikilawyering. Colin4C (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Colin, I'd be delighted to discuss the issue rather than "wikilawyering" and reverting. In fact, I believe that's what I've been doing. You're the one who has made repeated personal attacks and sometimes crazy accusations rather then discuss the main issue - which you've finally addressed. The basic point is that to have the same large piece of text in two separate articles is not desirable. It makes Wiki look amateurish and seems like "article-mining". And what matter's is not the ORIGIN of the content (where it was first written) but rather where it BELONGS. And it clearly belongs in History of Jews in the Soviet Union. Text gets moved all the time and put in articles where it is more appropriate all the time.

But as I've indicated I can accept the article as it is at the moment.radek (talk) 23:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Undue Weight

There are many problems with the section titled "Red Terror." To start, it does not entirely relate to the subject at hand. This article is a biography of a particular Russian politician while the section in concern is an aspect of the civil war in Russia. Second, its emphasis is disproportionate. A detail of the civil war in Russia should not occupy one-fifth of the article of a man whose political career spanned nearly 30 years. Wikipedia is supposed to give a broad general survey of the subject rather than cherrypicking and emphasizing a few details. Thus, I have rewritten the section to give just a brief summary of the situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.210.101 (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Red Terror is certainly an important aspect of Lenin's life. That's like saying that Robespierre's time on the Committee of Public Safety or his role in the Terror are given undue weight because, you know, the guy did many other things besides. This is a spurious and empty complaint.radek (talk) 04:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not the inclusion of material concerning the “Red Terror” that is the problem. What is problematic is that it is disproportionate and erratic in its emphasis. A brief summary of the situation amounting to a few sentences like in Figes’ Encarta entry on Lenin would have sufficed. The section reads like a separate article that has little to do with the subject at hand. Contrary to your objections, Lenin is not remembered for the Red Terror similar to Robespierre and the French Revolution. Figes in his Encarta entry on defines his legacy as a leading Russian thinker and writer, a major revolutionary leader, and the founder of a country. The section can stay, but it needs to be kept in proportion to the rest of the article. The section should not be deleted but should be reduced in length. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.210.101 (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

I have removed Andrew and Gellately because neither of these authors specialize in the subject at hand. Andrew's book is about the KGB while Gellately specializes in German history. Neither of these reflect scholarly consensus. Nor is there much room for Pipes in this article because the scholarly community has extensively criticized his work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.210.101 (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove references without hashing it out on talk page here. All three of these (Andrew, Gellately and Pipes) are respected historians. Yes, SOME in the scholarly community have criticized some of their work and findings but that's how academia operates (and of course Pipes and others have criticized their critics back). They are all considered reliable sources. In particular, in regard to Andrew and Gellately not being specialists in Lenin - well, obviously various topics in history overlap. The history of KGB most certainly does as does the relevant portion of German history. If you have OTHER (reliable) sources which contradict the statements made by these authors feel free to include them and cite them. But please do not remove these.radek (talk) 05:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It should also be noted that a quick look at user 204.102.210.101's contrib history reveals that aside from removing sources s/he doesn't like from and adding pov statements into numerous articles (all of which changes must than be repeatedly reverted by conscientious editors) at least a few of them are just simple straightforward vandalisms of pages s/he doesn't like (for whatever reason). For example, vandalizing the article on the Armenian flag: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Flag_of_Armenia&diff=prev&oldid=227439587 As this user is basically a known vandal I suggest his changes get reverted on sight. radek (talk) 05:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Robert Gellately is no more of an authority on Russia than an undergraduate like myself. He specializes in the study of German history and knows nothing about Russia except for the erratic work of Pipes that permeates his book. Characterizing Robert Gellately as a respected historian is a demonstration of appeal to authority fallacy. While Gellately's input is certainly valuable when it concerns Nazi Germany, he is by no means an authority on Russia.

To cite Christopher Andrew’s pop-fiction book on the KGB is similarly bizarre. His book deals with classified documents smuggled by ex-KGB emigrant Mitrokhin. Their book does not relate to Lenin in particular or the Russian Revolution in general. You would be hard-pressed to find Andrew’s work on the KGB cited in a scholarly account of revolutionary Russia.

To cite Pipes is problematic because he does not reflect a scholarly consensus on the subject. His work has been overwhelmingly derided by the academic community. Diane Koenker of the University of Illinois called Pipes' book on the Russian Revolution a "methodologically flawed polemic masquerading as historical scholarship.” Ronald Grigor Suny in the journal American Historical Review of finds Pipes' book to be "a personal political vision, an indictment that is highly selective, uneven in its treatment, and eccentric in its emphases and omissions.” Even Pipes' former colleague Peter Kenez in "Russian Review" finds Pipes to be "blinded by a narrow, unattractive ideology" who is unable to "retell the great story of the Russian Revolution in a convincing fashion." There are dozens of scholarly works on the subject in many languages that are reflective of a scholarly consensus unlike Pipes’ polemics. If Pipes is to be cited, his work must be clearly attributed. Calling Pipes a respected historian is a gross overstatement.

Examples of legitimate, scholarly sources on revolutionary Russia include books by Carr, Fitzpatrick, Mawdsley, Chamberlin, Liebman, Ferro and especially Isaac Mints’ comprehensive history in Russian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.210.101 (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmm. I've blocked this IP as a likely Jacob Peters sock - same network as before, same POV-pushing on the same articles. Moreschi (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Article states, that he has ancestors of many nationalities, but his father was by most kalmyk.

One of 100 most important?

He was one of 100 most important guys of 20th century, according to a criticized list done from an US-centric perspective. I think it can remain in the article, but being trivia it doesn't fit in the intro, so it should be moved to some advanced position in the article. Also: it serves as an opinion painted straight onto my nose, an opinion that I would rather prefer to come to by myself: it's slightly un-NPOV-ish, although it formally fulfills the NPOV policy. Said: Rursus (☻) 14:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way: the 100 top-list is weak according to my opinion, I'm fairly certain Ronald Reagan and Eleanor Roosevelt will be forgotten during the 21th century, while some more African and Asian guys is certainly missing, and of course: Josh Dzhugg Stalin-man. Said: Rursus (☻) 14:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Please remove the absurd claim that the fifth Collected Works was systematically censored. True it is not complete but you can find a large amount of the excluded material in e.g. Leninskii Sborniki of the 1920s. Figes is in no sense a Lenin expert. Very little 'suppressed' has been found since 1991. See e.g. Pipes The Unknown Lenin. This collection shows how little was kept from public view. Scarcely evidence for a systematic suppression of Lenin's thought, even if his precise views were a politically sensitive matter in the old USSR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.230.154.175 (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Russian "SSR"

In the first paragraph, "Russian Soviet Socialist Republic" should read either "Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic" (this being a proper noun) or "Russian Soviet republic"/"Russian socialist republic"/etc. There's no such thing as the Russian SSR, even if the reader will know what is being talked about. 118.90.15.129 (talk) 10:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Red Terror too long

The section is too long and goes back and forth. It should be summarized and reduced in length. Biographies about Lenin do not devote one-fifth of the content to a period in 1918 spanning a few months. Kasernewinkt (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Rather than reverting it 6 times, why don't you wait until a discussion has began. You can't just revert things because of your opinion. Get some other editorial support. By the way, for breaking 3RR, expect to be banned. Luna Rain^HowL_Cry 01:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's too long. Let's create a draft here. Brown99 (talk) 04:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

After the Bolshevik Revolution of October 1917, Anti-Communist grouped themselves loosely into the 'White Movement'. In 1918, the White Movement started the Russian Civil War against the newly created Russian SFSR. The mass arrests and summary executions carried out by the White Movement became known as the White Terror. The Red Terror was claimed to be introduced in reply to White Terror. Following the assassination attempt on Lenin and the successful assassination of Petrograd chief of secret police Moisei Uritsky, Stalin, in a telegram argued that a policy of “open and systematic mass terror” be instigated against “those responsible”. The other Bolsheviks agreed, and instructed Felix Dzerzhinsky, whom Lenin had appointed to head the Cheka in 1917, to commence a “Red Terror”, which was officially announced to the public on 1 September 1918, by the Bolshevik newspaper, Krasnaya Gazeta. According to Christopher Read, at this time, due to the assassination attempt by Kaplan, Lenin was lying severely wounded in the hospital and was too ill to advise retaliatory measures. But, according to MI5's official historian at the University of Cambridge, Christopher Andrew, and Richard Pipes, while recovering from his wounds, Lenin instructed: "It is necessary - secretly and urgently to prepare the terror." According to Pipes, Lenin's Hanging Order, which was translated and published by Robert Service Professor of history at Oxford and an outspoken anti-communist, claims that Lenin himself ordered terror on 11 August 1918, before he was fired on.

Lenin remained an advocate of red terror, according to Richard Pipes. In a letter of 19 March 1922, to Molotov and the members of the Politburo, following an uprising by the clergy in the town of Shuia, Lenin outlined a brutal plan of action against the clergy and their followers, who were defying the government decree to remove church valuables: “We must (…) put down all resistance with such brutality that they will not forget it for several decades. (…) The greater the number of representatives of the reactionary clergy and reactionary bourgeoisie we succeed in executing (…) the better.” Estimates of the numbers of the clergy killed vary. According to Orlando Figes and The Black Book of Communism, 2,691 priests, 1,962 monks and 3,447 nuns were executed as a result of Lenin's aforementioned directives. Historian Christopher Read estimates from the records that a grand total of 1,023 clergy were killed in the whole period 1917-23. However, the late Alexander Yakovlev, the architect of glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring) and later head of the Presidential Committee for the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repression, cites documents that confirm nearly 3,000 were shot in 1918 alone. Yakovlev stated that Lenin was "By every norm of international law, posthumously indictable for crimes against humanity."

During the Civil War, atrocities were carried out by both Reds and Whites. According to historian Christopher Read the numbers killed by the White forces were on a comparable scale to the Bolsheviks and can probably be numbered in hundreds of thousands. For instance, the Whites killed 115,000 Ukrainian Jews in 1919 alone. But, according to The Black Book of Communism, the two types of terror were not on the same level. The Red Terror, which was official policy, was more systematic, better organized, and targeted at whole social classes (i.e. Decossackization). The White Terror was never systematized in such a fashion, and was almost invariably the work of detachments that were taking measures not authorized by the military command. Professor Donald Rayfield asserts that only Roman Ungern von Sternberg, Nestor Makhno and some Cossack forces employed terror on a scale comparable to the Red Terror. However, according to historian Evan Mawdsley, the White general Anton Denikin "deserves criticism" for not fully condemning anti-Jewish pogroms. According to Lenin critic Robert Conquest, "Lenin's terror was the product of years of war and violence, of the collapse of society and administration, of the desperate acts of rulers precariously riding the flood, and fighting for control and survival. Stalin, on the contrary, attained complete control at a time when general conditions were calm." The late Australian historian and leftist intellectual Manning Clark described Lenin as "Christ-like, at least in his compassion." Some of Lenin's own writings tend to contradict this view; like in "How to Organize the Competition," which proclaimed the common, united purpose of purging the Russian land of all kinds of "vermin, of fleas—the rogues, of bugs—the rich, and so on" and that "one out of every ten idlers will be shot on the spot." Christopher Hitchens, a former Trotskyite, also describes Lenin as "a great man." According to Hitchens: "One of Lenin's great achievements, in my opinion, is to create a secular Russia. The power of the Russian Orthodox Church, which was an absolute warren of backwardness and evil and superstition, is probably never going to recover from what he did to it." Some social democratic Marxists from Lenin's time, such as Yuliy Osipovich Martov and Karl Kautsky, were highly critical of his regime's use of capital punishment, which Kautsky described as "terrorism". Russian Provisional Government minister Viktor Chernov described Lenin as "a virtual Robespierre."

Robert Gellately unreliable?

I'd like to start a discussion on the reliability of Robert Gellately, a historian who wrote many controversial books. Under Section: Lenin and the Red Terror, he is considered to be an unreliable source. Opinions? Anyone? Luna Rain^HowL_Cry 04:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Gellately is a specialist in the history of Germany. He is not considered to be an authority on the history of Russia. Thus, he is unreliable. Kasernewinkt (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

He can specialize in whatever crap he wants... the thing is, he majored in history for a college degree. Therefore, he knows much more than you or I will probably ever know about large events in world history like WWII/Lenin's Red Terror. Sure, he can specialize in Germany's history, but that doesn't change the fact that he is a historian, and quite an accomplished one at that. Luna Rain^HowL_Cry 01:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Problems with sources

Wikipedia states:

• Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

This article contains sources that do not conform to Wikipedia's policies. First, Robert Gellately is not a specialist on the history of Russia. Nor is Melgunov's nearly 90-year-old work reliable because he was a politician, not a professional historian. Melgunov, as a member "People's Socialist Party", a right-wing faction of the SR Party, was a politician hostile to the Russian Government. Aleksandr Yakovlev was not a professional historian at an academic institution but was a politician who supported the policies of Yeltsin. Professor Donald Rayfield is a specialist in literature, not history. These sources have to be removed. Examples of reliable sources include work by specialists on Russian history such as Alexander Rabinowitch, Evan Mawdsley, Sheila Fitzpatrick, Diane Koenker, Isaac Mints, G.N. Golikov and others. Kasernewinkt (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, we are quoting Gellately directly from a book he wrote...about Hitler, Stalin, and Lenin. Melgunov's wikipedia article states, and I quote: "Sergei Petrovich Melgunov was a Russian historian, publicist and politician best known for his opposition to the Soviet government." The other sources all seem semi-reliable/questionable at best. "Gellately, Earl Ray Beck Professor of History at Florida State University, claims...Gellately claims" You see, even if Robert Gellately is not a specialist on the history of Russia, that doesn't mean he does not understand the material. He is a historian, and a Professor of History. Look at you or me. We're not specialists, yet we edit Wikipedia to the perspectives that we find correct...albeit those verifiable.Luna Rain^HowL_Cry 02:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

We are not specialists. But there are plenty of people who are, who disagree with Gellately. And plenty who do make their central interest Russian history. If we will follow deference to academia, as you (rightly) suggest, then we must stop quoting Gellately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.247.64 (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The test is the quality of evidence and reasoning deployed, not the professional position of the writer. So Gellately should not be relied on, nor Richard Pipes or Robert Conquest. Signed Will Podmore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.85.214 (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Nadezhda Krupskaya

I noticed that on a few occasions in the article mention is made of "Lenin's wife", and there is even a picture with the caption "Lenin and his wife"; but there is no mention whatsoever of her name; Nadezhda Krupskaya. As this article is "semi-protected" would one of the page's dignatories like to correct this ommission? Thanks! --TTKK (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous.

This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for propaganda. Criticism of Lenin is understandable and quite possibly deserved; but no matter what your position on the man and his deeds, sections like the one about the Red Terror are simply absurd. To mention that crimes were committed is fine; to go into lurid and lengthy detail about them smacks of the blandest of propaganda. Mentioning the opinions of anti-communists is also fine; but it has to be taken into consideration that these are not "neutral" sources and cannot make up such a large proportion of the article (neither can those of his defenders). This article reads like it was written by crazy conspiracy theorists, or by Joe McCarthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.221.56.17 (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Article title

Is "Vladimir Lenin" the correct title for this article? This is a subjective view, but I don't recall ever hearing or reading of him by this name - it's either "Lenin" or "Vladimir Ilyich Lenin". Can anyone point to sources that say that "Vladimir Lenin" is the WP:COMMONAME for this person? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I see nobody seems interested in this issue, so if there are no objections in the next couple of days I'll move this article to Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. Using Google Books searches, which is the best way I could think of for judging the most commonly used name, I find 959 hits without the patronymic and 1435 with. Amongst the sources with the patronymic Ilyich and Ilich are pretty nearly equal, but WP:RUS would suggest using Ilyich. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

it is my understanding that the pseudonym Lenin did not include a patronymic, and this is a confusion. But in any case, we don't normally use patronymics in article titles; compare Stalin, Pushkin, Tolstoy, Prokofiev, and Shostakovich. Ilyich should be twice avoided; the spelling variation makes the article harder to find and link to. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Red Terror

I note that the subsection on Red Terror includes the following:

"Some of Lenin's own writings tend to contradict this view; like in "How to Organize the Competition," which proclaimed the common, united purpose of purging the Russian land of all kinds of "vermin, of fleas—the rogues, of bugs—the rich, and so on" and that "one out of every ten idlers will be shot on the spot.

Lenin did not publish this. In fact, it was first circulated by Stalin in 1929–five years after Lenin's death–as a justification for the forthcoming terror that would be instituted under Stalin. Robert C. Tucker, who is not at all sympathetic to Bolshevism, even admits that in all likelihood Lenin had very different second thoughts after rereading the article. In all likelihood, the passage has no bearing on Red Terror.

Anybody may see the text of Tucker's book at

http://books.google.com/books?id=L9pcTIEP1OQC&pg=PA90&lpg=PA90&dq=Lenin+idlers+shot&source=bl&ots=Z0JdBidZ92&sig=hMLJDNv7Rm5QRZZ69QV1Bb7fQJk&hl=en&ei=wKXdSeTuNZKimAeu8NikDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#PPA90,M1

If not, simply enter the phrase

Lenin idlers shot

into Google; the third hit I got was the Tucker excerpt. For convenience's sake, I shall reproduce Tucker's writing right here:

Another document that proved useful was "How to Organize

Competition," an essay written by Lenin in January 1918 and withheld from publication. It appeared in Pravda on 20 January 1929 under the title "Lenin--Banner of the Millions," sharing space that day with Krupskaya's "Ilyich and Kolkhoz Construction.
In one part of this previously unpublished article, Lenin launched into a tirade against "the rich and their hangers-on, and the crooks, the idlers, and the hooligans" and those described as "these dregs of humanity, these hopelessly decayed and atrophied limbs, this contagion, this plague, this ulcer that socialism has inherited from capitalism." He went on: "No mercy to these enemies of the people, the enemies of socialism, the enemies of the toilers! War to the bitter end to the rich and their hangers-on, the bourgeois intellectuals; war on the rogues, the idlers, the hooligans!" As for the way to wage the war, and "to cleanse the land of Russia of all sorts of harmful insects, of the flea-crooks and bedbug-rich, and so on and forth," Lenin had these thoughts to offer: "In one place half a score of the rich, a dozen crooks, half a dozen workers who shirk their work (in the hooligan manner in which compositors in Petrograd, particularly in the party printing shops, shirk their work) will be put in prison. In another place they will be put to cleaning latrines. In a third place they will be provided with 'yellow tickets' after they have served their time, so that all the people shall have them under surveillance, as harmful persons, until they reform. In a fourth place, one out of every ten idlers will be shot on the spot." After appearing in Pravda and other soviet [sic] papers, this short essay was put out as a pamphlet with a circulation of 3.5 million copies.
Why Lenin chose to whithold it from publication is unknown. Krupskaya's much later statement in her memoirs that he did so b ecause he considered it "unfinished" is not convincing; it is as finished as other quickly written pieces that he did publish. Conceivably, he himself was taken aback by its extremism when he reread it on returning from

the brief vacation in Finland during which he wrote the essay.

--Robert C. Tucker, Stalin in Power: The Revolution from Above, 1928-1941. W. W. Norton & Company, 1992 ISBN 0393308693, ISBN 9780393308693. Pp. 89-90; emphasis mine.

Since I am not one of the elect Wikipedians charged with disseminating enlightenment on all subjects, I myself am rendered it incapable of editing the article. I would appreciate, however, if somebody "nuanced out" what is presently written with the addition of Tucker's highly important commentary on this issue.

Even Andrzej Walicki, in Marxism and the Leap to the Kingdom of Freedom (Stanford University Press, 1997. ISBN 0804731640, ISBN 9780804731645. P. 307.), throughly condemning Lenin and Leninist policy, is forced to admit as much:

True, the article containing these practical recommendations never appeared in print

http://books.google.com/books?id=NgZ6vitEjq4C&pg=PA307&lpg=PA307&dq=Lenin+idlers+shot&source=bl&ots=R_5B1_CyEG&sig=nv2pUnfZVREJGtDM3pGzclOkzdg&hl=en&ei=wKXdSeTuNZKimAeu8NikDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9

166.217.251.170 (talk) 09:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was NO CONSENSUS to move page, per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Also refer to previous discussion on the topic above.

• Vladimir Lenin → Vladimir Ilyich Lenin — Most sources either just say "Lenin" or use the patronymic --Phil Bridger (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • This move discussion is actually above in the section "Article title", as clearly indicated in the move template at the top of this talk page. Please don't create duplicate discussions that can only lead to confusion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Previous discussion noted and link changed. No harm in having the discussion here to keep the talk page in chronological order. — AjaxSmack 02:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons under #article title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. First of all, the change would make the article harder to find and to link to (although a good percentage of readers will just type "lenin" and be redirected here). Secondly, the naming convention specifically states that the Russian patronymic is usually not to be included in the article title. Jafeluv (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Only if there were 2 Vladimir Lenins and both of equal notability would we need to move article to include the patrynomic. --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Iskra or the Zarya?

I'm a High School student trying to do an essay on Lenin, yet two of my sources contradict each other...

Encyclopedia Britannica states that, after leaving Russia to Germany in 1900 that he began working for the Iskra

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/335881/Vladimir-Ilich-Lenin

However, the American Law Encyclopedia Vol 6 states that he began working for the Zarya

http://law.jrank.org/pages/8215/Lenin-Vladimir-Ilyich.html

I'd like to clear up any confusion here, can someone please enlighten me to which newspaper he did, indeed work on? Wikipedia says the Iskra...and if this is incorrect, I'd like it to be changed.

24.8.128.152 (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)