| Revision as of 20:52, 12 December 2016 editSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,555,923 editsm Signing comment by 2407:7000:9404:E381:C8A8:E7A2:60DE:DA53 - "→Sources?: new section"← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:59, 12 December 2016 edit undo2407:7000:9404:e381:c8a8:e7a2:60de:da53 (talk) →Russian: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 196: | Line 196: | ||
| A few of the sources on the more controversial things during Lenins reign seem to lead nowhere, no books online to be found with the referencing etc... Perhaps it would be smart to have ACTUAL references instead of misinforming people? Also a few of the statements in the introduction (Well all of them have no references) and when searched for in the body for their statements I find references that lead nowhere. Putting random words down in the references does NOT count as a source. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | A few of the sources on the more controversial things during Lenins reign seem to lead nowhere, no books online to be found with the referencing etc... Perhaps it would be smart to have ACTUAL references instead of misinforming people? Also a few of the statements in the introduction (Well all of them have no references) and when searched for in the body for their statements I find references that lead nowhere. Putting random words down in the references does NOT count as a source. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ||
| == Russian == | |||
| If I translate the russian article, it is clear not much work has been done on the English one, also they have FACTUAL SOURCES. Considering this is one of the most famous communists I seem to be lead into dislike for him based on what is written and which historians/journalists are used for the sources that work. Maybe he knew he would be demonized in countries run by the bourgeoisie? Maybe because he is a part of Russian history, so they are actually motivated to have true information on his life? | |||
Revision as of 20:59, 12 December 2016
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vladimir Lenin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | Vladimir Lenin is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vladimir Lenin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
Second paragraph begins "Born to a wealthy middle class family" -- this is not accurate
Hello,
There is no such thing as a "wealthy middle class family"; if a family is "wealthy", then you could say "Born to a wealthy family". Lenin's family was middle-class; if they were doing very well as a middle-class family, then you could say "Born to a well-to-do middle class familY..."
Thank you,
Kim Iannone American Public University Touro University Moscow facebook.com/kim.iannone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.172.244.99 (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Aren't "wealthy" and "well-to-do" simply synonyms? Google certainly seems to think so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Generally we say Upper-Middle for middle class people that make several hundred thousand dollars a yr - lower-middle class are people that have risen above the financially lower-class but still have to watch their wallets. 98.67.180.196 (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- It seems biased in context (in the lead). His father was a child of serfs of a mixed, non-white ethnic background. The lead also says he died in a mansion. It sounds like the lead is trying to emphasise how wealthy Lenin was.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Don't impose clueless American concepts of class identity on a Marxist topic. The middle classes are professionals, the bourgeoisie, while the upper classes are the nobility and the large landowners, the leisured classes. Remember that the means of production are owned by the bourgeoisie; how can this be possible if the wealthy aren't in the middle class? Nyttend (talk) 13:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- It seems biased in context (in the lead). His father was a child of serfs of a mixed, non-white ethnic background. The lead also says he died in a mansion. It sounds like the lead is trying to emphasise how wealthy Lenin was.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- He wasn't wealthy in a Russian context, which is what matters.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Or was he? Reading Orlando Figes, he seemed also to suggest that his family was rather wealthy. They family owned an estate, Lenin was therefore also a squire. He even sued his peasant neighbours for damage to the family estate in 1891, during the famine. He also lived 'handsomely of' the 'rents and interest from the sale of his mother's estate.' At one point in Geneva 1904, Lenin described himself as a 'scion of the landed gentry', during an argument where Olminsky attacked Valentinov for his gentry background, as Lenin himself came from a gentry background and had engaged in a nostalgic discussion with Valentinov. In the same quote he also elaborates on how he enjoyed eating strawberries and drinking fresh milk despite he not having planted/milked it. The Ulianov family's life is described as 'charmed' at one point too. Considering the extreme and widespread poverty of the Russian peasantry, which constituated most of Russia's population, the family was indeed wealthy. I think trying to say otherwise is to impose on him more humble origins than he had, when he by most aspects lived as a nobleman, priding himself at one point in writing 'hereditary nobleman' in front of his name signing a document. And, as I said, considering the general poverty of Russian society, his family was indeed wealthy.--Simen113 (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- He wasn't wealthy in a Russian context, which is what matters.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- He was a "hereditary nobleman" in that his father had been given the Order of Vladimir for his services to the education of ethnic minorities. A son of a school inspector did not really qualify as a "hereditary nobleman"! I think that document you are referring to was a personal favour to someone else, and he was trying to influence officialdom by claiming nobility. "Gentry" is more accurate than "nobility". Which means middle class. He was better off than the peasants, but far beneath the top nobility who owned most of the land. Saying "wealthy middle class" is unnecessary. And possibly confusing. It could be used about the Fabergé family...--Jack Upland (talk) 02:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Kalmyk
I was directed here after trying to make a referenced addition to the text, which was removed. According to Orlando Figes, Lenin's ancestry was Kalmyk. I can't see that any of the other ethnic claims listed is referenced, so I do not understand why a referenced suggestion is removed.--Simen113 (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hello Simen113 and thanks for bringing this to the Talk Page. There were various reasons as to why why I removed your recent additions (which can be seen here). First, this article is currently undergoing FAC, so we need to be cautious about any significant alterations or additions of text at this point, unless they are specifically required by the FAC commentators. Second, the text added was just too lengthy and introduced too much extraneous information on Lenin's childhood; we already have Early life of Vladimir Lenin for that extra material. Third, the referencing system used was different to that which this article employs, which creates inconsistency and would again cause problems at FAC. Fourth, the claims being made my Figes are not necessarily accurate. Figes' book is a general overview of the Russian Revolution, not a biography of Lenin specifically. Thus, can we believe him when he claims that Lenin's paternal ancestry was partly Kalmyk, particularly when biographers who have investigated this area in far greater depth, such as Robert Service, don't mention this at all, but rather cite other ethnic groups as possible antecessors? I'm not so sure. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for replying. Orlando Figes is known for being his deep knowledge on the subject of the revolution, and there are no one more central to it than Lenin. I am therefore sure he can be cited on this. I do agree that it is not a book focusing on Lenin, but considering how Figes is known for diving into archives and uncover new material, one cannot exclude the possibility that this is something he has found clear indications for. Considering the book was written in 2014, it is also pretty recent. As for the reference style, I suggest you (with better knowledge of the format) convert my reference into the system used. As Figes has written deeply on the Revolution, the book is sure to be referenced again. --Simen113 (talk) 03:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- See "Ethnic background" above. Many people appear to claim he was Kalmyk.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- What evidence does Figes provide to support his claim about Lenin's Kalmyk ancestry? If we can find good evidence then I'm more than happy to see it incorporated briefly, but I do think that we need to be cautious on this one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- There are no footnote directly after the claim in question, but the closest one, situated at the end of the paragraph, reads as follows: "Kerensky, Crucifixion, 13; Volkogonov, Lenin, 5, 8–9, 13.". I therefore assume it is from Volkogonov Figes gets his information regarding Lenin, at least where he decides to cite it too (it may obviously be something he has found other places as well), and that the footnote is relevant to the claim as it cites several pages and sources.--Simen113 (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking, Simen113. I don't have a copy of Volkogonov's biography to hand but will try and check it out in the next few days. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- No problem. Thanks for being receptive of my feedback and comments. As for the other information, I will add it to the article on his chilhood and early life. Awaiting your reply upon checking Volkogonov in the meantime. Have a good day!--Simen113 (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- User:Simen113 - I've accessed a copy of Volkogonov, and (on page 7) he does indeed suggest a Kalmyk origin for some of Lenin's ancestors. I'll add this into the article, alongside the mentions of the Chuvash and Mordvin. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, good luck on the rest, and have a good day! I will add my information to the Early life of Lenin article.--Simen113 (talk) 01:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- User:Simen113 - I've accessed a copy of Volkogonov, and (on page 7) he does indeed suggest a Kalmyk origin for some of Lenin's ancestors. I'll add this into the article, alongside the mentions of the Chuvash and Mordvin. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- No problem. Thanks for being receptive of my feedback and comments. As for the other information, I will add it to the article on his chilhood and early life. Awaiting your reply upon checking Volkogonov in the meantime. Have a good day!--Simen113 (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking, Simen113. I don't have a copy of Volkogonov's biography to hand but will try and check it out in the next few days. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- There are no footnote directly after the claim in question, but the closest one, situated at the end of the paragraph, reads as follows: "Kerensky, Crucifixion, 13; Volkogonov, Lenin, 5, 8–9, 13.". I therefore assume it is from Volkogonov Figes gets his information regarding Lenin, at least where he decides to cite it too (it may obviously be something he has found other places as well), and that the footnote is relevant to the claim as it cites several pages and sources.--Simen113 (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for replying. Orlando Figes is known for being his deep knowledge on the subject of the revolution, and there are no one more central to it than Lenin. I am therefore sure he can be cited on this. I do agree that it is not a book focusing on Lenin, but considering how Figes is known for diving into archives and uncover new material, one cannot exclude the possibility that this is something he has found clear indications for. Considering the book was written in 2014, it is also pretty recent. As for the reference style, I suggest you (with better knowledge of the format) convert my reference into the system used. As Figes has written deeply on the Revolution, the book is sure to be referenced again. --Simen113 (talk) 03:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Lede image in infobox
As part of the process of getting this article through FAC (which is still ongoing), I've found that there is a real issue in attaining a good quality portrait image of Lenin for the infobox. While we have plenty of old, black-and-white portrait photographs of Lenin circulating on Misplaced Pages and Wikimedia, it appears that in almost all cases the "Public Domain" tags that have been placed onto them are spurious: just because an image is old, taken in the 1920s or before, doesn't mean that it is in the public domain either within the Russian Federation or in the United States. Accordingly, I have been forced to resort to File:19190501-lenin speech red square.jpg, one of the few images that can be verified as being in the public domain (this is because we can ascertain that its author died prior to 1942, which makes it PD in Russia). However, this image isn't the best portrait of Lenin, and so I was hoping that anyone with a good understanding of PD issues and (ideally) access to original Russian language sources might be able to help choose a more appropriate alternative that can be properly verified as PD. For instance, a whole load of Lenin portraits can be found here, but in almost every case the PD claims are dubious and need to be bolstered. Any help would be gratefully appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I hope you get one, because that current image makes it look like he is giving a Nazi salute (Trump-style!).--Jack Upland (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe so, but the current image has to remain until we can find an alternative that has an appropriate Public Domain tag on it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- I've added a new image that doesn't appear to have a copyright issue. -- Hazhk (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- I've checked this new image. It has the same copyright problems. Someone has stuck a PD tag onto it but not provided the proper proviso for why this is the case. Accordingly, I've reverted to the previous image. Sorry, but it has to be done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I've done some delving and this image (File:Lenin1897.jpg) would also be usable as we can clearly demonstrate why it is in the Public Domain. It shows Lenin's face in a clearer manner than the present image, although unfortunately depicts him in his younger years, long before he became Soviet leader. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Further delving has produced this image, which I am pretty sure is PD too. This depicts Lenin's facial features in far better detail and was taken only a year before he took power in Russia. It seems like our best bet right now, so I'll stick it into the lede infobox. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Issues with the Lead
- Under Lenin's government, the Bolsheviks renamed themselves the Communist Party and established a one-party state. His regime abolished Russia's elected Constituent Assembly...
The state was not a one-party state at that point. The Constituent Assembly was abolished in favour of the soviet system, which was also elected. The summary seems to be biased and historically inaccurate.
- ...critics on both the left and right see him as the founder of a totalitarian dictatorship responsible for civil war and mass human rights abuses.
Is there really any support for this??? In particular, was Lenin really responsible for the civil war??? Would other parties have really not started war if Lenin had adopted different policies???--Jack Upland (talk) 12:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that the establishment of a one-party state was not something that happened as soon as the Bolsheviks took power — they were in a coalition with the Left Socialist Revolutionaries for six months or so — but I nevertheless feel that this is the best place to mention it in the lede (bear in mind that we have to keep things very concise and to the point in that lede). That being said, I'm open to suggestions if you feel that it would work better elsewhere. Perhaps we could replace "established" with "gradually established"?
- Whether Lenin actually was or was not responsible for civil war is somewhat immaterial on this point. What is significant is that he was accused of having some responsibility for it. Indeed, as we mention in the article, the Mensheviks accused him of trying to foment civil war before it had even broken out! On a personal level I think it likely that reactionary and pro-Tsarist forces would have probably launched attacks on the government regardless of what policies Lenin pursued, but there appears to be a fairly strong argument that Lenin's antagonistic attitude toward other socialist and perhaps even liberal groups (Mensheviks, Socialist Revolutionaries, Kadets etc) really didn't help things. He had the opportunity to establish a pan-socialist coalition when he took power, and deliberately chose not to, despite the fact that the Socialist Revolutionary Party clearly held greater public support than his Bolsheviks. Instead he decided to crack down on many rival socialist groups, and certainly didn't seek to enter peace talks with them after the conflict broke out. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- The Left SRs left the government because they didn't accept the peace treaty signed with Germany. They then tried to assassinate Lenin, killed the German ambassador, and joined the other side in the civil war. It wasn't the Bolsheviks who established the one-party state; it was other parties that abandoned the polity. The text in the lead is about present-day critics (who "see him as"...). However, the Legacy section quotes several people who deny Lenin was a dictator, and there is no mention of the civil war. That's why I asked what is the support for this.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- The idea that the Bolsheviks were not responsible for establishing a one-party state is highly debatable and very contentious. It is not a statement that I agree with; after all, the Bolshevik administration banned various rival parties like the Kadets and interned the members of many others, like the Mensheviks, in labour camps. However, this really isn't the place to discuss our respective opinions on such things. As to the idea that Lenin was responsible for civil war, we do cite that this was what the Mensheviks believed in the "February Revolution and the July Days: 1917" of the article. Admittedly however, we don't provide any evidence that later critics have charged him with responsibility of the Civil War. So perhaps a change is required on these grounds; either we remove mention of civil war from that final sentence in the lede, or we change the wording so that it is no longer only in the present tense. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- The Mensheviks weren't banned until 1921. It would be better to say "gradually established", rather than just "established". But, in context, the word "established" implies something like the Article 6 of the Soviet Constitution. This is misleading. Is it even necessary to mention it here? The lead has already said, "Under his administration, Russia and then the wider Soviet Union became a one-party communist state governed by the Russian Communist Party." This is factual and undeniable. Why return to this point again? On the Civil War, I think the last sentence is an attempt to summarise the "Legacy" section, and that's what it should do. This sentence also implies that left and right critics agree, which isn't necessarily true. There are other issues in the same vein. "His regime abolished Russia's elected Constituent Assembly..." Well, it was his regime which held the election in the first place. Also, as I said before, the lead doesn't mention the soviets, which were also elected. "Ruling by decree...". The article Rule by decree, which is linked to, states, "Rule by decree allows the ruler to arbitrarily create law, without approval by a legislative assembly." But the "decrees" mentioned were passed by the Congress of Soviets. I understand the need to summarise, but the lead seems slanted towards the view of Lenin as a totalitarian dictator, rather than something more nuanced.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm open to removing "one-party state" from that third paragraph if you feel it necessary, Jack. That would perhaps allow us greater space to make mention of the soviets, which I agree are worthy of a mention. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- I have now done this. Other issues are perhaps a little more controversial. Yes, the Constituent Assembly was elected under Lenin's period of governance, but he had personally opposed this election and it was, in effect, a hangover from the Provisional Government who had promised it in the first place. Conversely, the Assembly's abolition was all the work of Lenin and the Bolsheviks; so, in having to summarise things for the lede, I would say that the abolition is noteworthy, the establishment probably isn't. Moreover, I'm not sure that it is fair to say that the lede is "slanted towards the view of Lenin as a totalitarian dictator", for I have tried very hard to steer a neutral path while sticking to the Reliable Sources (bear in mind that many editors would have it start with "Lenin was a Russian communist dictator" etc and I have to bear their attitudes in mind). Also bear in mind that most (not all) Reliable Sources produced by historians specialising in this period do tend to the view that he led a totalitarian dictatorship; that is, effectively, the "standard view" of Lenin. Sure, he has some admirers in the Marxist-Leninist movement and other sectors of the global Far Left, but even in that milieu he is widely despised by more libertarian-oriented Marxists, anarchists, and socialists, and certainly as you move toward the centre-left, into the centre and then on to the political Right you will find him vilified. Lenin is, on the whole, a pretty unpopular figure. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm open to removing "one-party state" from that third paragraph if you feel it necessary, Jack. That would perhaps allow us greater space to make mention of the soviets, which I agree are worthy of a mention. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- The question isn't whether he is popular. Readers can make up their own mind. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be neutral and factual.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Very true, and I have always attempted to ensure that the lede and the article does provide an overview of the facts of his life, but we also have to rely on the Reliable Sources and not push fringe ideas. According to Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories, "Misplaced Pages summarizes significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence. A Misplaced Pages article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is." My point being that 'Lenin as leader of a totalitarian dictatorship' is the standard interpretation among his biographers and experts of this period of Russian history. The image of 'Lenin the radical democrat' is — comparatively speaking — a fringe perspective, held by very few people, the majority of them being Marxist-Leninists or adherents of other Far Left sects. I certainly wouldn't want to see the latter perspective eclipsed from the article, but at the same time it should not be given a prominence that it does not accord. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for accepting some of the changes I made. I don't think I was attempting to portray Lenin as a radical democrat, or anything else. I think we have to set out the facts, and people can make up their own minds. Unlike "reliable sources", Misplaced Pages has a NPOV policy. This is a significant difference. Neutrality can be difficult, but it can also be easy. The Constituent Assembly (for example) is hard to weave into a seamless narrative about the Russian Revolution. But we don't need to do that. We don't need to interpret it. Facts are facts. And, as Lenin himself said, facts are stubborn things.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think that we are pretty much on the same page here with regard to how we want this article to look. However, I am perhaps not so eager as yourself to say "Facts are facts" and leave it that. Facts are indeed stubborn things. We have to select which facts to include in the article, which to put in the lede, and which to omit. We have to choose how to phrase information. We also have to acknowledge people's opinions, and present the existence of their opinion as a fact. It all gets quite complicated, for facts are intertwined in a whole quagmire of interpretation and subjective perspective. I hope that the page as it currently looks is pretty good though; certainly it is receiving a lot of support over at FAC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Not so good article
Fischer 1964 as the main source
I don't know the book, but:
- Fischer was a journalist, not a historian.
- Many Soviet documents were top secret in 1964.Xx236 (talk) 13:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Lenin is viewed by Marxist-Leninists
There are almost no Marxist-Leninists in Poland. Where are there so many of them to be mentioned here?Xx236 (talk) 13:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
united Russia
Not united but invided and annected.Xx236 (talk) 13:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Responding to wartime devastation, famine, and popular uprisings
Rather Responding to the destruction of Russia due to his own crazy ideas of a society without economy Xx236 (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- A number of these points fail to make any coherent sense so I'm not really sure what is actually being conveyed. What on Earth does "There are almost no Marxist-Leninists in Poland. Where are there so many of them to be mentioned here?" mean? It is also apparent that there is a level of anti-Lenin WP:Advocacy going on here and statements like "his own crazy ideas of a society without economy" demonstrate a complete lack of familiarity with Lenin's actual beliefs. As for the claim regarding Fischer, his major biography of Lenin is only one of several used here; it is not the "main source" by any means. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Sources?
A few of the sources on the more controversial things during Lenins reign seem to lead nowhere, no books online to be found with the referencing etc... Perhaps it would be smart to have ACTUAL references instead of misinforming people? Also a few of the statements in the introduction (Well all of them have no references) and when searched for in the body for their statements I find references that lead nowhere. Putting random words down in the references does NOT count as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:7000:9404:E381:C8A8:E7A2:60DE:DA53 (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Russian
If I translate the russian article, it is clear not much work has been done on the English one, also they have FACTUAL SOURCES. Considering this is one of the most famous communists I seem to be lead into dislike for him based on what is written and which historians/journalists are used for the sources that work. Maybe he knew he would be demonized in countries run by the bourgeoisie? Maybe because he is a part of Russian history, so they are actually motivated to have true information on his life?
Categories:- Misplaced Pages featured articles
- Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page
- Old requests for peer review
- Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
- All unassessed articles
- FA-Class biography articles
- FA-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Top-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- FA-Class biography (core) articles
- Core biography articles
- Top-importance biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- FA-Class Soviet Union articles
- Top-importance Soviet Union articles
- WikiProject Soviet Union articles
- FA-Class socialism articles
- Top-importance socialism articles
- WikiProject Socialism articles
- FA-Class Russia articles
- Top-importance Russia articles
- Top-importance FA-Class Russia articles
- FA-Class Russia (history) articles
- History of Russia task force articles
- WikiProject Russia articles
- FA-Class military history articles
- FA-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
- Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
- FA-Class World War I articles
- World War I task force articles
- FA-Class Atheism articles
- Mid-importance Atheism articles
- FA-Class Judaism articles
- Mid-importance Judaism articles
- FA-Class politics articles
- High-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- FA-Class Economics articles
- High-importance Economics articles
- WikiProject Economics articles
- FA-Class Philosophy articles
- Low-importance Philosophy articles
- FA-Class philosopher articles
- Low-importance philosopher articles
- Philosophers task force articles