Talk:Vladimir Lenin

Infobox formatting

Hi, I propose changing |birth_place=Simbirsk, Russia and |death_place=Gorki, Soviet Union back to |birth_place=Simbirsk, Russian Empire and |death_place=Gorki, Russian SFSR, Soviet Union, respectively, cuz 1) there is no consensus for the exclusion of "Russian SFSR", see Template talk:Infobox person#Subordinate countries in infoboxes and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia#RfC: Omission of Russian SFSR from biographical infoboxes 2) the current infobox is absolutely uninformative to me 3) to me, it does not make much sense to write simply "Russia" instead of "Russian Empire" if we include "Russian SFSR" below. Let's not misuse MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Thedarkknightli (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Its part of the consensus, similar that to discussion Talk:Joseph Stalin/Archive 25#Linking subdivisions and Talk:Dmitri Shostakovich#RfC: Infobox Dispute for discussing about Russian places on the infobox should be concisely. Here's an example, for Vladimir Vysotsky's infobox, see this, this and that should be concise, stated that Moscow, Soviet Union, not Moscow, Russian SFSR, Soviet Union. Other prominent Soviet people Maxim Gorky, Dmitri Shostakovich, Joseph Stalin as well. Absolutiva 22:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Agree - the concise version should be retained. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Would you guys mind if I take this to WP:DRN, then? Thedarkknightli (talk) 11:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello again guys, just wanna inform you the DRN case I filed has been closed. Thedarkknightli (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

"Wladimir Lenin" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wladimir Lenin has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 10 § Wladimir Lenin until a consensus is reached. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 21:11, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

"Vladimirlenin" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Vladimirlenin has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 19 § Alanturing until a consensus is reached. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 18:50, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Famous Lenin quote

It would summarise well the intentions of Lenin and communism/marxism methods if somewhere in the article everybody could read his famous quote : "We must be ready to employ trickery, deceit, law-breaking, withholding and concealing truth. … We can and must write in a language that sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us. ,, ~2026-31398-38 (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Where does this quote come from?--Jack Upland (talk) 02:21, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Max Eastman in his 1955 book Reflections on the Failure of Socialism, it's not a direct quote, it's a compiled quote. Not that it matters, Wikipedia doesn't allow sources that don't kneel at the altar of socialism or even acknowledge it's failures. ~2026-40279-84 (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

If someone would like to add it, the complete citation for this would be:

• Eastman, Max (1955). "The Religion of Immoralism". The Failures of Socialism. New York: Devin-Adair. p. 87. OCLC 577644654.

BTW, I wonder what ~2026-40279-84 has to say about how the the success of social democrats in promulgating the Nordic model, which incorporates elements of socialism (see Nordic model § Outcomes in particular). Peaceray (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

If it's a compiled quote (whatever that might be) and not a direct quote then I question if we should use it. PatGallacher (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree.Jack Upland (talk) 02:17, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

RfC: Opening Paragraph - Minor Amendment for Inclusion

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Status on hold.WikiUser4020 (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

---

The last sentence of the opening paragraph on Vladimir Lenin states:

Option A: "Lenin is viewed by his supporters as a champion of socialism and the working class".

I think this is relatively generic and would be better explicated as:

Option B: "Lenin is viewed by his supporters as a champion of socialism, anti-imperialism, social reforms and the working class".

Option C: "Lenin is viewed by his supporters as a champion of socialism and anti-imperialism, his first government is credited with social reforms and political participation of the working class"

I believe this would add more specificity to the distinctive nature of his government, highlighting the policies introduced under Lenin's government and the particular historical appeal towards his supporters.

I know his historical legacy is sharply divisive due to some of the authoritative decisions relating to the ban on factions and later repression of other socialist groups during the Civil War period. However, to supporters such as Leninist groups, (the relevant sentence in question) he is commended specifically for anti-imperialism in terms of international support for anti-colonial groups in India, global south via the Comintern. From wider reading, some historical scholars and political supporters have also drawn attention to socially progressive policies with the 1917 Soviet decrees such as worker controls, worker's 8 hour working reduction, abortion, universal education, healthcare, illiteracy campaign, abolition of traditional empire ranks. These measures were seen as radical departures from the conventional policies that defined long established constitutional monarchies and colonial powers at this specific time interval.

Rather, it seems relatively generic (in my opinion) to summarise that he was "a champion of socialism" without those specific key points. I think this minor tweaks still ensure brevity whilst capturing informative and historical context.

I would like to gather wider views on whether to maintain Options A or amend with B and C. WikiUser4020 (talk) 12:59, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Just FYI it’s usually better to post a regular talk page discussion before starting a formal RFC. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@SomeoneDreaming Can you expand on that in regards to posting a regular talk discussion ? I usually assume that formal RFC is the formal route to build consensus for inclusion of content. WikiUser4020 (talk) 05:19, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Option A: short and to the point.Jack Upland (talk) 04:21, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Option B, more descriptive while maintaining brevity HerrHeulsuse (talk) 08:26, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Completely invalid RfC, there has been no prior discussion as to what/whether any additions would benefit the opening paragraph of the article and the proposer simply presents a very narrow palette of three choices, which they personally favour, Why does the lead benefit from praise from supporters but not from criticism from detractors? Or more aptly, a summary of the achievements and criticisms commonly levelled at him. But neither praise nor criticism is worthy of the first para IMO.Pincrete (talk) 11:32, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@Pincrete Rather dismissive response, I did respond to above to @SomeoneDreaming on that and open to running this but would welcome further elaboration on this point ? In regards to the latter point, as I've already stated, I think the current sentence is vague and generic. It refers that Lenin is viewed as a champion of socialism and working class - but specifically in what sense and in terms of what specific actions. The latter point which discusses criticisms is far more explicit in discussing the actions regarding establishing a totalitarian dictatorship (in reference to the totalitarian school of thought) and political repressions which are linked to an external page that details the nature of repressions throughout the duration of the Soviet Union. I would be open to amending both sentences (praise and criticisms) although following a previous conversation with @Midnightblueowl, I'm mindful around brevity to maintain the FA status of the article. I could re-raise this as a discussion sub-thread rather than RfC. These are relatively minor tweaks so it may be better served in that space. WikiUser4020 (talk) 13:16, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

You actually aren't talking about The last sentence of the opening paragraph, you're talking about "The last sentence of the last paragraph" of the lead, which is completely different and is an apt place for such a summary of what his supporters and detractors think. I'll have another look before coming back, but I still maintain that the RfC is invalid if there has been no prior discussion as to how/what/whether to amend the 'summary' of what his supporters/detractors think. We are presented by you with a very limited palette of what his supporters endorse. Without having recently visited the sources, my own impression is that Lenin is these days seen mainly as a champion of particular political ideologies rather than particular social groups, but I'll chack that out and then come back. Pincrete (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@Pincrete That's a typo. I should have been more explicit. Yes, I'm clearly referring to the last sentence of the last paragraph in the opening section of the article.

In regards, I think I'll put the RfC on hold and raise it as a discussion area first. I know a number of left-wing historians have highlighted this appeal and criticisms of Lenin such as democratic centralism, internationalism, revolutionary socialism and authoritarianism which are considered to provided the scope for Stalin's ascent. WikiUser4020 (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Option A: As Jack says, it is short and to the point. Adding the additional parts brings in controversy which will cause problems going forward. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sentence on secondary evaluation of Lenin

I understand that is a need to maintain an FA status of Lenin, but the current sentence above to me is rather generic and vague in some respects and the accuracy may be disputable in other descriptions.

"A controversial and highly divisive historical figure, Lenin is viewed by his supporters as a champion of socialism and the working class. Meanwhile, Lenin's critics accuse him of establishing a totalitarian dictatorship which oversaw mass killings and political repression."

To specify, the current sentence describes Lenin as a "champion of socialism and working class" but there is no specific key words that alluded to the specific areas such as anti-imperialism, democratic centralism or social reforms under the first Soviet government. I think this lacks informative context for wider readership on what specifically Lenin was positively appraised for as a figure and his ideological outlook for specific groups, movements.

Illustrative example - Supporters

In regards to supporters, Trotsky's political thought is chronicled by a secondary political scientist who refers to Trotsky's views on perceived difference between Lenin and Stalin. "Thus he points out to such factors as the primacy of the party, its openness to theoretical discourse and internal democracy, and dedication to collective rule, as Leninist features totally alien to Stalin's regime". (p434, Baruch Knei-Paz, The social and political thought of Leon Trotsky)

A selection of sources elaborate on this. M.Liberman - Leninism under Lenin, M. Lewin - Lenin and his Last Testament, R. Medvedev - Let History Judge: The Origins & Consequences of Stalinism and Christoper Hill - Lenin Lives ? (2024)

In regards to the second sentence, on criticism, it has greater specificity in terms of the associated totalitarian school of thought and political repression which is well-documented. That said, Lenin is criticised from various directions (libertarian socialists, anti-communist Western) and some dispute the nature of his leadership as authoritarian or totalitarian as represented under revisionist and totalitarian schools of thought.

Further sources: R. Pipes - Three Whys of the Russian Revolution, L. Schapiro The Origins of the Communist Autocracy and R. Service - Lenin.

Illustrative example - Critics

"My concern will be critics of Leninism together with Bolshevism’s mindset and its consequences for the left. One historian, Orlando Figes, notes that “tens of thousands were killed by the bombs and bullets of the revolutionaries, and at least an equal number by the repressions of the tsarist regime, before 1917 . . . ” Hundreds of thousands died in the “Red Terror,” he continues, with similar numbers perishing in the “White Terror” (factoring in anti-Jewish pogroms)."

"In fact, the Bolshevik record between October 1917 and Lenin’s death in early 1924 would have satisfied any right-wing regime: virtually all left-wing parties and movements were crushed. That was before Stalin". M. Cohen - What Lenin's Critics Got Right (2017)

Illustrative example - Overview

Professor David Lane of Cambridge University writes in LSE Blog, a balanced overview of his reception. See source here:

Views about Lenin

"Lenin is a controversial political leader who aroused deep feelings of loyalty among his followers, not only Bolsheviks in the former USSR but also among the leaders of communist parties, such as Mao Tse Tung and Fidel Castro. Concurrently, the memory of Lenin is subjected to intense hostility by his opponents both in the former socialist countries, and by politicians, the mass media and academics in western countries.

Leszek Kolakowski has set the tone for contemporary western interpretations. ‘To Lenin . . . all theoretical questions were merely instruments of a single aim, the revolution; and the meaning of all human affairs, ideas, institutions and values resided exclusively in their bearing in the class struggle. . .. By a natural progression, the dictatorship first exercised over society, in the name of the working class and then over the working class, in the name of the party, was now applied to the party itself, creating the basis for a one-man tyranny’ (pp. 383, 489).

"Marxists sympathetic to the socialist states, however, have a more positive view of Lenin’s work. Georgy Lukacs, the eminent Hungarian philosopher, as early as 1924, described Lenin as ‘the greatest thinker to have been produced by the revolutionary working-class movement since Marx’. (p. 9). Even after the dismantling of the European communist states, in the twenty-first century, writers such Lars T Lih, and Alan Shandro, provide positive appraisals of Lenin’s leadership and political analysis. Slavoj Zizek, the Slovenian philosopher and political critic, has called for a ‘return to Lenin’, to ‘repeating, in the present worldwide conditions, the Leninist gesture of reinventing the revolutionary project in the conditions of imperialism and colonialism’. (p.11)"

In sum, this characterises criticisms of Lenin in the establishment of the one-party dictatorship whilst supporters highlight his anti-imperialism, party model and anti-colonial support.

I would welcome input of HerrHeulsuse, Pincrete, Midnightblueowl among as many other editors around this especially a consultation of wider sources which can support in terms of what adjustments/tweaks can be made in a consensual manner. WikiUser4020 (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2026 (UTC)