Revision as of 21:50, 17 April 2017 editMidnightblueowl (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users113,106 edits →Image sizes: added comment.← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:53, 17 April 2017 edit undoJohn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users214,821 edits →Image sizes: ctNext edit → | ||
Line 167: | Line 167: | ||
I thought this would be a good place to ask {{u|Midnightblueowl}} what the merit of is. Over to you. --] (]) 21:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC) | I thought this would be a good place to ask {{u|Midnightblueowl}} what the merit of is. Over to you. --] (]) 21:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC) | ||
:I was merely restoring the longstanding image size. Having the image slightly larger allows it to better fit within the given space vis-à-vis the adjacent text and permits the reader a clearer view of the building featured in the photograph. Without the slight enlargement the image is too small to make out any level of detail. Moreover, the enlarged image size has been a longstanding part of the article and was present when it passed as an FA, so it is not something that has attracted any opposition or criticism over the past year or so. ] (]) 21:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC) | :I was merely restoring the longstanding image size. Having the image slightly larger allows it to better fit within the given space vis-à-vis the adjacent text and permits the reader a clearer view of the building featured in the photograph. Without the slight enlargement the image is too small to make out any level of detail. Moreover, the enlarged image size has been a longstanding part of the article and was present when it passed as an FA, so it is not something that has attracted any opposition or criticism over the past year or so. ] (]) 21:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC) | ||
::The size the image displays at is a function of the particular device one views it on. I see this was discussed at the FAC last year. It is better to leave them at standard. Sometimes one is left bigger in thumbnail view if it is important to reveal detail without clicking on the image. I've seen this used for a map, for example. This is a picture of a house and to me it doesn't seem to matter if the reader can see the detail without clicking on it. Am I missing something? --] (]) 21:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:53, 17 April 2017
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 appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 22, 2017. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
|
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 |
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)
- I presume you mean references that do not link to other websites, which many do not. The sources used are books! Graham Beards (talk) 21:26, 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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:7000:9404:E381:C8A8:E7A2:60DE:DA53 (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- ...And your point is? Most of what you have written above is unintelligible. Graham Beards (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Graham, the point being that the article relies on verifiable sources whose historicism might be faulty, and that the semantics are highly disfavorable. I think that comes across pretty clear and I'm not even a native English speaker. But then again, wikipedia's politics are extraordinarily libertarian so I'm not surprised that one of its shills is conveniently blind to any inherent ideology in the articles. /Revan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.69.13 (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Ilyich
Following on from JackofOz's edit that was reverted, perhaps we could make the point that Ilyich is a patronymic, not a given name.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- We would require a reliable source in order to do so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- We do not have a source for the note on the top of the Mao Zedong article ("This is a Chinese name..."), for example, and we don't have a source for saying this at the Ilyich page, but it shouldn't be hard to find one. What about Lih p 7?--Jack Upland (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I still have a problem with what we have now:
- The couple had two children, Anna (born 1864) and Alexander (born 1868), before Lenin was born as Vladimir "Volodya" Ilyich in Simbirsk on 10 April 1870, and baptised several days later. They were followed by three more children, Olga (born 1871), Dmitry (born 1874), and Maria (born 1878). Two later siblings died in infancy.
To readers uneducated in Russian naming conventions, this says that the full names of the children were:
- Anna
- Alexander
- Vladimir Ilyich
- Olga
- Dmitry
- Maria
and they would have no reason to suppose that "Ilyich" also formed part of the full names of the other sons, or that the daughters also had other parts of their names ("Ilyinichna").
It looks like Vladimir was marked out as special at birth by being given a middle name, something that was bestowed on none of the other children. People not educated in such matters would not know that it was not possible for a son of an Ilya not to have the patronymic Ilyich (sorry for the quadruple negative, but I think my point is made). It really needs changing. I suggest, as I did in my edit (now reverted), that the "Ilyich" patronymic simply be dropped from that location, as it potentially causes more problems than it seeks to resolve.
Also, I do not believe we need a source for saying (somewhere) that Ilyich is a patronymic and not a middle name as such. -- Jack of Oz 22:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Volodya was not a special middle name given at birth but rather his nickname within the family, according to Volkogonov. There are plenty of sources mentioning, in glossary or parenthetical, the patronymic name if it's deemed necessary. Qzd (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Should we go for a completely sentence stating that "Ilyich" was the patronymic and that "Volodya" was his nickname? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- After making my comments above, I noticed that the article does have a head note saying that Ilyich is a patronymic! Sorry about that. I agree with JackofOz that it would be better for Ilyich to be dropped from the text about the children.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and removed the name "Ilyich" from this section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
wrong, missleading lemma
His name was "Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov", not this combination of his firstname and hins nickname. His nickname was purely "Lenin", wothing more but "Lenin".
Lemma should be Lenin (russian theorist and politician) or something alike. --2A02:8109:9A40:1778:0:0:0:2 (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- "Vladimir Lenin" is indeed a combination of his real forename and his nickname, although it is still very widely used in the reliable sources. Misplaced Pages is therefore not alone in referring to him as "Vladimir Lenin"; other sources that do the same include BBC History, Encyclopedia Britannica, and Russapedia. The situation is not dissimilar to the way in which Misplaced Pages titles the article Mahatma Gandhi rather than his actual name, Mohandas Gandhi. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- After the revolution he called himself that and was called that in the USSR (or more commonly V I Lenin).--Jack Upland (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Image sizes
I thought this would be a good place to ask Midnightblueowl what the merit of selectively enlarging a picture of a house is. Over to you. --John (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- I was merely restoring the longstanding image size. Having the image slightly larger allows it to better fit within the given space vis-à-vis the adjacent text and permits the reader a clearer view of the building featured in the photograph. Without the slight enlargement the image is too small to make out any level of detail. Moreover, the enlarged image size has been a longstanding part of the article and was present when it passed as an FA, so it is not something that has attracted any opposition or criticism over the past year or so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- The size the image displays at is a function of the particular device one views it on. I see this was discussed at the FAC last year. It is better to leave them at standard. Sometimes one is left bigger in thumbnail view if it is important to reveal detail without clicking on the image. I've seen this used for a map, for example. This is a picture of a house and to me it doesn't seem to matter if the reader can see the detail without clicking on it. Am I missing something? --John (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- 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