Talk:Useful idiot/Archive 1

Lenin Quotations

There's been a cottage industry on the Right in fabricating Lenin quotations (the more academic being supposedly sourced from What Is To Be Done). There are many in the book, They Never Said It by Paul F Boller Jr and John George, which refers to the ludicrous American publication Lincoln and Lenin among others.--Jack Upland 00:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Hate Speech?

KKK has made very desparaging comments about the blacks. Those are certainly hate speeches. Nonetheless Wikipedia reports them. It is not up to us to make judgments whether the views of a certain group is hate speech or not and censor them based on that evaluation. We only state what they say and leave the moral evaluation of their statements to the readers. (17:25, 23 October OceanSplash) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OceanSplash (talk • contribs) 17:24 & :31, 23 October 2005‎

Ocean, stay cool here. I started this article back in July 2004 and it has come along nicely. I am watching the edits and will help out as needed. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 23:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Rex, nice to meet you. :) Kinda was feeling lonely like in hostile lands! For a while I thought Wikipedia is a place between Mecca and Medina. LOL OceanSplash 00:39 24 October 2005

Take care to comment on the validity of the edit, not the editor :) Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94}

Nothing wrong with giving examples of how the term has been used post-9/11, of course, but the current layout is a bit confusing. Add a summary of each tendency that the examples are representative of, perhaps? Ahasuerus 01:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ahasuerus: Not sure if I understand you. Could you please explain a bit more :) OceanSplash 00:2:05 24 October 2005

Well, the first paragraph talks about the term being used as a "pejorative used by political conservatives against political liberals". Fair enough. But then the next two paragraphs veer off to discuss Islamic extremism, fascism, etc. Without any explanation, it's hard to figure out what the examples in the last two paragraphs are supposed to illustrate or whether they are related to the first paragraph in any way. Make sense? :) Ahasuerus 02:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, dear Ahasuerus: It is actually difficult to edit any page in Wikipedia without Muslims jumping at you and trying to censor you with all sorts of excuses. You must understand that the freedom of speech for Muslims is an alien concept. In Islamic countries if you say something against Islam they kill you. Where they can't kill you, they censor you. Wikipedia seems to be dominated by Muslims. This of course is not true in all the pages where Muslims have no interest, but when the interest of Islam comes in, they can be quite bullish in making their word prevail. But that is another story. This article started with some explanation like this:

In recent years especially after the 9/11 some observers, including Muslim dissidents have stated that Islam presents a threat bigger than Nazism not to just the Western world but to all non-Islamic countries. They have labeled those who defend Islam and try to be politically correct about it, the today’s useful idiots.

[Ali Sina] states: “They are idiots because they speak without knowledge of Islam and its threat to mankind and they are useful to the Islamists with whose help they can penetrate the non-Muslim countries and destroy them from within.” [2] The same author writes: “More abhorrent than war is making peace with evil. In the words of the 18th Century British parliamentarian Edmund Burke, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Those who advocate peace with Islam are idiots of this century. If we do not stand against Islam it will grow and then billions will die. Trying to appease Muslims is foolish. It is informed by ignorance of Islam. Most cancers are treatable, if detected in time. But if ignored, they will grow to a stage that will kill you. Today we have the choice. We can either fight Islam and extirpate it before it threatens our existence or wait and face the apocalypses.” [3]

Muslims obviously don't like Ali Sina. For some reason anything you post here from him they will delete at once. So the above passage that explained the concept was deleted. The administrator SlimVirgin despite claiming impartiality, has yet to show that in actions. I could be wrong but for reasons that I explained to her, I have still to be convinced of that claim. I found out that she is Iranian, like Ali Sina, but of course most Iranians are still Muslims. She even once tried to discredit Ali Sina saying that he is Islamophobic. Obviously she sees genuine criticism of Islam unwarranted and interprets that as Islamophobia. My judgement about her is just based on my first impression and I could be wrong. I have explained to her my concern about her impartiality already and I hope she will eventually show I had misjudged her.

In Wikipedia there is a lot of Islamic propaganda which are not true at all, but generally critical views about Islam do not survive. Why? If Wikipedia is impartial shouldn’t we give equal space to both sides? Would we accept if e.g. scientologist or any other cultists try to take over the Wikipedia and disallow any criticism of their cult? What is happening is very disturbing. There are hundreds of pages in Wikipedia that are misleading because they are edited and controlled by Muslims and as soon as you try to post anything showing the other side of the coin they revert it and even call your contribution “hate speech”. What about the Quran? Isn’t that book a hate speech?

Funny thing is that they throw at you the basic rules of Wikipedia when in reality it is they who constanly breach those rules.

If you try to write anything that Muslims don’t like they will delete it with invalid justifications. This is a very disturbing trend. For example the quotes of Ali Sina were removed because, as they said, he is not notable. There are 200,000 pages talking about faith freedom international. There have been death threats in Islamic sites against him, there are a few Islamic sites created just to refute him. Doesn’t all that say that he is notable at least to be quoted? Finally if he is notable enough to have a page in Wikipedia why his quotes should not be published?

I am not familiar with the structure of Wikipedia, but I suppose there must be some committee that would check into complaints. (All I am hoping is that this committee is not already taken over by Islamists) Is there a forum where important questions such as the direction Wikipedia is taking is discussed?

Sorry, this subject might have not belonged to this page but these are things I would like to discuss. Is there a place to do that? My point is that if Wikipedia loses its impartiality and becomes the guardian angel of a certain cult or religion, it loses its credibility fast. OceanSplash 05:13 24 October 2005

Would something as basic as:

Since the 9/11 attacks, the term "useful idiot" has been used by some Western critics of Islamic extremism to describe those who would take a softer line, e.g.: [...]

be controversial? Ahasuerus 12:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Ali Sina is a non-notable source. Please stop adding his/her quotes.Yuber^(talk) 23:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Highlighting in Lenin's Quote

The removed highlighting in Lenin's quotes was taken verbatim from the Yale University text, where it represented Lenin's underlining as per standard academic quotation practices. It does look erratic, but that was Lenin's style: lots of little notes, side notes, double and triple underlining, etc. I will restore the Yale University version in a day or two unless there are other comments. Ahasuerus 11:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Biased Editing

Since the 9/11 attacks, the term "useful idiot" has been used by some conservatives to describe those who they think would take a softer line against Islamist terrorism. For example, Anthony Browne wrote in Britain's The Times newspaper:

What kind of unbiased editing is this? Who is taking softer line against Islamic terrorism? The useful idiot is used to define people who take softer line in regards to Islam and Muslims in general and not the terrorists. This is twisting the facts and is very much misleading. OceanSplash 09:11 27 October 2005

Well, FrontPage.com is a conservative outlet, so that's reasonable enough, but I don't know where the Times contributor fits on the political spectrum. Perhaps "conservative" is too narrow a brush and should be removed until there is certainty that the term has been used only by conservatives?

As to whether the term is used to describe those who are opposed to Islamic terrorism or Islam in general, I believe the two quotes as given refer to "Islamists" and "Islamic extremists". Perhaps the sentence could be rephrased as follows:

Since the 9/11 attacks, the term "useful idiot" has been used by some Western commentators to describe those who they think would take a softer line against Islamic extremists. For example, Anthony Browne wrote in Britain's The Times newspaper...

? Ahasuerus 16:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

quoting the wrong person

The article states: "John Dewey in his 1928 book Impressions of Soviet Russia and the revolutionary world claimed that: "Lenin coined a paradoxical but accurate term for Western intellectuals who parroted Soviet propaganda, either in the misguided belief that it was true, or from willful ignorance. Such people he called 'useful idiots"

Actually, when you follow the link you can see that it isn't Dewey who writes this but the person who wrote the forward. 192.115.133.141 18:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out this important fact. I will edit the page accordingly. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 06:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Attribution

This phrase is attributed to Lenin although the phrase was not even mentioned in the US untl decades after Lenin's death, and then it was attributed to Lenin decades after that. I mention this and VeryVerily reverts me saying it is an "anti-capitalist rant". In an attempt to be annoying, he has gone through my edit history and seems to be reverting my edits willy-nilly. Ruy Lopez 12:19, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I consider "unacceptable" people vandalizing my user page with obscenities, implicit death threats, and swastikas. I can't believe you're taking Richardchilton's, I mean Hanpuk's, I mean Ruy Lopez's edits seriously. Those "capitalists" are at it again! And isn't the 2nd para a wee bit POV? Well you guys have your fun, I'll check back on it in a bit. VeryVerily 13:43, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I know nothing about vandalism of your user page. As far as I can tell, neither User:198.165.90.75 nor User:Ruy Lopez has made any edit to your user page. On the face of it, Ruy's edits may be controversial, but do not appear to fall within any reasonable definition of vandalism. Blind reversions without comment or justification are not an acceptable approach for addressing POV edits--at least not at first sight. older≠wiser 14:00, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

The vandal is switching IP addresses, obviously. Here's a selection of my user page history, since you don't appear to have looked yourself: [4]. I did not say the edits were vandalism, I said the editor is a vandal. Big difference. And I don't agree with your last statement; people who go around propagandizing article after article should just be reverted. They know the rules. I've been haggling with these people for over a year now. See User talk:Shorne for Adam Carr's thoughts on this. VeryVerily 22:52, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, that is very interesting. However, where is the evidence that either User:198.165.90.75 nor User:Ruy Lopez is responsible for that? Without specific evidence, I'd say you are way out of bounds to go around reverting anyone who happens to disagree with you because you think they might be the vandal. older≠wiser 00:58, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

I am certain that User:198.165.90.75 is the same vandal. Do you really want evidence or is that a rhetorical question? VeryVerily 01:04, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right about User:198.165.90.75, I was unaware of the matter on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration regarding User:Turrican, you might have mentioned that--I just happened upon it. However, before that you did revert Ruy with a dismissive summary of "rv anti-capitalist rant". While I agree that Ruy's edit to this may be overly biased, it does not appear to be something meriting a reversion on sight. older≠wiser 01:18, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

It seems you've stumbled into something far larger than you realized. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Richardchilton. Haggling with this guy is getting old. VeryVerily 03:33, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

User:Ultramarine insists on adding a quote which he attributes to Lenin, but which does not appear in any of Lenin's works. The source he gives [5] is a book that is not available online. Thus, at this point, I see absolutely no proof that Lenin ever said (or wrote) anything of the sort. I am waiting for Ultramarine to explain the origin of that quote. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC) Also, please provide context (i.e. Lenin is claimed to have written the following in <year>, as part of <larger document from which the quote is drawn>, addressing the subject of X, etc.) -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

This is censorship of the worst kind. I have given a source in extreme detail that you can verify. Ultramarine 21:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

No you haven't. When you quote someone, giving a source means giving the name of the work in which that someone wrote the quote. All I see from you is a link to a book (which I can't read) that supposedly says Lenin said that quote. This is not proof. At least give all the details that your book gives on that quote (I assume this Edvard Radzinsky makes some comments regarding the context in which Lenin said/wrote that quote, doesn't he?) -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

You are doing gross and outright censoring. Ultramarine 21:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

How so? If I write a book claiming that you said "My name is John", and someone else tries to use my book as proof that Ultramarine said "My name is John", shouldn't he be challenged or asked to authenticate his sources? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing in Wikipedia guidelines that says that the source has to be online. The quote is a verifiable fact, and quoted in a book by Russian scholar. But this is kind of amusing, probably the worst case of censorship I have seen on Wikipedia. Ultramarine 21:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The fact that the source is not online is irrelevant, and I never objected to it. What I do object to is your refusal to explain HOW your source claims to have found this Lenin quote, WHEN was the quote written by Lenin and WHAT is the document and context in which it appears. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine, please follow Wikipedia's civility polices and refrain from accusing editors of censorship when they are raising concerns about your edits. 172 | Talk 22:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The quote is self-explaining. You make endless new demands in order to censor the quote, netiher of which are required by Wikipedia guidelines. I have given my source in great detail. This is censorship of the worst kind. Ultramarine 22:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, see etiquette. Crying censorship each time an editor raises concerns about your edits is not assuming good faith, and yet another example that will reflect poorly on you in an RfC on your behavior. 172 | Talk 22:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, if I write a book claiming that you said "My name is John", and someone else tries to use my book as proof that Ultramarine said "My name is John", shouldn't he be challenged or asked to authenticate his sources? But have it your way - I've created a template for you to fill in with data from your book. Failure to do so will be interpreted as an admission that the data does not exist, and therefore the quote is fabricated. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I only request that you do not censor the facts when I have given a very detailed, verifiable source by a scholar. This will look very interesting in any Rfc. Ultramarine 22:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The fact is that Edvard Radzinsky claims Lenin said that quote. That is what the article should say. However, an unsubstantiated claim is worthless, even if made by a scholar. Therefore, I am asking you to look in your book and explain the following issues:

1. Since this quote does not appear in any of Lenin's works, how does Edvard Radzinsky allege to have obtained it?
2. What is the name of the secret Lenin document in which this quote supposedly appears? When was it published, and for what purpose? Who was it addressed to? (notice the prominent "we must" - who is this "we"?)
3. What is the context surrounding this quote in this secret document? What does the document talk about?

These are very important questions, and it is vital to have them answered in order to give our readers a clear picture of the situation (how many of them do you think will buy Edvard Radzinsky's book just for the sake of reading more about this quote?). You have the book, and I do not. Therefore, you can present the information given by the book, while I cannot. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 07:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The answers to these questions are now in the text,[6] Except for the date of Annenkov's emigration, they are on the same page of Radzinsky's book, and the obvious entry in his bibliography. (His English text, at least, does not footnote.) The original text has clearly left Mihnea, and may well have left other readers, with the impression of some recently revealed secret document. It requires all my reserves of good faith to describe this as, at best, severe carelessness. Septentrionalis 05:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Returning to the question of "useful idiots," the is an important point to be made is that while the term has often been attributed to Lenin and Stalin, there is no evidence that either of them ever used this term. There is not a single occurrence of the term in any of Lenin's writings. I checked references to the term in Jstor, a database of scholarly articles, including those in the field of Soviet studies, and found no other way to attribute the term to Lenin. It is possible, however, that the term originated with anticommunists in the 1930s or 1940s, when the earliest citations of the term can be found. 172 | Talk 22:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Keynes edit

Source-wise, I think Keynes' book was The Economic Consequences of the Peace. EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 23:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag

The {{NPOV}} tag, which has been on and off this article several times in its history, was last added on December 25, by an anonymous editor, without any mention on this talk page or in the edit summary of the issue he or she considered a violation of WP:NPOV. As the tag is useless without elaboration of the nature of the objection, and as the article has changed significant since then anyway thanks to a number of recent removals of unverifiable content, I have taken the tag off. Chick Bowen 01:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Used just for left-wing

So, the term used for right-wing is just idiot?. ;-)

This wiki spend so much time explaining a unclear origins but left alone the meaning, in fact it's unclear to say that useful idiot is a fact or just a dysphemism . AFAIK a useful idiot is a persons that fight a pointless (earn nothing) fight. --Magallanes 15:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

More sources

It seems that term is more commonly used in Russian language sources. For example,Andrey Piontkovsky blamed Larry King to be such an idiot (after his interview of Vladimir Putin in his book (Russian: Ремесло, которым занимается Ларри Кинг, сродни искусству вербовки и активных мероприятий. Так что можно сказать, что это была встреча двух профессионалов. Встреча, в которой подполковник внешней разведки КГБ Владимир Путин продемонстрировал гораздо более высокий профессиональный уровень. Владимир Ильич Ленин, у которого в обслуге не то поваром, не то охранником служил дедушка В. Путина, любил повторять: «Товарищи, нам нужны полезные буржуазные идиоты». [7]. Other examples:

"заученная для вербовки полезных буржуазных идиотов легенда" [8];

"Томас Фингар, Ванн ван Дипен, Кеннет Брилл... Вашингтонская тройка полезных буржуазных идиотов, как в свое время "кембриджская пятерка", действительно руководствовалась самыми благородными мотивами борьбы за мир во всем мире. Но на самом деле они приблизили мир к катастрофе." [9].

"Владимира Ленина: когда-то тот назвал западных политиков, которые искренне поддерживали большевиков, "полезными буржуазными идиотами". [10]. Biophys (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Confused

The intro is confusing: this was a term originally used by the Soviets of their sympathizers, which was then adopted by opponents of the Soviets to dismiss those same sympathizers?--Shtove 12:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Never used by Soviet sources. A well known American fabrication.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

"deaf-mutes?"

The article states: "From antiquity (as noted in the Code of Hammurabi) until recent times,[5] the terms "deaf-mute" and "deaf and dumb" were analogous to "idiot." "

This does work in some languages, but it is by no means universal. In English, "dumb" means both mute and stupid. Ancient Babylonian has this parallel as well apparently. The problem here is that Lenin was presumably writing in Russian which has no such parallels. In Russian 'deaf-mute' (which can be transliterated as "gluhoy-nemoy") is simply 'deaf-mute.' No common words that translate directly as 'stupid' are related to it. 24.47.151.201 (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that linguistic insight. But, regardless, the Lenin quotation has no credibility. The international conditions referred to in the passage have no relation to the situation in the 1920s but rather refer to the Cold War era when it was first published. It has no relation to the real Last Testament of Lenin (which, incidentally, was suppressed anyway). Moreover, by any linguistic stretch, it does not use the phrase "useful idiot" so is irrelevant to this article. Hence my deletion.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

embarassment

The disclaimer shown here is completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia, and embaressing to me. I linked my classmates to this article to help them understand the term, and am sad to see you are reducing their opinion of the wikipedia with embaressing commentaries like that. I therefore retracted my suggestion that they visit this article. Sam Spade 10:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

How, exactly, is it embarassing? Please be specific; or rephrase it, retaining the information essential to the article. We can see that Sam is aggrieved, but it is unclear exactly what his grievance is. Septentrionalis 19:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

* Please note that from antiquity (as noted in the Code of Hammurabi) until recent times [11], the terms "deaf-mute" and "deaf and dumb" were analogous to "idiot." However, the above quote is unverified, and Lenin appears to be insulting western capitalists who would "desire to win [the] Soviet market."

This is not encyclopedic. Sam Spade 19:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how it is not encyclopedic. -- Nikodemos 10:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The code of Hammurabi and the legal definition of idiot should not be discussed here in some sort of crazy disclaimer. Also if the quote is unverified, verify it, or remove it. What is there now (and I am about to remove it) makes us look like fools. Sam Spade 10:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"The code of Hammurabi and the legal definition of idiot should not be discussed here" - why not? It is useful to explain to the reader how the word was used in context. Do you have something against disclaimers...? -- Nikodemos 11:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I have something against insane disclaimers that reference the code of Hammurabi and the term "idiot", and then proceed to tell me what I just read is unverified, dubious content, yes. That sort of thing makes me think I am reading home-made funny pages, rather than an encyclopedia. Sam Spade 23:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I identify two distinct objections in the above paragraph:

1. The code of Hammurabi and the term "idiot". The reason why this is mentioned is because the actual Lenin quote does not contain the word "idiot", so a reader might rightfully ask himself in what way is that quote related to the term "useful idiot".
2. The disclaimer regarding unverified, dubious content. The reason why this is there is because the quote was not written by Lenin in any published document, and the first place it appeared was an American newspaper in 1962. I am sure you can see how dubious that origin is. Because of the dubious origin and the fact that the quote does not contain the word "idiot", I and other users have repeatedly attempted to remove it from the article. However, a different group of users and anon editors have kept adding it back, without explaining their reasons for it. The current version, including the disclaimer, is a compromise.

-- Nikodemos 20:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

But not an encyclopedic one. If you think the quote isn't lenins, cite it to the newspaper, or remove it. 00:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence that it is Lenin's (unless you want to take the newspaper's word for it), so I'll remove it then. -- Nikodemos 01:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Right! This passage has to go. The reference to the ancient Mesopotamian "code of Hammurabi" is totally absurd. It has no relevance to the question as to whether Lenin used the phrase "useful idiots" for Western sympathesisers. It has microscopic relevance to the issue whether "deaf-mute" could be considered the same as "idiot" in some cultural contexts. Yes, I know it is the habit of some Wikipedians to take refuge in extreme pedantry in order to defend their absurdities, but surely this is going too far. Either Lenin used the catchphrase or he didn't. Neither Hammurabi, Sennacherib, nor Assurbanipal can help you here.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I had been asked why I added an NPOV tag to the article. I'll explain that and why I just removed it.

When I read the article, it looked to me like it had a thinly-cloaked tone of "this term is an insult used by nasty right-wingers against right-thinking liberals". When I came back to the article, I found that a few minor tweaks and some contextualizing additions were all that was really necessary to bring this article to NPOV status. Review my edits and let me know what you think. Peter G Werner 02:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've made some tweaks, but the edits seem an improvement. Septentrionalis 15:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It has also been use for supporters of Enron, for example, as in the film The Smartest Guys in the Room.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Uri Bezmenov video

In this 80 minute video, Soviet defector and former KGB propagandist Yuri Bezmenov uses the phrase "useful idiot" about 10 times: [12]. He calls many people useful idiots, including Daniel Ellsberg, Jane Fonda, Ted Kennedy and Walter Mondale. --71.38.210.205 (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

He is obviously latching onto the American theme. I don't think any of those characters were particularly important to the Soviet Union.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Lenin's "rope" comment

Here is a related quote attributed to Lenin and found in Bartleby (http://www.aol.bartleby.com/73/246.html):

AUTHOR: Vladimir Ilich Lenin (1870–1924)

QUOTATION: They [capitalists] will furnish credits which will serve us for the support of the Communist Party in their countries and, by supplying us materials and technical equipment which we lack, will restore our military industry necessary for our future attacks against our suppliers. To put it in other words, they will work on the preparation of their own suicide.

ATTRIBUTION: VLADIMIR ILICH (ULYANOV) LENIN, as reported by I. U. Annenkov in an article entitled, “Remembrances of Lenin,” Novyi Zhurnal/New Review, September 1961, p. 147.

Annenkov recounts (pp. 144–47) a visit to the Moscow Institute of V. I. Lenin shortly after Lenin’s death, where he examined a number of Lenin manuscripts consisting principally of short and fragmentary notes, some of which were so interesting that he copied them. This Russian-language journal is published in New York City.

The popular and widely-quoted paraphrase, The capitalists are so hungry for profits that they will sell us the rope to hang them with, has often been considered spurious because it had not been found in Lenin’s published works.

Ahasuerus 22:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)Ahasuerus

It may be "related" but it doesn't include the term "useful idiots". The original quote seems more relevant to the later Cold War context than the rather constrained international situation of Lenin's years in government (which CPs, which suppliers??). The popular paraphrase recalls Lenin's "support" of the British Labour Party in "Leftwing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder: "We support the Labour Party like a rope supports a hanged man". This doesn't make it a forgery, but if there's no published instance it probably is. But as I said, it's irrelevant anyway.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Lithuania

Please anyone add Rolandas Paksas as an example of UI. I believe he meets the definition. He was President of the Republic of Lithuania but actually he was manipulated by Russian structures (this was never proven and needs citations, etc) until he was impeached. Paksas had strong electorate support in Samogitia so he remains popular today. Popular quote said by Paksas at impeachment: "I am not guilty, the environment is guilty" (needs citation). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.135.246.85 (talk) 06:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this is not a forum for the listing of idiots, useful or otherwise.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Compass

Remember the East Germans had a compass in their flag? I guess that meant they were good at math. But does that mean that Eastern Europeans are all good at math, or just the East Germans? I don't get that part.--76.245.121.112 (talk) 10:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that's totally irrelevant. But never mind.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

PS I think it was a pair of dividers.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it was a compass, in fact all of the GDR was colloquially referred to as "Compass Germany" in some circles. 80.221.34.183 (talk) 02:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely a pair of "dividers" - but then again dividers are a "measuring compass".--Jack Upland (talk) 05:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Missing The Point

I think you're missing the point. The point is that there needs to be SOME sort of proof (beyond your personal desire for it to be true) that someone actually made a statement before that particular statement should be attributed to them. I see no reason why Republican Propaganda should be accepted at face value without any sort of attempt made to verify the facts. In this particular case, one would have to believe several extremely improbable things in order to believe that Lenin was actually the source of this quote. They are:

- That Lenin was a Cartoon Super villain who sat around twirling his mustache and cackling "Fools, DOING MY EVIL BIDDING WHILE I PLOT THEIR DOOM!"

- That Lenin spoke English while in casual conversation with other Russians.

- That Lenin actually believed, on a personal level, that his own social and economic principles were bullshit.

I don't know about you, but most of that strains my sense of credulity. Especially since the phrase "useful idiots" was in clear and common use prior to Lenin's rise to power. I really see no need fictionalize history merely because it suits the vanity of American Conservatives to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.202.98 (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Well said.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed quite biased. Probably produced by an intelligence agency employee. In light of Wikipedias neutrality policy someone with clearance should clean it up. It is really somewhat pathetic to see so much bias in a single article. The use of "greater good", "naive" and "malignant" on a supposedly encyclopedic article is nothing short of a good laugh.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.226.115.79 (talk) 06:05, 14 October 2012

Deletion of Irrelevant Material

I have deleted this irrelevant material:

Others

Edvard Radzinsky offers a similar quotation on p. 209 of his Stalin. He attributes it to the artist Yuri Annenkov, who claims to have seen some of Lenin's papers while working at the Lenin Institute, before his emigration to the West in 1924, the same year Lenin died. Annenkov's reproduction from memory was published in "Vospominaniya o Lenine" Novyi Zhurnal n.65 (New York,1961). Radzinsky conjectures that this is part of a full text of Lenin's Testament, which Lenin deliberately concealed, sending only a partial text to the Party Secretariat.

This English language version was originally published in an edition of The Lufkin News, King Featurers Syndicate, Inc., 31 July 1962, page 4, and later reproduced in the Freeman Report, 30 Sept. 1973, page 8.

“ The so-called cultural element of Western Europe and America are incapable of comprehending the present state of affairs and the actual balance of forces; these elements must be regarded as deaf-mutes and treated accordingly....

A revolution never develops along a direct line, by continuous expansion, but forms a chain of outbursts and withdrawals, attacks and lulls, during which the revolutionary forces gain strength in preparation for their final victory...

We must: (a) In order to placate the deaf-mutes, proclaim the fictional separation of our government ... from the Comintern, declaring this agency to be an independent political group. The deaf-mutes will believe it. (b) Express a desire for the immediate resumption of diplomatic relations with capitalist countries on the basis of complete non-interference in their internal affairs. Again, the deaf- mutes will believe it. They will even be delighted and fling wide-open their doors through which the emissaries of the Comintern and Party Intelligence agencies will quickly infiltrate into these countries disguised as our diplomatic, cultural, and trade representatives.

Capitalists the world over and their governments will, in their desire to win Soviet market, shut their eyes to the above-mentioned activities and thus be turned into blind deaf-mutes. They will furnish credits, which will serve as a means of supporting the Communist parties in their countries, and, by supplying us, will rebuild our war industry, which is essential for our future attacks on our suppliers. In other words, they will be laboring to prepare their own suicide.

”

From antiquity (as noted in the Code of Hammurabi) until recent times, the terms "deaf-mute" and "deaf and dumb" were analogous to "idiot." Various versions of what could be inferred in English as "useful idiots" have been used in verbal references about some Americans and others in capitalist societies.

"Useful idiots" would be literally translated from Russian "poleznye idioty". Taking into account possible imprecise translation from Lenin's native Russian into English, other similar quotations exist, such as his assessment of US President Woodrow Wilson in a speech delivered at a meeting of activists of the Moscow Organization of Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (RCPB) on December 6, 1920, first published in 1923 according to the verbatim report in V.I. Lenin Collected Works, 4th English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1966, page 449 (translated from Russian):

“ Thus we have before us the greatest state in the world, which by 1923 will have a navy stronger than the British, and this state is meeting with growing enmity from the other capitalist countries. We must take this trend of things into account. America cannot come to terms with the rest of Europe -- that is a fact proved by history. Nowhere has the Versailles Treaty been analyzed so well as in the book by Keynes, a British representative at Versailles. In his book Keynes ridicules Wilson and the part he played in the Treaty of Versailles. Here, Wilson proved to be an utter simpleton, whom Clemenceau and Lloyd George twisted round their little fingers. Thus everything goes to show that America cannot come to terms with the other countries because of the profound economic antagonism between them, since America is richer than the rest. ”

John Maynard Keynes's book on the Peace of Versailles, which does denigrate Wilson, is The Economic Consequences of the Peace. The quotation can also be interpreted as referring to discord among enemy powers (as Lenin held them to be).

None of this is evidence for the quote "useful idiot".

• Firstly we have confused hearsay.
• Secondly we have a long unauthenticated quotation which doesn't use the phrase "useful idiot" and which most people would consider a fabrication. This is pedantically bolstered by reference to the "Code of Hammurabi" - irrelevance piled on irrelevance.
• Thirdly we have Lenin discussing Keynes - which again - guess what!!! - doesn't use the phrase.

This section is totally irrelevant, biased, and stupid. But I have no doubt that some rightwing moron will restore it, no doubt accompanied by suitable expressions of outrage and umbrage.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit it: I was wrong. The rightwing morons of cyberspace are far too indolent for that.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

References

Emphasis wrong

The article is 70% about "modern usage" which is more or less a trivia section. People looking up "Useful idiot" probably want to know what it meant in the first place. This article should tell about the idiots bragging about health care in Cuba, the solidarity in North Korea, etc. It should at least mention the opinion makers still proud of their moral high ground who once applauded the great prison called USSR. This article doesn't explain the almost mysterious stupidity of the useful idiots where it really should.

Apart from that. I wonder if there has been research about this. "Having, and keeping the 'right opinion', dismissing each and every contradicting fact because the subject is almost by definition good". Can't find it in List of biases but I'm sure it should be. Joepnl (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should research your own biases and irrelevance before pontificating on other people's.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Damn you're right. I just read here that all those people that I formerly thought were just lying about the great successes of communism had been right all that time! That must be why they are still considered important experts on international policies, while my limited thinking always blamed that on them having the right opinion, solely based on idealism instead of facts. Joepnl (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Modern Usage

Sorry to start a new topic of discussion here, I don't edit Wikipedia much (especially not at work) and I just wanted to say that the ONLY time I've ever heard the phrase "useful idiot" in modern times was in a book by a recent emmigrant from the Bush administration that was an evangelical Christian and was upset that Bush and the Bush administration often referred to evangelicals as "useful idiots". I suppose it's maybe a British vs. US thing, but what is currently put down in the Modern Usage section does not seem to be true for the US.165.206.43.5 (talk) 14:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The term Useful Idiot is widely used for the Leftist apologists for the Arabs/Moslems who commit atrocities and terrorism in the name of their deity. They hold the Arabs/Moslems to a lower standard of behaviour than they do 'white' races. They are of course racists and bigots, but they use their status as intellectual elites to shout down their detractors. The media and universities are the main hives of these despicable people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.229.233 (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hollywood Celebs & Rich Kids

Celebrity 'useful idiots' are sometimes recruited into idealogical causes they are sympathetic with but know little about. The recruitment of Hollywood Actors and 'socialites' into religious cults is an example of this. Privileged young people on university campuses can also be recruited into extreme political or religious movements. The distinction between a 'useful idiot' and 'an idealistic person' will depend on you own political perspective however the term can safely be used if the belief system has been thoroughly discredited eg. The Eugenics Movement(Citizenclive (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC))

Michael Douglas and Tom Cruise could be mentioned (though it's probably hard to find reliable sources calling them useful idiots as it's too obvious to even write a column about, let alone a scientific article). I'm not even sure they are "useful idiots" in its original meaning.

In my opinion this article lacks the psychological perspective. There must be literature explaining why sometimes for instance being pro eugenics was a good thing, but after WW II it wasn't. There must also be an explanation why the same people who once applauded the Khmer Rouge, the USSR, etc, are still considered wise people, for always being on the right side of the current opinion, even if their opinion obviously lead to mass murders. If the Holodomor, The Killing Fields or the millions of deaths in the nineties in North Korea that were not even in the news would have taken place in Europe their hair would have been cut off and they would have been put on platforms so everyone could spit on them. Now they give interviews and leave no doubt about it that they still are right, and always have been and always will be right for their opinion is the right one. They are the ones with ideals, insight, the proper global view. Anyone else is short-sighted, ignorant and stupid, though education may lead them to having the best opinion. This cosy feeling of having the right opinion must be exactly what is meant by brutal dictators when they talk about useful idiots. This is what should be in the article. Joepnl (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, if they argued with you they could be forgiven for thinking their opponents are "short-sighted, ignorant and stupid". Why don't you contribute something encyclopedic to the article? Why don't you find some citations? Or you could just continue to rant about things that are largely irrelevant.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it really that hard to act civil, Jack? Whatever your intentions may be, you sound a bit dickish on this talkpage. Calm down, kid. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

So I'm supposed to be lectured on civility by someone who calls me "dickish"???--Jack Upland (talk) 03:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Poorly-cited quote & non-NPOV source

A sentence was removed because it contained the multiple violations of WP Core Content guidelines, as described below. As will also be exhibited below, similar treatment (deletion) has been made by other editors, to similarly “unverifiable” claims in this article.

1. The actual source of the following blockquote is not the LOC.gov librarian (Harris), as claimed this blockquote removed from the article; the actual source is Paul F Boller's 1989 book, wherein Boller ATTRIBUTES it to the librarian. 2. Notably Boller was accused of communism since the WWII era (as is admitted even by the university staff who manage the Collection of Boller's papers (see pg. 5 of [13] if link does not work, copy-paste: http://library.tcu.edu/spcoll/finding aid_files/Boller - MS101.pdf):

However, in 1987, Grant Harris, senior reference librarian at the Library of Congress, said "We have not been able to identify this phrase among [Lenin's] published works."

Therefore, at the very least, WP Core Content policy (3.1 of WP:NPOV) is to attribute such a statement to Boller & note Boller's potential bias -- not attribute it directly to Harris. Even then, Boller's extremist ideology which has earned him a reputation as a source who is biased regarding this article's subject (Lenin) makes Boller a WP:NOTRS source. Boller renders himself irrelevant as a suitable encyclopedic source. (whilst I googled for anyone but Boller who might quote Harris as saying such a thing, I could only find non-scholarly sources, i.e. those who merely parroted/mirrored (WP:CIRCULAR) this WP webpage and/or Boller's book. I'm moving this to the Talk page so that laymen in Blogs/Internet Forums/etc will stop mirroring & citing this WP webpage...because, then, the google results will hopefully come up with a NPOV+RS+verifiable source (rather than Boller), who quotes Harris, if Harris actually did say the blockquoted text above.)

There not even one _NPOV_ scholar in the whole world, who will state -- and who will be quoted by an author who is also an _NPOV_ source (assuming the scholar is indeed being quoted as a secondary source, such as Boller is quoting Harris): “I've read all of Lenin's works, and not once does he use the term 'useful idiots'” (???) -- instead of --when I try to google this quote of the librarian Harris (and when I googled for other, general quotes of Harris)-- some (non-scholarly) parrots, all of whom were parroting Boller, a _POV_ source.

.

2. Quotes of other authors, besides Boller, have been removed from this article. The following quotes (taken from this Talk page) exhibit the reasons that several editors have given for a source such as Boller (or Radzinsky) to be considered unencyclopedic -- I'll simply quote some of those other Wikipedians whilst inserting the name “[HARRIS]” where they used the name “Lenin” (and I'll name the author “[BOLLER]” where they named the author “Radzinsky”):

(A.) “User:Ultramarine insists on adding a quote which he attributes to [HARRIS] but which does not appear in any of [HARRIS's] works. The source he gives [is actually BOLLER, who is not a NPOV source]. Thus, at this point, I see absolutely no proof that [HARRIS] ever said (or wrote) anything of the sort. ... The fact is that [BOLLER only] claims [HARRIS] said that quote [so at the least, let the reader decide: is BOLLER quoting HARRIS correctly, despite that he is a source widely regarded as non-NPOV]. That is what the article should say. However, an unsubstantiated claim is worthless [WP:V], even if made by a scholar [so] I am asking you to look in [BOLLER's] book and explain the following issues:

1. Since this quote does not appear in any of [HARRIS's] works, how does [BOLLER] allege to have obtained it?

2. What is the name of the secret [HARRIS] document in which this quote supposedly appears? When was it published, and for what purpose? Who was it addressed to? (notice the prominent "we must" - who is this "we"?)

3. What is the context surrounding this quote in this secret document? What does the document talk about?” -- Mihnea Tudoreanu

(B.) “The point is that there needs to be SOME sort of proof (beyond your personal desire for it to be true) that someone [HARRIS] actually made a statement before that particular statement should be attributed to them. I see no reason why [BOLLER's] Propaganda should be accepted at face value without any sort of attempt made to verify the facts.” --209.33.202.98 “Well said.” --Jack Upland

OTOH, let's remember: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence... I think another very good point made on this Talk page was: “a 'quote' refers to something someone said, either orally, or in writing. On this page, however, you will find many people who become apoplectic at the suggestion that someone may try to quote something Lenin may have said orally.” ...but the burden is on those adding content to WP:proveit and unfortunately, anything oral (e.g. an oral contract vs. a written one) is less VERIFIABLE than the same statement if it were written down...so it becomes difficult to WP:VERIFY that Lenin did or didn't say “this”...or that Harris did or didn't say “that” -- unless it is in writing...and from an NPOV source.

Many in this Talk page have contended --and I agree with them-- that the sources claiming LENIN used the term “useful idiots” are a bit shoddy... But Boller is a source who violates WP's Core Content policies even worse than Radzinsky's quote (or others who contend they have proof regarding Lenin)...and Boller is therefore unencyclopedic/"irrelevant" even more so than Radzinsky. I've made a good faith effort to find NPOV sources to agree with & replace Boller, and only found non-scholarly sources who mirrored or cited this WP article and/or Boller (including The Times blog, which someone mistakenly called a news “article”; N.B.: WP:V says “the Press Complaints Commission in the UK ruled that journalists' blogs hosted on the websites of newspapers or magazines are subject to the same standards expected of comment pieces in that organization's print editions.” but the Times journalist's blog is NOT “hosted on the website of” The Times newspaper). 24.155.208.148 (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous argument. Wikipedia accepts secondary sources. We do not need - and in many cases could not - find a primary source for every statement. The attack on Boller is absurd McCarthyism. If there is a source which disagrees with his statement, then that can be cited, but to discard him as a source because (a) it is secondary, and (b) he has supposed Communist ties, is ridiculous. If you want primary sources, then you should cite Lenin actually using this phrase - which the right-wing morons who parrot this supposed quotation have singularly failed to do for the past century!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 09:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to interrupt the discussion over the very few sources you all have come up with for this quote, but perhaps I can help since no one of substantial education (mine is a modest American college education) has come forward to clarify the origins of this quote - "useful idiots". Keep in mind, this is only a lead and hopefully someone with greater access to source material and time to do the research will dig it up (from my lead or from any one of a number of others I'm sure exist). Lenin made many speeches. Whatever others came and went without being published earlier in his life, my understanding is that a few of the speeches he gave between 1918 and 1923 were never published. Among these speeches, I am certain that I read a supposed translated Russian news article that included the quote of Lenin using the "useful idiot" phrase. My memory on this is fuzzy (I apologize), but I do believe the speech took place in St Petersburg (Petrograd) just prior to (Lenin) boarding a train to Moscow (Same day? Within a few days?). The significance of the news article had something to do with Jews in Russia (Soviet Union) as I remember (keep in mind, fuzzy memory) the author of the article included an analysis of the speech/event in relation to the Jews in Russia. I say the "significance" of the news article as I was researching the life and status of Jews in Europe in the pre-Holocaust days of the early 20th Century and the subject of Jews in Russia was significant to me at the time. During my research I ran across the translated "useful idiot" phrase in multiple sources (5-7), with the news article mentioned previously remaining the clearest in my memory. All the sources were translated to English (as I do not speak, read, or write Russian). Most of the time the phrase "useful idiot" was not exact, and other terms were used to communicate the same meaning. My general understanding from what I read was that the Russian phrase for "useful idiot" became a common term used by Lenin and his colleagues in reference to many on the left in the West.

The best source for verifying such a use of the term would seem to be Russian/Soviet histories on the subject (am I Captain Obvious here?). While in a twisted way I can understand how the obfuscation of this material may be useful to some extent, overall I think it would hardly be worth the time as one way or another the same idea was communicated from Lenin in other words at other times in other easily verified published articles. Therefore, I believe it would most productive to seek the desired results by going to the most obvious source - Russian/Soviet histories. I'm sure there are translated copies kicking around here and there, but if one requires it from the horse's mouth (as seems to be the case here, even though numerous other Wikipedia articles are not even remotely properly critiqued... I know, user friendly and all) I'm guessing only a source in the original Russian will do, allowing a translation to English after the original source material is cited. Meanwhile, I'll check in from time to time and if this hasn't been ameliorated I'll do the digging myself (assuming I'll have the spare time).--BMcBugger (talk) 08:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, we need a citation, and any of the sources you've mentioned would be fine. But as it stands the earliest source we have is from the 'forties. Furthermore, it seems a highly unlikely thing for Lenin to say. As pointed out above, it's like a melodramatic villain's monologue in which he reveals his innermost evil thoughts and condemns those who (however stupidly) are helping him.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

This is my first time back looking into seeing if this issue had been resolved. I realize that citations are needed Jack, and if I had the citations readily available I would have produced them before. I take exception with the statement, "As pointed out above, it's like a melodramatic villain's monologue..." as it implies both that it is already established that the quote in question is contrary to Lenin's personality and that it is "like a melodramatic villain's monologue". Neither of which is the case. The fact that opinions have been given on this discussion page by those of the opinion that it is not in character with Lenin, and that it is "melodramatic villain's monologue" do not make them fact, and frankly such opinion based statements are completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. In addition, I personally find the notion that "useful idiots" quoted from anyone is associated with "melodramatic villain's monologue" is a ridiculously skewed view, and such an opinion, no matter how strongly felt by a participant in this discussion, needs to be removed/ignored. The irrelevance of such a view is absolute, and belongs no closer to the discussion of the "useful idiot" quote's origin than in a discussion of a drama script using the term and the appropriate inflection needed to convey that particular quality. I will check back again after a while. The closer it gets to summer the more likely it seems I'll have to retrace my previous research to find the appropriate sources myself. --BMcBugger (talk) 08:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The point wasn't that it was out of character for Lenin, but that it seems a strange thing for any politician to say openly - that people who supported him were "useful idiots". Moreover, the fact that apparently no one has recorded the citation does indicate it was never said.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

References

Quoting someone

To most people, including scholars, a "quote" refers to something someone said, either orally, or in writing. On this page, however, you will find many people who become apoplectic at the suggestion that someone may try to quote something Lenin may have said orally. Surely the quote in question is not likely to be something he would put in writing, rather, something more likely said to trusted confidants. Here, however, many refuse to believe that Lenin ever said anything he didn't write down. Thus, if it is not found in his writings, Lenin never "said" it. Useful idiots indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.233.83.13 (talk) 08:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there anything "apoplectic" about asking a quotation to be supported by evidence. If in fact Lenin never put this in writing, if he only said it to "trusted confidants", then how do we know about it? Why did the quotation suddenly appear in American sources in the 1950s?

It is not reasonable to ask people to find evidence Lenin didn't say it. Perhaps he said it to a deaf mute. Perhaps he said it when no one was there. Perhaps he said it when he was asleep and wasn't even conscious of it himself. No, it is up to you to provide evidence that he did say it!--Jack Upland (talk) 10:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Italian Context

It would be good to get the Italian context of the first known use of the term, and if it was used by anarchists how they used the term.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Jack I think you do protest to much...do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.173.63.191 (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't see any problem with making short comments in a discussion page. I note my opponents, despite their verbiage, have singularly failed to come up with a citation.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Historical Context

I concur that it makes no sense for Lenin to say it, but I have something else to add: who could Lenin even be referring to in the first place? It wasn't until the 1930's that individuals like the Webbs, Shaw, etc. (the type of people considered "useful idiots" by people who employ the term) were even visiting the USSR. Before that it was almost always either avowed communists or foreign trade union delegations, not really the type of people to be held in contempt by Lenin. --Mrdie (talk) 09:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that point is made in the book They Never Said It cited above. There's also a Lenin quote about the USA being "ripe fruit". These quotes make sense circa 1950 but not circa 1920. H G Wells (a Fabian) did visit the USSR under Lenin but he was disparaging about it. He preferred Stalin! At the same time, the USSR was very beleaguered at this point, so it would make no sense for Lenin to be contemptuous of well-wishers. And when the Western press were routinely referring to the Bolsheviks as "German-Jewish adventurers", someone who has something positive to say could hardly be classed as an "idiot".--Jack Upland (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

'List of useful idiots' removed

I removed the 'list of useful idiots' that was formerly part of this article, as it had no sources whatsoever. Individual people should only be mentioned on this page if a source specifically describes them as a 'useful idiot'; otherwise, it's a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. (I'm not sure a 'list of people who have been described as useful idiots' is a good idea in any case, but if it is to be included it should be sourced.) Robofish (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC) Some idiots :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.241.71.114 (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Useful Innocents?

Do we need to include information on this phrase which was apparently only used in the 1940s?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I have put these references together with the other references from the 1940s. There now seems a pretty good case to say the term originated in the early Cold War.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes we need to include historical information in encyclopedia. Please also keep in mind that "fool" and "innocent" have a common accosiation via the meaning of "simpleton", so these two terms are in fact quite close. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't eliminate the information: I just abbreviated it. The sentences which have been restored go into unnecessary and pedantic detail about a related phrases. Do we really need to know about a book that might have been published in the 1940s but apparently never was???--Jack Upland (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Karl Radek

Could someone read and interpret the Russian equivalent page? There is a quotation (perhaps) from Karl Radek : « Среди них, тех, кого Ленин назвал «полезными идиотами» и нашлось так много тех, кого можно было использовать. » Given that he died in 1939 and it may indicate that he wrote that Lenin said "useful idiots". This may be of interest... The Russian article quoted is not available (http://books.google.ca/books?id=rfnTAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y). It is not clear whether Radek wrote this himself or whether it is the author of the article in 1990 who comments in this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.217.83 (talk) 03:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Based on Google Translate, it appears the text says that "useful idiots" is attributed to Lenin, but not found in his published works, and that it is also attributed to fellow Bolshevik Karl Radek. The subsequent quotation appears to be from the novel "The Third World War: The Untold Story" by Sir John Hackett. The text that follows appears to be a Russian translation from this article.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Preamble to this discussion

It should be noted that "useful idiots," including all variations, interpretations and individuals to which it is attributed, represents a sentiment shared by individuals who are active within their political communities towards those who are not. These opinions are not exclusive as it is possible for one being "used" by Capitalists to think of one being "used" by Communists as a "Useful Idiot" and vice versa. Perhaps even more interesting is the term's use as a pejorative for others who appear to be either politically apathetic or gullible to the whims of political-ideological rhetoric. Gregrium (talk) 06:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Clarify the last paragraph

"A 2010 BBC radio documentary titled Useful Idiots listed among "useful idiots" of Joseph Stalin several prominent British writers including H. G. Wells and Doris Lessing, the Irish writer George Bernard Shaw, the American journalist Walter Duranty, and the singer Paul Robeson" —User 000 name 18:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Issues of Expression

To explain why I tried to change these:

• "Despite often being misattributed to Vladimir Lenin..."

I think this is a double negative. It should say, "Despite often being attributed..." or "The phrase is often misattributed to Lenin" full stop. As it stands, the sentence effectively says: "Despite the misattribution, it is a misattribution". This makes no sense.

• "...an excerpt from a, at the time, forthcoming book (no title printed) authored by Bogdan Raditsa..."

The syntax here is very convoluted, as is the meaning. It would be simpler to say it was a excerpt from a book that was never published. But this seems an unnecessary and confusing detail. For our purposes, it suffices to say that it was an article.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

No objections here. - üser:Altenmann >t 14:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Nihilists

I have removed this:

In the Russian language, the equivalent term "useful fools" (полезные дураки, tr. polezniye duraki) was already in use in 1941. It was mockingly used against Russian (anti-communist) 'nihilists' who, for Polish agents, were said to be no more than "useful fools and silly enthusiasts".

This seems to be original research about a phrase that is similar - but not the same.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• This is a synonym in a different language. And it is not OR, it is n example, similar to many others in the article. - üser:Altenmann >t 14:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not an article about every use of the phrase or a synonymous one in any language or context. The other examples indicate how the term has been used in the Cold War context to describe Communist sympathesiser. The use against Snowden is an extension of this.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This is your opinion. And in my opinion, nothing wrong to describe similar things, which do not warrant a separate article, but related in usage. The phrase is attributed to Lenin, probably as a result of some confusion., hence usage in Russian language ir directly relevant. - üser:Altenmann >t 14:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Why do you call the nihilists in the passage above "anti-communist"? Does that also comes from the 1941 book? In that case it should be put in quotation marks: the communists at that time could call any political rival an anticommunist, one cannot take the word seriously. Jmster (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Tanks for catching this. Removed from the article. - üser:Altenmann >t 07:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

References

I am claiming a liberty

   I am claiming a liberty that should not have to be allowed to any editor. I do so on the logic that colleagues who have (perhaps only out of ignorance or misguided enthusiasm, but perhaps in some cases seeking an advantage of having their PoV read -- whether or not to poison the well) placed their remarks before those of their more prompt peers, disrupted our normal convention of responding below what we are responding to, and (unless responding to previous talk) responding at the bottom of the page. I am initially announcing this cleanup, without yet reordering others' talk contribs, and shall only move newer content below some or all of the older, after letting some time pass; this should reduce the likelihood of my presenting someone with the shock of a fait accompli affecting their contrib.
--Jerzy•t 10:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Difficult to understand sentence

This bit is rather hard to understand:

In fact, namely this term (singular: полезный дурак) was attributed to Lenin in Russian discource, e.g., by Vladimir Bukovsky (1984).

On top of the spelling mistake (discourse), it is hard to understand what the writer means. NotYourFathersOldsmobile (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Some Russian authors wrote that lenin (allegedly) used the word "useful fools" полезные дураки, while english texts allege that lenin wrote "useful idiots". - üser:Altenmann >t 22:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is and indirect evidence of usage by Lenin and his comrades

ПИСЬМО Г.В.ЧИЧЕРИНУ 10 февраля 1922 г.

10.11.1922 г.

Дорогой т. Чичерин!

Я сегодня ликовал, читая «Правду», — не передовицу, конечно, которая испортила великолепнейшую тему, — а тел[е]г[рам]му о «шаге» Гендерсона.

Гендерсон так же глуп, как Керенский, и потому помогает нам ¹.

Первый резон ликовать.

Второй: Вы должны видеть, как я был прав, выдвигая одобренную Ц[ентральным] к[омите]том «широкую» пр[о]г[рам]му Генуи.

Надеюсь, Вы это теперь, после гендерсоновского шага, видите?

Мы выдвинем широчайшую программу Генуи, любезно подчеркивая при этом, что не ставим ультиматума, ибо в Генуе не м[ожет] б[ыть] речи о подчинении большинству, а лишь о соглашении всех. Не согласен? Ваша воля. Мы идем на узкую пр[о]г[рам]му! (В широкую вставить еще: междун[ародное] раб[очее] законодательство; меры б[орь]бы с безработицей и т[ому] п[одобное]).

Далее. Архисекретно. Нам выгодно, чтобы Геную сорвали.., но не мы, конечно. Обдумайте это с Л[итвиновым] и Иоффе и черкните мне. Конечно, писать этого нельзя даже в секретных бумагах. Верните мне сие, я сожгу2. Заем мы получим лучше без Генуи, если Геную сорвем не мы. Надо придумать маневры половчее, чтобы Геную сорвали не мы. Наприм[ер], дура Гендерсон и К° очень помогут нам, если мы их умненько подтолкнем. Вызван ли Красин? Проверено ли, что вызван? Когда выезжает? Ускорьте, проверьте дважды.

У «них» все летит. Крах полный (Индия и т[ак] д[алее]). Нам надо нечаянно падающего подтолкнуть не нашими руками.

Salut!

Ваш Ленин.

P.S. Покажите это Литв[ино]ву и Иоффе.

Фонд 2, оп. 2, д. 1119 - автограф.

1 В газете «Правда» от 10 февраля 1922 г. было помещено сообщение об обращении лидера лейбористской партии Великобритании А.Гендерсона к правительству о включении в повестку Генуэзской конференции вопроса о предоставлении Грузии независимости. На это сообщение откликнулся и Л.Д.Троцкий, послав в Политбюро письмо с предложением выступить в печати против инициативы Гендерсона. В.И.Ленин не согласился с Троцким и предложил членам Политбюро в «Известиях ВЦИК» поддержать Гендерсона «за "счастливую мысль" расширить программу конференции, но расширить ее, разумеется, не только Грузией, а всеми нациями и колониями» (The Trotsky papers. 1917-1922. V. II, с. 680).

2 Отвечая на публикуемое письмо, Г.В.Чичерин писал В.И.Ленину 10 февраля 1922 г.: «Вопрос о Грузии нельзя ни в коем случае ставить так: "у Вас Индия, у нас Грузия". Надо говорить: "в Грузии рабочие выборосили контрреволюцию, как в России выбросили контрреволюцию, но России Вы ее уже не смеете навязывать, а маленькой Грузии смеете; апелляции к самоопределению в Ваших устах лицемерны, ибо Индия и т.д.".

Обращение идиота Гендерсона к Лл[ойд] Джорджу еще не есть обращение Лл[ойд] Джорджа к нам. Если Лл[ойд] Джордж будет нам говорить о Грузии, тогда в ответ будем говорить об Амритсаре. Но если мы заранее сами начнем говорить об Амритсаре, мы просто сорвем наши отношения». По вопросу об отношении к Генуэзской конференции Чичерин писал: «Я не хозяйственник. Но все хозяйственники говорят, что нам до зарезу, ультра-настоятельно нужна помощь Запада, заем, концессии, экономическое соглашение. Я должен им верить. А если это так, нужно не расплеваться, а договориться... Вы несомненно ошибаетесь, если думаете, что получим заем без Генуи, если расплюемся с Англией. Заем дают не правительства с их дефинатами, а капиталисты, деловые круги. Теперь они видят в нас наилучшее возможное в данных условиях в России правительство. Но если мы будем в Генуе бить стекла, они шарахнутся прочь от нас. Широчайшая буржуазно-пацифистская программа их не оттолкнет, наоборот усилит нас, но если будут наивности, они нас дискредитируют. Если же Генуя отчетливо покажет два непримиримых мира, такой разрыв сделает невозможным всякое экономическое соглашение». (РЦХИДНИ, ф. 5, on. 1, д. 1952, л. 38-39).

- üser:Altenmann >t 23:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I understood "salut".--Jack Upland (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a primary source anyway. Translation of highlighted pieces:

• Lenin's phrase: "Henderson is as stupid as Kerensky, and therefore he helps us."
• In Chicherin's reply: "The addressing of idiot Henderson to Lloyd George...."

I.e., it is a demonstration that Bolsheviks did operate with this idea of helpful idiots. Of course, it is my original research. - üser:Altenmann >t 07:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, maybe it's not original research because it is in The Unknown Lenin by the egregious Richard Pipes!!! But I don't think this fits the "useful idiot" concept as described in this article. Kerensky was certainly an opponent of Lenin, not a naive supporter, not a fellow traveller. The document refers to Henderson at the Genoa Conference, where he was raising the issue of Georgian independence. This was stupid because the Bolsheviks could counter with the issue of Indian independence. And the stupidity of their opponent helped them. Also, Lenin apparently wanted to wreck the conference and perceived that Henderson had given them an opportunity. This was helpful. But this is being fortunate in your enemies, not abusing the trust of your friends.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

You are right. But now it comes to my mind that the current interpretation does not fit Lenin's character. He was quite ruthless and venomous to his opponents, but I don't remember any case Lenin to piss into the well. Therefore I am stopping the search. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Depardieu example

This example is dubious. The fact that some authors use this term does not they understand what they are saying. Sources cited provide no explanation how Depardieu is "useful" or even "idiot". I would rather say that tax evasion is a smart move. And idiots are Lukashenko and Putin (unless we don't know something). - üser:Altenmann >t 01:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd say the Depardieu example qualifies indeed as a recent contemporary one, I was wondering why it was deleted twice, even though i've provided multiple quality sources, wich demonstrated why and how the term was applied to Depardieu. It is not that the sources have to explain how exactly the respective authors view Depardieu as a useful idiot, but it is just that they prove THAT he is viewed as such. Note that there is also no detailed explanation offered as to how exactly the other cited examples listed in this article qualify for the term, but simply that they qualify, as they have been viewed i.e. called "useful idiots" at some point by someone who went on the record with it. I still think that my addition should be re-added, as it represents a contemporary example of the matter.

P.S Protesting abnormally high taxes is indeed understandable, especially if, as was the case in France, they bordered the insane at the time of Depardieu's move. However doing so by simply renouncing citizenship and leaving for a country the likes of Russia (of all places), and on top of that openly sucking-up to the dictator that "runs the asylum" (or mafia syndicate rather) by praising him beyond any rational sense, (in fact even so much so, that even Putin himself seemed embarrassed , which really says something) , like Depardieu has done repeatedly since he defected to save whatever amount of tax franc (or € for that matter), is basically self-explanatory as to how that exactly makes Depardieu a useful idiot. A massive one, both literally as well as figuratively, at that.

P.P.S i agree on Lukashenko and Putin being idiots. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.135.129.121 (talk) 01:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The term has a specific meaning described in the article. You did not offer a reference which gives an explanation how Depardieu fits this meaning. People misuse the words all the time, and wikipedia is not supposed to propagate the misuse however frequent it was "on the record". - üser:Altenmann >t 06:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Useful idiot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121223213312/http://www.amazon.fr/PAYSAGE-1946-LUTILISATION-DEMOCRATES-ANTIFASCISTES/dp/B0046XNZHM to http://www.amazon.fr/PAYSAGE-1946-LUTILISATION-DEMOCRATES-ANTIFASCISTES/dp/B0046XNZHM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

who, for Polish agents (in 1941)

In 1941 Poland was:

• till June 21st - the British ally, occupied by Nazi Germany and Soviet Union, subject of mass terror implemented by both nations. Almost any Polish underground organization under the Soviets was destroyed, the alleged agents were tortured, killed, imprisoned in Gulag camps. Soviet citizens (Russians) didn't support any anti-Soviet activities, so there was no useful idiots of the mentioned type.
• since June 22nd - the Soviet ally, Poles were liberated but strictly supervised by the NKVD. Soviet citizens (Russians) didn't support any anti-Soviet activities, so there was no useful idiots of the mentioned type.

Summarising: the quotation belongs to Soviet propaganda, describing a nonexistent object (like Pegasus or Harry Potter). This aspect should be explained.Xx236 (talk) 09:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

It should be better explained. But it is a reference in 1941 to the revolutionary situation before 1917...--Jack Upland (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. (time frame added). - üser:Altenmann >t 02:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Lede: "...from the Russian useful fool..." is incorrect usage.

The lede currently contains a sentence beginning, "According to the Oxford Dictionary of Euphemisms, the phrase stems from the Russian useful fool...". Can someone please confirm what the actual wording is in the cited dictionary? It would normally not be correct to say "from the Russian useful fool". This implies that useful fool is itself a Russian expression. At a minimum–unless perchance the given Oxford dictionary may actually use this awkward phrasing, thus lending it a certain amount of authority–the sentence should read, "...from the Russian for useful fool...". Somewhat better would be to give the actual Russian words, followed by an appropriate English rendering. Can someone confirm (as noted above on this page–see section titled "Karl Radek") that the Russian citation form of "useful idiot" or "useful fool" is in fact полезными идиотами (polyeznimyi idyotamyi, transliteration negotiable)? Thanks in advance if someone with knowledge of the quoted dictionary and the correct Russian citation form can take a look at this and (most probably–i.e. if even the Oxford work does not say this) correct it.--IfYouDoIfYouDon't (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Holder, R. W. (2008), "useful fool", Oxford Dictionary of Euphemisms, Oxford University Press, p. 394, ISBN 978-0199235179, useful fool - a dupe of the Communists. Lenin's phrase for the shallow thinkers in the West whom the Communists manipulated. Also as useful idiot.

  Full cite with relevant quote, above. Sagecandor (talk) 03:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

A latecomer to the discussion

I looked through and tentatively edited the article BEFORE seeing how much had been discused already here, on the Talk Page.

It's a key requirement, in writing about this elusive subject, to disentangle several related but separate issues (it is also rather important to know some Russian):

1. Did Lenin use or even invent this phrase? If he didn't write «полезные дураки», even in the missing letter to Klara Zetkin, why is the phrase so repeatedly attributed to him?

2. If the earliest usage in the West is immediately post-war, with one very striking Russian instance from 1941, then why has no one tracked the phrase through Stalin's work? Historically and psychologically, that seems a more probably context in some ways.

3. A third source, that no one has considered, apparently - though revelations in this quarter have appeared since the early 1990s - is the private, internal language of Communist Parties around the world. How did they discuss among themselves their occasional, always temporary, alliances with Social Democrats, Socialists and, latterly, the Peace Movement?

Despite Mr Upland's rejection of the example, the "Lenin quotation" about the West selling the Soviets the rope with which they themselves will later be strung up strikes me as a clear parallel with the simplification represented by the "useful idiot" controversy. Some would surely say, with approval, that these "pithy" quotations boost Lenin's reputation among those who admire his cunning and ruthlessness.

The Russian Reader website has recently promised to publish in translation the 1920s set of articles about Lenin's language by noted literary specialists and edited by Vladimir Mayakovsky.

I'm curious - was he really a great orator?

I never much enjoyed reading him, in Russian or in English.John Crowfoot (talk) 03:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, John, for your comments. However, I think we need evidence. We can pontificate, postulate, prevaricate, and even procrastinate. But we need evidence. Sure, a lot of useless geniuses have said, decades after Lenin died, that he used the phrase, but none of them have provided proof. Maybe he said it in his sleep. Maybe he dreamed it. Maybe he said it in a language that has not yet been invented. Maybe he used semaphore in one of his speeches. Maybe he raised his eyebrow in a suggestive way. Maybe he transmitted it in Morse Code when he was using a urinal. Maybe aliens transmitted his message from Uranus. Or maybe he didn't say it. I don't know, I wasn't there, and Richard Nixon erased the tape. Maybe Bigfoot ate Nixon. Again, I wasn't there. Maybe the Loch Ness Monster ate Bigfoot and wiped its bottom with the US Constitution. I don't know. I wasn't a witness, despite those incriminating photos. Maybe President Trump's hair is a fuzzy logic bar code. I have never explored that possibility. I don't get paid enough moolah. Maybe the Loch Ness Monster was swallowed by a black hole that you were kind enough to bequeath to posterity. Maybe, maybe, maybe. But where's the evidence??? Set controls to the heart of Uranus.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

And someone has now put Lenin back at the top of this article as though the attribution is certain! That's not right.

The Safire article is good, but it's striking that it was written way back in 1987. Surely someone has tried again since then to find usage of the phrase (in English, Russian or German) before the Second World War, never mind a direct derivation from Vladimir Lenin (Ulyanov)?

FYI Jack Upland - the exchange between Lenin and Chicherin does contain some interesting conspiratorial instructions (translated below).

One rather innocent thought. Since everything good came from Lenin, and Stalin would rewrite his own works to suit the current situation, but showed a certain reluctance to touch his precedessor's immortal texts, it could be that the Soviet side also participated in giving the phrase an earlier origin and more illustrious source. I, for one, see NO conflict between the attitudes enshrined in this cynical phrase and the way Lenin thought, spoke and behaved.

John Crowfoot (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The Lenin-Chicherin exchange of the early 1920s (quoted above, only in Russian) concerned the British Labour Party's proposal at the Genoa Conference to recognise Georgia's independence. It may give some indirect credence to two widely misattributed Lenin sayings, but to my mind the third paragraph opens with words that are just as pertinent:

"Next. Top Secret. It would suit us if the Genoa discussions broke down ... but not so that we get the blame. Think this over with L and Yoffe [L = Maxim Litvinov] and drop me a line. Of course, this must not be written down, even in classified documents. Return this letter to me and I'll burn it."

That document, however, was preserved and not burnt. John Crowfoot (talk) 03:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we discussed this before. Sure, Lenin plotted to wreck the conference. However, the British Labour Party were not "useful idiots" for Lenin in the meaning of the phrase, rather they were a nuisance as the quote shows. Hence, this hardly seems relevant...--Jack Upland (talk) 11:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

"Cold War Usage" section

Since this term originated during the Cold War, there should be a section on "Cold War Usage." Currently, the article only discusses the origns of the terms and one example of modern usage. The term was used during the Cold War primarily by the political Right to attack liberals perceived as weak on Communism. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Popular Attributions

The term has been popularly attributed to Lenin, and sometimes to Stalin. These attributions are almost certainly erroneous, as the term "useful idiot" doesn't appear in any of Lenin or Stalin's writings, wasn't attributed to them during their lifetimes, and wasn't even used in the Soviet Union. The earliest documented usages of the phrase are by American publications discussing Cold-War Italian politics. The highly reputable Oxford English Dictionary gives a 1948 New York Times article on Italian politics as the first known publication to use the term "useful idiot," and notes that the term appears to have had no analog in the Soviet Union.

People misattribute quotations all the time. "As Lincoln once said, [insert something Lincoln never said]" is a common refrain. Just because various people introduce their usage of the word "useful idiot" by saying, "As Lenin used to say, [insert something Lenin is never known to have said]" or "As Stalin used to say, [insert something Stalin is never known to have said]," that doesn't mean that Wikipedia should repeat these misattributions. Spruille Braden said once used the phrase "useful idiots" in a speech and attributed the term to Stalin. Braden wasn't an expert on the Soviet Union, didn't present his scholarship on the origin of the term, and was almost certainly just repeating the popular misattributions of the term "useful idiot." It's not worth mention in the article every time some person introduces the phrase "useful idiot" with the popular misattribution.

What is worth mention in the article is simply the fact that the popular attributions to Lenin and Stalin exist, that reputable sources can find no evidence for those attributions, and that the earliest known usages of the term come from American publications discussing Italian post-War politics. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the Braden sentence should go. I don't even know how reliable that citation is as it doesn't include a page number, and I can't find a reference to "useful idiots" via Google Books. Braden's book is a book of memoirs based on a speech. As you say, it's not a work of scholarship.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I managed to track down the citation, although I don't have it handy now. The attribution to Stalin was just a throwaway line, mentioned in passing during a speech on a completely different topic. Braden didn't claim to have done any scholarship on the origin of the quote. It's entirely possible that Braden was simply confusing Lenin and Stalin, given that the phrase is more commonly misattributed to the former. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, it definitely shouldn't be in the article. We don't need a citation of every throwaway line that mentions the phrase.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Contemporary usage

There is widespread contemporary usage of this term with respect to the Russian interference in US politics and the Russians' American enablers. An editor has just removed mention of one such statement, despite WP:PUBLICFIGURE and despite the fact that the cited source is making the point that "useful idiot" is the most charitable term he could use, the alternatives presumably involving criminal intent. This well-sourced article text -- which reflects widespread and diverse other statements of the same analysis -- should be restored. If there are no other editors who disagree, I will do so. Otherwise, please open a WP:BLPN thread to test your interpretation of BLP vs. WP:KNOWNFACT. SPECIFICO talk 16:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The "Contemporary usage" section should talk more generally about the modern usage of the term. If it just cites random usages of the term, it's no more than a trivia section. I haven't yet been able to find a source that gives a good overview of modern usage of the term, however. Having a "Cold War usage" section is just as or more important, though, since this terms originates from that time. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The word "computer" dates from the early 20th century but contemporary usage is much more important. Same thing with useful idiots. There didn't used to be all that many of them, now they appear to be mainstream, according to RS sources, e.g. former heads of national intelligence agencies, major US press, and other notable individuals and organizations. Write whatever you think will improve the article. Positive contributions are needed here, not deletions of sourced content. SPECIFICO talk 19:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Your removal of the well-sourced Stalin use is your 4th in just about 24 hours. I'm going to politiely ask you to reinstate that edit, in lieu of a user page warning. SPECIFICO talk 20:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

An individual case in which someone used the phrase "useful idiot" and then added on the mistaken attribution isn't notable. I've been trying to add good sourcing to this article, like the Oxford English Dictionary, and to cut out the extraneous trivia ("On May 1, 1970, so-and-so called so-and-so a useful idiot, and mistakenly attributed the phrase to Stalin/Lenin"). If you can find a good source that discusses use of the term "useful idiot" in general nowadays, that would be helpful. Random times someone has called someone else a "useful idiot" just clutter the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree. We've been here before in this article, when it included a list of trivia. We need sources that talk about the phrase rather than just sources that use the phrase (of which there are many).--Jack Upland (talk) 07:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Yup. Lots of people have used the phrase, and mistakenly added that it derives from Lenin or, sometimes, from Stalin. There are a lot of quotes floating around that are falsely attributed to various famous people, as the book "They Never Said It" documents. There are reliable secondary sources that specifically discuss the origin of "useful idiot" (the NY Times and Oxford English Dictionary are cited here already), and they say that the phrase cannot be traced to Lenin, and that there doesn't appear to have been a corresponding phrase in use in the Soviet Union. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• Perhaps this should be rephrased to clarify that the term has been applied to a number of modern politicians (in certain specific context), but the term seem to be applied widely based on Google book search.My very best wishes (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh boy, a new dispute at a Sagecandor Special. My take is that The term does not appear to have been used within the Soviet Union. shouldn't be in the lede, but basically every disputed comment on the usage should be in the body. The fact that «while there are no reliable accounts that suggest Lenin or Stalin used the term (or its Russian translation), it has been widely attributed to them» is encyclopedically relevant, and the sources that attribute this to them should be mentioned in the appropriate section (but not the lede). power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why there has to be a dispute here. The scholarship is pretty clear on the issue: there's no evidence supporting the popular attribution to Lenin, and the term appears to have its origins in the West during the Cold War, as a conservative epithet for liberals perceived as weak on Communism. I think the popular attribution to Lenin should be mentioned, maybe even in the lede, but the article should also note that the scholarship doesn't support that attribution, and that the earliest known usage of the term is in post-war articles about Italian politics. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

As a general rule, the lede section of an article should say what the topic is, not what it is not. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I think you're overcomplicating the issue. If we mention the attribution to Lenin, we should mention that this is not substantiated.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Lede

The lede mentions the Lenin theory for the origin of the term, but as the body of the article explains, there's no evidence for this theory actually being true. The Oxford English Dictionary, which I consider to be highly reliable, gives the earliest known usage of the term as coming from a NY Times article in 1948: "L'Umanita said the Communists would give the 'useful idiots' of the left-wing Socialist party the choice of merging with the Communist party or getting out.". The lede shouldn't give so much prominence to a theory with so little evidence. The phrase appears to be a term used primarily in the West during the Cold War, and not to have originated from the Soviet Union. As the OED notes, "The phrase does not seem to reflect any expression used within the Soviet Union." -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Article says otherwise. Lede summarizes RS supported content in article. SPECIFICO talk 22:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a source. You're welcome to fix problems in the body, but don't insert material that's directly contradicted by OED into the lede. I cited OED directly above - you can see it in green. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Straw man. @BullRangifer: and @Sagecandor: and @Moscowamerican: cited RS in the article. SPECIFICO talk 07:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is the authority on English etymologies. It's much more authoritative than the similarly named, but very different Oxford Dictionary of Euphemisms. The former is a major project to document the English language. The latter is a light-hearted work written by a single person. It may be a fun read, but when it's contradicted by the OED, it's almost certainly wrong. The OED says that:

1. The phrase "useful idiot" is only documented from 1948 onwards, and
2. The phrase doesn't correspond to anything used in the Soviet Union.

The Lenin theory probably gets far too much space overall in this article. It's a dubious theory, and Lenin is almost certainly not the origin of the English phrase "useful idiot," which can only be documented from 1948 and didn't enter into wide usage until the mid-to-late 1950s. In other words, the Lenin theory is folk etymology, not scientific etymology. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Straw woman. The lede must summarize the article content. Find RS narrative that supports your POV. SPECIFICO talk 16:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

For the last time, the Oxford English Dictionary is my source. I don't even know what you mean by "straw man" here. What's the straw man I'm attacking? Just citing the name of a random fallacy doesn't mean you have a point. Now instead of stalking me on Wikipedia, go edit an article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

What you don't even know is irrelevant. What is relevant is WP guideline WP:LEDE. We are all responsible for knowing site policies and guidelines. Please see WP:LEDE and cut out the straw man arguments about your cherrypicked source that is at odds with the mainstream narrative in the article content. Once you've read the site guideline, perhaps you'll see why you should undo your insertion. SPECIFICO talk 21:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, what I don't know is highly relevant. You see, there's this thing called language, and if you don't use it, other people don't know what's in your head. So if you just say the word "strawman" over and over again without explaining what you mean by it, then nobody but you will know what you're trying to say. In any case, pick some other article to disrupt. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree the OED should be cited saying that, "The phrase does not seem to reflect any expression used within the Soviet Union". I don't think it necessarily has to be in the lead. The OED is a reliable source, and this statement clearly fits in with the rest of the article. The phrase arose in the West in the 1940s, and doesn't seem to have any origin in the Soviet Bloc. I don't understand what the objection is. I think we need to mention Lenin, because it is famously attributed to him. In fact, the quotation probably wouldn't not have become famous if people had not attributed it to Lenin.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• In fact the expression was widely used in the Soviet Union. But this needs to be sourced of course. My very best wishes (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Some things are widely used but never put in writing (for good reason, e.g. the discussion on this page.) Moreover Safire the reformed Nixon-era pundit is not a scholar nor was he in on the diplomatic and intelligence circles that Spruille Braden inhabited during the post-WW2 period. SPECIFICO talk 23:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The OED says there was no corresponding phrase in use in the Soviet Union. As for Spruille Braden, I'm puzzled as to why you're holding him up as a reliable source for what Stalin said. He made the remark about Stalin once in a speech, while talking about people he (Braden) considered useful idiots. He didn't claim to have done any scholarship on the issue, and there's no indication he had any special knowledge about what Stalin said in private. Basically, you're saying that because one random person once attributed the phrase to Stalin, we should mention that attribution, regardless of the scholarship that says otherwise. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The OED is referring to published sources it may have accessed. Braden was at the highest levels of diplomacy and security clearance and has much more extensive knowledge of Stalin's internal communications. His conclusion was published and is RS, it is not a self-published after-dinner rumination or youtube meander and should not be misrepresented as mere speculation. SPECIFICO talk 01:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a source that makes any of those claims? Can you point to a source that says Braden was an expert on the internal dealings of the Kremlin? You're just making all of this up whole cloth. An American diplomat in Latin America once gave a speech in which he said, in passing, that Stalin called naïve liberals "useful idiots." You're building that up into some piece of scholarship by an expert on Stalin's private discussions. Really, just stop. You're turning this article into a battleground that it doesn't have to be. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree. You can't dismiss sources like the OED and the Library of Congress in favour of your own personal speculation.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe that this concern has been fully addressed by @My very best wishes: in the thread at the bottom of this page "his sources...inconclusive", not to mention the Spruille Braden reference, so I believe we're ready to fix the lede. . SPECIFICO talk 17:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

No, it hasn't.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

His reporting was inconclusive?

The article says:

In a 1987 article for The New York Times, American journalist William Safire noted that a Library of Congress librarian was not able to find the phrase in Lenin's works, and his reporting on the matter was inconclusive.

His reporting on the matter was inconclusive. What does that mean? The book They Never Said It (p 76) cites the same article and concludes he never said it. What is inconclusive?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Safire's reporting was only really inconclusive in as far as he wasn't able to find any evidence that Lenin ever talked about "useful idiots," and he Safire couldn't establish where exactly the phrase came from. What was clear from his reporting was that "useful idiot" (or an equivalent phrase in Russian) doesn't appear in any of Lenin's writings, and that there are no first-hand accounts of him having used the phrase. Safire was able to find a second-hand account where Lenin supposedly said something vaguely similar to "the capitalists will sell us the rope to hang them with," but couldn't find any such lead on "useful idiot." -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the article should editorialise like that. Safire reports that the phrase couldn't be found in Lenin's writings. That's it.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

That's right. Safire was a journalist and amateur etymologist and this was the opinion of -- let's call him an informed dilettante. He was a notable writer and so it's OK to mention that he couldn't find printed use of the term. That's very different than proving that the term was not used by the Communists. SPECIFICO talk 01:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Accordingly, let's get this weasel-worded UNDUE "The term does not appear to have been used within the Soviet Union." out of the lede. SPECIFICO talk 01:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The OED is an excellent source. Stop this nonsense!--Jack Upland (talk) 08:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• If we are talking about tertiary sources, such as Oxford English Dictionary, one should use something more specialized on the subject. In particular, the Oxford Dictionary of Euphemisms (2008), tells on page 394 that "useful fool - a dupe of the Communists. Lenin's phrase for the shallow thinkers in the West whom the Communists manipulated. Also as useful idiot...". Now, looking at direct quotation here, there is no any doubts that Lenin and other Bolsheviks did call certain Western politicians "idiots" that are very useful for their communist cause (including another famous quotation about the "rope they will sell to us to hang them"). That's why this is widely attributed to Lenin and Radek. I do not see any problem with this. "A librarian was not able to find the phrase". And what does it prove? Apparently, he did very poor job, because it was there (the link to direct quotation above). My very best wishes (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

That ref is obviously fine. Apparently, this is something Lenin only said (and therefore attributed to him in other sources), but did not write in his official works. My very best wishes (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The OED is a reliable source. It's ridiculous to say that it's not. The quotation you link to has already been discussed, and doesn't use the phrase.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes the Oxford Dictionary of Euphemisms is definitely an RS - I agree. And what does it tell? See here. My very best wishes (talk) 16:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Now, speaking about that ref, it also qualify as RS, to source claim that someone could not find anything in his written works. But it should not be there. It is enough that he said it at some occasion and multiple RS written by other people attributed this to him. My very best wishes (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Well put. Spoken. Well-attributed and sourced. SPECIFICO talk 16:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The OED is a reliable sources which says that the phrase doesn't seem to have been used in the USSR. The Oxford Dictionary of Euphemisms is just another source which attributes the phrase to Lenin. Sure you can add it to the others in the article, but what's the point? The question is how do people know Lenin said it if it isn't in any of his published works, or in the memoirs of someone who spoke to him etc??? In any case, this is purely original research. We go with the published sources, and that includes the OED and the NYT.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

You tell: "Sure you can add it [the source] to the others [other sources]] in the article". This is very definition of something to be described in multiple RS and being a majority [of sources] view. "how do people know"? It would be nice to know, but this not our business here to conduct any actual research. You tell it was not used in the USSR? No, I lived there, and it was used. Actually, these letters prove that at least the idea if not precise wording was used as early as 1920s. My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Actually, "at least the idea if not precise wording was used as early as" the 1600s in England. In the works of diplomat and author Sir William Temple (1628–1699), he uses the phrase, "They were other Mens Dupes, and did other Mens work" (I. 344, London 1731). Maybe we should include this as a first usage. -Darouet (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

If we had multiple source claiming that the expression "useful fool/idiot" came from Sir William Temple (as we have about Lenin), then your suggestion would be meaningful. But without such sources that would be your WP:OR, sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: As discussed previously, the letters by Lenin do not prove the point. They do not use the phrase, and Henderson and Kerensky were not supporters of Lenin, so they can't be described as "useful idiots" in the sense described by this article. It is not significant that Lenin called other people "idiots". You say that we shouldn't do original research, but that's precisely what you're doing. You're digging into primary sources; you're citing your own personal experience; you're speculating about what Lenin might have said. There is no point in this.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

No, we do not do any WP:OR here. We simply quote Oxford Dictionary of Euphemisms and other sources. This is all we do. This is reference work. My very best wishes (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

But Jack, the issue is whether WP can state categorically that the idea was not used in Russia, and this is clearly not supported by any RS and is in fact contradicted by many. Darouet, your bit is interesting if you have secondary RS discussion of this relating it broadly to the topic of this article, please share. SPECIFICO talk 23:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:BRD

Given discussions above, I reverted page to the last stable version and included new section about modern usage. Please explain objections to the new section. And everyone is welcome to simply fix or expand this new section. My very best wishes (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, that was version which existed without changes from July to November. I am not telling this is "right version", but a number of changes made in November caused various objections, as clear from discussions above. So, please start from here and make further changes only per WP:Consensus. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

The revert was to a very recent version. It' disingenuous to claim "stable until November" when the reverts are to versions from last week. The stable version is the one without all the "current usage" nonsense while ignoring 80 years of constant usage. It's not a new term. --DHeyward (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry, but why did you remove so much well sourced and relevant content? Why do you think that content should not be included? If you think that only "current usage" should not be included, why did you revert everything? It was precisely the purpose of my edit to restore valid content about "80 years of constant usage". My very best wishes (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's clear My very best wishes, that you reverted to the appropriate stable version for ongoing discussion. The subsequent edit was not helpful and removed stable valid content while reinstating the deprecated "never used in the Soviet" stuff that was initially edit-warred by a now-banned user. SPECIFICO talk 19:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• (parachuted in from IRC request) I can be of assistance for a third opinion if needed. My name is not dave (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• Hi, not Dave! What would you suggest? Normally, if we want to post an RfC about something (for example), we need to have a discussion to understand what the disagreement was about. This is needed to ask correct question on the RfC. But I do not even know why DHeyward made this revert. He said in edit summary: Uhh no, this is all being discussed. stop EW. What? What was the problem with this content that remained stable from July to November? He did not explain. This content looks pretty much sourced and relevant to me. My very best wishes (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• • for the record: I requested full-protection due to the continuing edit war, but think it unlikely it will be applied; I also requested a third opinion on IRC. I do not plan to comment further on this topic until the current disputes are resolved. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, the Oxford English Dictionary is a reliable source. It is not 'deprecated "never used in the Soviet" stuff that was initially edit-warred by a now-banned user'. How can we have a useful discussion if these claims keep being made? Also, the continued reference to the Lenin quotation that was dealt with in January 2016? The version that My very best wishes reverted the page to clearly favored a point of view — Lenin originated the phrase etc...--Jack Upland (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Please see comments below [14]. But I would like to know opinion of user DHeyward because it was he who made these reverts. My very best wishes (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• What I see is some revisions placing more emphasis on Lenin's purported use of the term, and then others claiming other coinages and usages. This is a classic example of a topic where information repeatedly conflicts, and also an article where it is a little difficult to place the correct weight on a particular part of the topic. It is important to represent all reliable sources. My name is not dave (talk) 08:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree. Therefore, such edit makes the page less WP:NPOV consistent by removing content sourced to multiple RS. In particular, phrase "The term does not appear to have been used within the Soviet Union" in the lead refers to a single tertiary source, whereas there are multiple RS (removed during this edit) which tell exactly the opposite. This is very definition of a POV-pushing edit.My very best wishes (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Moreover, instead of addressing the issue of WP:WEIGHT in a constructive fashion, we have seen deletions of RS content justified by disparagement of the cited sources. This can't lead to any resolution. I suspect this topic has become a lightning rod for sensitivities about current Russian cyberwarfare who are concerned that the term "useful idiots" is being used by mainstream commentators to refer to individuals who deny Russian interference in the 2016 US elections. That's really not relevant, however, as the usefulness and/or idiocy of that view has nothing to do with whether it was Lenin or Stalin who first used the term in the Soviet Union. SPECIFICO talk 16:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

People get very confused how to deal with conflicting information and then what to write on the article. Nonetheless @DHeyward: has yet to make another appearance on this talk page 24 hours on. I will write to him on his talk page. My name is not dave (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is confused. It's a term that has been used in politics for decades but has suddenly become a lightening rod for POV pushing. It's value as an encyclopedic article doesn't swirl around it's use to describe Trump, Obama, Clinton, Bush, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson or Kennedy. The current stable version that has been protected is free of recent U.S. politics which is how it should be. Selectively describing its use is as silly as describing the use of any other pejorative. There is no encyclopedic value to listing when it was used except as to its origin and meaning. It's been used in both formal and informal language by many, many people. Just because it exists doesn't mean we make it a WP:COATRACK of arbitrary aspersions. --DHeyward (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

As an example, "Obama, Hillary, Saul Alinsky and Their Useful Idiots" is a book.[15] that happen to use it the title. It is no more valuable to this article than the NYT use of it to describe Trump. Ditch the coatrack material. --DHeyward (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

These are general words. One must be specific. Here is your edit. Let'f focus on the 1st paragraph of the lead. The initial version tells: According to the Oxford Dictionary of Euphemisms, the phrase stems from useful fool to refer to "a dupe of the Communists" and was used by Vladimir Lenin to refer to those his country had successfully manipulated. [ref]. OK. That's fine. New version you created removes the phrase from the lead (makes it invisible), but tells instead something opposite: The term does not appear to have been used within the Soviet Union [another ref]. What is this if not an obvious promotion of certain POV and manipulation with sources? Same with other changes that need to be discussed one by one. And no, your version is not stable version. My very best wishes (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

So, to combine the two, The etymology of the term is unclear; according to the Oxford Dictionary of Euphemisms, the phrase stems from useful fool to refer to "a dupe of the Communists" and was used by Vladimir Lenin to refer to those his country had successfully manipulated. However, the Oxford English Dictionary states that the term was not used in the Soviet Union. My name is not dave (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

That's splitting the baby. A false equivalence. OED is not in the business of researching non-written usage of euphemisms among inner circles of Lenin. And of course a categorical never used is logically an undue conclusion, regardless of the imprint of the dictionary. We have many RS, including senior US diplomat Spruille Braden (cited above and purged by the banned editor) stating that the term was used in the Soviet Union. SPECIFICO talk 20:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay dokey. Indeed, after actually checking the source, stating that the OED states that it was not used in the Soviet Union is WP:SYNTH, rather, it was first found in the NYT in the 1940s. Unless someone can find something that explicitly states that it was not used in the Soviet Union, there's no reason to include such assertion in the article. If we want to estimate, the first English usage was in the '40s, «полезный идиот» or whatever was used before that by Lenin. My name is not dave (talk) 20:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Turns out my guess for the translation was right. Y'all might want to check out ru:Полезный_идиот for some good info. My name is not dave (talk) 20:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh yes, I checked ruwiki long time ago. It quotes two Russian language books (refs 1 and 2 on ruwiki article) which do qualify as academic sources. They provide this quote, for example ("Существовало и много честных людей, которым просто претила сама мысль о войне, дикой и ужасной бойне и очевидно бессмысленной жестокости. Среди них, тех, кого Ленин назвал «полезными идиотами» и нашлось так много тех, кого можно было использовать. В свободном и благополучном обществе они процветали в изобилии."). So, yes, Russian sources also attribute this to Lenin. But of course I knew from the beginning that it was widely used in the Soviet Union because I lived there. Hence after looking at some sources and this discussion, I thought: "what kind of modern-day useful idiot does not know that the expression "useful idiot" was used by Bolsheviks"? My very best wishes (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

A book??? You call a self-published print on demand pile of paper a "book" -- very good. I know a book that says Lenin used the term all the time. Every day. If you want to see a copy, I'll print one up and list it on ebay. SPECIFICO talk 18:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Another source

Another source which suggests that it's a misattribution to be added to the list above: Goulden, Joseph (2012), "Useful Idiot", The Dictionary of Espionage: Spyspeak into English, Dover Military History, Weapons, Armor, Dover Publications, p. 239, ISBN 978-0486483481.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

And what it tells, exactly? My very best wishes (talk) 13:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Cites pundit Saffire, does not say it's a misattribution. Not a scholarly source nor does it outweigh the many others. SPECIFICO talk 13:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

It says that scholars have been unable to substantiate the quotation. Published in 2012, it indicates that there has been no advance on the position described by Safire in 1987 and endorsed by They Never Said It. While there are many sources that say Lenin said it — as with many misquotations and misconceptions — there is no source that actually provides a skerrick of evidence. While they eventually found the source for the Nile, the source of the Lenin quotation remains eternally elusive. A generation of Wikipedians have delved into Babylonian archives; others have conjured up the ghosts of long-dead political issues. Young men have gone blind; middle-aged men have spoken in tongues. But no one has found the proof they seek. I hope that one day I live to witness the discovery of the source they seek, and I hope that it is compliant with all relevant Wikipedia protocols.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Crocodile Hunter? Is that you? SPECIFICO talk 10:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

All sources except the article by Safire (and two books which refer to the article by Safire) attribute this to Lenin. As about Safir, he only tells there is no written evidence it belongs to L. So he tells that instead of of saying "As Lenin said ...", ... try "As Lenin was reported to have said . . ." or "In a phrase attributed to Lenin. . . .". Is his view "the truth"? No, this is only a "notable minority" view by WP standards. Should it be included on the page? Yes, sure - as a notable sourced minority view. My very best wishes (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Primarily a Chekist/KGB term

In my understanding, this is primarily a Chekist/KGB term (see this post from 2008), and was primarily popularized to the West by Richard H. Shultz (1984) and Vasili Mitrokhin (1999–2002). Softlavender (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure if it was primarily a Chekist term, but it was widely used by people from the KGB and the earlier Soviet secret police agencies. Some of the "idiots" were officially denoted by the KGB as "a special unofficial contact", which does not mean to be a spy, but someone working or very helpful for the Soviet/Russian cause (see the page about Strobe Talbott; and another famous example was Raúl Castro). There were many of them. All "special unofficial contact" had contacts with KGB people, and most them knew what they were doing, and did it for a cause. My very best wishes (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary includes a quote that says it was a KGB term. So far it has been attributed to Lenin, Stalin, Karl Radek, and the KGB...--Jack Upland (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Which means it did came from the USSR and was widely used by different people and organizations in the USSR. My very best wishes (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Softlavender! Indeed, there is a bunch of good quality scholarly RS which make connection between the concepts of "useful idiot" and the agent of influence. This is exactly what we need for this page. Just as a random example here (Russian political warfare: origin, evolution, and application by Dickey, Jeffrey V., Monterey, California: Naval Postgraduate School, pages 55-56), it tells that agents of influence were divided by the KGB into 3 categories: (a) "Intelligence Directorate operatives and their recruited agents", (b) Fellow travelers, and (c) "unwitting agents", ones that they called “useful idiots”. My very best wishes (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, although the person who brought those concepts to the Western public was Richard H. Shultz, in his 1984 book Dezinformatsia: Active Measures in Soviet Strategy (later published as Dezinformatsia: The Strategy of Soviet Disinformation), and then the defecting KGB agent Vasili Mitrokhin, who leaked numerous KGB files (the Mitrokhin archives) and wrote a 2002 book, KGB Lexicon: The Soviet Intelligence Officer's Handbook. Softlavender (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

"Useful idiot" was well-known in the West before the 1980s.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jack Upland, you tell "Oxford English Dictionary includes a quote that says it was a KGB term." OK. Can you post here the KGB quote you are talking about, please? I am getting confused because you insisted before that the term was not used in the USSR according to OED, but right now you are telling it was actually used in the USSR according to the same OED (it "says it was a KGB term"). So, what the OED actually tells? My very best wishes (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The full entry in the Oxford English Dictionary:

useful idiot n. derogatory (chiefly Polit.) (originally) a citizen of a non-communist country sympathetic to communism who is regarded (by communists) as naive and susceptible to manipulation for propaganda or other purposes; (more widely) any person similarly manipulable for political purposes. [The phrase does not seem to reflect any expression used within the Soviet Union.]

1948 N.Y. Times 21 June 14 L'Umanita said the Communists would give the ‘useful idiots’ of the left-wing Socialist party the choice of merging with the Communist party or getting out.

1985 Washington Post (Nexis) 21 Apr. h2 Biddle is an unwitting traitor to his country, one of those liberals aptly described by the KGB as 'useful idiots'.

2003 Ethnology 42 97 The PAN was condemned for recklessly politicizing the conflict, making use of Tetiz's mayor..as a ‘useful idiot’ for partisan interests.

Clearly, the fact that the Washington Post says it was used by the KGB does not mean that the OED accepts that this is true.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. So, the phrase in parentheses of the OED entry contradicts to supporting references provided in the same OED entry. And of course it also contradicts all other sources mentioned above, including other Oxford dictionaries, numerous books that assign authorship to Lenin, all sources mentioned in this section about KGB use, and even to the NYT article by Safire. Do you still insist on including that nonsense from parentheses [...]? But even if you do, no one supports you here about it. My very best wishes (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The OED entry is clearly confused and self-contradictory. Moreover, the OED is not a gauge of the popularity/popularization of a term, or its dissemination, or its usage within the sphere of secret police/espionage. Lastly, no one has ever demonstrated Lenin to have ever used the term, either in Russian or in any English translation of his statements. Softlavender (talk) 07:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

As a non-expert in this area, I have no idea why so many books (including recent ones, which were published after the article by Safire) attribute this to Lenin. I can only check that they indeed attribute this to Lenin. "no one has ever demonstrated"? Yes, that is what Safire tells because an unknown "librarian" allegedly did not find it in his written works. Is it correct that "no one has ever demonstrated"? I have no idea. I can only tell that the a lot of things were said rather than written by famous people and therefore attributed to them. Simply claiming "he never said it" because it was not found in his written publications would be ridiculous, and the sources (Safire and even book "The never said it") do not make such ridiculous claim if one actually reads these sources. My very best wishes (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

In brief, I think that a single scholarly source, such as that one should outweight the publication by Safire in popular media, which was made 20 years earlier. We must assume by default that professional historians knew about the publication by Safire, and if they did not pay attention, that is probably because another source (a book by Bukovsky cited in The Slavonic and East European Review article) claimed exactly the opposite and was considered by the professional historian as something a lot more justified. We are not here to reinterpret multiple scholarly sources based on a single NYT publication by a journalist. My very best wishes (talk) 17:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Also see this and this. All of that actually needs to be cited and reflected on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your last point. But the OED is not confused and self-contradictory. It does not endorse the quotations it uses, it merely gives them as examples of usage. That's how the OED works. So the OED quotes the Washington Times saying it's a KGB term, but also says it doesn't seem to refer to any term used in the USSR. And, yes, I do think the OED should be quoted saying that the phrase doesn't seem to have been used in the USSR. It is a highly regarded source for the etymology of English words and phrases. It might be wrong, but it should be noted, along with other sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

We know for a fact that the term was used by the KGB (please consult the Shultz and Mitrokhin references I referred to earlier in this thread); the KGB was the main security agency for the Soviet Union from 1954 until its break-up in 1991; therefore the peculiar assertion that "The phrase does not seem to reflect any expression used within the Soviet Union" is incorrect. Softlavender (talk) 10:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, the OED could be wrong (or failed to find the evidence), but that doesn't make it confused and self-contradictory. In any case, you can't exclude a source because you disagree with it. I would, however, support including the claim that 'useful idiot' is a KGB term, with appropriate sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The OED says "The phrase does not seem to reflect any expression used within the Soviet Union" and in the same entry quotes "described by the KGB as 'useful idiots'" -- a contradiction, one which is unexplained and unclarified, and thus confused and confusing. Moreover, the OED is not an authority on Russian or Russian usage or the USSR. It cannot be used as an authority on Wikipedia as such. Softlavender (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I have dealt with that point.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I think any reasonable person will agree with Softlavender here. BTW, this term belongs to Category:Soviet phraseology because it appears in the "KGB dictionary" (the book KGB Lexicon: The Soviet Intelligence Officer's Handbook). My very best wishes (talk) 14:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

With regard to the Bukovsky sources given by MVBW above, they don't attribute the term to Lenin or anyone else, and the third source confirms that there is no evidence for this attribution.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Most sources attribute this directly to Lenin. This source tells "Leninist". OK, we can certainly notice that it also belongs to Leninism. Good point. BTW, this book (The Words of Others: From Quotations to Culture by Gary Saul Morson, Yale University Press, 2011, page 98) makes the following excellent points. Even if it was not precise wordings by L., such quotations: (a) belongs to the public image of L, (b) define exactly his ideas, and (c) use wording that would be used by L. (for example, a related "rope" quotation tells the "rope", not the "gun" or something else). Therefore, telling "the gun" would indeed be a misquotation, but telling "the rope" is not - according to the book. My very best wishes (talk) 14:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources and attribution of phrase

@My name is not dave, DHeyward, SPECIFICO, and My very best wishes: As explained in the body of both en.wiki and ru.wiki articles, the phrase "useful idiot" is commonly attributed to Lenin. Those articles also explain that the phrase does not appear in Lenin's written work, and it's possible, perhaps even probable that he never spoke it (i.e. it's a common misattribution).

They Never said it

Misattribution of phrases is weaponized in politics. As explained in the preface of "They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes,"

"Today, however, quotations tend to be polemical rather than decorative. People use them to prove points rather than to provide pleasure... What has been called "quotemanship" (or "quotesmanship") — the use and abuse of quotations for partisan purposes — has during the past few decades become a highly refined art in this country... In September 1985, President Ronald Reagan made innocent use of an old-time fake quote from Lenin in one of his speeches: "First, we will take eastern Europe, then the masses of Asia, then we will encircle the United States which will be the last bastion of capitalism. We will not have to attack. It will fall like an overripe fruit into our hands." Lenin was a zealot when it came to communism, but he was not stupid. And he simply wasn't given to making fatuous remarks like the one about overripe fruit. The overripe-fruit statement is just one of a host of phony Lenin quotes that have been making the rounds in this country since the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917." (Paul F. Boller, Jr. and John George, Oxford University Press, 1989)

The book notes that there are an especially large number of quotes that are misattributed to Lenin. Here is the entry on "Useful idiots:"

"Lenin, it is said, once described left-liberals and Social Democrats as "useful idiots," and for years anti-Communists have used the phrase to describe Soviet sympathizers in the West, sometimes suggesting that Lenin himself talked about "useful idiots of the West." But the expression does not appear in Lenin's writings. "We get queries on useful idiots of the West all the time," declared Grant Harris, senior reference librarian at the Library of Congress in the spring of 1987. "We have not been able to identify this phrase among his published works." It is ironic that in December 1987, when President Ronald Reagan, ardent anti-Communist, concluded an arms-reduction agreement with Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev, some of his former admirers began applying the Lenin phrase to Reagan himself. The President, hooted archconservative leader Howard Phillips shortly after the Reagan Gorbachev meeting in Washington, had finally become a "useful idiot for the Soviets.""

The book includes the following citations: Safire, "As Lenin May or May Not Have Said," New York Times News Service, April 29, 1987; letter to John George from Arnold Beichman, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, received, July 19, 1987; "Life After the Red Menace," U.S. News & World Report, December 21, 1987, p. 41.

Safire

William Safire, one of Boller and George's sources, documents widespread attribution of the phrase to Lenin, and like Boller and George notes that "useful idiots" was a derogatory epithet used by anticommunists [16]:

"This seems to be Lenin's phrase, once applied against liberals, that is being used by anti-Communists against the ideological grandchildren of those liberals, or against anybody insufficiently anti-Communist in the view of the phrase's user. But as one who has tied himself in knots looking for Lenin's supposed quote on another subject - 'The capitalists will sell us the rope with which to hang them,' or words to that effect - I wondered when and where Lenin said it. 'We get queries on useful idiots of the West all the time,' said Grant Harris, senior reference librarian at the Library of Congress. 'We have not been able to identify this phrase among his published works.' A call to Tass, the Soviet news agency, gets a telephonic shrug and a referral to the Institute of Marxism and Leninism in Moscow; I tried them before, on the rope trick, and it's a waste of a stamp."

Safire notes that Yuri Annenkov, a Soviet portraitist, "claims he copied from Notes in Lenin's handwriting," and presents those notes:

"The whole world's capitalists and their governments, as they pant to win the Soviet market, will close their eyes to the above-mentioned reality and will thus transform themselves into men who are deaf, dumb and blind. They will give us credits... they will toil to prepare their own suicide."

Safire writes that "the 'deaf, dumb and blind' phrase may be one of the phrases that helped start the 'useful idiots,' whether or not originally by Lenin." And Safire concludes that while "outspoken anti-communists" are welcome to use the phrase, they cannot state "as Lenin said" (until more precincts are heard from).

OED

The OED entry on the term reads:

"useful idiot n. derogatory (chiefly Polit.) (originally) a citizen of a non-communist country sympathetic to communism who is regarded (by communists) as naive and susceptible to manipulation for propaganda or other purposes; (more widely) any person similarly manipulable for political purposes. [The phrase does not seem to reflect any expression used within the Soviet Union.]"

As MVBW has pointed out, there is also an Oxford Dictionary of Euphemisms (2008), with the following entry (per MVBW):

"useful fool - a dupe of the Communists. Lenin's phrase for the shallow thinkers in the West whom the Communists manipulated. Also as useful idiot."

Russian wiki sources

The ru.wiki provides a few sources to argue that Lenin may have coined the phrase: Anenkov (as discussed above), a passage derived from Karl Radek (quoted here [17] - this will be a particularly hard source to track down, let alone evaluate), and a novel (fiction) by Sir John Hackett: The Third World War: The Untold Story.

Lede and discussion

Based on all this, the lede should note that 1) it's a phrase used by anti-communists to describe communist sympathizers, 2) the phrase is widely attributed to Lenin, but 3) has not been found in Lenin's writing and 4) may not have been spoken or coined by him. -Darouet (talk) 02:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I checked this book ("They Never Said It") prior to commenting anything on this page. This is a tertiary source that belongs to popular history. The only ground for the claim in this book was a reference given to this opinion piece by a journalist. But whatever. If you want to improve this page - welcome. I already said everything above and do not want to be perceived as someone engaged in WP:TE. My very best wishes (talk) 04:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

It's published by Oxford University Press, and is backed up by the Hoover Institute, the Library of Congress, and the OED. -Darouet (talk) 04:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

No. I read the book. This particular claim in the book was not backed by Oxford University Press or by Library of Congress. It was backed by a single reference to an opinion piece by a journalist (see link above). Such things are common for popular science books. My very best wishes (talk) 06:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I quoted the book above. The conclusion of John George and Paul Boller, published in the Oxford University Press, is that it can't be demonstrated that Lenin wrote or said the phrase "useful idiots." That is why the phrase is included as an entry in the book They Never Said It: their research suggests the phrase is misattributed to Lenin. They also cite Safire, a U.S. News & World Report piece, correspondence from Beichman, and their conclusion is consistent with the OED. Oxford University Press isn't a pop sci publication. -Darouet (talk) 06:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

After looking more carefully, I tend to agree: the NYT article by Safire and book "They never said it" qualify as good secondary sources. On the other hand, two tertiary "Oxford" sources, which strongly contradict each other, are a lot less reliable and should have a lot less weight on this page. This resolves everything. My very best wishes (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hoover institution? Since when is that a reliable source? It's a box of animal crackers with everything from Nobel Laureates through wingnut reactionaries. SPECIFICO talk 04:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Of the sources I mentioned (you didn't comment on the OUP, LoC, or OED), Hoover would be the least credible. However, precisely because they include "wingnut reactionaries," they'd be more inclined than other sources to have a vested interest in attributing the phrase to Lenin. But they don't support the attribution. For better or worse, Arnold Beichman is the correspondent from Hoover who wrote to John George. -Darouet (talk) 05:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not a phrase used by anti-Communists, as if it were a mere instrument of denigration. It's a description of behavior and refers to Soviet tactics. Nobody said it was in Lenin's writing so that's a straw man that only the banned editor used to minimize the impact of the expression. (4) is a tautology, omit. That leaves only (2) -- which is well-sourced and belongs in the article and the lede. SPECIFICO talk 04:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The Safire piece and the book "They Never Said it" state that it was a phrase used by anti-communists. Furthermore, both sources are investigating not merely whether Lenin wrote the phrase, but whether it can be attributed to Lenin at all. Your objection to Hoover ignores the OED and Library of Congress. And lastly, continuously referring to Thucydides411 as "now [topic-]banned" is not going to convince anyone. I've opened up a dispute resolution page [18] because I think structured discussion would help resolve these issues. -Darouet (talk) 05:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

See my comment about Radek and Hackett. There is a difference between attributing a quote and documenting where it came from. For example, there are many sources which state that May you live in interesting times is a Chinese curse, but this apparently isn't so. Finding another source that says it's a Chinese curse proves nothing. What you need is a source which establishes that it is a Chinese curse, with evidence. It's the same here. To claim that Lenin said it, but it's just not in his published works is a synthesis. I've never seen a source that says that. None of the sources that I've seen imply that Lenin said it privately or secretly. Let's bear in mind that Lenin's letters, speeches, and memos have been published. His conversations have been recorded in numerous memoirs. And of course for people to know that Lenin said it, it must have been recorded by someone at some point. How else would we know it??? But apparently this elusive original source has been lost. None of the sources refer to it. After more than a decade of people arguing about this, no one has produced this original source or even given any indication what it was. And the earliest quotations found by the Oxford English Dictionary don't mention Lenin. It's as if his name was attached to the phrase afterwards... Of course, we at Wikipedia cannot shed light on this mystery. But we have to document what the sources say. And there is no source I've seen which puts forward the secret conversation theory, so we should leave this out of the article. Moreover, this article should not be constructed according to this theory, which apparently no published author holds.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

In it's origin it appears to refer to a number of different types of people that helped communists. Whether it was communist party members referring to true believers that fought for communism and then realized that communism wasn't the answer they thought it was, or whether it was anti-communists referring to the same supporters as being ignorant is not conflicting uses. Certainly the infighting and struggle between Lenin and others, especially hi insistence that control be held by only a very few key people would give rise to such terms as "useful idiots." It's not hard to even imagine its use as a general term to describe people that are fighting in a populist uprising to support a government that seeks to limit heir voice. The conflict at the time were all by communists of different factions so I don't see why different accounts that describe different communists are incompatible. It retained its meaning of referring to communists long after Lenin and Martov were fighting each other over which Communist approach was better. Certainly writers like Yuri Bezmenov were not shy about using it. I am not seeing anything contradictory in the origin even if it is murky. It seems plausible that it was used by Lenin both for and against his supporters as well as used by opponents of Lenin to describe his supporters and opponents both within and outside the Soviet Union. We can mention more than one theory on origin and they don't contradict each other (and even if an editor thinks they contradict, that's not an excuse for omission). --DHeyward (talk) 09:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Without a quotation from Lenin we should not attribute it to him, though we can certainly point out the the attribution has been made by usually-reliable sources such as the OED. We are not here to state our opinion that it is "plausible" that Lenin used it. As for its use in the Soviet Union, a single quotation should be enough to establish that it was so used, even if a reliable source says that it wasn't. Modern uses are relevant. In an article dedicated to this term we can certainly mention them at some length. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Richard Keatinge. If you wouldn't mind, perhaps you'd be willing to be pinged occasionally to participate in this conversation. For clarification, the OED states that "The phrase does not seem to reflect any expression used within the Soviet Union." On the other hand the Oxford Dictionary of Euphemisms calls it "Lenin's phrase for the shallow thinkers in the West whom the Communists manipulated." Best, -Darouet (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I think we are close to consensus on two points: (a) modern usage of the term should be included (per Richard Keatinge, SPECIFICO, and me; I did not see any justified objections to such inclusion so far), and (b) there is no evidence that Lenin said or wrote the phrase according to sources, although it was frequently attributed to him.

Now, speaking about the book "They never said it", it tells in the Introduction: The overripe-fruit statement is just one of a host of phony Lenin quotes that have been making the rounds in this country since the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917.. OK. So, the source actually tells that the expression was widely used in the Soviet Union, but it was not authored by Lenin. Hence the claim in the current version of lead (The term does not appear to have been used within the Soviet Union) would be actually contrary to this source. Right now this claims (included in the lead) is supported by a single tertiary source, but contradict to all other sources, including book "They never said it". That is something to be removed from the lead as contradicting the sources (point (c) we suppose to have consensus about) My very best wishes (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

"This country" refers to the USA.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it seems the book does not tell anything about usage of the expression in the Soviet Union. But there is a huge number of good secondary RS (books) which assert the claim belonged to Lenin (and by default was used/came from the USSR). Here is just a few random examples: [19],[20],[21], [22]. This should be noted on the page. There is also a few (only!) secondary sources that tell there is no hard proof of the attribution to Lenin, but they do not tell if it was used in the USSR. This can also be included (apparently a "notable minority view". There is only one tertiary source (a dictionary) claiming it was not used in the USSR (in parentheses: "[The phrase does not seem to reflect any expression used within the Soviet Union.]"), but another, more specialized Oxford dictionary tells exactly the opposite. I would argue this should not be included at all. My very best wishes (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

BTW, I am looking at EOD online [23], and do not see that phrase in [...]. My very best wishes (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@DHeyward: based on what MVBW writes, what would you think of **not** stating, in the lede at least, that the phrase "Useful idiot" does not appear to have been used in the Soviet Union? Do we have any other source besides the OED for that? Sorry if this has already been covered above. It's possible the OED may have intended to reflect the research in "they never said it", but instead went further. In any event we should definitely make it clear to readers that the phrase isn't found in Lenin's works or recorded speach, and attribution to him is contested and unlikely.

Also @DHeyward and Jack Upland: what do you think of including a modern usage section? I have more questions for everyone but I'm curious about these two issues first. -Darouet (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

what would you think of **not** stating, in the lede at least, that the phrase "Useful idiot" does not appear to have been used in the Soviet Union? - Why is this even a question. What currently active editor favors this "not" statement? It's also not X not Y not Z... Nobody wants that in the lede. That nonsense is what brought the current group of editors together here. SPECIFICO talk 05:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Confusingly enough, the Oxford Dictionary of English (which is free) is different from the Oxford English Dictionary. The OED aims to be the definitive dictionary. Its authors would be careful with what they say. They have obviously done extensive research, locating what they think is the earliest use of the phrase in 1948. Clearly, based on their research, they think the phrase doesn't seem to reflect any expression used within the USSR. We shouldn't distort what they say. They could be wrong, but we should respect what they say. I don't think it matters what is in the lead, so long as the lead reflects the body of the article. I don't have strong feelings about a current usage section. The obvious problem is that there are endless examples that could be included, and what is current now (Trump) won't be current in 10 years time. Reagan was also called a useful idiot in his time, but there's no rush to document that now. If a usage is to be included it has to be significant.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we should state that it "does not appear to have been used in the Soviet Union." The history predates the Soviet Union and I believe we have sources of its use during the fights between "Bolsheviks" and "Mensheviks." these were both communist parties and there were a lot of alignments and switching sides. It is not a coincidence that the attribution to Lenin and the Bolshevik need to mobilize a lot of supporters to install a very small number of rulers. I'm working on sources (currently To the Finland Station but the term has been used by virtually every political group and isn't a narrow attribution to anti-communists. Certainly the reference in the Stalin era of calling Western journalists "useful idiots" was a use by Communists amd anti-communists to describe those persons willing to defend Stalin. I am opposed to a "current usage" section. It's so prevalent and used in so many contexts that it can only serve as a coatrack. It would be like trying to figure out the political meaning of the color "red." There is nothing concise about it. If it has been used in an encyclopedic way, it should be in the articles that cover the even but not here as a coatrack. The current interest in the term appears to be related to an effort to tag Trump with it. The difficulty in cutting through the noise to find the terms origin is the fact that it has been used to describe virtually everyone. --DHeyward (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

This source [24] and the BBC documentary they reference seems to be worth pursuing as well. --DHeyward (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this an additional RS telling that the wording was invented by Lenin and came from the USSR. And the lack of quotation here does look suspicious to me because it shows that [...] phrase was not included in other versions of the same dictionary, maybe because they found the claim was wrong. OK, so far we have one person who outright oppose to including modern use section, and one person who believes that a single claim in parenthesis ([...]) from a tertiary source should be reflected on the page, even though it contradicts to a lot of other sources, including other Oxford dictionaries. My very best wishes (talk) 05:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

"Certainly the reference in the Stalin era of calling Western journalists "useful idiots" was a use by Communists and anti-communists to describe those persons willing to defend Stalin." Yes, exactly. "Communists" means Soviet and Western communists per these sources. It seems we do have consensus about this. Great. My very best wishes (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I would also suggest to look at this section. Is anything problematic here? Everything seem to be supported by RS. Why remove it? Expand, refine or rephrase - yes, sure, why not? My very best wishes (talk) 05:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, My very best wishes, can you look at the article Oxford English Dictionary and understand what you are attacking? Regarding the Reported usage by Lenin section you suggest: 1. It is a jumble of citations, which add up to the same point made in the current version, that the phrase is attributed to Lenin, but no one has found a record of him saying it. 2. The section is supposed to be about usage by Lenin, so why devote so much space to the opinions of William J. Bennett, a conservative American politician writing in 2007, and why have an attack on one individual Armand Hammer without any evidence that Lenin called Hammer a "useful idiot"? There is no suggestion that Bennett has researched Lenin's usage, so why have this here? 3. If we are going to include the rope quote (again from Bennett in 2007), we have to say that this is another unsubstantiated quotation from Lenin. It's mentioned in the Safire article and They Never Said It. Besides, it is not really relevant as it is directed at capitalists who traded with the USSR, while "useful idiot" is directed at naive enthusiasts for the cause. 4. The commentary by conservative columnist Mona Charen in 2003 really adds nothing to this section, except to say that Lenin might never have said it. Or opinions of the Tea Party intellectual Michael Prell. Like the opinions of Bennett, these sources document that there is a dubious attribution to Lenin, but add nothing to the article. They are basically American conservatives attacking liberals.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh no, all these multiple secondary RS (vast majority of RS on the subject) claim explicitly that the expression belongs to Lenin and came from the USRR, without refining if he wrote or said it. Only a couple of secondary RS (Safire and the book "they never said it") tell there is no evidence Lenin ever wrote it (this is prominently included in the section). As about your other points, they mean the section should be modified. OK. My very best wishes (talk) 13:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

And I am not "attacking" Oxford English Dictionary. To the contrary, I am using it. One version tells exactly the opposite to something you said it tells. Another (online) version simply does not tell it. My very best wishes (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

There is only one version of the Oxford English Dictionary that we are using. It is available online as subscription only. The free online dictionary you are using is the Oxford Dictionary of English, NOT the Oxford English Dictionary. The entry on "useful idiot" is basically a shortened version of what is in the OED. It's not a contradiction to it. But they are different dictionaries, not different versions of the same dictionary. Then there's the Oxford Dictionary of Euphemisms which is different again.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The expression, even when not stated in the Enlgish words, "useful idiot" is richly documented and discussed in many RS. And the current importance of it, particularly in the context of American politics, does not depend on Lenin or communists or their purported unwitting enablers of the 20th century. SPECIFICO talk 18:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

In addition, the shortened version from the dictionary is exactly the same as in the version under subscription, except it does not include the phrase in [...]. And whoever wrote it was not sure (The phrase does not seem to reflect...), and there is no any reference where it came from, as typical for tertiary sources. Now, that claim contradicts directly to claims by a lot of other secondary and tertiary sources (including another Oxford dictionary), and not supported by any other refs, including Safire and "They never said it" (those ref only tell that authorship by Lenin was not proven, but do not tell it was not used in the USSR; in fact the ref by Safire tells the opposite - about the book published by Russian author Annenkov in 1966). [...] is something not to be mentioned at all on the page per WP:Weight. My very best wishes (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I apologize, I will be busy and absent for a few days. -Darouet (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I think we've just about exhausted any discussion here. I propose MVBW make the edits he has explained. SPECIFICO talk 23:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I quickly made a few changes per talk. Welcome to fix them. The part about use of the terminology should be expanded in my opinion.My very best wishes (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sure, I could easily make a compromise version with regards to historical usage of the term based on the discussion above. If that gets consensus, then, as a 2nd step, me or someone else could suggest something about modern usage. My very best wishes (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

So, just to summarize the claims by sources about the term:

1. Timing. "The overripe-fruit statement is just one of a host of phony Lenin quotes that have been making the rounds in this country since the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917". This is from "They never said it", but consistent also with all sources claiming that the quote belongs to Lenin.
2. The country of origin. USSR. - this is essentially per all sources (see discussion above)
3. Authorship. Most books (good secondary RS) attribute this to Lenin, however the NYT article by Safire (and two books that make a reference to the article by Safire) claim that his authorship can not be proven because the expression was not found in his writings. My very best wishes (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

You have no consensus for this. The best evidence we have suggests the term arose in 1940s Italy. We have seen no source that confirms it was used in the USSR (apart from the unsubstantiated attributions to Lenin, Stalin, Radek, the KGB, and Laika). It is perverse to use a quote about 'phony Lenin quotes' to support the argument that the quote came from Lenin. But then, I guess this discussion is an exercise in perversion.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Which sources tell "the term arose in 1940s Italy"? It might be fine to tell something about "first use in English language literature" in a year 1940 (assuming there are sources that explicitly make such claim - I do not see any), but there are numerous sources (including book "They never said it") telling it was used earlier, for example in the USSR [in Russian]. My very best wishes (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Reworking of article

The reworking of the article has a blend of cherry-picking, synthesis, and distortion.

• "According to the The Words of Others: From Quotations to Culture, this is a common situation when the authorship of a quotation can not be reliably established, but it does not really matter because these quotations do belong to the public image of Lenin, define exactly his ideas, and use wording that would be actually used by Lenin and his comrades, such as the "ropes", "idiots" or "deaf, dumb and blind".

The book does not say this. It does not mention "useful idiot", but discusses the rope quotation. It says the quotation could be attributed to Stalin, Mao, Machiavelli, Tallyrand, Richelieu etc. The book does not say it defines Lenin's ideas.

• ..."'dumb and blind' version of the quotation (from handwritten notes by Lenin)"...

This cites Safire, but Safire describes the quotation from handwritten notes as a "far-fetched" claim.

• ..."these quotations, which were 'making the rounds ... since the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917'"

The full quote is: "The overripe-fruit statement is just one of a host of phony Lenin quotes that have been making the rounds in this country since the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917." It doesn't specifically mention "useful idiots". The quote used in the article conveniently leaves out the fact that (according to the authors) these quotations are phony and also that they were circulating in the USA.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

1. The book tells about various quotes and more specifically about "rope" quote. This is not a large direct quotation (that would be a copyright violation), but a summary. This is a fair summary of something this book and other sources tell. That is something we always do.
2. The quote comes from the article by Safire. He makes a reference to Annenkov. Noticing that the original source was a book by Annnekov is fine.
3. The book does not clearly specify which quotation. It tells about all quotations by Lenin mentioned in the book. This is one of them. The quotation was used correctly on the page.

If you want to rephrase something to more precisely reflect what the sources tell, that's fine - assuming that others will agree with changes. My very best wishes (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Now, speaking about this edit, no, we can not claim as a fact that quotation was never found in works by Lenin. This is something claimed in a couple of sources. This may be the truth or not - we do not really know. My very best wishes (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I tracked down The Words of Others: From Quotations to Culture, and it includes the quote in its chapter on 'massaged' or manufactured quotations. It also has a citation (so it's a tertiary source)... and its citation is to the Yale Book of Quotations, which reads: Attributed in the N.Y. Times, 24 Mar. 1981. anti-Communists have often used this to attack those thought to be Soviet sympathizers, but the Library of Congress has never been able to trace the pharse in Lenin's writings. Like many other putative Leninisms, it seems to be a myth. (Yale Book of Quotations, pg. 452, edited by Fred R. Shapiro. See here. The tertiary source you're cited only quoted the "attributed in the N.Y. Times section" (to illustrate how that misattributation seems to have accidentally manufactured a quote), but left out the rest of the secondary source, which seems to have confused you. This is why, when your source itself includes a citation, it is usually a good idea to follow up on it. --Aquillion (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLP issues

Since this expression is clearly a disparaging judggement and not a stasement of fact, its usage to desribe living persons is disallowed by wikipedia policies regardless references. - üser:Altenmann >t 18:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Your statement is a generalization of the BLP and not completely correct. In some cases it's correct. The BLP's public figures doctrine allows it in the case of public figures. But I must note that I don't know which living person you mean since you fail to mention any. If helps when you think there's a BLP to point out the BLP so that others may also review it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

If it's cited to RS media that are calling public figure such as the Trump family and friends "useful idiots" it is clearly not against BLP. If it's used in a general way to refer to supporters of Trump or to a class of elected officials, e.g. Republicans in Congress or Evangelical or anti-gun regulation voters, those tags are not personal and are not BLP violations. What is the violation that might concern us? We should not call other WP editors, even when they appear to be promoting the Russian agenda or other powerful agendas, "useful idiots" -- that would be irrelevant to our editing discussions, and it would be uncivil and counterproductive. SPECIFICO talk 17:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that including this on the BLP page of the subject would probably be undue. However, it is "due" on this page, because it is about modern usage of the term. This should be included per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures. Comments by people like Madeleine Albright and Michael Hayden (general) certainly deserved to be included. My very best wishes (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• We wouldn't want to use it in the article voice because of tone issues. However, we can (and in some cases would be required to) report when one person uses it to refer to another, assuming it passes WP:DUE. BLP requires that potentially-negative things be well-sourced and that we avoid giving them undue weight, not that they be excluded from appropriate weight when we have good sources for them. --Aquillion (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the real problem is undue weight. A lot of people have been called "useful idiots", even Ronald Reagan. But in terms of the accepted definition, the main accusation against Trump is not that he is a naive enthusiast for the Putin regime, but that Putin helped him get into office. In other words, that Putin has been useful to Trump. Yes, prominent people have called Trump that, but prominent people have called him a lot of things, and he has called prominent people a lot of things like Pocahontas and Rocket Man. North Korea has called Trump a dotard and a crazy old man. Name-calling isn't very relevant for an encyclopedia. The only reason to name someone here is if they notably illustrate the definition of the term, which Trump doesn't. We cannot document every usage of the term, which seems highly prevalent in the USA. If we give examples, they should be highly notable and illustrative examples.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

No, according to these sources, this is not just about someone being helped. If any notable politician was described as a "useful idiot" in multiple secondary RS, this belongs to the page. But I strongly doubt you can source this with regard to Reagan. For example, this book is about "liberals" who acted as "useful idiots" against Reagan. In fact, Reagan and his policies were targets of KGB "active measures". My very best wishes (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

No. The significant concern about Trump is that he has undermined US counterintelligence and cyber security vs. Russia. SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The quote about Reagan is in They Never Said It.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, if there are a couple of notable people or historians who called Reagan this way (and they explained why), this can be included. I would not do it based on only one opinion or a source. My very best wishes (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

No one has suggested Reagan should be included.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Trump's foreign policy adviser Carter Page

See this NY Times article [25] in which Russian operatives referred to Trump attache Carter Page as an idiot of a certain sort. See also talk page discussion here: [26] SPECIFICO talk 02:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Carter Page is not and was never an "associate" of Donald Trump. Xerton (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Only a "foreign policy adviser", who allegedly could negotiate for Trump's position on lifting sanctions with Trump's "full authority".... -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for Comment on Oxford English Dictionary

The following discussion 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.

---

Is the Oxford English Dictionary a reliable source? Specifically, should we cite what it says about "useful idiot", that "The phrase does not seem to reflect any expression used within the Soviet Union"?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Jack, could you specify the article text for which you are asking whether OED is a Reliable Source. Sourcing relates to the article content it supports. Moreover, RS or not the text you propose may fail WP:WEIGHT, so perhaps you might consider a different question entirely such that the result would be an up or down consensus on the article content and location you feel is appropriate. SPECIFICO talk 01:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm asking whether we should cite that statement. I'm not concerned about the way it is incorporated into the article or what the location of the text is.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

But that question in isolation won't get us anywhere. All the other factors need to line up as well. That's why a more specific RfC is needed, otherwise it might be an OK source in some sense but a very rare view relative to all the others. In that event it might be in some sense RS but still end up down at the bottom of the article or not in the article at all. I just don't want you to end up disappointed a month from now due to an RfC that will not resolve the issue that concerns you. SPECIFICO talk 02:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Yes. Furthermore, I'm concerned that while every reliable source investigating the matter including the OED, They Never Said It (Oxford U Press), William Safire, and the Library of Congress have found the quote to be misattributed to Lenin, recent changes to the article [27] wholly obscure that fact. The reasoning behind the changes — that as in the case of all misattributions, many sources attribute the phrase to Lenin in passing — could be used to obscure misattributions of many other quotes including those of Gandhi, Lincoln, etc. The result would be that Wikipedia, via WP:CITOGENESIS, would undue the careful scholarship of others. This is far worse than POV-pushing or stupidity, and is really the most egregious sin that one can find on wikipedia: bad scholarship. I had proposed to bring in a neutral arbitrator via dispute resolution, but those advocating for these recent changes have declined that route in favor of revert-warring. An encyclopedia cannot be made but only un-made in this fashion, and that is what has happened here. -Darouet (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

According to book The Words of Others: From Quotations to Culture by Gary Saul Morson, Yale University Press, (2011, page 98), even if the exact quotations was not found, this is not the case of misattribution (see discussion above and current text). Current version does not obscure anything. It simply uses the article by Safire together with many other sources. As WP:NPOV requires, the opinion by Safire is just one of many opinions, and his NYT article is hardly even a scholarly source, not the last word on the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 05:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• Yes. The Oxford English Dictionary is an authoritative source for the origin of English words and phrases. We should note the results of its research.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
• No. It would be misportraying OED to skip past it’s definition and only pull up some part out of context. This line winds up just looking like a stray non sequiteur claim, something with no meaning or help to the article. Markbassett (talk) 07:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no suggestion that other parts of the OED entry should be excluded. The article currently cites it for the earliest known use of the phrase in relation to 1940s Italy. This dovetails with the OED's statement that it doesn't seem to have a Soviet origin.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• No, The sentence The phrase does not seem to reflect any expression used within the Soviet Union should not be included because this is false claim, essentially as a matter of fact (see discussion above - the wording was in fact used in the Soviet Union). Moreover, one of the references provided in the same entry of the same dictionary explicitly contradicts the claim that it was not used in the USSR (see discussion above) My very best wishes (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• No We don't endorse a book for all content and all purposes regardless of the weight of other sources. That would be contrary to everything we do around WP evaluating references and content decisions. SPECIFICO talk 04:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• Yes. It is accepted in the academic world as a tertiary source. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
• strong hell no the statement is demonstrably false, as gogle books search (in russian) readily shows. Even reliable sources often err. It is against common sense to pull falsitudes into wikipedia. - üser:Altenmann >t 19:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Yes it's a reliable source. Specifically it's a tertiary source. No it probably shouldn't be used here. There seems to be a number of sources and there doesn't seem much conflict in these sources that are hard to settle.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
• Yes OED is RS as to origins and usage, it's their business after all, and their note of 'mild scepticism' is not undue, given the doubts about attribution and questions about how "official" or widespread the use was. It would be surprising, given the cynical nature of intelligence work - especially that of KGB possibly - if they did not sometimes use fairly dismissive terms for those whom they sought to 'use'. The article is about a term, not a phenomenon and it would be incomplete without including this 'cautionary note'. Pincrete (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

And how would OED know whether this was used in non-written colloquy within the Soviet Union -- usage for which we have other abundant evidence? SPECIFICO talk 15:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The same way that it knows about any other term, a mixture of expert opinion and (these days) analysis of recorded text. It does not say that these two words NEVER sat alongside each other nor that KGB operatives never used it. There are other notable examples in which English use of a purportedly 'foreign' term is more widespread than in the original language. The sourcing on the 'other side' is hardly a rock solid case for general or widespread use. Pincrete (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

You may not be aware that the editors who favor OED are indeed saying that the expression was never used in the Soviet Union, not in any "recorded text" and also that KGB operatives never used it in any other mode, e.g. KGB lockerroom chat or pillow talk. What you call the other side is simply saying that there is some evidence and belief that it originated with Lenin, and certainly that it was used sometimes somehow in the Soviet Union. It is the OED folks who are claiming to source an absolute statement that this never occurred. SPECIFICO talk 01:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I read most of the above discussion, I don't see anyone questioning whether the term was EVER used in USSR, but editors and the sources seem unsure how widely it was used and who - if anyone - first coined the term. Pincrete (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

But the phrase (if included) implies that it was not used in the USSR, the statement which is obviously false. My very best wishes (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Yes. I would prefer other sources that go into more depth, but it's usable; and it would be particularly ridiculous to cite it repeatedly elsewhere (as the article does) without noting this disclaimer. The controversy not only needs to be in the article, it needs to be referenced in the lead (which currently gives the unequivocal impression that it was an actual expression) - just looking at the article, large parts of it cover this controversy, so per WP:LEAD the lead section must do so as well. --Aquillion (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

"I would prefer other sources that go into more depth". Yes, sure, we do exactly that, and all other sources tell the claim in OED was an error. My very best wishes (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The only source I could find you citing in this discussion was a tertiary source that incompletely cited the Yale Book of Citations, (in noting that the source of the quote may come from a misattributation in the New York Times); the secondary source it relies on, the Yale Book of Quotations, goes into more detail, saying Attributed in the N.Y. Times, 24 Mar. 1981. anti-Communists have often used this to attack those thought to be Soviet sympathizers, but the Library of Congress has never been able to trace the pharse in Lenin's writings. Like many other putative Leninisms, it seems to be a myth. --Aquillion (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• The OED is probably the leading generalist source on this kind of thing. That doesn't mean it is infallible; however with Safire also stating the phrase doesn't come from Lenin, citing American librarians who had searched for it, we can probably be reasonably sure it doesn't stem from Lenin, unless we turn up direct evidence to the contrary. There is the 1982 paper by Vladimir Bukovsky the text of which is available here, tracing the phrase back to Lenin but with no details or evidence. Bukovsky was a polemicist and campaigner not an archivist or linguist so I'd prefer we took word of people who had looked in detail for the phrase in Lenin's works over Bukovksy's use of it in passing. As to whether it was used at all in the USSR, and at what stage, well who knows.... The Land (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The error in the OED entry was not about Lenin or authorship of the phrase (this is something disputable), but about phrase being never used in the Soviet Union according to OED entry (even though one of citations in the same OED entry tells it was used in the SU). This is clearly en error - see discussion above about usage of the term by the KGB [28]. My very best wishes (talk) 04:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it is an error. The OED is quoting Western sources saying "it's a KGB term" and simultaneously saying "we can't find any Eastern block sources for it". The obvious implication from the OED article is that the OED believes Western sources saying "it's a KGB term" are wrong. Whether that is in fact correct, I don't know, but I can't see any other way of reading what the OED is saying. The Land (talk) 08:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• No, and bogus question. No source is universally reliable for everything, and the fact that it's generally taken to be reliable doesn't mean you can force in something that others are challenging. No tertiary source is reliable against secondary sources (we seem to have some) that disprove a claim it once made; and a tertiary source cannot be used for an analytical claim (this appears to be one), per WP:AEIS policy. Dictionaries are generally reliable for generalized definitions current a few years before their publication; even the etymological information in them consists of hypotheses, and has a strong tendency to vary (i.e. conflict) from dictionary to dictionary. Dictionaries and similar works are always behind actual usage. What their editors think is recorded use (e.g. first usage of term in English in print, etc.) is constantly being proved wrong. An English dictionary team's assumptions (even if based on some level of research) about usage of terms and cognate terms in other languages is generally not going to be particularly reliable at all. Anyway, if you read Language Log, you'll find that half the work people do on it is disproving overgeneralizations and assumptions in OED and similar works.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  05:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

It is not a bogus question, as in the recent discussion it was said that the OED wasn't a reliable source and that it was written by useful idiots. No one is suggesting the OED is right about everything. So you're saying in recording over 600,000 words the OED might have made a few mistakes??? That is irrelevant. In terms of first usage of the term, the OED is already cited in the article, and that is not (currently) contested. My understanding is that if sources conflict, we should say "X says this", "Y says that". We should not eliminate Y. It would be different if someone had provided solid evidence refuting what OED says, but all we have are passing references to Lenin (or Stalin or the KGB) having used the term. These sources are not incompatible with the idea advanced by Safire and They Never Said It that this is a common misattribution. No one disputes that the attribution to Lenin is common, so yet another secondary source that makes a passing reference hardly carries much weight. None of these sources have done research on the issue, unlike the OED. I don't think the OED is a tertiary source in this regard because it is based on original research into primary sources. It seems strange to say that sources that make a passing reference to the term, usually in a propagandistic context, without doing any research, are more reliable as a guide to the etymology than the OED, which actually has done research.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Just chiming in as well - yes OED does actually do primary research into etymology. Primary research here is reading as many documents as possible to track something down, which is part of OED's raison d'etre. The OED is quite different to an encyclopedia-like tertiary source. The Land (talk) 08:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you telling this is a primary source? And no, according to book The Words of Others: From Quotations to Culture by Yale University Press, this is not a really misquotation or misattribution to Lenin, even if the exact working can not be found in his written works. My very best wishes (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Can you provide the exact text from The Words of Others: From Quotations to Culture by Yale University Press, to verify what it actually says? From everything you've written above, and added into the article main text, it seems that this book doesn't actually discuss Lenin's supposed "useful idiot" phrase. -Darouet (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC) -Darouet (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

If you read NYT article by Safire, book "They never said it", book The Words of Others: From Quotations to Culture and some others, they are not talking about one specific quotation from works of Lenin, but about a series of related quotations, including "the rope" (with similar meaning), etc. So, the content currently on the page reflects the way it was discussed in these sources. My very best wishes (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I think we might get unneccessarily hung up on 'primary' vs 'secondary' here. The OED has researchers who independently of other dictionaries trace words through the corpus of text. Obviously that corpus of text involves documents that to a historian would be primary or secondary sources themselves. But the OED tends to do its own research and base its conclusions on that, rather than review or synthesis what other people have said, which is why I would characterise it as primary research. The Land (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

What they wrote about the expression not being used in the SU is evidently wrong, as follows from cross-verification with other sources. That happens all the time. All real life researchers know that publications, even in good scientific journals, contain a large number of mistakes and discrepancies. This is one of the reason we should follow WP:NPOV, i.e. use and summarize multiple RS. Focusing on a single tertiary source is against WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I have not seen any evidence that it is evidently wrong, though I may have missed something. I have seen a number of references to Western sources that purport to say this, but do not appear to have done any work to verify it, and probably in my view are basing it on the widespread idea in the West that the phrase was in use in the East. It's clear that the idea dates from Lenin (I think I have seen the "deaf and dumb" quote directly from him) which is fair enough and very germane to the article but one should distinguish between the idea (of Western elites / politicians being stupid and helpful) and the actual phrase "useful idiots". The Land (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: the "deaf and dumb" quote is also dubious.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

And here we come to a common situation for WP pages: is it a page about certain subject (such as Western elites / politicians being stupid and helpful and used by the SU and successor states), or is it a page about a combination of words? I'd like to think it is about the subject or the subject and a combination of words. My very best wishes (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, both. This wouldn't be the first popular catchphrase that was never actually said by the person who was meant to have said it, after all! The Land (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree - both. But remember, it is a very common situation when someone said something (hence the attribution), but did not write it down. There is no any evidence whatsoever that lenin never said it, and none of the sources claims he never said it. Even a collection of (mis)quotes "They never said it" (a misleading title!) tells only there is no evidence he wrote it according to an article by Safire. My very best wishes (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

MVBW seems to have summed up current consensus. Any disagreement at this point? SPECIFICO talk 20:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I strenuously disagree (and I absolutely do not think that resembles anything remotely approaching the current consensus.) The article is about the term, and as far as that goes, the overwhelming consensus among sources seems to be, fairly unambiguously, that the quote is a myth. We could potentially discuss the actual feelings of Soviet leaders and how they relate to the topic, but only with sources that directly and unequivocally connect it to the term "useful idiot" in so many words. Sources that do not use the term are not relevant, and including them in any context would be clear WP:SYNTH. If it is true that eg. while the quote is a myth, the mindset that it represents is genuine, then we should be able to find sources stating so explicitly. (To be clear, I think it should be possible to find such sources - we seem to have a few that touch in that direction already, in the sense of "the quote is a myth, but it reflects the mindset of Soviet leaders.") But we have to rely on sources that make that argument themselves and directly draw the line from that evidence to this term, and not on synthy arguments of "I feel this captures the general spirit of the concept, right?") --Aquillion (talk) 15:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I think we agreed above that the page is about the subject and the term. So anything on the subject of the "useful idiots" who "will sell us the rope to hang them" definitely belongs here. More important, that is what sources do, i.e. Safire discusses the "useful idiots" and the "rope" quotations together because they are on the same subject. My very best wishes (talk) 05:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't think that is a consensus. The argument that Lenin said it, but didn't write it down is misleading. For a start, that claim has just been introduced here. There is no source that says that. Secondly, many things that Lenin said are written down in collected speeches, minutes, interviews, memoirs etc. Thirdly, someone must have written it down at some point, or we wouldn't know that Lenin had said it. However, no contemporary source has been found. The term seems to have surfaced in the 1940s, long after Lenin's death and was not originally associated with Lenin. This is not a philosophical issue. Can we prove Lenin didn't say it? Can we prove it wasn't used in KGB "pillow talk" (!!!)? Can we prove that someone in the vast expanse of the USSR didn't say it? This line of argument has been thoroughly discussed for years and in the end is really irrelevant. We are dealing with sources, not with philosophical speculation.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• You tell: "We are dealing with sources". Yes, exactly. There are numerous "contemporary sources" (published long after the NYT article by Safire) which claim Lenin said it[29],[30],[31], [32]. And one of them is Oxford Dictionary of Euphemisms (currently cited on the page). My very best wishes (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes – OED and other reputable dictionaries are quality sources about the etymology of words and expressions. — JFG ^talk 10:14, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

That's begging the question, however. Please address the weight of RS which give a broader and more detailed account of the historical usage. A general statement about dictionaries is not on the table here. SPECIFICO talk 15:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Not this time (Summoned by bot) The OED is wonderful but here I would prefer different sources. Ping me as I am not following this. Thanks, L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 15:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
• There are two questions here:
  • If we include the statement, should we cite it? Yes Not only is this policy, the statement is useless to the reader without the authority of the judgment behind it.
  • Should we include it? Yes, definitely This is likely to be a genuine dispute over whether calling some of your opponents "dumb, blind and idiotic" - as politicians have for most of recorded time, is in fact sufficiently similar to "useful idiot", with its very specific implications, to be the same phrase. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

And, for reference, the OED's first citation (NYT 1948) is "L'Umanita said the Communists would give the ‘useful idiots’ of the left-wing Socialist party the choice of merging with the Communist party or getting out." We would do better to quote this than to paraphrase this; better still to look up L'Umanita, and see if they (for instance) put "idioti utili" in quotes. 16:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• The expression "Полезный идиот" was used in the SU (e.g. in 1970s), as one can easily demonstrate by Google searches [33]. This statement by OED is false. That' why it was excluded from online version of the dictionary [34]. Why on the Earth we should propagate mistakes? My very best wishes (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

That the phrase was used in the 70s does not prove it was used in the 40s, much less the 20s. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

That "online version" is a different dictionary (Oxford Living Dictionaries), as you have been told repeatedly. The online OED includes the statement (which is where we got it from). Please stop making false statements.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Jack Upland is mistaken. I consulted the 3rd edition of the Oxford English dictionary (subscription only). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes Include, but attribute it to the OED and don't use as a statement of fact. The OED is widely regarded as having reliable scholarship on etymology. It would be foolish not to use it. If the statement in the OED is contradicted by other sources, attribute it and provide WP:DUE balance with opposing views. Omitting that the OED says something on this topic would not serve the reader. In fact that the OED says this about the origin is particularly notable, true or false - this is exactly the sort of thing a reader should find out on Wikipedia. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

But the Oxford Dictionary of Euphemisms is already cited on the page, and it tells this phrase belongs to Lenin. Online OED edition is also cited. My very best wishes (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

That's just a book published by Oxford, not really on par with or equivalent to the OED. What's the harm in explaining what the print OED says about it? If it's contradicted the reader can decide that. Wikipedia reports reliable sources. It's original research/pov to try to filter or contradict what one says except by also providing opposing citations. Isn't it relevant to the topic of the article to report that the OED says something about it? If it's false it would draw the readers attention to there being false information. Let them decide. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: as previously stated, the print OED (last published in 1989) does not include the phrase. The phrase is included in the current online version (subscription only). MVBW is referring to the free online "Oxford Living Dictionaries" version which has less information and does not include the statement in contention. MVBW has repeatedly conflated the OED with other Oxford University Press publications. This is not conducive to an informed discussion.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

No, all participants have an obligation to look and compare what multiple RS tell on the subject - per WP:NPOV. This is needed to provide a fair summary of claims in sources. This is not WP:OR. The cross-verification of multiple sources is also needed to filter out obviously erroneous information. Including obviously false or misleading information is wrong and against WP:NPOV. Basically, this RfC asks the question: "should an obviously erroneous information be included"? Whatever consensus here might be, it has no validity because our most basic policies ("Five Pillars") must prevail over WP:Consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTTRUTH. Reliable sources, not facts. The article doesn't provide much contrary evidence that it was indeed used in the Soviet Union, particularly before its use in the West. I see two sources claiming it was actually used in the Soviet Union both apparently based on the sole testimony of their authors. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

No, because this example is a matter of fact: the expression in Russian can be found in Soviet sources dated 1980 [35], which is a matter of fact. Hence the statement that it was not used in the SU was false. And this is not WP:OR, but simply a cross-examination of sources. My very best wishes (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

It's plainly original research to analyze a primary source to contradict a tertiary source. Your opinion that a Soviet publication contains an equivalent expression in Russian is of no bearing on whether the OED is a RS for etymology. What we need is a secondary source which says that, of which there appear to be two in the article, and which can only be given due weight in comparison to the OED. Given all the controversy discussed in the article about the actual source of the expression, it seems quite relevant that the OED makes a claim about that. Also 1980 is long after the use of the phrase in the West so I'm not certain the OED is even being contradicted by any of this - "reflect" attributes origin. If the phrase did not originate in the Soviet Union its use in the West cannot "reflect" any use there. A use 40 years later in the USSR does not contradict the statement that its use in English does not "reflect" a use in the USSR. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• No, this is not my opinion, and not about quoting any sources. The link to old Soviet book proves in a scientific sense that the expression was in fact used in the Soviet Union, contrary to an erroneous claim in one of Oxford Dictionary editions ("The phrase does not seem to reflect any expression used within the Soviet Union"), while other editions or versions do not include it. Insisting this should be included is beyond belief. My very best wishes (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Is English your native language? I think you are misunderstanding what "reflect" means in this sense. Something from the 1940s (English) can't reflect something from the 1980s (Russian). That is a scientific fact. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

So, what exactly do you suggest? Telling: "The phrase was used in the Soviet Union, however according to OED the phrase does not seem to reflect any expression used within the Soviet Union"? My very best wishes (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not necessary to try to imply that the OED is false because it is only saying that the original use in English in the 1940s did not appear to come from (reflect, be based upon) any known use in Russian. If the most we have is a source from the 80s that says otherwise, it does not contradict this statement. If we have a source that actually contradicts it, we can list that. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

This is original research, but, just out of interest, can someone translate what the Russian text states? I note that the phrase is in quotation marks. Previously, we had a Russian text cited, but it turned out to be a reference to a British novel...--Jack Upland (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• It is widely used as «полезный идиот» in Russian language to emphasize this is exact wording previously used by Lenin or other Bolsheviks. My very best wishes (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

But what does the Russian text say???--Jack Upland (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2018 (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.

A note about the above RFC closure

Apologies for any fuzzy wording in my close. Reading back, I should have avoided the use of the word "if". In closing, the consensus seemed to me to be that the reference to the OED should be included. I should have said "WHEN the OED's discussion of the phrase is referenced within this article", not "IF". Any confusion caused by this is my fault alone. I'll tweak the wording of the closure now. Cheers all. Fish+Karate 08:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

But you had it right the first time... SPECIFICO talk 15:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

If consensus is to simply use the entry from OED for referencing (as it seems to be according to the closer, right?), that's fine. But how exactly and what exactly should be cited from the OED entry? This is something debatable. I think this can be done in a better way than in my last edit (will fix it later). My very best wishes (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. In fact, I totally agree that using the definition of the term from OED is fine. My very best wishes (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

P.S. My apologies if I misunderstood the closing. Current version on the top tells: "that when it is referenced within this article". What "it" is not clear, and my understanding is that the closer simply talks about the entire description of the subject in the corresponding OED entry. My very best wishes (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The RfC was about a specific piece of commentary in the OED. You know, because you took part. Please stop trying to distort the result.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Even if you interpret closing in this way, it tells "and it should be noted that other sources differ in their opinions". How exactly this should be noted? Well, according to discussions above, this is simply an incorrect/erroneous statement, and must be described as such on the page. But OK, I simply moved it where it belongs, i.e. the section about usage of the term. In such context, one can even avoid any strong qualifiers like "erroneous". My very best wishes (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The OED was commenting on the etymology, so the sentence belongs in Origin of the term, next to the similar statement by They Never Said It.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

According to your own RfC, you wanted to include phrase: "The phrase does not seem to reflect any expression used within the Soviet Union" (Do not you? If not, let's remove it). This is about usage, not about etymology. But I am still not sure what the closer had in mind by telling "it". If they meant simply using the entire OED entry for referencing, then this is different. My very best wishes (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I still want to include that sentence, as do a lot of people. However, the OED's commentary is about the origin of the English phrase, "useful idiot". The authors have traced the phrase to the 1940s, referring to Italy, but haven't found a Soviet source. And please stop trying to distort the RfC.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Not "a lot of people". I do not think there was a consensus on the RfC to include that phrase, although there was probably a consensus that whole OED entry can be used for referencing. There is nothing wrong to quote OED also in another section as an additional source claiming that it appears in 1940 in English language literature (this is already noted on the page). My very best wishes (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. My very best wishes (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Use in the Soviet Union

The section Use of the term states, "The expression was widely used in the Soviet Union", but the source doesn't say that. It attributes the saying to Lenin, and then lists a number of "useful idiots".--Jack Upland (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

No, the source tells exactly that. Every RS claiming that the term was invented by Lenin explicitly tells that it was used in the USSR by Lenin and his comrades. Other sources (e.g. about the usage by KGB people) tell the same. My very best wishes (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Can you quote what exactly the source says?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you telling that Lenin and his comrades did not live in the Soviet Union? My very best wishes (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to be pedantic, but Lenin lived in the Soviet Union for about a year before his death. During this time he was suffering from the effects of strokes and had difficulty speaking and writing. As far as I can see there is no source that says that Lenin used the phrase in this period. All the source (which is actually about East Germany) says is that Lenin coined the phrase. I can't see a reference to Lenin's comrades.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Here is the link, and it should be obvious what the source tells. Look, but we have already discussed this and many other similar sources above (e.g. read what Softlavender said in this section), so this is going nowhere. No one suppose to repeat the same arguments many times.My very best wishes (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I read the source before commenting!!! It doesn't support the claim.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Draft Lede

Here's the current version of the lede:

A useful idiot (also useful fool, Russian: полезный идиот) is "a dupe of the Communists", usually a citizen of a non-communist country sympathetic to the Soviet Union who is susceptible to propaganda and is cynically misused. The phrase was used by Soviet communists and the KGB to refer to persons in the West their country had successfully manipulated. The phrase is often attributed to Vladimir Lenin, but it remains controversial whether he used this term in his publications.

There is one extremely controversial statement in the lede:

The phrase was used by Soviet communists and the KGB to refer to persons in the West their country had successfully manipulated.

William Safire's article on the subject concludes by saying that given the known evidence, the phrase cannot be attributed to Lenin. The book They Never Said It also casts doubt on the attribution to Lenin. And of course, the Oxford English Dictionary says that the English phrase "useful idiot" does not appear to reflect a phrase in use in the Soviet Union. In contrast, R. W. Holder's Oxford Dictionary of Euphemisms calls it "Lenin's phrase." At the very least, the attribution to Lenin is controversial. Holder doesn't say how he knows this to be Lenin's phrase, while Safire and They Never Said It describe their research into the subject, so the attribution to Lenin appears dubious, and probably wrong. In any case, the lede can't just say that this term was used by Soviet communists and the KGB, when a number of reliable sources dispute this.

The next problem with the lede is this statement:

The phrase is often attributed to Vladimir Lenin, but it remains controversial whether he used this term in his publications.

The problem with this statement is that it misrepresents the controversy. The controversy is over whether Lenin uttered the sentence at all, not merely whether he wrote it down. Safire looked for any evidence that Lenin had used the phrase, and couldn't locate any. Here's what Safire says about the phrase:

In the meantime, outspoken anti-Communists have permission to use useful idiots of the West as well as the West will sell us the rope with which to hang them, but must not precede either with "As Lenin said ..." until more precincts are heard from.
— William Safire

The third problem is that the lede gives the Russian translation of "useful idiot" right after introducing the phrase, as if the English phrase were a translation of the Russian phrase. But that's a very controversial assertion, and the evidence indicates that the phrase was translated in the other direction, with the earliest uses in the Russian language apparently occurring decades later than the earliest occurrences in English.

I'm proposing the following draft lede:

In political jargon, a useful idiot is a derogatory term for a person perceived as a propagandist for a cause the goals of which they are not fully aware, and who is used cynically by the leaders of the cause. The term was originally used to describe non-Communists regarded as susceptible to Communist propaganda and manipulation. The term has often been attributed to Vladimir Lenin, but this attribution is controversial.

I think this draft covers the basic issues. It defines the term, notes the attribution to Lenin, and notes that this attribution is controversial. Unlike the current lede, it does not make statements of fact that are controversial, and worse, probably just wrong. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

References

• No, two first phrases properly summarize content of the page (there is nothing controversial here), as has been already discussed in this section and other sections on this talk page. According to majority of sources, the term is indeed attributed to Lenin. Even Safire (your ref) agree that the term should be attributed to Lenin[36]. He tells that

... outspoken anti-Communists have permission to use useful idiots of the West as well as the West will sell us the rope with which to hang them, but must not precede either with As Lenin said . . . until more precincts are heard from. Instead, try As Lenin was reported to have said . . . or In a phrase attributed to Lenin. . . .

Safire tells only that there was no exact quotation in his written works. Furthermore, a lot of sources tell it was used in the USSR (this is not disputed even in the article by Safire, for example), by KGB... And it was actually used in the USSR, as a matter of fact, as one can see from links to quotations of old publications written in Russian language. My very best wishes (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

"there is nothing controversial here": The attribution to Lenin is very controversial, as is the statement that the term was "widely used" in the USSR and by the KGB. The lede can't just make a statement that's flatly contradicted by the Oxford English Dictionary.

"According to majority of sources, the term is indeed attributed to Lenin." Most of those sources aren't actually investigations into the origin of the quote. They're mostly writers saying something like, "To use Lenin's phrase, so-and-so is a useful idiot." One cannot assume that those writers have actually looked into the origins of the quote. They're just repeating a popular belief. Among the sources that actually do explicitly investigate the etymology of the term, the weight is in the other direction. Safire's article and Boller's book both discuss their investigations into the etymology of the term in detail, and they conclude that the attribution to Lenin is dubious. The OED's researchers concluded that the term does not reflect a Soviet term. The only other source I see in the above discussions that actually carries any weight in a discussion of etymology is the Oxford Dictionary of Euphemisms, which calls the term "Lenin's phrase." Unfortunately, this dictionary does not say how this determination was made (and I strongly suspect that the author is just repeating the common wisdom - it's a humorous work, not really a scholarly source). The weight of the scholarly sources is against the Lenin/USSR origin for the term.

"Even Safire (your ref) agree that the term should be attributed to Lenin": No he doesn't. He says that people shouldn't state as a matter of fact that the phrase comes from Lenin. It's right there in the passage you quoted.

"Furthermore, a lot of sources tell it was used in the USSR": Not the sources that actually researched the etymology of the term. Again, tons of people have written things like, "He's what the KGB would call a useful idiot," but those people aren't necessarily experts on the etymology of the term. They're just repeating the common wisdom, which is probably a misconception. The OED actually researched the etymology, and doesn't think it reflects a phrase used in the Soviet Union. I trust the OED over random writers who haven't researched the issue using the phrase and giving a passing reference to Lenin, the KGB, Stalin, or whomever else the phrase has been attributed to over time.

"And it was actually used in the USSR, as a matter of fact, as one can see from links to quotations of old publications written in Russian language": Montgeron is not in the USSR. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this. Not everything written in Russian came from the USSR. There were Russian speakers living abroad, including in Montgeron, where they published the source you keep saying proves the term was used in the Soviet Union. See the above discussion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• If you do not understand what I am telling, maybe you should read what user Altenmann said about it. This is short and very clear comment. My very best wishes (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I think I understand what you're saying. I just don't think it's correct, as my previous post (above) lays out. I've seen Altenmann's comment, but it doesn't cite any sources that would allow me to evaluate their assertion. I've tried looking for historical usage of "полезный идиот" in Google Books (from 1900 through 1991), as Altenmann suggested, but all I get are two unique sources, from 1978 and 1980. Here are the search results: [37]. The two sources from 1980 are actually the same article - the one you linked to earlier, which was published in Montgeron, France, by Soviet dissidents. The other one appears to be a play in which a German Nazi character calls a Portuguese politician who wants to reinstate democracy a "useful idiot." Both are from decades after the term first appeared in English, and I don't think either establishes that "useful idiot" reflects a Soviet phrase. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

This is because older Russian language sources are not accessible to Google searches. But it is enough to look at the refs in your diff above to see that the expression was used in Russian language before 1980 - as a matter of fact. Therefore, I agree with Altenman who said: strong hell no - the statement is demonstrably false, as gogle books search (in russian) readily shows. Even reliable sources often err. It is against common sense to pull falsitudes into wikipedia.. My very best wishes (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

"This is because older Russian language sources are not accessible to Google searches": That's just not true. How did you decide that older Russian-language sources are not accessible through Google Books? All I had to do was type in a random Russian word, "Москва," and restrict my search to the 19th Century, and I got plenty of results, going back to the mid-1800s: search results. Making untrue assertions like this just confuses the discussion. Please take more time to verify what you're claiming.

"But it is enough to look at the refs in your diff above to see that the expression was used in Russian language before 1980 - as a matter of fact": The argument has never been about whether or not this phrase has ever been uttered or written in the Russian language. We've been over this several times. The lede claims that this term "was used by Soviet communists and the KGB." Citing dissidents living in the suburbs of Paris or a play in which a Nazi calls someone a useful idiot does not prove this. The lede makes a statement of fact that is contradicted by the Oxford English Dictionary, and which is mostly likely false. It's incredibly easy to find the phrase "useful idiot" in English texts going back to the 1940s. It's incredibly difficult to find "полезный идиот" in Soviet sources. This is, in all probability, a Western phrase, used by politicians and commentators on the right-wing of politics to attack people to their left. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)