Talk:Statue of Lenin (Seattle)

Why no picture?

What is up with people insisting that wp can't use a photograph of a public statue??? There is no picture because somebody always nominates for for deletion and a half-dozen people reliably show up to vote to support the deletion even though nobody complains or claims copyrights. Redhanker (talk) 19:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Sculptor Venkov's heirs still hold copyright on the statue. An image could be added under fair use. Here's a photo I took: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmabel/6897299614/in/set-72157623848464538/. Someone would be welcome to upload a small version of that and fill out a non-free use justification. - Jmabel | Talk 00:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Also, see Wikipedia:Non-free content for an overview. Examples of fair use images, and rationales, are FAs Cloud Gate, Crown Fountain and Campbell's Soup Cans.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• There's a number of photos at commons. I'm going to ask that the copyright be reviewed over there.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Lithuanian envoy quote

In the quote from here, the Lithuanian envoy said, “In Seattle, I saw that ugly monument to Lenin there,” he said, referring to a statue of the late Soviet leader on display there since the 1990s. “So, one day you will wake up and instead of ‘Go Huskies’ you have those self-defense units without insignia with Russian plates defending you.” By which he meant: If we don’t do something, people in Seattle will have a lot more to worry about than the fate of their favorite football team.

Specifically, it's saying if we don't do something about Russian actions in Ukraine, they will some day invade the US. He isn't saying something has to be done about the Lenin statue in Fremont. Why is this even in this article? The quote refers to a totally different subject and the statue in Fremont is just mentioned in a tangential way. Keep? Delete? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

This edit summary says "what he literally said is nonsensical in English. It cannot be parsed. The source it's cited from basically admits as much. It makes absolutely no sense in English without the paraphrase, backed up by the source." Why are we quoting anything that can't be parsed in English? So not only do we have a comment which wasn't actually about this statue (it was about US intervention in Ukraine), we have a comment which requires significant interpretation to even parse. This is original research and it violates WP:ORIGINALSYN. Any good reason not to delete? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

2017 attention

In aftermath of Unite the Right rally and people pulling down statues (or politicians having them relocated/destroyed at 1am) in various cities, this statue has received publicity. https://www.geekwire.com/2017/time-pull-seattles-lenin-statue-silicon-valley-venture-capitalist-takes-relics-place-wake-charlottesville-tragedy/

Worth noting? ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2017

Please change "Alt-right media such as NewsBusters" to "Conservative media such as NewsBusters." Alt-right websites are defined by a certain brand of extremism denoting White Nationalism, racism, or extreme prejudice, and the term "alt-right" is not synonymous with the much more general term "conservative." Mikecian (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• You're going to have to find some consensus for that. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Cannolis (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Wait what? That is not how it works. You need consensus that it is alt-right. News busters a branch of media research center has nothing to do with the alt right it is intellectually dishonest and promoting an extreme bias to say otherwise. Media research center has been around since 1987...the alt right is a new thing that has nothing to do with conservatism. Gmcclure382 (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

NewsBusters might want to project a certain public image, but it looks like it's not fooling anybody. Whatever they were in 1987, if today they're in with Jack Posobiec, pizzagate theorists, and they don't see the difference between a symbol on private property and one on government properly, that pretty much puts you squarely in the alt-right. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Lewis Carpenter's goofy business cards

@SounderBruce: asked if it's really necessary to mention Carpenter's "mercenary - playboy - " etc business cards. The reason I put that in is that it's better to show than tell. It's more encyclopedic to give facts than judgements.

Most sources label Lewis E Carpenter as an "eccentric" or "unconventional", which is shorthand, sure, but it's also judgemental and opinionated. It tends to reduce an entire man's life to a single adjective. It's fine for articles to attribute those kinds of opinions to reputable sources, but if possible it's better to state facts. So you have facts: Carpenter taught English overseas, more than once, he was able to close a deal with several reluctant parties in Slovakia, he wanted to open a restaurant, he mortgaged his house to by a 7 ton Soviet monument, and he had goofy business cards. These are all facts. Giving all these facts to the reader lets them see for themselves what he is: an eccentric, an entrepreneur, a scholar, a dreamer, a deal maker, whatever. The ""Mercenary – Playboy – Soldier of Fortune – Casual Hero – Philanthropist" business cards are one fact among many. I think it makes articles better to start with a foundation of facts and add on some conclusions at the end where we cite opinions from experts.

So we could replace Jack Posobiec's label "conspiracy theorist" with a list of facts, like that he is a Sandy Hook truther, Pizzagate flim flam man, etc. But Jack has a whole article about him, so all those facts can go over there. There is no other article about Carpenter and so here is the only space we have to give a portrait of him.

Almost every source wants to know why there is a Lenin statue in Fremont, what was the intent, the message. Describing Carpenter is essential to trying to answer that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

We can describe Carpenter through the use of secondary accounts. Business cards are definitely not what should be cited or included on a Wikipedia entry. The use of "eccentric" is perfectly fine and seems to fit the business cards, while also backed up by secondary reliable sources. We also have to remember that the article is about the statue, not the man behind it; brevity is an asset to the project, excessive detail is not. SounderBruce 01:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Official name?

Out of curiosity (as an editor who occasionally creates art stubs), does the statue have a proper name?--SamHolt6 (talk) 06:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

No mention of one in the sources. Venkov made it on commission from the Czech communist party. Why would he make up his own name for the statue, other than 'portrait of Vladmir Lenin'? There's quite a few of these -- see List of statues of Vladimir Lenin, Category:Monuments and memorials to Vladimir Lenin. They don't normally get titles other than 'bust of Lenin', 'portrait of Lenin', etc. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Title

Resolved

Isn't Statue of Lenin (Seattle) more compliant with MoS? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right. It looks like all of them in Category:Monuments and memorials to Vladimir Lenin use the comma form instead of parentheses. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, Usually U.S. articles are disambiguated with () while others use commas. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I don’t think anybody objects so we should proceed, and probably rename the others too. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, I'm unable to move the page. Are you? @Ham II: Or you? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, right. It has to have a redirect deleted to make way for the move. I posted a request over at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, Thanks! I see the page has been moved. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Monument or statue?

We have numerous sources cited on the page now that refer to this as a statue and a sculpture. It was erected as a monument to Lenin, but calling it a statue is not a contradiction of that. A statue is one kind of monument. It's not exactly accurate to say there is a monument to Lenin in Fremont. Many sources disagree as to what it actually is. We can definitely say that when it was originally placed in the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, it was a monument. What it became after that is subject to debate, but it's definitely still a statue, no matter what else it is.

What matters most is that we don't see the 34 sources on the page calling it a monument. They call it a statue. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 08:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Full Protection due to edit war

This article has been locked with Full Protection for 3 months, due to an ongoing edit war. It has been restored to the Nov 5, 2019 edit, just prior to the beginning of the edit war. @David Gerard: @JohnReed 1917: you need to deal with the issues here. All requests to change this protection should be logged at WP:RFPP, not to me personally. JohnReed, take note: Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so quit citing Wikipedia as your references. Your user pages cites your various contributions to Russian media outlets, or Russian-oriented media. The only edits you have made are to this article, questioning whether or not you are your own primary source. Please read Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

My sole edit was to remove a deprecated source, I don't have any idea about the actual conflict, sorry! - David Gerard (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@David Gerard:, well it's all resolved now. The conflict issue was not about you, but about JohnReed 1917 who presented himself as a reporter for Russian related outlets and audiences. Just as advice to Wikipedians in general, don't ever - ever - ever respond to someone you don't know via their online offer of their personal telephone number or personal email. — Maile (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Protection lifted, editor blocked

The protection has now been removed, and JohnReed1917 has been indefinitely blocked. Per discussion at WP:ANI#JohnReed_1917 — Maile (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 November 2019

{{edit fully-protected|Statue of Lenin (Seattle)|answered=no}}

• Change: Replace Bronze sculpture with bronze statue in lead, and replace sculpture with statue in infobox, as in this edit.
• Explanation: This is a sculpture, but it is a specific type of sculpture, a statue. It's a good compromise, even if we can't agree on calling it a monument. It was originally erected as a monument, but later re-installed in Seattle for debatable reasons. Whether or not it is still a monument or a piece of art or kisch, it remains a statue. Of the 30 citations about the statue, virtually all call it a statue at least once. Some of them also call it a sculpture and a few do use the word monument, but even those use the word statue as well, so there is the greatest consensus about this word. There is far less support for sculpture, and the change isn't inconsistent with the GA version of 2018.
• References: See any of the citations, e.g. [1][2][3][4][5] Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Withdrawn. No need for edit request; page now unprotected. Going to proceed unless anyone has objections. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Go for it, Dennis Bratland. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Restore Zygimantas Pavilionis quote?

I'd like to restore the following paragraph found in the GA reviewed version back in 2018, changing citation of MinitPress re-published source to the original PRI URL:

The Lithuanian envoy to Washington D.C., Zygimantas Pavilionis, said the 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine was evidence that the threat of Russian imperialism should not be treated playfully, as Seattle did with "that ugly monument to Lenin there", because, "one day you will wake up and instead of 'Go Huskies' you have those self-defense units without insignia with Russian plates defending you." The BBC highlighted Seattle's Lenin statue after protesters removed Lenin statues in Ukraine.

Drmies deleted a degraded version of this text, but the original paragraph in the GA reviewed version was actually not that bad. The link to the dubious newspaper MintPress News was only for convenience; MintPress was picking up a story originally from a reliable source, Public Radio International, written by GlobalPost reporter Jean MacKenzie. We only need to link to PRI, the original source, and not involve MintPress.

The context is a section describing a range of conflicting points of view about the Seattle Lenin statue, and Lithuanian envoy Zygimantas Pavilionis's opinions, cited WP:INTEXT and attributed to him, not in WP:WikiVoice, are meant only to illustrate why this faction opposes the statue. It is in the article alongside other quoted opinions from different points of view, and it serves to broaden the survey and balance the others. It isn't meant to be taken as fact, but rather held up in comparison alongside multiple sides taking part in an unresolved controversy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

References

• Dennis Bratland, I shouldn't have edited that while it was under protection, but it's unprotected now. My objections remain the same though, even after reading the PRI article--it's a trivial note, a non sequitur by someone who apparently just mentioned the thing in passing, and it's not even about the thing but the people who put it there. Maybe. Who knows--it's so short and so shallow; it's the kind of thing that we call "trivial mention". Drmies (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • We have multiple sources criticizing anyone who treats symbols like a Lenin statue as mere kisch, or as dark humor. I don't think it's trivial that way off in Lithuania people notice Americans recontextualizing Communist propaganda for their own amusement. Che Guevara in popular culture is a more prominent example. Knute Berger takes a much more nuanced view, but Pavilionis's opinion isn't trivial because it isn't isolated. He represents a broad swath of opinions.

    Most everyone fails to account for the fact all decisions about this are in the hands of one or two private owners of the property, and it doesn't express what the people of Seattle or anywhere else think, since it's not up to them. I guess people like Pavilionis would like more people to impotently shake their fist at it rather than shrug or chuckle. The Pavilionis quote expresses a lot in a few words, making it a useful quote in that we don't have to devote an undue amount of space to his opinions, while still including them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources if helpful

• https://mynorthwest.com/1286116/seattle-lenin-statue-replacement-bill/
• https://www.geekwire.com/2017/time-pull-seattles-lenin-statue-silicon-valley-venture-capitalist-takes-relics-place-wake-charlottesville-tragedy/
• https://mynorthwest.com/720869/fremont-lenin-statue-protest-aug-2017/

---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Another section

After the latest media kerfuffle about this statue, resulting in the termination of a Seattle Times editorial writer after one article, I tihnk it may be a good idea to separate out the various political/media debate from the "Fremont curiousity" section, which focuses on light-hearted decoration and the culture of the Fremont area in general. Would folks be ok with this change? Thinking the new section could be labeled something like "Political and media debate." Mpschaff (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)