Talk:Useful idiot

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)

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)

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 [1]. 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.[2] 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)

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 [3]:

"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 [4] - 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 [5] 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: [6],[7],[8], [9]. 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 [10], 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 [11] 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)

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)

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)

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 [12] 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 [13]. 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[14],[15],[16], [17]. 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 [18]. This statement by OED is false. That' why it was excluded from online version of the dictionary [19]. 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 [20], 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.

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 [21] in which Russian operatives referred to Trump attache Carter Page as an idiot of a certain sort. See also talk page discussion here: [22] 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)

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)

Soviet source using "Useful Idiot"?

In this comment above (as well as here), it was claimed that this source proves that the Russian term for "useful idiot" was used in the Soviet Union, and that the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is therefore wrong when it says, "The phrase does not seem to reflect any expression used within the Soviet Union." There's only one small problem with that argument: the source was neither written nor published in the Soviet Union.

How do I know this?

The first hint is the publication information that Google Books gives. While Google Books does not give detailed information about where the source was published, it does give the name of the journal, which is "третбя волна," which means "Third Wave." The publisher of the journal is given as "Русский культурный центр в Монжероне," which means "Russian Cultural Center of Montgeron." Now, Montgeron is a suburb of Paris. I can't find much information on the Russian Cultural Center there, but I did manage to find two books that mention a community of emigré artists living in Montgeron in the 1970s and 80s. One of them even mentions the "Third Wave" of Russian emigrés, which matches the title of the journal. Already, this is pretty good evidence that this source, while written in Russian, is not from the Soviet Union, but rather from France.

The next hint is in the text of the snippet Google Books provides:

я при иных обстоятельствах горячо защищал. но мне кажется, что синявский совершает двойную ошибку. мне кажется что он путает термин „либерал“ с термином „радикал“ и с такмн определениямн, как „салонный радикал“, „попутчик“, „полезный идиот“
— Google Books

This translates roughly to (please correct me if I've done a poor job here):

I ardently defended [him] under other circumstances. But it seems to me that Sinyavsky is making a double mistake. It seems to me that he confuses the term "liberal" with the term "radical" and with the definitions of "salon radical," "fellow traveler," "useful idiot"
— rough translation based on Google Translate

Earlier, Jack Upland asked what this source states (in English) and why "useful idiot" was in quotation marks. My very best wishes replied that the phrase is in quotation marks in order to emphasize that it's an exact quote by Lenin or other Bolsheviks. But we see from the above English translation that the reason "useful idiot" („полезный идиот“) is in quotation marks is that the author is quoting Sinyavsky's (синявский) use of the term, along with Sinyavsky's use of other political terms.

Who is this Sinyavsky that the author is critiquing? It's almost certainly Andrei Sinyavsky, a Soviet dissident and emigré who lived from the early 1970s onward in exile in the suburbs of Paris. This is the person that the source says used the term "useful idiot," not Lenin or the other Bolsheviks. In fact, the person using the term was an opponent of the Soviet government (and a famous one at that), whose work was featured by the American Cold-War-era broadcaster Radio Liberty.

What this source tells us is that a Soviet dissident living in France used the term "useful idiot" (in a way that another Russian emigré author thought was incorrect). It does not tell us that the term was used in the Soviet Union, or much less that it originates with Lenin or any other Bolshevik. Quite the contrary, the fact that an opponent of the Soviet Union living in Western Europe would use the term is consistent with the idea that "useful idiot" was primarily a Western term used to label people viewed as dupes of the Soviet Union. That is, coincidentally, what the earliest-known uses of the term "useful idiot" in English reflect (i.e., Italian conservatives calling their political opponents to the left "useful idiots").

This source was misinterpreted in the above discussion about the Oxford English Dictionary, and used as supposed evidence that the OED's research was wrong. But with a little investigation into the source, it turns out that the source doesn't contradict the OED at all. It appears the researchers at the OED know what they're doing. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

This is utterly tenuous and tendentious OR nonsense, and we've clearly established consensus here to the contrary, including an RfC with much prior and subsequent discussion. SPECIFICO talk 00:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Consensus changes, especially as new evidence comes to light and new arguments are made. The evidence I showed above demonstrates that one of the arguments made against the OED's credibility, that this supposedly Soviet source used the phrase "useful idiot," was wrong. I guess the original argument about that source discrediting the OED could be called original research, but it was made a number of times, and it turns out to be incorrect. If you're opposed to OR, I would think you'd be thanking me for discrediting it. I think you'll agree with my assessment of the source - that it's clearly not a Soviet source, but rather an article published by a Russian journal in Paris, and that the person being quoted is not Lenin (or another Bolshevik), but rather Andrei Sinyavsky, a Russian dissident and critic of the Soviet Union. I don't see how providing this information could be a bad thing, or why you'd attack me for shedding some light on this source. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Google Books is somehow showing me a bit more text now, which comes directly after the passage I cited above:

не против либералов выстуапает Максимов, а против зтих последних, и здесь попадает прямо в точку. Именно как либерал я чувствую себя полностыю с той яростной критикой,
— Google Books

My best shot at the translation (again, correct me if I've made any major mistakes here) is as follows:

Maximov is not against the liberals, but against the latter group ["salon radical," "fellow traveler," "useful idiot"], and here he gets straight to the point. As a liberal, I feel full of that fierce criticism,
— rough translation of the above

The "latter group" refers to the "salon radicals," "fellow travelers" and "useful idiots," based on the preceding sentence. The Maximov discussed here is pretty easy to identify: Vladimir Maximov, another dissident writer who lived in exile in Paris, and who was part of the "Third Wave" of migration. The Independent has an obituary of him, which describes him as part of the "Third Wave" (matching the title of the journal) of emigration from the Soviet Union, and which notes his fierce criticism of Western left intellectuals. Again, this shows that the source that was earlier claimed as an example of Soviet usage of the term "useful idiot" ("полезный идиот") is actually an example of dissidents living in the West using the term to attack people on the Left, rather than Communists using the term to describe their dupes in the West. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do that. I note that in the RfC my opponents, several of them Russian-speakers, refused to provide a translation of the text that "proved" the OED wrong. Given the history of this page, I was always confident that this supposed source would prove bogus. I didn't realise how bogus it would be. It is ironic that you are being accused of "original research", when this "source" was an example of "original research" of the worst possible kind. I don't think this changes the RfC. The outcome was that we should cite the OED's comment with the proviso that we attribute the comment to the OED (which I would do anyway). The problem is currently we have the statement that the phrase was used in the USSR which cites a source that says no such thing (see above).--Jack Upland (talk) 08:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Several sources state that. I agree none of this changes the RfC. Let's move on. SPECIFICO talk 12:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: I agree - the statement in the lede is probably just factually wrong, and there's no good sourcing for it: "The phrase was used by Soviet communists and the KGB to refer to persons in the West their country had successfully manipulated." It's remarkable that the lede makes this declaration, despite the apparent lack of Soviet sources that actually use the term. One of the justifications for including this statement in the lede was the supposed proof, in the form of the source I discuss above, that the term was used in the Soviet Union. If it were really so clear that the term was in regular use in the Soviet Union, you'd think someone would be able to point to Soviet sources using the term. We have abundant examples of Western sources using the term, but nothing from the Soviet Union. That's strange for a supposedly Soviet phrase. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for taking the time to look into that source. I was always a bit skeptical about it since its use appeared to be pure OR, and since we couldn't verify it. The source was used repeatedly to try to convince DIYeditor that the phrase was indeed used in the Soviet Union. One possible reason that it's hard to find evidence for its use there is that the OED may end up being correct. However, this appears to lend credence to the extended discussion of phrase in the Boller and George Oxford University Press book, "They Never Said It." The authors identify the phrase not with Lenin, but with anti-Communists:

"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."

I suspect that Boller and George, the Library of Congress, and William Safire at the NYT are right on this one. -Darouet (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the expression was used also by Sinyavsky, just as it was used by Lenin and by a lot of other people who lived in the USSR (and of course I know this too because I lived in the USSR). This is something a lot of sources tell (see refernces in many sections of this talk page). Note that Safire and Boller do not tell it was not used in the USSR. They only tell they could not find exact quotation in written works by Lenin.My very best wishes (talk) 04:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

You used the Sinyavsky source several times in the above discussions to "prove" that the phrase was used in the Soviet Union. Given the above information, you accept that that "proof" was erroneous, right?

Safire and Boller do not just say that they could not find the exact quotation in Lenin's written works. They looked for evidence that the phrase derives from him in general, and were unable to find any. Here's Safires conclusion on the phrase "useful idiot":

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. Instead, try "As Lenin was reported to have said . . ." or "In a phrase attributed to Lenin. . . ."
— William Safire

That's a lot broader a conclusion than merely not being able to find the "exact phrase" in Lenin's written works. Safire couldn't find any evidence that the phrase derived from Lenin, and Safire's conclusion was that it cannot be attributed to him until evidence is found ("until more precincts are heard from").

The situation regarding this phrase looks very similar to the situation surrounding "Be the change you want to see in the world" (which turns out not to be a Gandhi quote) and "May you live in interesting times" (a great curse, but despite the common belief, not a Chinese one). If we were to write an article about the phrase, "Be the change you want to see in the world," we could cite an endless number of sources attributing the quote to Gandhi. On the other hand, there would be a very small number of sources that specifically deal with the etymology of the quote, which would explain that there's no evidence that Gandhi ever said it and that the earliest documented usage of the phrase comes from decades after his death. That's the exact situation we have here: there are many sources that use the phrase "useful idiot" and give a passing attribution to Lenin, but on the other hand, there are a few sources that specifically research the etymology, and find that there's no evidence of it originating with Lenin, that it first appeared decades after his death, and that it wasn't attributed to Lenin until long after its first documented usage. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• No, I did not use "Sinyavskiy source" on the page because it is not available online (that was only a snippet view); it can only be used to see that the term was indeed used in Russian language sources. Also, once again, none of the sources currently quoted on the page except OED tells clearly and explicitly "the expression was NOT used in the USSR" (OED does not tell it too if you read whole entry). But many sources (including "Synavsky") do tell it was used in the USSR. My very best wishes (talk) 05:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

You did so multiple times, including here and here, unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "Sinyavsky source." I'm talking about the Russian-language source that you posted several times, which critiques Sinyavsky's use of the term "useful idiot" and discusses Maximov's views of the source. That's the source I discussed above in detail. It was written and published by dissidents living in Paris, not in the Soviet Union. You used that source as evidence that the term was used in the Soviet Union, but it wasn't actually a Soviet source. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I did not use it in the article (mainspace). According to citation in sources dated 1970-1980s (including that one), the term was widely used in Russian language. It was the same language in Russia/SU and "abroad". My very best wishes (talk) 06:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

No, the source that discusses Sinyavsky does not say that the term was widely used in the Russian language. It simply says that Sinyavsky is misinterpreting the term, and that Maximov uses the term. It makes no claims about wider usage of the term in Russian language, much less in the Soviet Union. By the way, the dispute here has never been about whether or not the term has ever been used in Russian. The dispute is about the etymology of the term, and its use in the Soviet Union. Did Lenin originate the term, and was it in use in the Soviet Union? There's no evidence for Lenin having originated the term, and so far, you've been citing a source written and published in France as supposed proof that the term was used in the Soviet Union. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Just to add: thanks for clarifying about citing the Sinyavsky source on the talk page vs. mainspace. You agree that that source does not demonstrate usage of the term "useful idiot" in the Soviet Union, right? -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The source does not tell the term was used in Russian language. It actually uses the term in Russian language, as a matter of fact. Hence the claim in OED is false. But this is getting ridiculous because we repeat this for already third time. My very best wishes (talk) 03:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. This was settled and nothing has changed except for the long bludgeon posts on this page -- ignoring all previous discussion and other references. SPECIFICO talk 04:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

There was never any debate whether the term was used in Russian. Stop distorting the issue.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: If the OED entry on "useful idiot" said, "Nobody has ever used this expression in Russian," then your argument here would be valid. But that's not what the OED says. Here's what the OED says: "The phrase does not seem to reflect any expression used within the Soviet Union." Please stop repeating the false argument that this source disproves the OED. It doesn't. France is not in the Soviet Union. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Thucs, if you repeat the behavior that got you banned from this topic, what do you expect to happen next? Please do not disparage MVBW and let's move on to other matters. SPECIFICO talk 16:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: this is a simple issue — the source has been grossly misrepresented — and since it was published by a Soviet dissident in Paris, it cannot demonstrate, even if we were to allow WP:OR, that this phrase was used in the Soviet Union.

Thucydides has repeatedly left detailed, helpful comments on the sources we're discussing above, and has somehow managed to ignore your provocative responses.

You are not commenting on the content of this dispute, but are instead threatening Thucydides411 with some kind of ban, which you also seem to have done indirectly here a few days ago. You've been sanctioned in the past for creating hostile editing environments, and while NeilN recently lifted a restriction placed upon you for inappropriately calling for bans [23], I hope you will stop personally attacking and provoking other editors, on pages that are supposed to be dedicated to article improvement, and instead focus on sources, and content. -Darouet (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: The source does not tell the term was used in Russian language. It actually uses the term in Russian language, as a matter of fact. Hence the claim in OED is false. But this is getting ridiculous because we repeat this for already third time. As a I said before, for the use in the 1940s in English to "reflect" a use in the Soviet Union it would have to be based on that use. That's what reflect means in English. From the OED: "Embody or represent (something) in a faithful or appropriate way." To reflect something in Soviet usage the Soviet usage must have occurred first. You haven't offered any contradiction of the OED's claim that the Soviet usage was not before the English usage, or any evidence of its use in Russian at all other than it being used decades later.

Citing the fact that it was used in Russian as a contradiction of the OED is your original research (analysis) even if it seems obvious to you. Or to put it another way, you're using it as a primary source rather than secondary. And not very effectively. Indeed you would want a source that did "tell the term was used in Russian language" rather than a source that uses it as a matter of fact. Further you would want that source to be authoritative on the subject and date the use in Russian to the 1940s or before. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:40, 25 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[24]. 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: [25]. 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)

OED contradicting itself?

One of the arguments made earlier against using the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) as a source was that it supposedly contradicts itself. That argument was made in these diffs: [26][27] [28].

This argument was based on the fact that the OED says, "The phrase does not seem to reflect any expression used within the Soviet Union," but then goes on to give the following example of usage: "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'." The OED only gives that snippet of text from the Washington Post in order to illustrate how the term "useful idiot" is used. The OED does not endorse the views expressed in snippets of text it uses to illustrate usage. There's no contradiction here. The OED thinks the term does not reflect a Soviet phrase.

Interestingly, not even the Washington Post article claims that the phrase comes from the KGB. I found the article in question on LexisNexis, and it turns out that the Washington Post is quoting an unnamed alumnus of the Kent School who criticized an Episcopalian priest for opposing US involvement in Nicaragua:

Still a third alumnus, the decibels rising, said that "Biddle is an unwitting traitor to his country, one of those liberals aptly described by the KGB as 'useful idiots.'"
— "Old Boys in the War Zone," by Coleman McCarthy, Washington Post, 21 April 1985

Some unnamed alumnus of a college prep school thinks the term comes from the KGB. That's not evidence of anything. The Washington Post article is actually quite dismissive of this particular alumnus' views, and calls him a member of the "Old Boy network" and one of the "more excitable alumni." -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the editors that make these arguments keep repeating them without listening.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

A rational reading of the OED would limit its claim to does not seem to reflect any expression used before 1948. The OED has no interest in later uses; they may be borrowed from English (or Italian) - and they have no bearing on where L'Umanita got its phrase from. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Clearly. I think the earliest attribution to Lenin (who died in 1924) that we have here is 1961. And the KGB didn't exist until 1954. Both these usages postdate the earliest use in English or Italian. In the 1948 case, there is no suggestion they are quoting Soviet sources; on the contrary, they are making their own observations. It seems only later that people improved on the quote, saying that this was what, not the Italians, but Lenin or the KGB themselves said about their supporters.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The earliest attribution to Lenin that we mention is actually from 1959 (still 11 years after the phrase is first recorded in English), in the Chicago Daily Calumet. But yes, the phrase itself (not the attribution to Lenin) does seem to originate with the question of popular fronts after WWII, when more centrist social democrats were worried that entering into coalitions with the Communist party would lead to them being politically exploited. Both the phrase "useful idiot" (regarding Italy) and "useful fool" (regarding Yugoslavia) are first recorded being used in this context. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Long Quotation of Michael Hayden

By far, the longest quotation in the article is of Michael Hayden. The entire usage section is only about 260 words long, but this one quote is about 96 words long. Granted, it's in a footnote, but is such a long quote actually needed? A short paraphrase is sufficient to illustrate how the term "useful idiot" is used.

I removed the extended quote (maintaining the paraphrased version) and was reverted, so I'm taking the issue here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

May I suggest you go on hiatus for a while and let other editors arrive to digest your rewrite of this article. Remember WP:OWN SPECIFICO talk 01:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I asked for comments on the quotation. Your comment comes across as needlessly hostile. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

My reply was clear. The quotation is just fine. And I again suggest you stand back and let others react to all the changes since your return to active participation. SPECIFICO talk 03:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, let's keep that quote. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Could you explain your reasoning for keeping the full quote? We don't need the entire quote in order to illustrate how the term is being used. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

It's especially interesting because it's Michael Hayden who quotes Michael Morell and then offers his own preference, and it's only his preference which is used. Both top intelligence men share a POV about Trump's relationship to Russia which Hayden considers rather "harsh", but also considers "benign", IOW the reality about Trump is much, much worse, and they know far more than we do. We'd be wise to listen closely to them.

It's not often one finds such a quote. Having the quote in the reference is a nice way to keep it without adding to the body. It does no harm there, so any desire to delete it is puzzling. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The reason I don't think the full quote is necessary is simple: this article is about the phrase "useful idiot," not about Trump. There are many long quotes we could include in which one person calls another a "useful idiot." For example, Tony Judt wrote a long article in the London Review of Books accusing various liberal supporters of the Iraq War of being "useful idiots," yet we paraphrase his views succinctly. Whether or not "We'd be wise to listen closely to" Michael Hayden or Michael Morell is irrelevant here. What's relevant is that they called Trump a "useful idiot," and we don't need an extended quotation to explain that. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

No, we don't need it. This article is not about Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Then we'll just have to agree to disagree. It's an extremely notable quote by two top intelligence officers about the most notable "useful fool" in modern history. If there were ever a quote to include in the body of the article, this would be it. Since it's not even in the body of the article, your concerns aren't just puzzling. Thanks to you this full quote has gotten legs on the internet and here. Quietly leaving it in the ref is wisest. That's what we often do with such things. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

It is about Trump and his enablers and apologists to the extent that reliable sources and notable commentators make that connection. SPECIFICO talk 16:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Can you show that reliable sources require us to quote Michael Hayden at great length in an article about the phrase "useful idiot"? The section he's quoted in is supposed to illustrate usage of the term "useful idiot," so that readers can understand how the term has been used throughout history. Tony Judt's usage of the term appears to have been discussed at much greater length in other secondary sources, yet we don't cite Judt at length, and we shouldn't - it's not necessary. The long quote by Hayden about Trump looks COATRACKed onto the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

There's not a shred of logic, fact, or policy in that statement, so it's not worth a response. Hayden't statement is important and altogether valid. SPECIFICO talk 04:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I asked you to show reliable sources that justify putting in an extended quote from Michael Hayden (far longer than any of the other quotes we use). Declaring that his statement is valid and important doesn't address my question. Belittling my request doesn't do so either. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, without any belittling...what you say makes no sense. There is no policy for such a request, because how would "reliable sources require us to quote..." That makes no sense.

The quote is self-evidently extremely on-topic, from extremely notable experts, and about an extremely notable person. If one were to try to create a more uniquely usable quote, you'd have a hard time doing better than this one. (Seriously, give it a try.)

I'm beginning to think we should actually include it in the article in a quotebox. Will that make you happy? (Besides the appropriateness of that approach, it also has a bit of karma and WP:BOOMERANG flavor to it. ) -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

We have really never seen anything like this. Former acting CIA director Michael Morell says that Putin has cleverly recruited Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation. I'd prefer another term drawn from the arcana of the Soviet era: polezni durak. That's the useful fool, some naif, manipulated by Moscow, secretly held in contempt, but whose blind support is happily accepted and exploited. That's a pretty harsh term, and Trump supporters will no doubt be offended. But, frankly, it's the most benign interpretation of all this that I can come up with right now. -- General Michael Hayden

I repeat: this article is not about Trump. Our introduction says: "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." What cause is Trump a propagandist for, apart from his own? Simply because someone called Trump a "useful idiot" doesn't make that worthy of mention here. Someone called Reagan a useful idiot, as previously discussed. This adds nothing to the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Bullrangifer: The logic of my request is obvious. I said that the article is about the term "useful idiot," not Trump specifically, so the long quotation is out of place. SPECIFICO replied that It is about Trump and his enablers and apologists to the extent that reliable sources and notable commentators make that connection. I then asked, Can you show that reliable sources require us to quote Michael Hayden at great length in an article about the phrase "useful idiot"? I'm asking how reliable sources establish Trump as so central to this article that it needs to have long quotations about him. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• The quotation is precisely on the subject of the page and should stay - agree with SPECIFICO. As about other recent changes - that's fine, no rush, everything can be fixed later. My very best wishes (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

So are many other quotations using the phrase "useful idiot." The question is how to apportion WP:DUE weight to each usage, based on WP:RS, keeping in mind that we are WP:NOTNEWS and making every effort to avoid WP:COATRACK. I'm not saying that the quotation shouldn't appear in some form in the article — but if it does, it should be alongside more pertinent, historically famous examples, and given less prominence than those. -Darouet (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Looking over the "Use of the term" section as it is right now, I don't think Hayden's comment is undue. -Darouet (talk) 23:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The question is if it's due to quote it twice, the second time at far greater length, or to remove the second copy per Special:Diff/827881831. --BeebLee (talk) 01:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Twice is OK. Of course, time will tell and things change. If RS later tell us Trump turned out not to be useful or not to be an "idiot" then things will change. For example, it could turn out that Trump was being blackmailed and that he hated the Russians and hated to ignore their national security penetration of the US. At some point, useful idiot might no longer apply. From current appearances, the "useful idiot" model is cited by many notable observers. SPECIFICO talk 01:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

This is crazy recentism. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be a carnival to parade editors' passing obsessions and prejudices. This article is not about Trump, and we shouldn't include claims on the basis that they could be true (or false!). This article has suffered enough from editors trying to use it as a vehicle for their bizarre fantasies.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

You calling me crazy? And the second half? Want to stick to discussing the relevant issues? Let us know what you decide. SPECIFICO talk 14:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a politically charged pejorative. We don't list usages because this is an objectively true list of idiots, we list usages only as much as they demonstrate how the term is used. So whether it's accurate in the opinion of many people, or if opinion swings to no longer consider it accurate, isn't a consideration. --BeebLee (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Bottom line is that it's exceptional that the circumspect and consummately professional Hayden spoke up and referred to Trump in this way, and it belongs in the article in both instances. Are we done yet? SPECIFICO talk 18:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Explain why it needs to be here.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Um, cuz it's been covered wide and deep around the world? First time an intelligence guy called a POTUS a useful idiot? We just follow the sources. SPECIFICO talk 03:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

There's been a fair amount of discussion now about this quote. There is consensus for paraphrasing Hayden's quote in the body of the article, as is already done. There is a slight majority that's concerned about giving undue weight to Hayden's quote by quoting it at length in the footnotes. No other example usage of "useful idiot" in the article is quoted at such length. Those who support the extended quotation have argued that Hayden is a great guy we should all listen to, but haven't addressed the fundamental question of due weight. I could equally argue that Tony Judt was also a great guy who deserves to be quoted at great length in this article, but I'm not arguing that, because I don't think this article needs to quote anyone at great length in order to illustrate how the term "useful idiot" is used in practice.

Unless someone wants to make the due weight case for keeping the extended quotation, I don't think it's productive to expend that much more energy on this particular issue. The extended quotation should be removed. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

No. It's not "in" the article. It's in the footnotes. Just keep it there. That's where we keep such things, for those few readers who check for more information. Most readers will never notice it there. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Readers can click on the link if they're so inclined. I still haven't seen anyone make the case, based on due weight, for this one quotation, in contrast to all the others we reference, being pasted at length into the footnotes. The arguments so far have been, essentially, that Hayden is consummately professional or that We'd be wise to listen closely. I think we'd be wise to listen closely to Tony Judt. That's irrelevant here though - we're just trying to illustrate how the term "useful idiot" is typically used. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and regardless of what we think of Trump, the quote is uniquely suited to this article, and probably better than any other example. This is an actual example of how it's used in the real world, from a real case. It can't get much better. Many of the arguments against using it are unabashed attempts to protect Trump, and it's tiring and unwikipedian, so just forget it's about him and look at the quote itself. It's really a good example. Two for the price of one. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Good point. I agree. My very best wishes (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Many of the arguments against using it are unabashed attempts to protect Trump What arguments were those? --BeebLee (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

That's irrelevant here. One should only discuss improvement of this page. BTW, this site is not an RS per se, but provides links to good RS. My very best wishes (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

OK looks like we have consensus for BullRangifer's view.to do the honors. SPECIFICO talk 20:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)clarified22:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't say things like that. I have no idea what "honors" to do. I'm only interested in it staying in the refs where it is, IOW do nothing. If a consensus for including it IN the article develops, we can deal with it then. Right now it's not IN the article, but in the refs. Fine by me. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer:: "[...] the quote is uniquely suited to this article [...] This is an actual example of how it's used in the real world, from a real case. It can't get much better." All of our examples are from the real world. How is the Hayden quote calling Trump a useful idiot more "uniquely suited to this article" than the Phillips quote about Reagan, or the Mona Charen quote about opponents of the Iraq War, or the Judt quote about liberal supporters of the Iraq War? They're all authentic examples of people calling other people "useful idiots."

"Many of the arguments against using it are unabashed attempts to protect Trump, and it's tiring and unwikipedian": I'd echo BeebLee and ask you to make your general accusation more concrete. Who is attempting to protect Trump, and how are they doing so? Looking above, I see arguments about due weight and coatracking. I don't see anyone attempting to protect Trump, or anyone trying to remove the two examples of people calling him a "useful idiot." The question is simply whether or not to paste a very long quotation into the footnote. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Thuc, you are getting deep into disruptive insistence on your POV denial of this consensus article content. Please stop, now. SPECIFICO talk 20:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

There's no need to personalize this dispute - please abide by WP:NPA. Looking at the above discussion, there are four editors who have expressed concerns about including the full quote, and three that support inclusion of the entire quote. The questions of due weight and coatracking have not been addressed by those who support inclusion. Given the numbers and the strength of the policy arguments, it looks like consensus leans in the direction of removal of the quotation. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPA and don't misrepresent it to deflect from the talk page discussion. Your view has failed to carry the day. The quotation is going in the article and if you remove it against consensus, that will be highly unfortunate. SPECIFICO talk 21:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

"Your view has failed to carry the day." A majority of editors commenting in this section express the same concerns as I have. I've been discussing content and policy issues in this section. I've asked about how to reconcile giving one example usage inordinate space with due weight, but you've responded by calling me a tendentious editor and then accusing me of deflecting when I ask you to abide by WP:NPA. Please, let's stay on topic and not get derailed by personal issues. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The quotation must be included (either directly or as a footnote) because otherwise the meaning of the statement is not clear. Simply telling "the useful fool, some naif, manipulated by Moscow, secretly held in contempt, but whose blind support is happily accepted and exploited" is actually a distortion, because all context was removed. One need full citation to provide context. I also have some difficulty with language. It seems the original expression in the publication by Morell was "unwitting agent". Is it the same as "useful idiot"? Yes, it seems to be based on usage like here and elsewhere. My very best wishes (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the context is clear from the way we paraphrase the quote right now, but if there's some clearer way to express it, without inflating the space given to this one example too much, then that's fine. About the Morell quote: he doesn't actually say "useful idiot" in his NYT Op-Ed, so I don't think it would belong in this article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Let me clarify. Full quotation tells about the "useful idiot": "But, frankly, it's the most benign interpretation ...", meaning he might be actually not an unwitting, but "witting agent" - if there was in fact the "collusion", which is the subject of the entire investigation by Muller. That's why full quotation is necessary. My very best wishes (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you propose some short way to rephrase our text to make it clearer? We don't need to get across every nuance of Hayden's article. We just need to give a bit of context to illustrate how the term "useful idiot" is used. Each example we use (e.g., Mona Charen, Tony Judt and the debate surrounding the Iraq War, but we keep things short nevertheless) has a lot of context, but we have to keep each example to a minimum. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Every nuance?? 🤣🤣🤭 Useful.Idiot where's the nuance? Short and simple. These CIA guys don't mince words. SPECIFICO talk 22:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

OMG! There's some real confusion going on here.

The quote isn't IN the article. It's in the refs. The question isn't about INCLUSION on the page, but about preventing complete DELETION, because that's what some editors wish to do. Just keep it the way it is in the refs. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Let me suggest a middle ground that would allow deletion of the full quote from the refs. Instead we split it and include the views of both men:

• Michael Morell, former acting CIA director, says that "Putin has cleverly recruited Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation".
• Michael Hayden, former director of both the US National Security Agency and the CIA, says Trump is a "useful fool...manipulated by Moscow".

That would replace everything about this source. How does that look? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Since eagerness to get rid of the whole quote has led to a non-consensual deletion, I'm going to try a more elegant solution. Take a look now. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I see two problems with the first sentence:

1. It makes it look as if this is a direct quotation of Michael Morell, but it's actually a quote of Michael Hayden's paraphrase of Morell's article. Morell's statement is a little bit different.
2. Michael Morell doesn't actually use the phrase "useful idiot."

I don't think Morell's statement is necessary to give context to Hayden's statement. Hayden is the one who called Trump a "useful idiot," not Morell. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Morell's statement is actually the definition of the term "useful idiot", so it's certainly on-topic for this article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

You made some good points, so I have used the exact quote from the original source. The full quote is no longer on the page. Can we close this thread? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, one could argue that calling someone an "unwitting agent" is similar to calling them a "useful idiot," but this section of the article is about "Use of the term" - the term, of course, being "useful idiot." It's a stretch to include Morell's statement here, given that it relies on us reading something into it that he doesn't explicitly say. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

According to sources (cited above and others), both well-known expressions mean exactly the same. Therefore, I made unwitting agent a redirect to this page. There are two options: (a) to develop page unwitting agent if anyone thinks this is something different, and (b) to reflect usage of term "unwitting agent" on this page per RS. I have no strong opinion, but (b) seem to be more appropriate (assuming that the page is not be about the wording/expression, but about the subject). Well, another similar expression is probably the Patsy. My very best wishes (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Could you link the sources that say they have exactly the same meaning here? I looked through the above discussion, but it wasn't obvious to me which sources you're referencing.

There are lots of phrases with similar meanings to "useful idiot." The word "patsy" has a similar meaning, but it isn't as directly tied to the Cold War as the phrase "useful idiot" is. It looks like "unwitting agent" is another derogatory term with similar meaning. However, "useful idiot" is a specific phrase with a specific history, which this article is supposed to document (e.g., its apparent origin in the Cold War and its later attribution to Lenin). It shouldn't be lumped in with all the other phrases that have related meanings. If it is, then this article will no longer be about the term "useful idiot," but rather about the much more general concept of "dupes," or people accused of being "dupes" by their political detractors. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's not broaden it to include tempting 'obviously close enough' terms like that. Option (c): There aren't enough sources to justify an unwitting agent page, and nothing obligates us to give it a home here. -BeebLee (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't undo content against talk page consensus. You may offer dissent on talk but do not edit-war after all the back and forth on this content before you arrived here. 'This content' in this case being the Morell quote, there hasn't been that much back and forth about this latest addition yet, no clear consensus has emerged to keep it yet either, and the back-and-forth discussion here appears to have simply stopped 3 days ago.-BeebLee (talk) 02:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to talk. The discussion ended simply because the editor who has been tendentiously trying to erase this content gave up and apparently was willing to let consensus prevail. SPECIFICO talk 02:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

If you're referring to Thucydides411, since you've referred to their contributions as tendentious elsewhere on this talk page, they were the latest one to contribute to the discussion, and those who disagreed with him did not respond. If anyone 'gave up' on establishing consensus, it wasn't Thucydides411. -BeebLee (talk) 02:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Dezinformatsia

I couldn't actually verify that Dezinformatsia: Active Measures in Soviet Strategy uses the phrase "useful idiot." I don't have access to the full text at the moment, and Google Books searches for the term "idiot" and "idiots" in the book come up dry: [29] [30]. Can anyone find an actual page number for this supposed use of the term, and perhaps quote the passage here? -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The same goes for KGB Lexicon: The Soviet Intelligence Officer's Handbook. In this case, the Amazon preview at least has the full index of terms, and "polezniy idiot" does not seem to be included (nor is "polezniy durak"). -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I also do not have this book (the content was included by Softlavender), but this reference and a couple of others I checked tells it was in fact used by the Soviet KGB in such context. My very best wishes (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Based on this, I am undoing the recent revert and pinging @Softlavender: SPECIFICO talk 15:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Based on what? No citation has been given for Dezinformatsia or KGB Lexicon containing the phrase "useful idiot." -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@Biografer: The reference you added here doesn't seem to actually validate the sentence,

The expression appears in books Dezinformatsia: Active Measures in Soviet Strategy by Richard H. Shultz and KGB Lexicon: The Soviet Intelligence Officer's Handbook by KGB defector Vasili Mitrokhin.

The Daily Beast article discusses a different book by Mitrokhin, called The Sword and the Shield, but not KGB Lexicon. The article also does not directly quote Mitrokhin as using the term "useful idiot" (the author of the Daily Beast article uses the term in describing Mitrokhin's book), so it's unclear whether he actually used the term in The Sword and the Shield, much less in KGB Lexicon. Basically, the Daily Beast reference doesn't support what the text of the Wikipedia page says. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

As long as the term is used, it doesn't matter which book it's from.--Biografer (talk) 06:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

It matters whether the reference actually supports the sentence it's supposed to be verifying. The source does not verify the sentence that comes before it. I'm not claiming that the Daily Beast article does not use the phrase "useful idiot." I'm saying that it doesn't verify the statement that precedes it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: Then we should rewrite the whole sentence in accordance to the source.--Biografer (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

OK. So, I changed it to The Times, a better source (in Wikipedia's opinion) then Daily Beast.--Biografer (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Biografer: The problem is that neither of the two articles, in the Daily Beast and The Times, actually verifies what the sentence in question says. The sentence says that the term "useful idiot" appears in two particular books. Neither of the articles you've given as references mention those books. They're editorials whose authors use the phrase "useful idiot." The sentence is not verified, and so should be removed. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: I can remove it, but then @SPECIFICO: will come and revert it. Point?--Biografer (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

If the sentence can't be verified, and worse, it appears to be wrong in part (i.e., the term "useful idiot" isn't in the index of KGB Lexicon), then it should go. It's incumbent on anyone who wants it to remain to provide a reference that establishes that the information is correct. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

OK. I removed that info. Will see if it will be reverted or not.--Biografer (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with any particular editor - me, mvbw, or anyone else. It's valid article content and there is no consensus to remove it, so it's not appropriate for 2 editors to decide to remove it. I hope you'll reinstate it. We have not even heard back from Softlavender. NPOV editors have no rush to remove good informative content. These arguments against valid content in this article have exhausted any pretext of policy or reason. SPECIFICO talk 21:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: There is a reason. Maybe @Thucydides411: didn't explain it well to you, but if there is no reference, there is no need for this unverified information to be present on Wikipedia. And we have a policy for that, its called verifiability. As for Soflavender, why such concern? Did she proposed this discussion? I don't see her name in the current thread. Besides, she wasn't editing here as of March 2 of this year, and it is obvious she wont respond for a whole month if not more. Who knows with what stuff she is currently busy.--Biografer (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

It was stated that Softlavender was the one who originally placed this in the article. Anyway a CN tag would have been perfectly fine given the circumstances and the tenor of the talk page discussion. SPECIFICO talk 02:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

That's the thing @SPECIFICO:, CN is good, but we still can't verify if its true or not. Maybe user Softlavender was under impression that she will be able to find a verifiable reference? I can try and search Yandex for the Russian language one, but I don't think I will be able to find much.--Biografer (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Biografer: The latest source, [31], also does not verify the information in the sentence. It doesn't even mention the phrase "useful idiot." If there's no source to verify this information, it's best to just remove the sentence. It's always possible that someone will find a source that verifies this information later, but as of now, after more than a week of this thread being open, nobody has done so. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, here is my idea, I will remove the whole sentence, and you can fiddle with user @SPECIFICO: as much as you like! Hate being a pawn! :(--Biografer (talk) 04:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Biografer: You don't have to do what either of us say! You can act as you think correct. I'm just saying what I think we should do with the article - not trying to give commands. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I understand, but when one editor suggests one thing, the other suggests another (and then adding that Softlavender put in that CN (which we for some odd reason) we need to respect). My opinion is this: If its not verifiable; remove the sentence. If Softlavender will start creating a fuss over it, tell her sorry, the discussion is closed.--Biografer (talk) 04:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree, it's correct to remove the sentence for now. If Softlavender does provide a valid source, then that will change things, but so far, the material is simply unverified, and therefore shouldn't be in the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I am restoring the content with various references that verify it, so "things have changed". Please move on. There is now no conceivable pretext for removing this RS information from our article. Remember, Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this article is about the concept and its application, not solely the two words. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 23:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

The references you've added do not seem to support the content. Here's the new content, added in this diff:

In their 1979 book, Dezinformatsia: The Strategy of Soviet Disinformation, by Richard H. Shultz, professor of international politics at Tufts University, and Roy Godson, professor emeritus of government at Georgetown University, the authors detail the tactics of information warfare used by the KGB during the Soviet era as part of their active measures. The Soviets were able to bring agents of influence into their fold and do their bidding, through social influence as unwitting agents sometimes termed "useful idiots". She criticized the rigor of the book's research methodology.

I've been able to access sources and . Correct me if I'm wrong, but neither of them actually mentions the phrase "useful idiot." They don't mention the phrase "unwitting agent" either, as far as I can see (not that "unwitting agent" is a synonym - it isn't). If they do, please cite the passage where they do so here on the talk page. The connection between "useful idiot" and the book Dezinformatsia seems to be original research. The new references don't actually verify the supposed connection, and the material is still unverified. On a side note, why is the title of the book bolded? -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I've already addressed your dictionary objection. This is amply sourced here to notable authorities cited in secondary RS references. This is resolved. SPECIFICO talk 01:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The sources you cited don't support the text you added. I pointed this out above, and asked you to quote the passages from the references that actually support the text. Instead of doing that, you're telling me the matter is resolved. If the information cannot be verified, then the matter is closed, but in the opposite sense as what you're saying - it fails verification and should be removed. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

You'll need to actually read the three cited secondary sources, which verify the content. You may not continue to edit war this article nor to deny the cited sources. SPECIFICO talk 02:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

As I wrote above, I've read the two cited sources that I have access to. They do not verify the content, as far as I can see. That's why I've asked you to quote from them, to show how they verify the content. If they do verify the content, as you say, it should be easy - but you've chosen not to do so. Given that the sources do not appear to verify the content, and given that you're unwilling to quote from them to show that they say what you're claiming, I'm removing the content you added. It fails verification. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The source most def. talks about "unwitting collaborators" and "unwitting individuals" being used as agents. "Unwitting agents" is a perfectly fine paraphrase of the source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Can you quote the actual passage in the sources that links the book Dezinformatsia to the concept/phrase "useful idiot"? I've asked above for an actual quotation from the source that supports the content being added in here, to no avail.

As it is, the connection to "useful idiot" seems like original research. Unless the secondary literature itself makes this connection ("unwitting collaborators" -> "unwitting agents" -> "useful idiots"), it's not verifiable by Wikipedia's standards. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Not sure about the book as I can only do partial searches in it. Since Softlavender added it, we can do him the courtesy of waiting for clarification. However, Godson, one of the authors of the book discusses the the phenomenon in terms of "useful idiots" here: " While some of these "agents of influence" are Russian nationals, others aren't, he says. But they're "hired because they will be influential people in society. In addition to these experts trained for a career in the practice, Godson says, there is another category of agents: the "useful idiots," who "don't know very much but who can be useful in terms of their influence."" Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I hate to join an edit war here, but according to Dezinformatsia (book), the book was published in 1984, not 1979. If the content is disputed and easily verifiable facts are wrong, I don't see how it can be included until discussion is complete. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The 1979 thing appears to be a simple mistake - it is indeed 1984. But that's not really under dispute here and not a reason to remove the whole para.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

OK. Most of the section doesn't appear to be controversial, though I do feel we shouldn't include "useful idiot" in quotes unless it appears in the book. According to Worldcat, the book is fairly commonly available in university libraries; perhaps somebody can check the book directly rather than bickering about other sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree so I took the "useful idiot" part for now. And I can try to get it from the library ... except its Spring Break here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm also still waiting for anyone to quote from the sources, showing how they connect the book Dezinformatsia to the idea of "useful idiots." I looked through the sources I have access again, and I didn't even come across the phrase "unwitting collaborators" or "unwitting individuals," which Marek says above are in the sources. Maybe I missed something, and someone can quote the relevant passage here. This is all even assuming that "unwitting agents" is a synonym for "useful idiots," which is a dubious assumption to begin with.

If this material can be verified, it can be added back in. I just don't understand the drive to keep it in, absent verification. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

"The agent of influence proper is subject to the direct control of an officer of the foreign regime, and advances the interests of a foreign power in response to specific orders and direction. (...) exploitation of an unwitting but manipulated individual. Between the unwitting agent and the unwilling collaborator, is the trusted contact, a person who consciously advances the objectives of a foreign power" pg. 38

Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Page 38 of what? -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The book being discussed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I see - not in the sources being used for reference. This looks like original research to me: "unwitting collaborator" is being equated (by Wikipedia editors, not by the secondary sources) with "useful idiot," and therefore a book that discusses "unwitting collaborators" gets a paragraph in the article about "useful idiots."

By the way, Google Books returns zero results in the book Dezinformatsia for "idiot" or "fool." -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

That's partly why I removed the part about "useful idiots" from the sentence. Broadly speaking though it fits. Let's see if Softlavender can shed some light on the topic. As to the search, that doesn't necessarily mean anything - only parts of the book get searched. In fact if you do a search for a sub-phrase of a sentence that you know is in the book it might not pop up. For example, when I search for "trusted contact" I get no hits either, even though we know the phrase is in the book. (Google book search just generally sucks).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Any of us should be embarrassed to claim that a google search is the standard of our research or verification here. Get a copy of the book and read it if you are convinced there's some basis to purge the article. SPECIFICO talk 15:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

As Marek notes, due to American Spring Break, it's unlikely anybody can do so until Monday. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Publication date - There are two editions of this book, the 1979 and 1984 printings, the latter with a slightly different title. It's the same book and both verify the content that is being edit-warred. 100% excellent verified content for our readers on the timely subject of Russian active measures. SPECIFICO talk 15:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Is there an ISBN or any other reference for the 1979 version? I've seen sources note that there are multiple printings, but all of them suggest that the 1984 version was the first one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

From the Beginning

What's the evidence that the book Dezinformatsia has anything to do with the phrase "useful idiot"? There's no evidence (so far) that the term appears in the book, and the term does not appear in any of the reviews of the book that have been referenced in this discussion. It has been argued above that "unwitting collaborator" or "unwitting agent" mean the same thing as "useful idiot," and that the book (which uses these terms at least once) should therefore be discussed in this Wiki article. This argument is highly questionable (I don't think "useful idiot" and "unwitting agent" are synonyms) and is clearly original research. As far as I can see, no strong argument has been made for inclusion of this material. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The general sense I get from the article and its sources is that, while this and other related terms were used during the Soviet era, the specific widely-accepted term and definition dates to the 1990s or 2000s. Including a description of how a notable book describes the term during the Soviet era is clearly relevant. As I note above, for such a matter of fact, checking the book itself should be done to determine the accurate content, and that is not a WP:OR violation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Unless the book discusses the concept of "useful idiots," or the tertiary sources discussing the book connect the book to the concept of "useful idiots," the inclusion of the book here is textbook original research.

Including a description of how a notable book describes the term during the Soviet era is clearly relevant.

The problem is that the book does not describe the term "useful idiot," and none of the book reviews referenced in this discussion do either. The only people connecting the book to the idea of "useful idiots" are Wikipedia editors in the above discussion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Unless the book discusses the concept of "useful idiots" - my understanding is that it does discuss the concept, though I don't have any idea whether it uses the term "useful idiot". As I note above, hopefully this will be clarified soon by checking the book directly; the library I would use is closed this week. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

my understanding is that it does discuss the concept: Based on what? It apparently discusses a different concept - that of "unwitting agents." Claiming that the two concepts are the same (incorrectly, I think) would be original research. None of the sources we've encountered so far connect the book Dezinformatsia with the concept of "useful idiots." -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I wish I could have picked up that book, but unfortunately the library that is near me is closed till July 2018. :( I still can pick up stuff, I just don't think I will be able to return it (if a book is thick enough) it wont fit in into the outside drop box. :(--Biografer (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

So the unverified material is remaining in the article pending verification? Why not just remove it, and if someone can actually verify that it's relevant to "useful idiot," then it can be added back in? -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Michael Morell

There was a discussion about Morell's quote in the above section about Michael Hayden's quote. To keep the discussions separate, I'm opening up a section here. Morell's Op-Ed doesn't actually mention the phrase "useful idiot." It uses a different term, "unwitting agent." My very best wishes said above that the two terms mean exactly the same thing. I think that raises two questions:

1. Are the terms "useful idiot" and "unwitting agent" really synonymous? What are the sources that back this up?
2. If they really are synonyms, do uses of the term "unwitting agent" belong in this article?

I'm not convinced of question #1, and I'd like to see a reliable source that makes this equivalence. As for question #2, I'd answer "no." The term "useful idiot" has its own history as a political pejorative in the United States, and while other terms have similar meanings, I don't think they should be mixed into this article. The question of due weight also applies here. There are lots of uses of the term "useful idiot," and this article already has two uses specifically about Trump, even before the addition of the "unwitting agent" quote. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

1. No. Linguistically, they are not synonyms at all. "Unwitting" is not the same as "idiot", and "useful" is not the same as "agent". Semantically, they are similar. In political parlance, "useful idiot" has been used to refer to a naive enthusiast for a cause they don't understand. "Unwitting agent" — which has, as far as I know, no ideological baggage — means someone who unknowingly acts for someone else. There is no connotation of naive enthusiasm. On the contrary, the person has no knowledge of what they doing. This contrasts with the so-called "useful idiots", who were conscious supporters of the Soviet Union.

2. No. We cannot include every similar term: "cat's paw", "dupe", "patsy", "stooge", "running dog", "water boy" etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I guess you both are arguing that unwitting agent should be a separate page, and it should be independently developed. There are numerous sources about it. For example, Harry Hopkins was described as such [32]. OK. When it is developed, one might suggest merging it with this page. But speaking about Morell's comment, it belongs to this page because RS discuss it in connection with the "useful idiot". My very best wishes (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the phrase "unwitting agent" is notable enough to have its own page. I haven't thought enough about that particular issue to have an opinion. I'm saying that "unwitting agent" is not a synonym of "useful idiot," and quoting an article that uses the phrase "unwitting agent" does not help to illustrate use of the term "useful idiot." -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

You can make a redirect from unwitting agent to useful idiot if you really think there would be confusion in that regard. Unwitting agent is not a notable expression. Any combination of words may have a variety of uses and meanings, but "Useful idiot" is a notable concept. SPECIFICO talk 13:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Multiplying pages on the same subject is "content forking" and should be avoided. The page should be on a certain subject/concept. The meaning of both expressions is exactly the same, except that "unwitting agent" is more frequently used in intelligence context. It is perfectly appropriate to mention all different wordings used in the literature to describe the subject of the page, i.e. the "unwitting agent", the "dupe" (already mentioned on the page), and "patsy". Why? Because that is what RS on the subject of "useful idiots" do. My very best wishes (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

"Unwitting agent" does not mean the exact same thing as "useful idiot." The subject of this page is the phrase "useful idiot." This page does not cover every term that has the general meaning of "dupe" or "patsy." The Morell article does not even use the phrase "useful idiot," so it doesn't belong here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

"does not mean the exact same thing"? But what is the difference? (Un)fortunately, I do not have time right now, but will return to this page later. My very best wishes (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually it does mean exactly the same thing as an idiomatic expression. Time to give up this obstinate obstruction. Very ill-advised. Not helpful. Please help find additional article content and references rather than suppress valid content. SPECIFICO talk 02:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

As Jack Upland wrote above, "useful idiot" has the connotation of someone who enthusiastically supports a cause that they don't understand, and whose enthusiasm is cynically exploited by the leaders of the cause. The phrase "unwitting agent" does not necessarily refer to a naive enthusiast - it can refer to people who don't believe in the cause, but who nevertheless somehow advance it (perhaps without their own knowledge). In any case, as I wrote at the outset, there are two questions:

1. Are there sources substantiating the claim that "unwitting agent" is an exact synonym of "useful idiot"?
2. If it were to have the same meaning (which I don't think is the case), would that mean it should be covered on this page?

I haven't seen either of those two questions addressed above. The Morell quote doesn't use the phrase "useful idiot," and the idea that "unwitting agent" is exactly the same as "useful idiot" is dubious. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry, but according to OED definition (you insisted to include), "useful idiot" is someone "who is ... naive and susceptible to manipulation for propaganda or other purposes; (more widely) any person similarly manipulable for political purposes". It does not tell anything about "enthusiasm", "a cause", etc. My very best wishes (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Thuce, Jack is not our RS reference. EOM. Move on to article improvement now. SPECIFICO talk 15:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: The OED also says that a "useful idiot" is "sympathetic to communism" - not just that they're "naive" and "susceptible to manipulation." They're supposed to be a believer in the cause, not just someone who is unwittingly useful to someone else. The term "unwitting agent" is much broader. You're arguing that the two terms are exactly the same, which sounds like original research to me, and that the term "unwitting agent" should also be covered here. I've now asked twice for sources for this equivalence, but none have been offered in response. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Distortion fixed

I fixed this by quoting Safire directly. In his article he suggested to tell that "the quote was attributed to Lenin", not the opposite. My edit was not revert. There are other things to be fixed, and I can fix them if Thucydides411 stops immediately reverting my edits on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC) All in favor of this proposal?

• Support Mvbw proposal. SPECIFICO talk 22:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

My very best wishes claims that this is an "outright distortion" of Safire's article on the term "useful idiot":

In a 1987 article for The New York Times, American journalist William Safire investigated the origin of the term, noting that a senior reference librarian at the Library of Congress had been unable to find the phrase in Lenin's works, and concluding that absent new evidence, the term could not be attributed to Lenin.
— [33]

Here's what Safire writes:

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. Instead, try "As Lenin was reported to have said ..." or "In a phrase attributed to Lenin ...."
— William Safire, "On Language"

Safire is very clear: you can't claim that Lenin said the phrase "useful idiots," because there's no evidence for the claim. You can say that other people have attributed it to him, but you can't yourself claim that he said it - at least "until more precincts are heard from" (meaning until more evidence comes to light). The text that MVBW is saying is an "outright distortion" is actually an accurate paraphrase of what Safire wrote.

Here's what MVBW substituted in instead:

In a 1987 article for The New York Times, American journalist William Safire noted that a senior reference librarian at the Library of Congress had been unable to find the phrase in Lenin's works, and concluded that instead of telling As Lenin said... one must try "As Lenin was reported to have said ... or In a phrase attributed to Lenin...".
— [34]

This version obscures one of Safire's key points: that he was unable to find any evidence for Lenin ever having used the phrase.

In the same edit, MVBW also removed the statement in the OED about usage in the Soviet Union. It was decided in a previous RfC that the OED's statement about usage in the USSR should be cited.

I reverted MVBW's edit, but SPECIFICO reverted back, accusing me of "edit warring" and claiming that MVBW's new text, added just hours ago, now suddenly represents the "consensus." Claiming consensus just hours after an edit is jumping the gun a bit, isn't it? This claim of consensus is all the more amazing when one considers that part of MVBW's edit explicitly goes against the result of a previous RfC. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• In the segment above Safire tells very clearly that one should say: "In a phrase attributed to Lenin ...." rather than "As Lenin said ...". That is what I included. He did not tell "the phrase should not be attributed to Lenin". He also did not tell: "the phrase was not used in the Soviet Union". Hence your version was incorrect. My very best wishes (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: You're misunderstanding Safire's point. He writes that if one uses the phrase "useful idiots," one "must not precede [it] with 'As Lenin said ...'" That's exactly equivalent to saying, "One must not attribute the phrase to Lenin." He says that you can say that other people have attributed it to Lenin, but you cannot do so yourself, because he was unable to find any evidence for Lenin having said it. That's the difference between saying, "As Lenin said ..." and "In a phrase attributed to Lenin." In the former, one attributes the phrase to Lenin. In the latter, one notes that other people have attributed the phrase to Lenin, but does not do so oneself. This is a very important distinction, and it's the conclusion of Safire's piece on the phrase "useful idiot," so we shouldn't get it wrong. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

No, I simply quoted the source. But you are making your own interpretation. My very best wishes (talk) 02:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I accurately paraphrased the source. That's not WP:OR, that's simply good writing. Here on the talk page, you're claiming that Safire said something that is 100% the opposite of what he said. He says very clearly in his article that one cannot attribute the phrase to Lenin until new evidence comes to light. Really, if we have to argue about such basic issues as what a Safire's clearly-written paragraph means, I fear we won't be able to make any progress whatsoever. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• No, you did not. He said: 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. Instead, try "As Lenin was reported to have said ..." or "In a phrase attributed to Lenin ....". That is direct quotation. He tells that telling "In a phrase attributed to Lenin ...." is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. My very best wishes (talk) 03:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how to make this clearer: you're simply misunderstanding Safire's point. He says explicitly that you can't say, "As Lenin said ..." That's what it means to attribute something to someone. That's what he says you must not do: attributing the phrase to Lenin. When one says, "As Lenin was reported to have said ...," one is not oneself making any attribution. One is just saying that other people have made the attribution. There's a reason why Safire says you must not say one thing, but can say another thing - they have very different meanings. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• Thuc, it's unseemly to misrepresent events in a poll like this one. Please allow other editors to appear here. There's little doubt about your approach. Let others speak. SPECIFICO talk 01:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

What have I misrepresented? Please be specific. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't sealion us. It's even worse if you don't know what you are doing. It's been explained to you at least half a dozen times and we're under no obligation to repeat forever. SPECIFICO talk 03:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I really have no idea what you think I've misrepresented. Making vague accusations falls under WP:ASPERSIONS. You are indeed under no obligation to make these aspersions, and I urge you to remain on the topic. I explained in detail why I think MVBW's interpretation of Safire's article is wrong, and your response was to attack me. Please respond to the point, rather than attacking the person who makes it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Huge Amount of Original Research Recently Added

A huge amount of original research has recently been added to the article: [35].

The first paragraph takes one author who mentions "useful idiot" and the "rope" quote (which is about a completely different subject - capitalists doing business with Soviet Russia because they're blinded by profits, not naive sympathizers not understanding the true goals of communism), and builds that into an entire paragraph, complete with the claim that the "rope" quote is "often" discussed in connection with the phrase "useful idiot." This is already original research and massively undue, but the next paragraph outdoes the first.

The second paragraph goes on to give the "rope" quote in full, then say that it comes from Lenin's handwritten notes, citing Safire - even though Safire explicitly says in his article that he's skeptical of the claim that this quote comes from Lenin's notes. As if that's not enough, this paragraph then goes on to give another Lenin quote (about lying) - again completely unrelated to "useful idiot" - in full. It then cites a source, Words of Others, which does not discuss "useful idiot."

This newly added material is not just undue original research; even worse, it's a jumbled mess. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• No, even the reference by Safire you use (cited below) discusses both "dumb and blind" and the "rope" quotations as directly connected to the "useful idiot" quotation.. Therefore mentioning them both on the page is appropriate and not WP:OR. My very best wishes (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Nope, Safire calls the "rope" quote a "quote on another subject":

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. (emphasis added)
— Safire, On Language

Safire's just brings up the "rope" quote because it's another supposed Leninism whose origin he can't track down. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

No, in the article by Safire (and other publications, such as the book about quotations), the expression "useful idiot" was discussed in connection with two other related quotations attributed to Lenin, which are also about Western "idiots" being manipulated by the Soviet communists. We simply tell what RS on the subject tell.My very best wishes (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I just quoted above what Safire says about the "rope" quote. He says that it's about a different subject - it's right there in the quote above. He discusses it in the same article because it's a second supposed Leninism whose origin he can't track down.

"and other publications, such as the book about quotations": Which book about quotations are you talking about? I don't think Words of Others discusses the phrase "useful idiot." The whole paragraph you wrote based on the book Words of Others is classic synthesis, making connections between different ideas that the sources themselves do not make.

Just on a factual matter, William Safire is right that the "rope" quote is about a different subject than the phrase "useful idiots":

1. The "rope" quote is about capitalists being done in by their own greed (doing business with Soviet Russia to make a profit, and thereby making Soviet Russia, their enemy, strong).
2. A "useful idiot" is supposed to be a naive sympathizer with communism, not a greedy-but-shortsighted capitalist.

The two quotes are about very different subjects, just as William Safire says. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Thuc, if you're trying to defend a ridiculous misstatement, it doesn't help to double down with something even more ridiculous when you're on the ropes.➰ ➰ SPECIFICO talk 15:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific. I don't know what the first misstatement is supposed to be, nor what's supposed to be ridiculous about what I wrote above. I've asked you before to refrain from these vague personal attacks on me, and to address the points I'm raising. You haven't done so in this discussion, nor in the discussion directly above about Safire. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

You keep complaining you can't understand the discussion here even when multiple editors have patiently cited your errors and omissions. If you can't follow what's being discussed, that is not for lack of good faith efforts to explain things to you. SPECIFICO talk 18:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I'm complaining that you've repeatedly make vague accusations, and when I ask you to specify them, you respond like the above, with more vague accusations. Please stop with the accusations, and respond to the points I'm raising for a change. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry that duck don't quack, as you've been shown half a dozen or more times over the past year. SPECIFICO talk 18:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

For reference, I tried to hat this nonsense thread that SPECIFICO began, but they've reverted me. Apparently, all you dear editors must see their vague attacks on me, because they're very important to article improvement. /s I urge anyone who sees this to re-hat this sub-thread. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Back on subject

What's the basis for claiming consensus, as was done here? There is no consensus for this mass of original research. Instead of edit-warring this material in, gain consensus on the talk page first. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• This content (about the "rope" and the "blind" quotations) was on the page unchallenged for a couple of weeks until you came and unilaterally removed it without any discussion [36]. There was actually a discussion at this time, but about something different. So, yes, I agree with S.: this is your unilateral removal against consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 04:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The content on the "rope" and "blind" quotations was contested above by Jack Upland in the Talk:Useful idiot#Reworking of article section. In the earlier RfC on the OED (Talk:Useful idiot#Request for Comment on Oxford English Dictionary), you advanced the same interpretation of the book Words of Others that you've now written into the article, and were challenged by Darouet on it. As was pointed out earlier on this talk page, the book Words of Others does not connect the phrase "useful idiots" to the "rope" or "blind" quotations - that connection is your own personal synthesis.

The edit that you and SPECIFICO are claiming to be consensus also removes the sentence from the OED about the origin of the phrase. That is a clear violation of consensus, as established through an RfC.

You and SPECIFICO have been edit-warring to enforce a massive change of the article, which does not have consensus, which contains a huge amount of your own synthesis about other supposed quotations by Lenin, which misrepresents Safire's article severely (based on a very simple misunderstanding of his conclusion), and which removes consensus text from the OED. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Screw Saffire

The 30+ year old op-ed from NYTimes token Nixonite Saffire is not a scholarly article, not particularly well-researched, and a LOT more trouble than it's worth. Let's just get it out of the article and forget all the irreconcilable issues that arise from its glib ob-ed punditry. SPECIFICO talk 13:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. This is a typical opinion piece to condemn "anticommunists" that should not be used anywhere. That's why I checked for much better sources, such as The Words of Others: From Quotations to Culture by Gary Saul Morson, Yale University Press. Unfortunately, that reference was repeatedly removed by Thucydides411, for example in in this edit. My very best wishes (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with Safire's article. It's one of the few sources we have that's actually focused on the origin of the expression "useful idiot." The source itself hasn't caused any "trouble" - the only "trouble" I see with the source in the above discussion is that My very best wishes is insisting on a misinterpretation of the concluding paragraph of Safire's discussion of "useful idiot" (see the discussion in these diffs [37], or above in Talk:Useful idiot#Distortion fixed).

I removed the section sourced to Words of Others because the section is synthesis. The cited passage from Words of Others does not mention the phrase "useful idiot." It's discussing two entirely different supposed Leninisms. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Please have a look at Graham's Triangle of dispute resolution. There's simply no merit to your repeated assertions that your view is correct. Quite the opposite -- it suggests that you have no substantive basis for your POV. Ditto for your badmouthing Mvbw. SPECIFICO talk 00:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Look at the above discussions: "Soviet source using 'Useful Idiot'?", "OED contradicting itself?", "Distortion fixed" and "Huge Amount of Original Research Recently Added". I've consistently cited sources, quoted from them to explain my reasoning, and responded to the central arguments being made by others.

Note that in the above discussion about Safire, you never explained why you think MVBW's interpretation was correct. I quoted from the source, and explained exactly how the claim that it was being distorted was wrong. That's called "refuting the central point," and it's at the top of Graham's hierarchy. In contrast, your only contributions to that discussion were to say, "Support Mvbw proposal" and to make a vague accusation that I was misrepresenting something (what, precisely, that something was, you wouldn't say). Those contributions to the discussion would be equivalent to "contradiction" (or here, its cousin, "agreement") and "ad hominem," both of which rank pretty low on Graham's hierarchy.

Now, you're emphasizing that Safire's article is 30 years old and that he worked for Nixon (again, "ad hominem," near the bottom of Graham's hierarchy), neither of which have the slightest relevance to evaluating his article on the etymology of "useful idiot."

I haven't "badmouthed" MVBW in the slightest, and I bear no ill will towards them whatsoever - I've simply said that they're insisting on a misinterpretation of Safire's concluding paragraph. If editors expressing disagreement equals "badmouthing," we might as well shut down talk pages altogether. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Lord knows, I'm quite sure none of us "bears any ill will" toward anyone on WP. But I digress. The Safire bit is UNDUE. For example, he has nowhere near the credibility of Spruille Braden. Safire was a glib easy read twice a week for the Times. Not a researcher, etymologist, or the like. SPECIFICO talk 01:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

There's no indication whatsoever that Spruille Braden ever did any research into the etymology of the expression "useful idiot." All we know is that he once gave a speech in which he used the phrase "useful idiot," and he didn't even misattribute the phrase to the "right" person - he misattributed it to Stalin, whereas the usual misattribution is to Lenin. He probably just mixed the two up. He was a US diplomat stationed in Latin America, not an expert on etymology, and one passing use of the phrase in a speech he once gave doesn't make him into an expert source on this particular subject.

On the other hand, Safire's article is one of the only ones we have on the etymology of the expression "useful idiot," and it's cited in a number of other sources, including They Never Said It and Yale Book of Quotations. Even arch conservatives cite Safire's article: it's "one of the better summaries," according to Paul Kengor in Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century. Safire's article is therefore very much DUE. It's one of the best sources we have, and throwing it out would be a real shame. We'd have almost nothing to go on for the etymology. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Safire's article is pivotal, and is cited by other sources. It would be good to get more sources on the etymology, but this is what we've got.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think a catchy Op-Ed opinion piece can be "pivotal" for an encyclopedia. Imagine what our articles would look like if that were the case. SPECIFICO talk 16:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

You can call it what you want, but William Safire's article on the expression "useful idiot" is based on real research, which he documents in the article. It's the most in-depth research into the phrase that we've been able to find (other than, perhaps, the OED, which gives valuable information about early usage in English, and which gives its conclusion about earlier non-usage in the Soviet Union). Yet somehow, these are the two sources that you've been arguing most strongly to exclude from this article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• This is a biased "advocacy source"/an opinion piece, as obvious from the first phrase: REFERRING WITH derision to what he called so-called notables who were convened as props for Gorbachev's speech, Zbigniew Brzezinski used a stinging phrase that has become a term of art among hard-line historians and former national security advisers: useful idiots of the West., and so on. It can be mentioned somewhere as a pure opinion with no significant weight, but relying heavily on such sources is against our policies, namely WP:RS and WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually it looks like Safire is doing what we should be doing: conducting an analysis of sources and their biases. From what you write above you would appear to indicate that "Zbigniew Brzezinski... hard-line historians and former national security advisers" are the preferred and neutral sources, while journalists, authors, librarians and academics who've identified a misquotation are not. Safire is not only a respected journalist and repeatedly cited for successfully discovering this rather egregious misquotation, he's also doing what you are not: rigorously investigating the origin of this term. -Darouet (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Saffire was a rehabilitated Nixon hack, sorry to say. He managed to bootstrap himself into a token right-wing presence on the Times for the appearance of "balance" but they didn't have him get near politics or social issues -- just pseudo-intellectual literary chat. SPECIFICO talk 16:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• This is just a 2-page opinion piece by a politically-motivated journalist who is not an expert on the subject. A historian or political scientist would be an expert. The opinion piece has nothing to do with any scientific research. Did he even study himself any historical archives or records on the subject? That is what historians do. No. Did he even make a review of literature on the subject? No. It does not include any references. A "source" like that would be outright rejected per WP:MEDRS. My very best wishes (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Why the constant ad hominem directed at William Safire? It's not at all relevant that he worked for Nixon. He did real research into the origin of the expression "useful idiot." He contacted professional researchers, he asked a senior reference librarian at the Library of Congress who had done research into the issue, he followed up on leads these researchers pointed him towards. In other words, he did more research into the etymology of this phrase than just about anyone else we cite in this article. In contrast, you're saying that we should cite an American diplomat and commercial lobbyist, Spruille Braden (whom it would be a lot easier to ad hominem attack than Safire), as an expert on the etymology of this phrase, despite the complete lack of evidence that he ever did one shred of research into the phrase, and the despite the very real possibility that when he attributed the phrase to Stalin (in passing), he was simply mixing up Stalin and Lenin. Why are you arguing for rejecting the most detailed etymological investigation we have - which is cited in many other sources - and instead using a passing reference to Stalin in a speech made by someone who did no research on the subject? -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

AFAIK you are the only one saying anything about ad homos here, so? Better to spend our time finding new references and resources. We all agree this is obviously a very timely topic wrt American Politics. SPECIFICO talk 18:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

This comment is incomprehensible. -Darouet (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't discuss what you don't understand. Discuss what you do understand. Stay constructive. SPECIFICO talk 19:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't understand your comment either. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

If I had a nickel for every time you've complained that you don't understand ... SPECIFICO talk 19:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I'd earlier suggested dispute resolution and even opened up a page for that. Is anyone interested in heading down that road? -Darouet (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's a very good idea. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, it didn't work last time, and I don't think it would work now. There are some editors who want to force their opinion on the page — as shown by the time of this section — and they aren't willing to compromise.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Better to try than not. I'd far prefer going through the sources one-by-one in a structured format than the current situation, in which we have scattered arguments over the sources, and the second one thinks a question has been settled, everything is thrown back up into the air (e.g., the OED's findings on Soviet non-usage have been removed, despite the RfC, suddenly all the previous original research about "the rope" is back in the article, and now one of the most in-depth sources, William Safire's article, is being put on the chopping block by two editors). -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

You should change your ID to Aristophanes. Just make your mediation request and spare us all the drama show. Otherwise, as Homer used to say (but never wrote down) st*u. 😎 SPECIFICO talk 19:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC on Oxford English Dictionary

I note that the RfC on including the quote from the OED has been violated yet again. I will take this further.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)