Talk:Useful idiot

"Vladimir Putin's useful idiots"
I was surprised this article made no mention of the phrase in connection to modern Russia and in particular Putin, because we often saw it used that way over the past decade or so, describing Trump and many in the GOP. Indeed, given the phrase's height of popularity during the Cold War describing USSR fellow travelers, it's a natural extension from the USSR to Russia. So I found a recent article in The Economist in particular it names Putin as the one who finds "idiots useful" to his aims. A lot more should be said about this then the current one sentence. -- Green  C  18:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The article is behind the paywall, but the visible blurb speaks of what is known as Putinversteher in Germany. Is it possible to expand it with the info from economist article? - Altenmann >talk 18:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This should work. But the concept of Putinversteher covers it well, so no need to expand too much in this article, other than somehow linking to Putinversteher. -- Green  C  20:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course, this expression was used recently and can be easily sourced to NYT, WaPO, Politico, etc. And it was included. Why remove it ? My very best wishes (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Trump
Here we go again. Trump was added and removed and added and removed here. (reminds me Wikihistory - a strongly recommended read. :-)

I dont think it is a good idea to throw in political wrangles here. Yes, opponent call Trump a shill of Putin, but done so without solid evidence that Trump is indeed a useful idiot is IMO a violation of WP:BLP. I can bring lots of examples someone called some visible person fascist, dictator, nazi, and whats's not, but we are not going to litter wikipedia with such examples, do we?- Altenmann >talk 18:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That has been already debated at this talk page (Talk:Useful_idiot, and you seem to agree with the inclusion. That was widely published. Let's just follow WP:PUBLICFIGURE, please. My very best wishes (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:PUBLICFIGURE say: If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented. There was no incident nor an allegation of an incident, just a political slander. An incident or allegation would go like, e.g., "Trump did this and that, which played Putin's hand and made Trump Potin's "useful idiot" The key missing part is "Trimp did this". Without that, it is just an empty slander. If you have examples of "Trump did this... useful idiot", they are IMO welcome here. - Altenmann >talk 18:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * you seem to agree with the inclusion - that was not about Trump. "Putinversteher" is exactly what I am saying: the article explains reasons why some people are called "Putin-understanders". - Altenmann >talk 18:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Here are cited sources: ,, (plus two articles in NYT). They do not call it "slander", this is your personal interpretation. This is a well-sourced contemporary usage of the term that is the subject of the page. Yes, one can call it a "claim", but this is a well-sourced, widely published and relevant (to the subject of the page) claim. And as such it is BLP-consistent, at least on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You call it "claim", I call it "political slander", because it is claim without factual grounds. - Altenmann >talk 18:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * P.S. from the sources you cited, I see something that fits my opinion: I saw something about Trump denying Russian interference into American elections. That would be not an empty slander. Can you formulate this into the article properly? - Altenmann >talk 18:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It does not matter if it was proven or not. In fact, if someone was or was not a "useful idiot" can never be proven, this is just a popular terminology used to express a personal opinion. It only matters, this is a notable claim, it was widely published and well sourced, and it is about the contemporary usage of the "useful idiot" expression, which is the subject of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * OK. You almost convinced me. Now what remains is to substantiate your claim "widely published and well sourced". Meaning you have to provide a WP:SECONDARY source to this end, not just refbombing (i.e., not only 2-3-4-5 persons called Trump useful idiot, which would be WP:UNDUE). - Altenmann >talk 19:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:SECONDARY are sources that contain "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas" [provided by other sources]. These sources qualify as such. Importantly, the authors are former top-ranking USA officials, hence they are not directly involved. What counts is not the number of sources, but an author being someone notable and an expert on the subject. So, I believe that Madeleine Albright, Michael Morell and Michael Hayden do count as such. They know what they are talking about. The fact that all of them are notable and make the same assertion makes this example very much notable. My very best wishes (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * P.S. That was a policy-based argument. Personally though, I do not think he is "an idiot". Come on. He knew what he was doing. My very best wishes (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The persons you are talking about are non-neutral with respect to Trump (talking about political wrangles). We need neutral secondary sources that state that political opponents of Trump call him "useful idiot". - Altenmann >talk 20:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Neutral sources aren't required, many would argue that there is no such thing. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected, you are right: WP:BIASED. However this guideline recommend to indicate bias when expected: "The conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...". - Altenmann >talk 20:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That is not a BLP violation in any sense. Its inclusion is due, we don't censor stuff just because it happens to be connected to messy political wrangling. This objection is without reasonable grounds. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes it is a BLP violation, but user My very best wishes argued that it does not apply to public figures, and I am OK with this. No, we dont censor stuff, but we dont add use of each and every insult into Wikipedia. - Altenmann >talk 20:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If it falls within the BLP policy then it is not a BLP violation. This is not a minor use of the term... Yes dozens of notable people are characterized as useful idiots each year in all sorts of contexts, but when it comes to Trump we have a lot more coverage than we do for basically anyone else. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, "a lot more coverage" is what I am asking to prove with secondary sources, so that it would not be WP:UNDUE. - Altenmann >talk 20:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There was "a lot more coverage" in secondary sources in the section you removed so you are aware that it exists. In that context I don't know why its existence would have to be proven to you. Its clearly not undue. I hope you are not playing games. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson
Following the Trump case, can someone enlist Tucker Carlson here you should know why? - Altenmann >talk 22:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Lenin's prediction?

 * "Lenin is widely credited with the prediction that liberals and other weak-minded souls in the West could be relied upon to be 'useful idiots'"

What kind of prediction is in mind? Given that Lenin didt use the term "useful idiots" (and Mona Charen does know that), I'd like to see specifics. Extraordinary claim, you know. - Altenmann >talk 04:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The quote really should be entirely removed, it's does not enlighten. It is from 2003. Most recently Tucker Carlson and DJT are the figures most commonly associated with being pro-Russian useful idiots. It's classic talking head garbage made for some past political cycle.  --  Green  C  01:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Tucker Carlson: See my suggestion in section above. - Altenmann >talk 02:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with removal of the opinion by DJT. I think Avtorkahanov or Solzhenitsyn assigned this expression to Karl Radek, not Lenin, but I do not have time for finding the exact citation. My very best wishes (talk) 15:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * there is no direct written authorship of anybody. only in memoirs someone claims that someone else said something similar. I rtemember seing a large collection of these but dismissed as tangential. sucg as below from Bazhanov's memoirs:
 * "Да ничего же не может быть проще, – объясняет Литвинов. – Мы объявляем на весь мир, что признаем царские долги. Ну, там всякие благонамеренные идиоты сейчас же подымут шум, что большевики меняются, что мы становимся государством, как всякое другое, и так далее. Мы извлекаем из этого всю возможную пользу.
 * I remember reading about Radek's attribution. He said something similar in the meaning/intention but far from being synonym, even further than Litviniov's. SO I didnt bother. IMO further digging is waste of time. Unless found by accident. - Altenmann >talk 16:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Except that "благонамеренные идиоты" is not exactly the same as "useful idiots". Yes, such quote can be used on the page, but only if it is connected to the subject of this page in secondary RS like the "rope" expression. Yes, the memoir by Bazhanov would be such source. Or maybe even that article. It says that Radek cited Lenin. OK. My very best wishes (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Other Lenin's colorful expressions
I removed another chunk about Lenin's words. Per WP:COATRACK: this article is abouta specific phrase. Lenin wrote and said plenty of disparaging things, but the subject of this article is not Lenin's swear words. - Altenmann >talk 16:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The rope issue comes up in sources when Lenin and this phrase are discussed. It's not a coatrack, it's a legitimate part of the history of this phrase in terms of the connection to Lenin. Some sources even imply the rope phrase is the real origin of useful idiot, which is another way of saying the same idea, originating with Lenin. -- Green  C  16:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Then write an article about rope. Yes it is a coatrack because it is tangential. Not to say that Lenin didnt say it either. That they may be discussed in the same piece of text does not mean they are related. The piece I deleted does not say that rope is a possible origin of idiot. As I say, you are welcome to write an article Lenin's misquotations; Lenin already did it himself :-). - Altenmann >talk 16:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @GreenC. Yes, of course. These are actually different variations of the same or very similar ideas and expressions. The cited sources (not we) make direct connection to the subject of this page. Hence, this arguably belong to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Gary Saul Morson
I re-read the text related to Lenin's rope in this book, but I fail to find how the wikipedian concluded that Morton said that it is "not a misquotation". He did write that (a) the phrase even if does not belong to Lenin, it does belong to "Lenin" (i.e., image of Lenin) (b) he does have a full section about what is misquotation, but he seems to draw a disrtinction between concepts of "except" meaning exact quote, and quotation, which he allows a certain degree of paraphrasing. But the latter is a matter of semantic of the term "quotation". Please clarify which exactly statements of the book the Wikipedian summarized, because taken out of context, it is hard for me to imagine that the words someone didnt say in any reasonable "mutation" is not a misquotation. - Altenmann >talk 18:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I am having a hard time following what you are saying. For example what does this mean?
 * he seems to draw a distinction between concepts of "except" meaning exact quote, and quotation, which he allows a certain degree of paraphrasing. But the latter is a matter of semantic of the term "quotation".
 * Sorry, type; the word is "excerpt" not "except" - Altenmann >talk 21:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And what does this mean?
 * Please clarify which exactly statements of the book the Wikipedian summarized
 * What is "the Wikipedian"? And this statement is completely opaque to me:
 * it is hard for me to imagine that the words someone didnt say in any reasonable "mutation" is not a misquotation.
 * Also can you clarify why you added a dubious tag? Are you saying you find Morson's POV dubious, or the you find something else dubious? I'm completely unclear what you are saying. -- Green  C  03:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I also do not understand the problem. "Dumb and blind" has the same meaning as "useful idiot"; this is just a different wording. That is what the cited academic source says. My very best wishes (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "deaf, dumb and blind" is a hint to the famous image of three monkeys  widely played on and it illustrates not "useful idiot" but a person who refuse to accept obvious, and Morton lists it among Lenin's insults of the same gist, not of synonyms. - Altenmann >talk 21:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My problem is that Morson says that a misquotation is not a misquotation. Which is IMO a slippery slope; a change of an article or taking out of context may change the meaning of a phrase to opposite. - Altenmann >talk 21:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you mean Three wise monkeys, they are not deaf, dumb and blind; they just decided "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil". Does the source mention 3 wise monkey? My very best wishes (talk) 23:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, decided to be "deaf, dumb and blind" to evil. The google links readily demonstrate that "deaf, dumb and blind" is a common reference to the three monkeys. here is a Russian term: . And if you want to be nitpicky, they are "見ざる, 聞かざる, 言わざる", literally does not see, does not hear, does not speak", i.e., blind, deaf and dumb, if you like - "no evil" is commonly inferred.- Altenmann >talk 00:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The Morson argument is applicable to just about any popular misquotation. It's popular because it fits the image of the person to whom it is falsely attributed. Similarly, any pithy statement can be described as a "Chinese proverb", as with Interesting times. Do we really want to give space to this kind of nonsense? JQ (talk) 07:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I was saying. A quotation is a quotation is a quotation. Period. And all attempts to overstretch the definition of the term are just personal opinions, WP:UNDUE in encyclopedia. - Altenmann >talk 18:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)