[adventured]

The articles makes no mention of it, because the famine was directly caused by Lenin's government forcibly removing farmers from their own land and taking state control of food production and distribution. The famine occured several years after the Russian civil war was already over.

The Wilson Administration played no role in making Lenin and the nascent Communist system seize control of farm land, intentionally starve millions of people to death by stealing their food, and seize control of most food production and distribution.

[Demiurge]

It was the Tsar who took control of the Russian farm yields in order to supply the WW1 army, with strong encouragement of the British/Entente.

[adventured]

It was directly caused by Lenin's prodrazvyorstka, and began formally in early 1919 and gradually spread to every form of food and food production over the following years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prodrazvyorstka

[Demiurge]

From the article you linked, "The term is commonly associated with war communism during the Russian Civil War when it was introduced by the Bolshevik government. However Bolsheviks borrowed the idea from the grain razvyorstka introduced in the Russian Empire during World War I, in 1916."

The point being made that this has something to do with Lenin and communism "directly" is ignoring the context. The context is that this famine, as well as the revolution were caused by the extreme failures of the Tsarist rule, compounded with the pawn role Russian Empire was given in the World War I. Russian Empire was used a supplier of the Entente in both grain, and ground forces.

You can perhaps blame Lenin for the famine, but Lenin has steered the country out of the World War, in which Russia would have been the loser, regardless of which side won.

[gandhium]

Lenin's prodrazvyorstka led to famine. Tsarist razvyorstka - didn't.

Major difference.

And why you think that Russia would have been the loser in WW1, is beyond me.