Talk:Joseph Stalin/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

From 2010 Stalin should rightfully called a criminal.

Sorry for my English, but.. Officially! Stalin and the Bolshevik totalitarian regime found guilty of genocide in Ukraine in 1932-33. The court noted that Joseph Stalin (Dzhugashvili), Vyacheslav Molotov (Scriabin), Lazar Kaganovich, Postyshev Stanislav Kosior, Vlas Chubar and Mendel Khatayevych committed genocide prescribed Criminal Code of Ukraine, now they are lawfully called criminals. Here the Document. Cumulative losses as a result of Ukraine Famine of 1932-1933, as reported by the SBU (ukrainian equivalent of the FBI) amounted to 10 million 63 thousand people. Please add this information in the article. Thnx! Иг22 (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

This website rules states that all articles must be neutral. An angry Ukranian ranting on about how evil Stalin was has no right to suggest any biased, edits based on a nationalistic local website linked with far-right neonazism that may or may not be factual. (This considering the recent Ukraine civil conflict) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zergbot123 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You must be the same dude (unsigned again) wanting to be nice to Stalin. He's been convicted by a court. That's pretty relevant. Geofferic ^T•_C✡ 22:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

and now you can confirm your impassioned speech? )) because I gave a link to the court's decision (ref №3). under the №1 and №2 - just a news site, one of the most popular in Ukraine. no nationalism is not there, and even more so in Ukraine there is no neonazism. for example, in Russia officially pro-nazi and fascist organizations a more than 50 pcs (53 to be exact). and third, no civil conflict in Ukraine and there was not. there are Russian military aggression against Ukraine, and even Russia annexed the Crimea. and there is international terrorism, supported by Russia. in general, I gave a link to the court decision, the site on .GOV.ua domain, but how to write about that criminal - it's decision of the authors and editors of this article.

P.S. I'm flattered that you have specifically registered your account to write your angry objection for me )). best regards, bot Иг22 (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment

"He remains a controversial figure today, with many regarding him as a tyrant[8] similar to his wartime enemy Adolf Hitler; however, popular opinion within the Russian Federation is mixed.[9][10][11]" Speling12345 (talk) 8:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

A couple of remarks: (1) Popular opinion in Russia is very consistent regarding Stalin: people hate him with passion; (2) Stalin was a dictator, not a leader in the true sense of the word (he never led anyone, he only forced to follow), so he must be described as such in the synopsis of the article. Someone please edit the article accordingly in agreement with these two facts. 95.220.147.34 (talk) 23:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Joseph Stalin

"Major figures in the Communist Party, such as the old Bolsheviks, Leon Trotsky, and several Red Army leaders, were killed after being convicted of plotting to overthrow the government and Stalin.[4]"

This sentence would be accurate if Trotsky were omitted and handled separately. Trotsky was initially demoted to a low post in Central Asia but still within the Soviet Union, then exiled from the country entirely. He remained in exile in various countries for several years, lastly in Mexico. He was assassinated in Mexico in 1940 by a man widely believed to be agent hired under Stalin's auspices. He did not go through the whole show trial ritual that was applied to the other Old Bolsheviks or the secret trials of the Red Army leaders. Trotsky was never tried for anything, just murdered in foreign exile.

Stalin was Russian since he was born in the Russian Empire and was a citizen of the USSR. What is now Georgia didn't exist, it was Russia. Anyway he is now a Russian national heroe not a Georgian one. He was never Georgian, but Russian. He even has a Rusdian name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.240.230 (talk) 08:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

184.175.48.100 (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be terribly deluded somehow about his persona. Stalin has never been a national hero, but a big shame of the said nation. The nation is still shameful enough to ban all Stalin memorials—not a single one out there, no mentioning of him whatsoever. That's how it should be; was; is; and always will. Get real. 95.220.147.34 (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2014

I'm a communist and while Stalin is one of those figures where its hard NOT to have a bias, I would appreciate some of the biased things being pointed out. Such as on the Chinese Stamp made showing Mao and Stalin in front of Eurasia. There isn't really a need to point out they use the mercator projection; a lot of maps use it and it doesn't necessarily mean they were trying to exaggerate the size of their nation.

184.155.241.201 (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 12:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

About the vilification of Joseph Stalin

There are several leftist articles and biographies demanding the vilification of Stalin. but also there are rightist articles that view him from a more sanitised point. Taking note of writings from people like Mao Zedong, Enver Hoxha, Kim Il Sung, Ernesto Che Guevara, Dolores Ibárruri, W. E. B. Du Bois, Paul Robeson, Harry Haywood, and William Z. Foster, we can see more positive opinions. Please take note of theese writings and display him in a more neutral standpoint.

Also, writing as a fact that the Holodomor did happen on his intention,or that he 'himself' had people killed, instead of members of the Soviet officers themselves, might offend those that do not believe so. Writing about the possibly of both is more likable to leftist and rightist audiences.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Miltiadis Redearth (talk • contribs) 12:53, 1 July 2014

• Stalin and the Bolshevik totalitarian regime found guilty of genocide in Ukraine in 1932-33. The court officially noted that Joseph Stalin (Dzhugashvili), Vyacheslav Molotov (Scriabin), Lazar Kaganovich, Postyshev Stanislav Kosior, Vlas Chubar and Mendel Khatayevych committed genocide prescribed Criminal Code of Ukraine. But you offer to "see more positive". --Иг22 (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Just after we start reconsidering Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot for post-mortem Nobel Peace Prizes. Geofferic ^T•_C✡ 21:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Provide texts you feel are Reliable Sources with the applicable references and preferably a link and an editor may incorporate your suggested text. Or do so yourself. A generalized plea like this will not really get anything done. Wikidgood (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The Baltic States

No mention of the three Baltic States as members of the Eastern Bloc up until 1989?!? Why not!?!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.149.120.26 (talk) 04:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

First volume of new biography

Please can someone add to further reading of the article? I cannot seem to edit it myself.

Kotkin, Stephen (2014). Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878–1928. London: Allen Lane. ISBN 978-0-713-99944-0

--YeOldeGentleman (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Terrible article; list of events, not a biography

This is a terrible article, instead of being a biography of the man Joseph Stalin its a list of events (usually the worst of the worst).. This is a biographic article and deserves to be organized accordingly, just as the Hitler article is. I'll be working on a new version in a sandbox of mine. --TIAYN (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It would be impressive, if you manage to achieve it. Stalin embodies a very political subject. Much more so than Hitler. Imho, majority believes Stalin's vilification is absolutely mandatory. 77.38.191.209 (talk) 10:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you know how insufferably conservative Wikipedians are? Expect your improvements to be reverted.Kurzon (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Religion

There is no source for Stalin being an Athiest in the religion section. And immediately after that there is a sourced sentence about how he believed in or thought it was possible there was something like a god of nature, which would make him an animist or agnostic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.173.173.38 (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2015

Add to the External Links

• Stalin and His Repressive Regime. High School curriculum published by the State of New Jersey Department of Education Holocaust Commission and Prakhin Foundation

173.70.47.107 (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  16:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Holodomor and NPOV

It seems to me that Holodomor remains a disputed controversial topic and therefor its statement as fact is going against NPOV. No documentation has ever been produced to substantiate or verify any deliberate policy of genocide. For comparison, Natives in North America have claimed that Union soldiers purposefully gave them blankets contaminated with small pox, but this isn't written as fact, but as contested and controversial. This reference to Holodomor appears in the first section under Stalin, by comparison let's look at Stalin's contemporary Winston Churchill and his article on wikipedia. In his first section there is no emphasis on the Bengali famine. It is buried a number of sections down and it says:

"Another source of controversy about Churchill's attitude towards Indian affairs arises over what some historians term the Indian 'nationalist approach' to the Bengal famine of 1943, which has sought to place significant blame on Churchill's wartime government for the excessive mortality of up to four million people.[126][127][128] While some commentators point to the disruption of the traditional marketing system and maladministration at the provincial level,[129] Arthur Herman, author of Churchill and Gandhi, contends, 'The real cause was the fall of Burma to the Japanese, which cut off India's main supply of rice imports when domestic sources fell short ... [though] it is true that Churchill opposed diverting food supplies and transports from other theatres to India to cover the shortfall: this was wartime.'"

I would suggest a balanced approach should be presented in this article. The Collectivization was at least in some part a response to the practice of sharecropping done by the kulaks, or rich peasants, against the poor and landless peasants. Sharecropping is essentially understood as debt slavery, which much as it meant in the United States a continuation of slavery by other means, likewise for Russia was the continuation of serfdom by other means. Rich peasants exploited poor peasants to pay through the nose for land, for animals, etc. Ending such a system caused pushback. So did ending slavery in the USA, by those who benefitted from such an arrangement. There have been many documented cases of kulaks killing livestock, destroying harvests and grain to sabotage the collectivization effort. I see no such mention in the article of the form of resistance by the kulaks in sabotage of collectivization. Instead the article helps foster a view which implies that Stalin and the Bolsheviks purely of their own subjectivity decided to cause a famine.

I get that people have their political biases, of course. I get that most people on wikipedia will hate Communism and love "liberal democracies", like supposedly Britain was. But the fact remains, and this is a fact and not disputable, that Churchill ordered shipments to Bengal to be diverted, thereby contributing to a famine. We have his orders. For Stalin, no such orders have been found. And yet the four million deaths of the Bengalis are not called a genocide by 26 governments, Churchill is not portrayed as a murderer, if anything the blame is shifted to the Japanese. Meanwhile Stalin and the Bolsheviks in this article get full blame for the famine, and nowhere is it discussed about how any of the actions of the kulaks contributed to the shortages.

Does this seem truly neutral or am I detecting a liberal and anti-communist bias? I think so. this is supposed to be an encyclopedia and therefor academic, not journalistic.69.139.11.106 (talk) 07:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

"He subsequently managed to consolidate power following the 1924 death of Vladimir Lenin through suppressing Lenin's criticisms (in the postscript of his testament)"

This is just flat out untrue. Upon the reading of the testament, all sources say Stalin immediately offered his resignation. The Politburo refused it. This statement has no citation or basis in fact.69.139.11.106 (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

"Between 1934 and 1939 he organized and led a massive purge (known as "Great Purge") of the party" Not correct to say he "organized the purge". Yezhov organized the purge (who was himself also purged later). More correct to say Stalin authorized or approved the purge. But the organization wasn't done by Stalin. By comparison, would we feel it correct to say Obama organized drone strikes or authorized/approved drone strikes?69.139.11.106 (talk) 15:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

serious neutrality problems!

The article talks about millions of people being killed due to engineering famines and thousands being killed in order for the state to take their resources (the better-off peasants). Then it follows all of that with sentences like this:

"Under the Soviet government people benefited from some social liberalization."

Shouldn't that be "the people who survived"? Also, "some social liberalization" is quite vague, particularly since Stalinism was so oppressive toward the arts and liberal cultural policies such as the experimentation with alternatives to the nuclear family that happened just prior to his reign.

"Stalinist development also contributed to advances in health care, which significantly increased the lifespan and quality of life of the typical Soviet citizen."

What, exactly, is a "typical" Soviet citizen? Is it one in a gulag, or working on a collective, or shot, or starving, or enjoying the "communist" perks of being part of the condoned intelligentsia?

I haven't read this entire article, but it seems to get particularly weak in terms of presenting an accurate picture of Stalinism. The Culture section, for instance, glibly glosses over the very oppressive climate that was created due to micromanagement of the arts. Samizdat would not have existed in a culture that wasn't dominated by fear of the state. Yet, samizdat isn't even mentioned! Musicians released state propaganda music because they were required to and everything else had to be hidden away in drawers. Even immensely popular musicians like Shostakovich and Prokofiev were threatened and had to censor their work. Everyone who knows something about Soviet music knows about writing "for the drawer" and writing for Stalin's eyes. There is also the famous case of the gallery owner who had to hide modern paintings by covering them with Socialist Realism. Such extreme measures were only done because people's lives were threatened and works were destroyed. Nikolay Roslavets is a great example of the extremity of the oppression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.33.93.239 (talk) 04:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

the same kind of comment can be directed in the other directions at other regimes. If one said "the typical American citizen has benefited from advances in health care", a similar snarky response could be, "what is a typical American? Someone unarmed like Mike Brown being shot in the face by a cop? Or is this one of the over two million people in prison, which is a greater number than any other regime on the planet? Or just the Wall Street criminals who steal everyone's money, commit fraud and then settle with the government to go scott free and never see a day in jail? Or is it the torturers and rapists who worked in Gitmo or Abu Grahib, torturing people for the US government?"24.238.89.22 (talk) 06:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Pro-Stalin bias

I think this article has a pro-Stalin bias. C50000 (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it does, we must remove the bias. Spumuq (talq) 18:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Image

This is an edit to add Stalin's image in Soviet society and should be added under section 4 Changes to Soviet society, 1927–1939 or under section 9 Personal life.

On his 50th birthday, Stalin was featured in an eight-page spread in the Pravda, the Soviet newspaper connected to the communist party. He would staff the Pravda with his own supporters and controlled them informally. In the meticulous photographs that the public would see of Stalin, he would be pictured in a distinctive way. He was often motionless to appear calm, while holding objects that would allow people to relate to him, such as a pipe, newspaper, or book. If he were photographed with others, Stalin would be pictured in light colors in order to stand out and would be the only one looking straight at the viewer. Since Lenin was a major figure to the Soviet society, Stalin would stand close to a picture or image of Lenin, but Stalin would also be to the right of Lenin. Only once was Stalin pictured with a biological child. He chose to only have photographs taken with non-biological children, in order embody the name ‘father of the peoples’. Stalin had another spread in the Pravda for his 60th birthday. This time, there were images of Stalin with ethnic minorities, women, and children. There were few photographs of Stalin or life in the Soviet Union, during World War II. However, after the war there were an abundance of photographs that were far from serious. There were pictures of soccer, cows, and even a hydroelectric power station. A victory parade was held after the war, as well, and it was heavily photographed for the Pravda.

References

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• <Huh?> I fail to see what is unclear: the second paragraph is requested to be added, with first paragraph explaining where to. I see the request reasonable. TYhe only thing is to double-check with the source (a) whether the source says so and (b) whether it is not a plain cut-and-paste. -M.Altenmann >t 15:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2015

Please change

• იოსებ ბესარიონის ძე ჯუღაშვილი

to

• იოსებ ბეს არიონის ძე ჯუღაშვილი (Which translates as: Joseph Stalin, the son of Beth Arionis) 82.169.23.138 (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it does; it translates more like "Joseph Dzhugashvili, son of Bessarion" (or some other variation... Iosef or Ioseb rather than Joseph if you prefer, and rather than Dzhugashvili, maybe Dze Jugashvili. Names are not usually translated -- we don't translate the "-vich" in Russian names, which also means "son of"-- so arguably some variation of "Ioseb Besarionis Dze Jugashvili" is correct, which is what is in the article now.

The difference between the current and requested state is one space (ბესარიონის vs. ბეს არიონის). Whether this makes much difference I don't know. Google Translate thinks it does, I suspect that's where you got "Beth Arionis" from, and I'm skeptical that that's correct. This is way beyond anything Google Translate can handle, so we need a native Georgian speaker or, better, a source. I'd ask the OP to provide a source(s) before accepting this change if it was up to me. Herostratus (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Herostratus: It is a troll. Current title is correct. No such thing as "Beth Arionis" exists. Jaqeli 12:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I see that "იოსებ ბესარიონის ძე ჯუღაშვილი" gets 12,000 Google results and იოსებ ბეს არიონის ძე ჯუღაშვილი gets zero results... should have checked that first. Oh well, made a troll happy today anyway. Herostratus (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually it was not a troll, but a prankster, and you did spoil his fun. -M.Altenmann >t 15:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Stalin was a left winger

It seems to escape the writers of this article that Stalin was a left winger. There is no mention of that, and it seems to add to the reputation that wikipedia has a liberal bias. I'm even pretty sure that this comment will probably be erased soon, all in the name of free speech, I assume. Stalin was indeed a left winger, an atheist who despised the rich and the fact that there were poor and rich at all. All of the oppression that he forced on the USSR was in the name of getting rid of rich people and spreading equality. It was all in the name of taking the money of the rich and redistributing it to the poor. 2601:6:2E00:810:4499:D77D:5E5E:EAC3 (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems to escape the reader that Stalin was Communist Number One of All Times, and all your babble is preaching to the choir in panic. -M.Altenmann >t 15:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Haha this the funniest trolling attempt I've ever read on Wikipedia.Kurzon (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The article points out that he was a Communist, which of course is part of the Left, so I see no reason to add that he was left-wing. TFD (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Tiflis bank robbery

The Tiflis bank robbery was not a pivotal moment in Stalin's life. He did tons of bank robberies, and I note that. The incident is already described in the Early life of Joseph Stalin article. Now stop edit warring.Kurzon (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You removed the robbery information, relevant referenced information, you are edit warring. Spumuq (talq) 12:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Georgian name

I have noticed that by this edit we have removed Stalin's birth name in English and Georgian. I would think this info may be useful. Are there any reasons for deletion? Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

It was badly formatted, and also redundant as we have the Georgian and Russian names elsewhere.Kurzon (talk) 07:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, we have Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Pseudonyms.2C_stage_names_and_common_names For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the legal name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym. Follow this practice even if the article itself is titled with the pseudonym and we have MOS:FORLANG: If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses. I propose something like this:

Iosif Vassarionovich Dzhugashvili ( Georgian: იოსებ ჯუღაშვილი; Russian: Иосиф Виссарионович Джугашвили; 18 December 1878 – 5 March 1953) better known by his nom de guerre Joseph Stalin (Russian: Иосиф Сталин) was ... Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

"Stalin" was his legal name. He legalized it shortly after the establishment of the Soviet Union (speaking of which, I am interested in learning the date this happened). "Joseph" is the Anglicization of Ио́сиф. Perhaps you could change it to the transliteration "Iosif", but conventionally English speakers call him "Joseph Stalin".Kurzon (talk) 09:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

IMO his birth name is important enough to be included in the lede and highlighted. In particular, it is commonly used when describing his early years. It is ridiculous to search for it buried somewhere in the middle of the text. -M.Altenmann >t 14:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I removed them from the lead because it had become rather cluttered. There was Stalin's common name, his full name, his Georgian birth name, and Russian birth name, all with translations and IPAs. It was absurd. So Stalin's birth name is now only mentioned in the section concerning his youth, which is the only place it has relevance.Kurzon (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, disagreed. there is no clutter. Dzhugashvili is an important name and redirect, and belongs to lede. -M.Altenmann >t 06:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh come on! For most of his life he didn't go by that name. It's only relevant to his early years. Now you've got an entire paragraph in the lead devoted to Stalin's names. Please wait for consensus before doing something like this. Wait for other editors to comment and for an admin to arbitrate.Kurzon (talk) 07:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:BRD. You deleted info which was, like, always in the lede. Another edotor noticed this. Still another one reverted you. Now you wait for consensus. You did not present any solid argument . "Clutter" is not one. His birth name is of considerable notability and well-known. -M.Altenmann >t 15:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

funny that you mentioned it: "an entire paragraph in the lead devoted to Stalin's names". there used to be the whole section devoted to stalin's names. i see it disappeared from the article. i guess another hater of clutter removed it. people wrote whole research articles on the topic you consider clutter. -M.Altenmann >t 15:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

3O Response: <

If 'Joseph Stalin' was in fact his legal name as death, the article should opened with that name, however it is important to include his birth name in the lead, given the amount of his life, lived as such. Throughout wikipedia the norm tends to be formatted as follows:

Joseph Stalin (Russian: Иосиф Сталин) (born Iosif Vassarionovich Dzhugashvili (Georgian: იოსებ ჯუღაშვილი); 18 December 1878 –5 March 1953) was the leader of the Soviet Union from the mid-1920s until his death in 1953...

This seems more or less a compromise between the two disputing arguments. I am personally undecided on whether the Russian translation of his original name is necessary. While this may not seem aesthetically pleasing, the number one priority is that the vital information is listed. If 'Joseph Stalin' was not his legal name, then the example given by Alex Bakharev would be correct. Hope this helps.

> DocHeuh (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I can live with the current compromise that Altenmann made. Besides, in a month or so some other editor will fiddle with the lead.Kurzon (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2015

იოსებ ბესარიონის ძე სტალინი in georgian his add Giorgi1992. (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

It is already there: in Joseph Stalin#Early life. -M.Altenmann >t 03:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Fake picture

That picture of a 23 year old "Stalin" is not real. It's a propaganda picture. You can't even compare it with this one: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72315244/z/stalin.png 85.76.136.175 (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

That photo is from 1911 (see in the article), when he was 33. Well, of course his face changed in 10 years. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I've heard the claim that that particular picture is a fake before. I wonder where it originated.Idle Villager (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

It appears to be a police mugshot, with a profile taken at the same time. I don't see why anyone would create a propaganda photo for a random point in his youth.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2015

This a description of how Stalin is considered by the real Communists.

Someone may be interested to know how Stalin is judged by the Communists, instead of the bureaucratic-bourgeois oligarchies. Then, read what follows. Extremely ambitious and entirely without moral scruples of any kind, he was able to exploit the October Revolution in order to reach their personal goal, the power. Devoid of political culture, but very smart, he leaned, to make his climb, on the class of apparatus-bureaucrats which, as became clear, they did not want to abolish the bourgeoisie, but become the bourgeois class taking the place of the previous one. Stalin had an insignificant part both in the October Revolution and in the subsequent war against the Tsarist forces supported by western imperialist bourgeoisies: actually both the Revolution and the war was conducted and won by Lenin and Trotskij. The dead Lenin was used by Stalin as a symbol of the Soviet, but his work was reduced to an empty box, and to slogans, just as empty of actual application, used only to deceive the masses. If also Trotsky had died at the right time, he probably would have had the same fate of Lenin; but he did not die, and was politically (and then physically) eliminated using conspiracies of the bureaucratic apparatus, already started during Lenin's illness. Subsequently Stalin eliminated in a brutal manner, both politically and physically, not only the opposition, but also those allies that somehow they could overshadow him, and became, actually, the new Czar of all the Russias. Stalin readopted all the worse harsher methods typical of the Tsarist regime: the exploitation of the masses, considered simple material to be used without rights and dignity, the inquisitorial and police methods, the imperialism; this latter officially endorsed, for example, by the shameful Molotov-Von Ribbentrop Pact, the spark of WW II. Which, like the WW I, was a clash of aristocratic-bourgeois imperialisms, including the soviet bureaucratic-bourgeois apparatus. The damage caused to the Communist idea by Stalin, and by the bureaucratic-bourgeois apparatus who supported him, will be irreparable for a long time. History will remember Stalin as the most effective tool used by the bourgeoisie to groped to neutralize the Communist dream. Centonuvole (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Moreover, you have not provided any sources that say this. Seems like original research or WP:SOAPBOXING to me. Cannolis (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

It is, you have flushed a Trotskyite here. You might put up their delusions, whilst comparing then with the similar-type slanders against Trotsky by Stalinists (Trotsky was a tool of the bourgeois, an agent of Hitler who tried to divide the workers, a self interested seeker of personal power etc.). It is arguable that the whole Stalinist police state was inherent in Lenin's policies and that rival groups based around his followers are all pointing the finger at each other, trying to fix the blame for what went wrong; however this article is only about Stalin. Any mention of different theories about him should only be referential, with links to other articles discussing different subjects in detail. 184.62.1.145 (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Industrialization

Why are there no mentions of the Soviet Unions insane economic development under Stalin

Between the poverty stricken year of 1924, when Lenin died, and the relatively abundant year of 1940, the cultivated area of USSR expanded by 74 percent; grain crops increased 11 percent; coal production was multiplied by 10; steel output by 18; engineering and metal industries by 150; total national income by 10; industrial output by 24; annual capital investment by 57. During the First Five-year Plan, 51 billion rubles were invested; during the Second, 114; and during the Third, 192. Factory and office workers grew from 7,300,000 to 30,800,000 and school and college students from 7,900,000 to 36,600,000. Between 1913 and 1940, oil production increased from nine to 35 million tons; coal from 29 to 164; pig iron from 4 to 15; steel from 4 to 18; machine tools from 1000 to 48,000 units, tractors from 0 to over 500,000; harvestor combines from 0 to 153,500; electrical power output from two billion kWh to 50 billion; and the value of industrial output from 11 billion rubles to more than 100 billion by 1938. If the estimated volume of total industrial production in 1913 be taken as 100, the corresponding indices for 1938 are 93.2 for France; 113.3 for England, 120 United States; 131.6 for Germany, and 908.8 for the Soviet Union.

Schuman, Frederick L. Soviet Politics. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1946, p.212 NeoStalinist (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes - all this by robbing 80% of population to starvation (peasantry) and forced labor of 10%. -M.Altenmann >t 02:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Altenmann 184.62.1.145, source? Socialistguy (talk) 05:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, mention it all. It's all true. I would also put in the opinions of some that the backward Russian Empire was on the verge of an industrial revolution anyway, and the Bolsheviks just got in the way with their central planning notions, something less obvious in the 20th century when more people believed in such ideas. In that view, all the murders were not only immoral, but also a waste of time. But whatever is put in, it should be properly sourced and footnoted. 184.62.1.145 (talk) 12:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually that's completely incorrect. Between 1928 and 1970 the Soviet Union was the 2nd most successful developing economy in the world, outperformed only by Japan. Author Robert C Allen in his book "Farm to Factory" provided a careful analysis of Imperial Russian development and found that its late growth was built on an unsustainable global wheat boom. Alec Nove, who was considered my some to be a leading Western expert on the Soviet economy found that development under the Czar was at best modest (An Economic History of the USSR). Russia was not "on the verge of an industrial revolution" its industrialization is traceable to the mid 19th century though the 1870's were where it truly began. However even with its growth by 1913 in terms of standard of living and general economic measures it still lagged far behind the West, its only advantage was its sheer size. The Russian Empire may have been the 5th largest economy on Earth but only because its population was so much larger than any other developing nation. As an example of its general backwardness in 1900, 85% of the population was dependent of agriculture as a means of subsistence. According to the USDA in America less than half the population at the time was involved in agriculture. Any positive spin on the Tsrist economy needs to be given proper context.

"Imperial Russia faced the modernity with considerable success. It became the world's fourth or fifth largest industrial power, thanks to textiles, and Europe's top agricultural producer, an achievement of Russia's sheer size. But here was the rub: Russia's per capita GDP stood at just 20% of Britain's and 40 percent of Germany's. St. Petersburg has the worlds most opulent court, but by the time the future Stalin was born, Russia's average lifespan at birth was a mere thirty years, higher than in British India (twenty-three), but no better than China, and well below Britain (fifty-two), Germany (forty-nine) and Japan (fifty-one). Literacy under Tsar Nicholas II hovered near 30 percent, lower than in Britain during the eighteenth century."

As a model of development from its inception to the mid 70's not one nation in Africa, Latin America, Oceania, South Asia, or the Middle East outperformed the USSR. The only exception was Japan and it would not be until the mid 80's when a few East Asian nations began to escape the 3rd world, in no small part do to strategic development, subsidies, foreign loans, foreign capital and protectionism. Think about it, from the mid 20's to WW2 the Bolsheviks built up the USSR, they did not impede it. In all of eastern Europe every nation during that time was purely capitalist. Poland, Rumania, Bulgaria, Albania, Greece, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, the three Baltic States and Finland. Can you really say any performed well in comparison to the USSR. Every single one of them collapsed when the Fascists invaded in WW2, many were outright allies to the Nazis. Also the USSR developed using almost nothing but its own capital for investment.

NeoStalinist (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

Re [1] and [2]

I'm sorry but if you think that calling Stalin a "dicator" is "not neutral" you don't actually understand what "neutral" means. Please read WP:NPOV. If you think that calling Stalin a "dictator" is "not encyclopedic" you don't actually understand what "encyclopedic" means. If you think that calling Stalin a "dictator" is "charged"... well, I'm not even sure what exactly that's suppose to mean.

Anyway. As I've pointed out it is trivial to find sources that call Stalin a "dictator". I mean, come on! This is *Stalin*. Hell, it's trivial to find sources which use the word "dictator" in their freakin' title. Here is some:

• Stalin: New Biography of a Dictator
• Joseph Stalin: Dictator of the Soviet Union
• Stalin, the History of a Dictator
• The Dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia
• Proletarian Dictator in a Peasant Land: Stalin as Ruler
• Dictator Style: Lifestyles of the World's Most Colorful Despots
• Stalin: The Iron Fisted Dictator of Russia

And like I said, these are just some sources which explicitly use the word "Dictator" in the title. There are literally millions of reliable sources which describe Stalin as "dictator". So ... I realize this is Wikipedia and all, but can we be serious for a second here? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's a little difficult to say exactly at what point Stalin's word become law as opposed to merely "most influential". Calling him "leader" gives us a little more leeway.Kurzon (talk) 06:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

There is already plenty of leeway in "mid-1920s until his death in 1953", so I don't see this as serious issue.--Staberinde (talk) 10:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

FDR from 1933 until his death in 1944... Dictator, clearly.69.139.11.106 (talk) 08:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

We don't do this in wikipedia. This have been discussed numerous times in numerous places. - üser:Altenmann >t 14:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

We don't do what on Wikipedia? I'm not clear what you mean here. Also, can you point to where these numerous previous discussions are? 15:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

See how it is now. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm good with that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thats ok.--Staberinde (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

"he was effectively the dictator of the state." - voice from garbage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.205.47.164 (talk) 08:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Please explain what's wrong. - üser:Altenmann >t 14:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Pri moyey babushke takogo ne bylo. Udalit'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.139.147.7 (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Number of Victims

A long time ago I read Wheatcroft's articles and Getty, Rittersporn and Zemkov's article. The wiki article claims that these authors agree on a low count of 3 to 4 million people murdered under Stalinism. I may not remember things correctly but do these authors really claim this? I thought Getty, Rittersporn and Zemkov only calculated the number of executions during the purges (a small 800.000 I believe). I have similar doubts that Wheatcroft is cited correctly.

I've cited them below. It was in fact the low number, so the wiki article that says that it is "widely agreed" that Stalin ordered the death of millions leaves out the question of hard numbers and records versus projections and opinions...69.139.11.106 (talk) 04:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Collectivization

The sole nor primary goal of Collectivization was not to create a more efficient agriculture. It was pushed because of notions of class struggle and to end the system and endless cycle of exploitative share cropping and debt slavery the rich land-owning and cattle-owning kulaks had trapped the poorer peasants into. That should be mentioned in the article. That reason is mentioned often in the discussions of the time around collectivization, as well as in the offical "History of the CPSU (b) (short course)".69.139.11.106 (talk) 04:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Stalin's nickname actually 'hozyain' (master) rather than 'vozhd' (chief)

suggest removing reference to nickname 'vozhd' at least until some good source for that is found. i'm not really specialist on staliniana, but have read and edited some books on closely related themes, and more trustworthy citations do not mention nickname 'vozhd' (chief), and some good authors complain about it being not correct. it seems to have originated in loosely translated-referred english-language tractates. or just made up. in-kremlin nickname seems to have been 'hozyain' (master, mister, lord - not sure if possible to translate accurately).

btw, in comments' archive spotted complaint about nickname 'batyushka'; complaint was partly wrong, i dare say. in russian language it was used as affectionate term, as lots of people were really affectionate about 'dear father' (loose tranlsation of 'batyushka'). so, irl stalin was referred to as 'batyushka', maybe not as nickname but as endearment.

i hope here is some specialist editor who could find good reference to 'hozyain' and correct the nickname part. maybe someone from russian part? - i have not cyrillic here, so i cannot comment very well to russian article.

name Joseph Stalin is good; as we have empress Catherine the Great and church father Jerome - there is english tradition to translate rather than transliterate important names, so be it. (even though those people's "real names" were Yosif, Yekaterina and Hieronymus or smth.)BirgittaMTh (talk) 11:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Private life

Regarding to this (edit summary), Radzinsky did mention this part of Stalin's life in his well known biography, but I have to check the source. My very best wishes (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is page 437 of Stalin: The First In-depth Biography Based on Explosive New Documents from Russia's Secret Archives, by Edvard Radzinsky, (1997) ISBN 0-385-47954-9. He tells about Valentina Istomina, an NKVD housemaid who was an unofficial wife of Stalin during 17 years. There is even a quote by Molotov about this, etc. Radzinsky describes this not as a rumor, but as something well known to historianss. I must tell that both authors, Simon Sebag Montefiore and Edvard Radzinsky are way more notable than Oleg Khlevniuk whose book you are trying to quote. However, there in nothing wrong with quoting Khlevnuk as well. What exactly he tells about it? My very best wishes (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

In addition, new text is terrible: Moreover, his family members, including his daughter, and his frinds [sic!], including Molotov, always treat this rumors with open skepticism". Was Molotov a Stalin's "friend"? Moreover, Molotov did tell something about Valentina Istomina (as quoted by Radzinsky), which was far from denial, so I doubt that a ref to his memories without pages really supports anything. My very best wishes (talk) 02:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

So what? Radzinski merely mentions Istomina as a servant (служанка) of Stalin. Leaving the question open, whether there were any sexual relations. I'll copy the two mentions of Istomina from the book here so that everyone who speaks Russian can decide himself:

На даче прислуживают офицеры НКВД и горничные. Одна из них - молоденькая Валечка Истомина. Она поступила на дачу в 1935 году. Валечка гладит ему брюки и полувоенный китель. Денщика у него нет. Он не меняет привычек - все делает сам. 17 лет проработает Валечка на даче... Она стелила ему постель. И старилась рядом с ним. Молотов: "А если она и была женой Сталина - кому какое дело?"

and

Теперь уже много лет рядом с ним Валечка Истомина, горничная на Ближней даче. Она не Хозяйка - покорная служанка. Но главное - преданная.

- http://www.radzinski.ru/books/pyessa.php?id=28. Dorpater (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• No, you must check the reference that has been actually used in the page. This is English edition of the book, and it tells on page 437, 4th paragraph from the top:

The maidservant [Istomina] in fact became his secret wife, while the new head of his bodyguard, Nikolai Vlasik, took charge of his children.

Furthermore, according to Radzinsky, Vyacheslav Molotov implicitly admitted the fact by telling "Whether or not she was Stalin's wife is nobody else's business". My very best wishes (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Both Russian and English versions are authentic (Горничная становится его тайной женой. Новый глава охраны Власик - воспитателем детей. Тесная дача - его дворцом.).

Do you hate this poor woman Istomina? By desperately trying to paint her as a wife of this tyrant?

Radzinsky does not confirm if there really was really anything sexual in the relationship between the two, he presents those claims for what they are - rumours. You are taking them at a face value.Dorpater (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• As quoted above, she "in fact became his secret wife", according to the books by Edvard Radzinsky and Simon Sebag Montefiore, and that is what we tell. You asked to quote specifically Radzinsky about it, and that is what I did. Yes, the Russian and English versions are consistent, but it's always better to quote English version. Do you want to quote something else? That's fine. Please quote here what other good RS (preferably books by well known authors) tell about Istomina. My very best wishes (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The problem is precisely that sources tell nothing about her. So the alleged relationship is not a well-established fact. Consider that loads have been written about such actually insignificant characters as Stalin's children while next to no-one knows anything about this housemaid who you claim was Stalin's lover for decades. Dorpater (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not claim anything around here, but only quote what RS tell. So should you. If you can quote here other RS, which tell something different about her (e.g. that "the relationship was not a well-established fact"), let's fix it. But so far I only checked Radzinsky who said "in fact". My very best wishes (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Entering Axis was never Stalins real intention

Stalin behavior towards germany was a behaviour of duplicity. he made pacts and pretended sympathies while secretly plotting to attack the axis powers once they got weaker. Stalin never intended to be a permanent ally of germany. once the red army was ready and germany showed signs of weakeness, stalin had planned to attack. there are multiple sources that confirm stalins duplicity toward the axis, and the falsehood of the pacts stalin did with hitler. there is also, an wiki article which contains stalins plan of a soviet offensive against germany. the "stalin" article is not being honest in showing stalin agressive stance towards the axis, instead presenting a view that stalin was friendly towards the axis while in reality, stalin intended to betray the pacts.

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

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3223834/Stalin-planned-to-send-a-million-troops-to-stop-Hitler-if-Britain-and-France-agreed-pact.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/rbth/features/8607980/Joseph-Stalin-knew-Germany-WW2-plan.html

http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/stalwarplans.html

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n6p28_Michaels.html

http://latvianhistory.com/2011/04/18/stalins-attack-plans-on-germany-1939-1941/

http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/04/exposing-stalins-plan-to-conquer-europe/

http://library.flawlesslogic.com/suvorov.htm

You should be more careful with your sources. The IHR is a Holocaust denial institute. Suvorov has written interesting books but he does not qualify as a reliable source for the purpose of this article (OK, we could mention he proposed this and that but that's basically it). What exactly do you propose changing in the article? Dorpater (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You are probably right concerning some of the sources, but i have not restricted to ihr or suvorov. i even mentioned an entire wiki article and the telegraph. my intention was to show the duplicity of stalin concerning the deals with the axis. stalin made deals with the axis, while simultoneously plotting to attack them. the deals were a lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.48.248.145 (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:Not a forum, people. Please suggest how do you want to improve this page. Sure, Stalin made extensive preparations for the future WWII with Germany. One of them was Great Purge - according to the same Radzinsky and to Soviet officials. My very best wishes (talk) 03:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Its simple. just mention that stalin was simultaneously preparing to invade germany while pretending to sign deals. the article, as it is, states stalin wanted to join the axis without mentioning the ussr plans for a future invasion of axis countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.48.248.145 (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit request on October 8 2015

Within the "Human rights abuses"-section, the same source ((Polish) Edukacja Humanistyczna w wojsku. 1/2005. Dom wydawniczy Wojska Polskiego. ISSN 1734-6584. (Official publication of the Polish Army)) is cited twice for the same claim (The "After taking around 300,000 Polish prisoners in 1939 and early 1940,"-claim). Isn't that redundant? Shouldn't one of them be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.115.81.90 (talk) 07:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• Fixed, thanks for noticing Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Generalissimus

The issue must be clarified in the article. - üser:Altenmann >t 07:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

If he never held the title, it makes no sense to put it in the info-box. During the Cold War he was routinely referred to as "Generalissimo Stalin," and that is probably the best known translation of the title. TFD (talk) 09:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, he was given this title. The fact he pretended to disagree, you know, this may well be a "drama queen" thing. That is my question: to clarify, with sources. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Generalissimus of the Soviet Union and ru:Генералиссимус Советского Союза disagree in this respect, with sources. And there may be reasonable explanations. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, here you go; the rank did officially exist in the Soviet military statute:

9. За особо выдающиеся заслуги перед Родиной в деле руководства всеми Вооруженными Силами государства во время войны Президиумом Верховного Совета СССР персонально присваивается высшее воинское звание - Генералиссимус Советского Союза.

Stalin was officially awarded this rank. There was no documents that he was stripped of this rank. Memoirs say that he did play drama queen, but eventually "agreed". Stupid case closed. (Or not: this all must be put into article, since, as TFD said, Stalin was pretty much well known as "Generalissimo Stalin", it is a historically notable fact and must be in the encyclopedia. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Completely unsubstantiated "deaths" figure based on two newspaper articles.

What a complete embarrassment. Pathetic. Journalism is inferior to academic study. 75.73.4.72 (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, one of those is the NYT discussing Russian academic research on Stalin's death figures. It looks like a solid ref. Capitalismojo (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The NYT, serious? It is impossible for Stalin to have been the sole responsible party for the death of 20 to 40 million. Look at the Soviet census figures for population. We know the Nazi invasion killed 27 million, and the famine around 5 million (or ten million as the liberal estimate). Granted. But are we blaming Stalin for the deaths the Nazis inflicted? This makes no sense. Just a cursory glance at the population figures of the census show that the Soviet Union's population continued to grow. Anyone with a basic knowledge in demography could see that such a figure is not only unsubstantiated by primary documents (which is true) but also an impossibility demographically. It would be like making the claim that the Great Depression in the US caused 20 million deaths between the 1930 and 1940 census. If one were to make such a claim, it would be challenged if not simply laughed at. But the NYT, BBC and other Western journals have a long history of printing unsubstantiated anticommunist bias. Again, if there was evidence that could stand up to academic scrutiny, that would be one thing, but where is this evidence? We aren't talking about the Nazi holocaust, something well documented. We are talking about something that is constantly asserted as truth, has been for so long it has become unquestioned, and yet is not substantiated by records. This more like when the Western press printed the claims and propaganda of Saddam's WMD program as fact, instead of being rigorous NPOV investigative journalists. In the end, the parroted the propaganda and were proven wrong when held up to the facts. I challenge these numbers to get their source from any primary sources that will hold up to scrutiny. If the reference of the NYT is academic research, then we should examine the primary source, not simply assert that it is from the NYT. Claiming the NYT and BBC as authoritative is not much better than claiming RT or Al Jazeera as authoritative.69.139.11.106 (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Based on what Ive read in various books and online I can say about Soviet deaths

Great Purge: .6-1.4(higher estimate more reliable)

Forced Relocation: 1-1.4

Gulag System: 1-2

Russian Famine of the 1920’s: 5 (not actually caused soviets unlike the early 30's famine)

Soviet Famine of the 30’s: 2.4-7.7(likely closest to 3.5)

Central Asian Famine: .4-.6

Late 40’s famine: .3-1(probably towards the low end)

Cheka: .05-1.5(smaller number more likely)

Min:11.2(5.8 excluding natural famines)

Max: 20.6(14.9 excluding natural disasters)

I'm not sure what the exact number of deaths we can attribute to Stalin is but I do know its between almost certainly 10 and 21 million. NeoStalinist (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Primary Sources and documented findings for these numbers? Anybody can assert a number, but what is it based on and how rigorous is it under scrutiny?69.139.11.106 (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

"There is no opinion, however absurd, which men will not readily embrace as soon as they can be brought to the conviction that it is generally adopted ... the universality of an opinion is no proof, nay, it is not even a probability, that the opinion is right." -- Shopenhauer67.87.191.23 (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

As good a description of Stalin's believers as any. It is true we don't need unsubstantiated anti communist bias. What we need is substantiated anti communist bias. The works of the Hoover Institution's scholars, such as Robert Graves, and the famous ' Black Book of Communism' are good places for solid research to improve the article. Keep in mind though, you will often be dealing with the left-wing version of Holocaust deniers when discussing this; I suspect it is because of these people that the article has been locked. 184.62.1.145 (talk) 12:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

"Black Book of Communism" is not scholarly, nor substantiated by primary sources, nor accurate. The numbers are basically made up. If that's your best source, I suggest you look harder. The most "hard" numbers used are those of famine, but why not compare the numbers of people who died in non-communist and capitalist nations of famine around the same time for comparison? Because then the figures would cease to be remarkable. More people die from starvation while living under the capitalist market system, which kills with starvation 100 million people on average every 8 to 12 years. Do you deny this? Of course not, it is a hard number (unless you are the capitalist equivalent of a Holocaust denier). The fact that people died of starvation under Communist regimes in not disputed, what is disputed is if this was intentional, if it is remarkable in comparison to capitalist nations, and if when considering our first two criteria it means that blame can be attributed to Communism. Again, is it equal criteria for any system or is their bias? For those who died in atrocities in war, again, context and comparison is needed. Soviet atrocities in the Civil War, so called "red Terror", was dwarfed by the White Terror of the same war on the other side, and Soviet atrocities of WWII were dwarfed by Nazi atrocities. Hard numbers verify this. The same pattern repeats in nearly every other conflict with Communist forces, South Korean atrocities dwarfed North Korean atrocities, the KMT were more brutal than the Maoists, etc. As far as the politically motivated executions and repression, that number is far lower than the millions who died of famine, and there are good records that have been uncovered since the end of the Cold War which show this (unless you are arguing there was a conspiracy that the Communists lied to themselves in their own internal documents, although the reason to lie to your own organization in your own secret documents simply sounds absurd). As far as China is considered, the Black Book right off the bat has no hard numbers and admits it is being purely speculative. I'd suggest finding another and better source.

As far as the Hoover Institution, I see they have Condi Rice listed as one of their well-know persons. Clearly the Bush administration is was known for it impeccable truth telling and respect for human rights, dignity, life and international law all around... Definitely what I would list as a credible source and person, totally unbiased in any way... Can you detect sarcasm here? You want to talk hard numbers produce primary sources, period, not right-wing institutes and think tanks.69.139.11.106 (talk) 08:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

insert. Unfortunately for that theory, the Black Book of Communism was written by 7 european academics and published by the Harvard University Press. It is RS. Your reliance on Pravda...not so much. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Except that in 2001 Harvard University Press’ Mark Kramer had to admit that the book contained remedial math errors. I have nowhere claimed there were no deaths of famine in Socialist countries. I made it clear that this work and others do not compare such numbers with famines in non-socialist capitalist nations. This is likely deliberate, because it would make such numbers seem unremarkable, or even small by comparison. From 1923 to 1928 there was a free market in grain production (New Economic Program). In 1928 the amount of grain that was sent to the cities to feed people dropped to 4.8 million tons from 6.8 million the previous year. This inability of the free market to meet human need (as well as the exploitation of crop sharing and debt slavery of the poor peasants by the rich kulaks) is what compelled Stalin and the Bolsheviks to collectivize agriculture. The market had already failed to deliver, a fact constantly over looked by many historians and the ignorance of anti-communism. The failure of capitalism is ignored, only the socialist reaction to a capitalist disaster is mentioned. Integrity is not something anti-communists have apparently. It is not useful to take a source, just because it is a source as Gospel truth (as if Harvard has never in its history been shown to display anti-communist bias) is not useful. What is far more fair and reliable is to examine primary sources and methodology in making academic claims, not to simply parrot assertions without scrutiny as to how they are arrived at and made.

But if its name-dropping and reputation that "wins" and argument over methodology and figures, then I cite the most quoted intellectual alive, Noam Chomsky: http://spectrezine.org/global/chomsky.htm

69.139.11.106 (talk) 04:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Since the edit of this page is locked, I'm presenting the scholarly argument and sources on the deaths attributed to Stalin here. Let's look at this more closely and comparatively. First, let's look at actual hard numbers from the primary sources:

First, on political executions:

The Russian archives, opened up by the capitalist Boris Yeltsin, put the total number of death sentences from 1923 to 1953, the post-Lenin Soviet Union, between 775,866 and 786,098 [Getty, Ritterspom, and Zemskov, “Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the Pre-War Years: A First Approach on the Basis of Archival Evidence”]. To this we must add up the 40,000 who may have been executed without trial and unofficially [Hellmut Andics, “Rule of Terror”]. If we add up the numbers, what we get achieve is 800,000 executions in a period of 36 years, less than the lives claimed by the dictatorship of the CIA-backed anti-communist Suharto in Indonesia in a time span of 2 years. This is not to say the deaths are to be condoned, but it raises an important question: if less lives have been claimed by the Soviet Union under Stalin than Suharto’s Indonesia, why is Stalin demonized to that extent when Suharto is rarely even known among pro-capitalists?

Because the figure of 800,000 executions includes those persons sentenced to death but had, for instance, their sentences reduced [Getty, Ritterspom, and Zemskov], this too may be an overestimation. In fact, in a research by Vinton, evidence has been provided indicating that the number of executions was significantly below the number of civilian prisoners sentenced to death in the USSR, with only 7,305 executions in a sample of 11,000 prisoners authorized to be executed in 1940 (or around 60%) [Louisa Vinton, “The Katyn Documents: Politics and History.”]. In addition, 681,692 of the 780,000 or so death sentences were issued during the Great Purge (1937-1938 period)[Louisa Vinton, “The Katyn Documents: Politics and History.”]

Initially, the NKVD, under Yezhov’s orders, set a cap of 186,500 imprisonments and 72,950 death penalties for a 1937 special operation to combat the threat of foreign and internal subversion. This was because of the discovery of a plot against the government, led by Tukhacevsky. The NKVD’s orders had to be carried out by troikas, 3-men tribunals [Getty, Ritterspom, and Zemskov]. As the troikas passed sentences before the accused had even been arrested, local authorities requested increases in their own quotas, and there was an official request in 1938 for a doubling of the amount of prisoner transport that had been initially requisitioned to carry out the original campaign quotas of the tribunals [Amy Knight, “Beria, Stalin’s First Lieutenant”].

However, even if there had been twice as many actual executions as originally planned, which I would doubt, the number would still be less than 150,000. Many, in fact, may have had their death sentence refused or revoked by authorities before arrest or execution could take place, especially since Stalin, Molotov and Beria later realized that excesses had been committed in the 1937-38 period (the Great Purge), had a number of convictions overturned, and had many of the responsible local leaders punished [Robert Thurston, “Life and Terror in Stalin s Russia”]. Soviet records indicate only about 300,000 actual arrests for anti-Soviet activities or political crimes during this 1937-1938 interval. With a ratio of 1 execution for every 3 arrests as originally specified by the NKVD, that would imply about 100,000 executions. Since some of the people sentenced to death may have already been in confinement, and since there is some evidence of a 50,000 increase in the total number of deaths in labor camps over the 1937-38 interval that was probably caused by such executions, the total number executed by the troika campaign would probably be around 150,000 [Getty, Ritterspom, and Zemskov, “Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the Pre-War Years: A First Approach on the Basis of Archival Evidence”]. There were also 30,514 death sentences passed by military courts and 4,387 by regular courts during the 1937-38 period, but, even if all these death sentences were carried out, the total number remains under 200,000. Such a low number seems especially likely given the fact that aggregate death rates from all causes throughout the Soviet Union were actually lower in 1937-38 than in prior years [Stephen Wheatcroft, “More Light on the Scale of Repression and Excess Mortality in the Soviet Union in the 1930s”], possibly a result of universal health care, vaccination and an improvement in living standards.

Assuming the remaining 100,000 or so death sentences passed in the other years of Stalin’s administration (1923-1936 and 1939-53) resulted in a 60% execution rate, as per the Vinton sample, the total number executed by the Soviet Union during the period would be about 250,000. Even with the thousands executed between 1917 and 1921, it is plausible that the number of unarmed civilians killed between 1917-1953 amounted to considerably less than a quarter million given that thousands of these victims may have been Soviet soldiers, given that many may have been armed bandits and guerrillas, and given that at least 14,000 of the actual executions were of foreign prisoners of war [Louisa Vinton, “The Katyn Documents: Politics and History.”].

A USA former attache to the Soviet Union, George Kennan, has stated that the number executed was really only in the tens of thousands [. W. Smith, “Economic Democracy: The Political Struggle of the 21st Century”], and so it is very likely that the true number of people killed by the Soviet Union over its entire history (including the thousands killed in Afghanistan) is too small for the country to make it even in the top ten in mass murders (ahem, United States of America). There were no doubt many innocent victims during the 1937-38 Stalin purge, but it should also be mentioned that there is substantial evidence from the Soviet archives of Soviet citizens advocating treasonable offenses such as the violent overthrow of the Soviet government or foreign invasion of the Soviet Union [Sarah Davies, “Popular Opinion in Stalin’s Russia”]. Looking at this in context, the Soviet Union felt itself so threatened by subversion and imminent military invasions by Japan and Germany (which occurred in full force in 1938 and 1941, respectively) that it perceived a need to undertake a nationwide campaign to eliminate potential internal enemies. Moreover, these external threats were further fueled by the fact that the Russian nobility and czarists (over a million of whom had emigrated after the communist revolution in 1917) had given financial aid to the German Nazis in the 1930s for the purpose of using them (once they had successfully taken power in Germany) to help them overthrow the Soviet government [Leslie Feinberg, “The Class Character of German Fascism”]. Forged documents and misinformation spread by Nazi Germany to incriminate innocent and patriotic Soviets also contributed to Soviet paranoia [Christopher Andrew and Oleg Gordievsky “KGB: The Inside Story”]. It must also be remembered that Soviet fear of foreign-sponsored subversion in the 1930s existed within the context of guerrilla warfare fought against the Soviet Union by some of the same groups of people who had fought with the foreign invaders against the Soviet Union in the 1918-22 Foreign Interventionist Civil War. While the 1937-38 purges were very repressive and tragic by almost any measure, they may have helped prevent the fascists from inciting a successful rebellion or coup in the Soviet Union. Such a threat was a very real one given that the German Nazis did succeed in using political intrigues, threats, economic pressure, and offers of territorial gains to bring other Eastern European countries into their orbit, including Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary, as well as Yugoslavia for a short period of time [Marshall Miller, “Bulgaria during the Second World War”], given that the Soviet Union had been subjected to a brutal 1918-22 civil war which was launched by rebels who were supported by over a million foreign invading troops from over a dozen capitalist countries, given that there was a large amount of sabotage committed by Soviet citizens in the 1930s, and given that there were a significant number of Soviet dissidents who were in favor of overthrowing the Soviet government even if it required an invasion by Germany or some other foreign power [Sarah Davies, “Popular Opinion in Stalin’s Russia”]. In addition, many people may have worked independently to sabotage the Soviet Union in the hope that they would thereby contribute to a foreign overthrow of the Soviet Union, especially since Nazi Germany did make extensive efforts to incite uprisings, cause subversive actions, and create ethnic conflicts in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Despite the Soviet Union’s success in defeating the subsequent invasions by fascist Japan (in 1938) and Germany (1941-44), the danger posed by the Nazi spies and saboteurs in Eastern Europe is illustrated by the fact that the CIA considered them so effective that it adopted virtually the entire Nazi network into its own system of terrorism in Eastern Europe after World War II [Von Schnitzler, “Der Rote Kana”].

Evidence from the Soviet archives indicates that the officials responsible for the political repression of the 1930s sincerely felt the victims were guilty of some crime such as sabotage, spying, or treason, and many of the executions of the Great Purge were reported in the local Soviet press at the time. Even when there was proven to be no direct connection between the accused and the fascist foreign powers, there was often a strong belief that the suspects were foreign sympathizers who were working on their own (without formal direction) to contribute to the overthrow of the Soviet Union. It should also be noted that much of the 1937-38 repression, often called the Great Purge, was actually directed against the widespread banditry and criminal activity (such as theft, smuggling, misuse of public office for personal gain, and swindles) that was occurring in the Soviet Union at the time [John Arch Getty, “Origins of the Great Purges”]. In addition to the executions, there were also many imprisoned, and hundreds of thousands of people were expelled from the Communist Party during the Great Purge for being incompetent, corrupt, and/or excessively bureaucratic, with such targeting of inept or dishonest Soviet bureaucrats being fairly popular among the average Soviet citizens [Sarah Davies, “Popular Opinion in Stalin’s Russia”]. Like the myths of millions of executions, the fairy tales that Stalin had tens of millions of people arrested and permanently thrown into prison or labor camps to die in the 1930-53 interval are untrue. In particular, the Soviet archives indicate that the number of people in Soviet prisons, gulags, and labor camps in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s averaged about 2 million, of whom 20-40% were released each year [a: Getty, Ritterspom, and Zemskov, “Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the Pre-War Years: A First Approach on the Basis of Archival Evidence”]. This average, which includes desperate World War II years (filled with brigandage), is similar to the number imprisoned in the USA in the 1990s and is only slightly higher as a percentage of the population. The present day United States of America incarcerates 2.2 million people, disproportionately those who are poor or racial or ethnic minorities. It should also be noted that the annual death rate for the Soviet interned population was about 4%, which incorporates the effect of prisoner executions [Getty, Ritterspom, and Zemskov]. Excluding the desperate World War II years, the death rate in the Soviet prisons, gulags, and labor camps was only 2.5% [Getty, Ritterspom, and Zemskov], which is below that of the average citizen in Russia under the tsar in peacetime in 1913 [Stephen Wheatcroft, “More Light on the Scale of Repression and Excess Mortality in the Soviet Union in the 1930s”]. This finding is not very surprising, given that about 1/3 of the confined people were not even required to work [Edwin Bacon, “The Gulag at War: Stalin’s Forced Labour System in the Light of the Archives”], and given that the maximum work week was 84 hours in even the harshest Soviet labor camps during the most desperate wartime years [R. J. Rummel, “Lethal Politics”]. The latter maximum (and unusual) work week actually compares favorably to the 100-hour work weeks that existed even for “free” 6-year old children during peacetime in the Gilded era and industrial revolution [Marx and Engels, “Das Kapital”] (shoutout to libertarians), although it may seem high compared to the 7-hour day worked by the typical Soviet citizen under Stalin [Sarah Davies].

In addition, it should also be mentioned that most of the arrests under Stalin were motivated by an attempt to stamp out crimes such as banditry, theft, misuse of public office for personal gain, smuggling, and swindles, with less than 10% of the arrests during Stalin’s rule being for political reasons or secret police matters [Getty, Ritterspom, and Zemskov]. The Soviet archives reveal a great deal more political dissent permitted in Stalin’s Soviet Union (including a widespread amount of criticism of individual government policies and local leaders) than is normally perceived in the West [Sarah Davies]. Given that the regular police, the political or secret police, prison guards, some national guard troops, and fire fighters (who were in the same ministry as the police) comprised scarcely 0.2% of the Soviet population under Stalin [Robert Thurston, “Life and Terror in Stalin s Russia”], severe repression would have been impossible even if the Soviet Union had wanted to exercise it. In comparison, the USA today has many times more police as a percentage of the population (about 1%), not to mention prison guards, national guard troops, and fire fighters included in the numbers used to compute the far smaller 0.2% ratio for the Soviet Union.

Second, on the question of famine:

We are speaking about the Soviet Union, but her point about demography remains applicable to those who inflate the number who died in the Soviet famines. This quote by Utsa Patnaik from her work “The Republic of Hunger” exposes the dubious and unreliable methods utilized by Western scholars when calculating the deaths:

"...I will take up two cases – the alleged massive famine in China during the Great Leap, 1958-61, and the internationally unrecognized famine in Russia in the first half of the 1990s. When we look at these cases it becomes clear enough that the entire field of the discussion of hunger and famine is a highly ideological one, and has been routinely characterized by the abandoning of the minimum academic criteria with respect to evidence and estimation...

...Two alternative routes have been used to estimate ‘famine deaths’, both of very dubious validity. In the first, the ‘missing millions’ totalling 27 millions in the population pyramid during 1958 to 1961, have been identified with ‘famine deaths’. The problem with this is that not only the people who were actually living and who died in excess of normal numbers are included in the missing millions, but so are all those hypothetical persons included, who were never born at all and who ‘should’ have been born if the birth rate had not fallen. This is not a common-sense definition nor is it a logical definition of famine deaths: for, to ‘die’ in a famine, a minimum necessary condition is to be born in the first place. The Chinese are a highly talented people but even they cannot achieve the feat of dying without being born. If a person is told that 30 million people died, then quite correctly she would infer that those 30 million were alive and then died. The fact that 19 million of them never existed because they were never born in the first place, is not conveyed by the formulation. Hence, there is disingenuousness involved in saying that 30 million people ‘died’: it is an untrue proposition."

By comparison, a Russian scholar used the same demographic models to conclude that millions of American starved to death in the Great Depression. http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/19-05-2008/105255-famine-0/

Hundred, thousands, maybe even tens of thousands might have died from starvation in the US Great Depression, particularly the young and old who might have gone unreported, but millions? Seems ridiculous when the shoe is put on the other foot, no? That's why archival materials and primary sources are better indicators than these types of demographic models. Returning to Utsa Patnaik:

"...In sharp contrast to the retrospective, patently ideological construction of hypothetical large famine deaths in China’s Great Leap period and the publicizing of these figures, we find that the demographic collapse in Russia in the first half of the 1990s has been met with a deafening silence from the same academics. The estimation methods which they applied to China are not applied by them to Russia. The facts are that so-called ‘shock therapy’ to usher in capitalism, under the advice of Western experts, led to a catastrophic collapse of GDP in the former socialist states between 1990 and 1996. As Table 1 summarizing United Nations data shows, the GDP level was half or less in Russia and Ukraine by 1996 compared to a decade earlier and collapsed to only one-fifth of the mid-eighties level in Georgia, which was the worst affected. Never in peacetime have we ever seen such a comprehensive destruction of productive capacities and outputs, entirely owing to the wrong macro-economic policies advised by foreign experts and followed by the local policy makers. The human effects have been devastating, with a sharp reversal of the decades of improvement in all human development indicators. The death rate among the able-bodied rose from nearly 49 to 58 (per thousand) comparing 1992 with 1990, and rose further to 84 per thousand by 1994.1 The male expectation of life declined by nearly 6 years in Russia. With the steep rise in the death rate, the total population of Russia showed absolute decline – again, an unprecedented situation in peacetime.

Where were those academics who profess to be concerned with hunger and famine, when it came to analyzing the economic and demographic collapse in Russia? It can hardly be argued that journalists and the media had no access to the country after 1990. I have said earlier that it is not reasonable to count the effects of the decline in the birth rate if any, to estimate ‘famine deaths’. If we apply a reasonable method of simply taking the 1990 death rate in Russia as the bench mark and calculate the cumulated extra deaths among the able-bodied by 1996 owing to the observed rise in the death rate, we get a figure of more than 4 million excess deaths in Russia alone. Expressed in relation to Russia’s population, this famine was three times larger than the great Bengal famine in India in 1943-44 and twice as large as the Chinese excess mortality –accepting the official figures – during the Great Leap years. The Russian famine is neither internationally recognized nor publicized, for the very good reason that Russia was making a transition to capitalism and it is this process which gave rise to the famine. Those who are eager to try to discredit socialism even at the cost of indefensible statistical procedures, appear to be less than willing to recognize the existence of famine or estimate famine deaths in a ‘transitional’ society like Russia even though the case is a contemporary one and is well documented.”

Indeed, a google search makes it hard to even find links speaking of the Russian famine of 1992-1994, which was definitely an artificial famine caused by an economic system, Capitalism. Here's the first link that is relevant that comes up: https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/2015

Of course it is right to criticize those policies and practices which were excessive and wrong by Stalin and the Soviet Union, but not as an absolute, but rather in context. The fact that Stalin is seen as a bigger culprit than his contemporary Winston Churchill (who did in fact engineer a famine in Bengal that killed some 4 million people) or Yeltsin (see above) is not substantiated by hard numbers, evidence and facts. The fact that Communism is attributed responsibility for famine, when Capitalism kills 100 million with starvation every 8 to 12 years but is not blamed as a system, once again shows this bias.

I hope that people will re-edit this page to take a true NPOV, and likewise create a page about the Russian famine of 1992-1994/96.69.139.11.106 (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Amazing post. Well cited and written. However there seems to be an unwillingness to accept anything positive about Stalin or negative about capitalism on Wikipedia. Here is another story on the famine of 1992, the government official openly admitted it was a potential problem from the future but your story clearly debunks his attempt to downplay the issue they were facing. Sadly so little work has been done on the Russian famine of 1992-1994 I doubt we can make a page on it. I know about if from my now family members in the Soviet Union. As late as the mid 2000's many were living on a few pieces of bread and some water a day so that any meat or produce could be consumed by their children. These people were computer programers, physicists and engineers, not just average day-laborers looking for construction work. Luckily the moved to America where we waste 40% of our food. To this day their scientists friends( biologists, physicist, computer programmers) are still struggling to find work as the so called economic growth in East Europe goes to a few and drives the populations down through mass emigration to America and West Europe.

NeoStalinist (talk) 17:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I know that Wikipedia largely has a pro-West and anti-communist bias. Such is the hegemonic thinking that it isn't seen as a bias at all. By keeping the questions on methodology for the criteria of writing articles, my hope is that misdirection of labeling my person as "Stalin believer" won't matter, the numbers will speak for themselves as well as a rigorous method to study them. The whole article is so full of bias. Take for example how the section on the Doctor's Plot (and the article as a whole) presents Nikita Khrushchev's argument with no skepticism or scrutiny. Khrushchev and his cohorts had their own hand in the actions of the Stalin era, and their attempt to place the blame solely on Stalin, as well as Trotsky's sour grapes, have been used and cited by anti-communists to create the Stalin myth (where as they would in almost any other context be critical, skeptical, antagonistic and cynical about Trotsky and Khrushchev). With the recent release of Stephen Kotkin's work on Stalin, even liberal democratic (non-communist) historians are beginning to debunk the distortions of the Stalin myth. Its my hope that a review of Stalin in that work, as well as many of those I mentioned in that post, will trickle to Wikipedia. So long as people are accepting the "Black Book of Communism" as some kind of unbiased and "hard" source, then such a hope would be impossible. (I recommend that even a cursory glance at the Wikipedia page of the "Black Book" presents a fair number of criticisms as a starting place)

I am sorry to hear about the tragedy and hardship your family suffered. People suffered greatly in the history of Russia/the Soviet Union. Most certainly there were horrible crimes and excesses of Stalin, like the forced relocations for example. As a person of conscience, no ideology or political views could change how I feel about the human cost of such mistakes and misdeeds. But on the flip side, I feel that pro-capitalists and apologists for imperialism are not capable of recognizing horror and atrocity in anywhere but regimes which are ideologically different than their own. They would speak of the so-called "Holodomor" and the Communists as Butchers and Stalin as a monster, but not of the Bengali famine and Churchill and the British imperialists role in the same way. They would speak of the GULAG, but not of what Britain did in Kenya with concentration camps that killed a million in the 1960s (well after Hitler) or what the U.N. allowed under the South Korean despot Ryee mass killings in the Bodo League massacre, the Jeju Island massacre, or even the US actions in Vietnam like Operation Phoenix or the war in general which killed some four and half million people. They complain of human rights abuses in North Korea with indignation, but most likely wouldn't say much if the same North Korea regime made ipods and Nikes. Meanwhile they are silent on Saudi Arabia's dictatorship and repression. Etc, etc, etc. I believe, much as Utsa Patnaik, the difference is that while persons such as yourself and myself care about the plight of people genuinely, regardless of social and political system, they do not. The only motivation such persons have, whether they are consciously aware of this or not, is to discredit socialism, and so long as the human suffering is caused by something other than socialism there is little interest if any at all.69.139.11.106 (talk) 13:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

This disruptive WP:SOAPBOXing does not help improve the article. Making up history (e.g. 1+ million Kenyan concentration camp deathes) doesn't belong at this or any page. Please concentrate on specific edits that might improve the article. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh please, this whole article reads as soap-boxing. As far as the case of Britain in Kanya, I did in my rush in writing the response to the other poster collapse two figures I meant as separate as one, which is that the British had between one million and and one and half million Kikuyu in concentration camps, which according to several authors, in particular the excellent work by Caroline Elkins puts the number of deaths well into the hundreds of thousands. The point, in case you missed it, is not to soap box, because quite frankly, I think its a waste of time because pro-capitalists don't care if five million died in Bengal or if more than a million were sent into camps in Kenya that killed hundreds of thousands. The only relevant issue, with which I am speaking is that the Soviet Union, Communism and Stalin are seen as an evil with supposedly figures that are to back this claim, while equal or greater figures of capitalist and western imperialist atrocities are not in any way commonly used to discredit capitalism, western nations or figures such as Churchill, Yeltsin, Nixon or LBJ as "monsters", "mass murderers" a ruthless system or ideology. They are either apologized as mistakes not indicative of the general tenets of said ideology, economic system or civilization, or more often, simply ignored, not taught or talked about/discussed. That is the relevant point. The simple "what is good for the goose is good for the gander" is the point. Although the West's and Capitalism's maxim is "What is good for the goose is only good for the goose so shut the hell up. Do as we say, not as we do." Nice try though. In any case, I apologize for my haste in collapsing the two figures, it was not intentional, nor was it made up, as I encourage you to research the very real horror of the British capitalists' actions in Kenya for yourself. Perhaps this may allow you to realize how capitalism is a murderous and inhuman system of exploitation with quite the bloody track record, but morality is not the subject at hand here, nor is it useful for use to debate. Yet, I find it both sad and telling you will jump on the one error in my post, rather than the meat and overwhelming facts and argument and citations I have posted. Because it is the figures, methodology and context which is the meat of the post here. Misdirection is not something I am tying to do, and I hope you are not either.69.139.11.106 (talk) 04:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Fair warning, if no one else has anything left to say, then an edit will be coming.24.238.89.22 (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

CORRECT GRAMMAR

CURRENT Conquest states that while exact numbers may never be known with complete certainty, the at least 15 million people were either executed or worked to death in the camps. CORRECT TO Conquest states that while exact numbers may never be known with complete certainty, at least 15 million people were either executed or worked to death in the camps. Rosros-5 (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. thx. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Criminal?

Previously, I added Category:Joseph Stalin as a subcategory of Category:Wikipedia categories named after criminals, but it was deleted. Why? Wouldn't the Holodomor count as a serious crime against the Ukrainian people? Along with all the horrific persecutions Stalin perpetrated? Anyway, I restored said category.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

That's OK if you list Queen Victoria as a criminal too.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Why was Queen Victoria a criminal?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Brutal British colonial reign in India. - üser:Altenmann >t 22:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• That is an incorrect use of the category, which is for people who are known for having been convicted of crimes. Your use of the category as a post hoc popular court, is not admissible under wikipedia's editing principles. Even if we could all agree that Stalin was a criminal, as Altenmann suggests such a use of this category would overpopulate it with kings, dicators and other rulers, thousands of whom have perpetrated acts that would today be considered crimes against humanity.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm impressed that Altenmann knew what I meant!--Jack Upland (talk) 09:33, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

He was a famous bank robber and kidnapper, convicted many times and sentenced. He bragged of it and it is long been in the article. That qualifies as "criminal" even if personally ordering the deaths and assassinations of hundreds doesn't. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

It's actually not clear to me what Stalin was convicted of, here or from a quick check Montefiore's Young Stalin. He is not known as a bank robber. However, he is categorised here as a bank robber, poet, and opponent of apartheid. I think Wikipedia's categories are a bit silly.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Believed that the Red Terror

Does the quoted article say this?Xx236 (talk) 09:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Controversies about Stalin

The quality of the section is low. It discusses the birth and the Red Terror only. The Prhevalsky story is absurd and there exist many serious controversies not mentioned here.Xx236 (talk) 09:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The concept of "Socialism in One Country"

Is the subject so important to be quoted in the lead? I don't think so, Stalin deployed Soviet system around the SU and made Trotsky to be murdered in Mexico. The SU lost in Spain and in 1941, which stopped the world revolution more than any theory. Xx236 (talk) 06:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

That was important in Trotsky's critique of Stalin. However, after WW2, the USSR effectively "exported revolution" anyway, causing ideological confusion for the Trotskyist movement. Trotsky criticised Stalin's policies in China, but the Communists came to power there anyway.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Trotsky is important for his followers only.

The SU occupied Mongolia between 1924-1928, part of Eastern Europe 1939-1941 and since 1944.Xx236 (talk) 08:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It might be undue weight.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The lead does not summarise the article.Xx236 (talk) 07:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The concept/term "Socialism in one country" is well understood and widely used in serious writing about Stalin and the Soviet Union to refer to the regime's policy and theory, and hence clearly relevant for the lead. Its importance to the topic is not refuted by observations about Soviet control of other countries, as if the term is necessarily to be taken literally in a practical sense. I suspect academics writing about Stalin have thought about any apparent contradictions. N-HH talk/edits 09:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Certainly it is important. Maybe it should be in the lead. But what the lead says is strange. A "central tenet of Soviet society"?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2016

At the time of his stroke, his private physician was already being tortured in the basement of the Lubyanka for suggesting the leader required more bed rest. By 8am on March 2, Stalin had shown no signs of recovery. Nikita Krushchev called in a medical team. But Stalin's best doctors-including his personal physician who had treated him for years-were all in prison. While he lay ill, his doctors were being tortured by secret police agents in order to force them to confess to crimes they had not committed 213.8.204.82 (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Stalin's war plans

Closing discussion initiated by banned User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Stalin was preparing for war against the European Axis Powers, which is why Hitler launched Operation Barbarossa in June 1941. (217.35.237.169 (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)) This has been posted here already. WP is not a forum. --Dorpater (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2016

Hi, I noticed that the external links section of the article on Joseph Stalin does not yet have an IMDb name template. I provided this person's IMDb ID on Wikidata. Now I am wondering if you can add the following template:

Joseph Stalin/Archive 18 at IMDb

If you can, please add this template to the external links section. Thank you. 73.182.28.179 (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done  Stick to sources! Paine  20:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Fully protected edit request on 18 April 2016

A protected redirect, Stalin, needs redirect category (rcat) templates added and one rcat removed. Please modify it as follows:

• from this:

#redirect [[Joseph Stalin]] {{R from surname}}{{R from alternative name}}

• to this:

#REDIRECT [[Joseph Stalin]]

{{This is a redirect|from move|from surname|mentioned in hatnote|printworthy}}

• WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.

The {{This is a redirect}} template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When {{pp-protected}} and/or {{pp-move}} suffice, the This is a redirect template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) Thank you in advance!  Stick to sources! Paine  20:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Martin!  Stick to sources! Paine  20:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

How many people did he kill?

I've heard anything from 6 to 20 million. (217.42.104.110 (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2016

|name = Joseph Stalin

|native_name   = Иосиф Сталин
|native_name   = იოსებ სტალინი  <<<<<<< Should add Georgian name, I don't know why it was removed.

birth surname: Jughashvili; 18 December 1878  <<<<< That's Georgian last name, it should be in Georgian too. ( ჯუღაშვილი) 

Galatea22 (talk) 08:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The name appears in prose at the first section "Early life". I'm sure he's known more as a Soviet than as a Georgian, so I'm refraining from introducing the edit. I couldn't find when the Georgian name was removed in the past few months. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 08:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

The Death of One Man is a Tragedy, the Death of a Million is a Statistic

Mary Soames, the daughter of Winston Churchill, stated that she heard Stalin say this to her father at the Potsdam Conference. Stalin and Churchill were talking when Churchill received a note saying that one of his best friends had died. Churchill began to cry, then said: "Marshall Stalin, I have to apologize because I know it is absurd that the death of one person should make one weep while you on the eastern front have lost so many millions." Stalin replied: "No, I understand, because one death is a tragedy, but a million is just a statistic." <ref>Simon Sebag Montefiore in talk to Jaipur Literature Festival, 6 June 2012. The video is on Youtube - "JLF 2012 103 - Stalin by Simon Sebag Montefiore introduced by William Dalrymple". The relevant passage begins at 49 minutes and 50 seconds.Roibes (talk) 08:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a famous quote, but in context it's quite understandable.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Stalin's name in the lede?

I came across a discussion, on User talk:The Banner/Archives/2016/August#Joseph Stalin, about whether Stalin's name should be immediately followed by a phonetic transliteration. One contributor points out the Lenin article doesn't have it. The other contributor points out a dozen of so other communist whose names are followed by phonetic transliterations.

I am not familiar with what the MOS says about this, but shouldn't the discussion of this particular case shouldn't be taking place here?

One thing missing from that discussion is a recognition that both Lenin and Stalin were best known by their nomme de guerre, not their birth name. Lenin, and several other communist leaders, used a nomme de guerre with a surname derived from one of the Great Russian rivers. Stalin means Steel. He chose the very butch nomme de guerre "Joe Steel".

Another thing missing from that discussion is that Stalin was not a native Russian speaker, he was a Georgian.

While I am not an expert in what the MOS says, isn't it unusual for his birth name not to be mentioned in the lede section? Geo Swan (talk) 11:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Georgian transliteration is given in "Early Life".--Jack Upland (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Stalin-Truman Quote

If you see this picture (from the Truman Library) the Truman quote about the size of Stalin is more political that true -you also can see other pictures-, the quote is innecessary to the article. http://www.trumanlibrary.org/photographs/63-1456-30.jpg 152.170.24.22 (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate wording ("freed")

The lead includes the wording "Communist governments loyal to the Soviet Union were established in most countries freed from German occupation by the Red Army..." This should be reworded. There was no freedom anywhere where Stalin's Red Army went; just one occupation by a totalitarian regime (Stalin's former allies) replaced by another one, and no freedom at all, but murder, rape, dictatorship, persecution of large groups of people and so on.

I would suggest "Communist governments loyal to the Soviet Union were established in most countries invaded by the Red Army". --Tataral (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

invided may be too sharp, finally death ratio under Soviets was in Poland much lower, than under the Nazis. Bulgaria was pro-Russian. 11:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)Xx236 (talk)

New books

Oleg Khlevniuk, Stalin

Jörg Baberowski, Verbrannte Erde Xx236 (talk) 12:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Stalin young pic?

Can you the moderators remove the stalin pic in early life because that is a model not him, that picture has already mislead many people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.7.14.168 (talk) 10:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

It is him.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Uhh no it is not, it's a model who posed as Stalin for the cover of a book called 'Young Stalin'. This is what he actually looked like http://imgur.com/vQhXQ4X — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.48.31.190 (talk) 04:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

According to the book, it is a mugshot c. 1905-6. The book also includes the profile shot. Sure, it was a flattering photo, but it's him. Do you have any evidence that it's a model?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes it was a mugshot scene , here is the original mugshot which it was based on http://iliketowastemytime.com/sites/default/files/historical-photos-pt10-joseph-stalin-mugshot-1911.png Stalin never grew his mustache like the model did. Another two pictures of the mugshot http://c7.alamy.com/comp/A747BH/joseph-stalin-tsarist-police-photos-of-stalin-A747BH.jpg This is a more detailed version http://img15.nnm.ru/0/3/0/a/6/4dbaf8051fc6c169c8be6fe83e0.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.151.121 (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that it was a model, apart from comparison of photos?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't link you to a 'comparison' I linked to you the original mugshot. And I have more than enough proof http://i.imgur.com/3wDETXN.png Why is wikipedia using an image without citation in the first place? How about the fact that this image was added to wikipedia the same year as the book was released and that the only source of the image is the book as seen in the file history and that the picture didn't exist prior to the release of the book? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.151.121 (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The author designed the book cover??? Is that email genuine?! But the "model" doesn't just appear on the cover: he also features in profile in the illustrations along with the photo you say is the original, described as a mugshot c. 1905-6. Why???--Jack Upland (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course the email is genuine why would I fake something like this? I got the email from Simon Sebag's personal website http://www.simonsebagmontefiore.com/contacts.aspx which you can contact if you still don't believe me. The author never said any single thing about the cover picture or that is even from '1905-1906' the photo has no actual date because it's fake and the shooting of the photo was certainly after 2000. The photo I said is the original is the actual real life Stalin, not the same guy in the cover of the book photo. The real life Stalin was known to have his face badly scarred by smallpox since age 7 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un5LpUl9quw which if you look closely you can see on his cheeks and neck in the original I provided, that's why Stalin would take photos only at certain angles during his dictatorship which were then airbrushed. The other photo is simply a model which the author used for a cover, in fact the model is probably still alive.

I mean come on, it doesn't take much brain to realize how fake this photo is. Stalin was born in 1878 and the the photo was said to be taken in 1902 by the uploader, and then as you said you believe it is from '1905-6' but neither 1902 or 1905-6 would make Stalin '23' years as written right below the photo. Second Stalin's fellow prisoner Grigol Uratadze, said when asked about Stalin's appearance and behavior in prison "He was scruffy and his pockmarked face made him not particularly neat in appearance.... He had a creeping way of walking, taking short steps.... when we were let outside for exercise and all of us in our particular groups made for this or that corner of the prison yard, Stalin stayed by himself and walked backwards and forwards with his short aces, and if anyone tried speaking to him, he would open his mouth into that cold smile of his and perhaps say a few words... we lived together in Kutaisi Prison for more than half a year and not once did I see him get afitated, lose control, get angry, shout, swear - or in short - reveal himself in any other aspect than complete calmness." Now take a look at how clean and proper the guy on the cover is for a mughshot that too. http://spartacus-educational.com/RUSstalin.htm www.ysmithcpallen.com/sites/default/files/sites/all/documents/Stalin.doc

I really expected better from wikipedia.

I believe that the above discussion gives more than reasonable doubt about this picture. The actual mugshot is available, why not use it? Please {{Edit semi-protected}} Maggy (talk) 07:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

That picture is used in Montefiore's book and other sources. We need a reliable source that casts doubt, not some weird detective work by an anonymous editor.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Well um we're all anonymous. So let's see

• It was published in the Soviet Union in a biography of Stalin during Stalin's lifetime. How much do you trust the veracity of the source. I don't much. Let me ask this: if a biography of Stalin, published in the Soviet Union during Stalin's lifetimes, had text material about Stalin -- "Comrade Stalin singlehandedly made the decisions that resulted in such-and-such victory" -- how reliable would we consider that to be?
• Does it look like Stalin? I don't think it does.
• Does it look better that Stalin, such that if you wanted to look make Stalin look more handsome that he was, would you use a picture like that? Would a Soviet publisher do that? You decide.
• And we have an existing picture of young Stalin that is known to be accurate. Why don't we use that? Herostratus (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It's hard to prove a negative. I cannot prove that this picture is not Stalin. Circumstantial factors indicate that we should use the picture we know is accurate. Herostratus (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

First we're told it's a model who posed for Young Stalin. Now we're told the picture was published in Stalin's lifetime. As I said, there is no published source that raises problems with the picture.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I guess the question is how much creedence we are giving to Soviet sources in this article. This is just one instance, but if we are generally of the mind "well it was published in the Soviet Union so it must be true" this is a problem. Is this how this article is being approached, and if not why are we making an exception for this one picture? Herostratus (talk) 13:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Bolshevism, like time, has a way of erasing bad memories

We do know that the Soviet Union was prone to manipulating images. The image at the left shows a series of manipulations, and there are many others. According to The Guardian, this famous photo was constructed in the photo shop. And so forth. There's a whole article. I don't get the advantage of the let's-be-credulous-about-this position. Herostratus (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a source, rather than just contradictory allegations?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

End of pact with Germany

Did Hitler break the pact or did Stalin? The Soviet invasion of Bukovina in 1940 violated the pact as it went beyond the Soviet sphere of influence agreed with the Axis. (FrankFriar (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC))

Problem solved by a sockpuppet block. The Banner talk 14:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2016

Whole page redirects to a youtube video

2606:A000:884A:F000:7843:98E8:F528:7998 (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

 Not done The "whole page" cannot redirect anywhere and there are no YouTube links in any of the references - I suspect your computer may be infected - Arjayay (talk) 12:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Urgent: Page Vandalism Exploiting Bug in Wikipedia

Clicking anywhere within the article region of this page (not just article links) strangely redirects to this Youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPzvP2VOq4M

The Youtube comment section verifies that this happening to other users reproducing the issue above. This is a non-trivial act of vandalism that exploits a bug in Wikipedia somehow and should be investigated and remediated as a matter or urgency.

Update: Loading the page from a new tab does not duplicate the issue. Maybe an XSS attack?

197.93.173.204 (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Milyutin: Shot or not?

This article has this paragraph

With the exception of Vladimir Milyutin (who died in prison in 1937) and Joseph Stalin himself, all of the members of Lenin's original cabinet who had not succumbed to death from natural causes before the purge were executed.

The link to Milyutin in the above text: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Milyutin leads to a correct page but the page says that Milyutin was shot. So either your paragraph above is erroneus or the Milyutin page is in error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.116.233 (talk) 14:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Plans for 1941

Stalin was preparing to attack Germany in 1941. (2A00:23C4:6388:7300:6435:C112:794C:A6F1 (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC))

Relationships with Foreign Leaders Section

I believe that there should be a section added to the article on his relationships and how he got along with the various foreign leaders he worked with, i.e. Churchill, Marshal, Mao, Roosevelt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apocolypse101 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

There is an existing section, which could be expanded.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with this section, we don't have such sections in other main WW II leader articles. Also who would you include, currently I see Churchill, Roosevelt and Marshall there, but what about Hitler, Ribbendrop, Mao, Tito etc? If there is something truly relevant about Stalin's relationship with a specific leader then it should be included in the main timeline.--Staberinde (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise this section had just been added. I agree it would be better to integrate this into the timeline.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Cultural differences? (Marhall subsection)

Maybe in some Western countries some politicians tell the truth. Certainly Stalin generally didn't tell the truth as a Soviet leader. Only an expert is able to translate Stalin's words into human language. The quoted author Forrest Pogue is a US Army historian, he doesn't have any idea about the Soviet politics. The subsection should be removed.Xx236 (talk) 08:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

References

I don't know how to fix it myself, but I think the references and the text they relate to are all shifted off by one. Reference 2 points to reference 1 text, reference 1 points to reference a text, etc. Dolamite02 (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Georgia in the 19th century

I changed this paragraph:

Stalin's birth name in Georgian was Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili (Georgian: იოსებ ბესარიონის ძე ჯუღაშვილი). He was born an ethnic Georgian; Georgia was then part of the Russian Empire. The Russian-language version of his birth name was Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili (Russian: Ио́сиф Виссарио́нович Джугашви́ли).

to this;

Joseph Stalin was born an ethnic Georgian. His birth name in Georgian was Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili (Georgian: იოსებ ბესარიონის ძე ჯუღაშვილი). His homeland was then part of the Russian Empire. The Russian-language version of his birth name was Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili (Russian: Ио́сиф Виссарио́нович Джугашви́ли).

I replaced "Georgia" with "his homeland". In those days, especially in that part of the world, the concept of "country" was a nebulous one. Most people in those days could tell you which village they were from and which ethnic group they identified with, but often they could not tell you what "country" they were from because that issue was considered vague and not all that important. This was a time when the concept of the nation state was still forming and not universal. At 15 years old, Stalin would tell you that he is from Gori, that his people are the Georgians, and that he owed taxes and fealty to the czar Nicholas II who lived far away in St Petersburg.

Perhaps I'm splitting hairs with this edit but I think it captures the feel of what the time and place was like. Ghrelinger (talk) 11:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that Stalin said anything like that???--Jack Upland (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329850-600-end-of-nations-is-there-an-alternative-to-countries/ Ghrelinger (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any reference to Stalin.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Georgia was created around 1000 years ago. Georgian culture was very strong and different than the Russian one. Georgia belonged to Russia about 100 years, later declared independence and was invided by the Soviets. Stalin wrote poetry in Georgian and his model was a Georgian Robin Hood Koba.Xx236 (talk) 08:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I admit this is a bit nebulous and if you guys insist on just calling it Georgia, I can go with it. Ghrelinger (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the current text could be confusing — including the explanation that Gori is "today in Georgia".--Jack Upland (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Russian nationalism

Although Stalin was Georgian, after he became involved in politics he promoted Russian nationalism and significantly promoted Russian history, language, and Russian national heroes, particularly during the 1930s and 1940s. There are also claims that he held the Russian people up as the elder brothers of the non-Russian minorities.

This is very biased and misleading. Stalin is often accused of Russian nationalism, but this is only true compared with the standards of Lenin and Trotsky. Compared with the rule of the Tsars, this is simply not true. Saying "after he became involved in politics he promoted Russian nationalism" is utterly wrong because his work with the People's Commissariat for Nationalities and in Korenizatsiya had the opposite tendency. The other thing wrong with this passage is that it ignores the fact that the vast majority of the Soviet population were Russian. Political point-scoring aside, it's unremarkable that the government would "promote" Russian culture.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The last (unreffed) sentence should go. Stalin did promote Russian nationalism when it was expedient, especially in the Great Patriotic War (and against old guard Internationalists). I think his work with the Narkomnats was largely confined to its inception. We should be more nuanced, and explain the transition from Soviet socialist patriotism to Russian nationalism (perhaps he sometimes used both simultaneously?). Comparing his "Motherland" shtick to the Tsarist era is justifiable -- Lenin would have turned in his humidity controlled glass box. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 22:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The "big brother" quote is certainly true, but I don't see it as Russian nationalist. It is simply a recognition that Russians were the majority. I don't think a Georgian would have been in charge under the Tsar. Nor would an Armenian like Anastas Mikoyan or a Jew like Lazar Kaganovich. Under the Tsar, Ukrainians were deemed not to exist as a separate nationality. Under Stalin, they had their own seat at the UN. The passage doesn't mention the Tsarist era, so an uninformed reader is left with the impression that the various national groups were living in peace and equality until Stalin started promoting Russian nationalism.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Stalin didn't rule Russian Empire, he ruled Soviet Union, and in this context his support to Russian nationalism compared to his predecessor is very relevant.--Staberinde (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Lenin was only briefly the leader of the Soviet Union. And almost everyone is more nationalist than Lenin. The article takes Stalin's approach to Russia entirely out of context. For the general reader who knows none of this background it is completely misleading.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Soviet calendar

Should we mention the introduction the Soviet calendar, consisting of five- then six-day weeks, in the Changes to Soviet society, 1927–1939 section? His ability to change time itself exemplifies his totalitarian rule. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 17:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Many governments change time: for example, conversion to the Gregorian calendar, adoption of daylight saving time.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but changing the number of days in the week (three times!) is on another level. AFAIK only the similarly revolutionary (and similarly crazy) French Republican Calendar with its decimal time is comparable. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 21:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, even modern totalitarian regimes content themselves with just renumbering years. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

It could be included here. Then again what about all the politicians who introduced Sunday trading? Should that be in their articles?--Jack Upland (talk) 11:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Again, I'm not sure that's comparable. I was thinking just a brief paragraph explaining why it was introduced and the effect on the workers. @Carrite:, this is kinda your area isn't it? --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 18:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think you're exaggerating the issue. I think this is really a testament to the USSR as a revolutionary society, rather than Stalin as tyrant. This was an experiment that failed. Other things, such as female workforce participation (even female fighter pilots) have since been accepted more widely. Unlike the day and the year, the week does not represent any astronomical reality. It is part of a Jewish religious tradition that is now accepted worldwide. Changing the way that time is measured is no more "totalitarian" than changing the measurements of other things, like introducing the metric system or a new currency. It's not fundamentally different, but the practical effects on ordinary people tend to be more profound. The comments in the Soviet calendar article about the effects on workers are comparable to the effects on workers who work weekend and night shifts in developed countries today.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

"The week does not represent any astronomical reality." That's certainly true, but forcing people to work continuously for 30 days is quite a radical concept? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The week is 1/4 of the lunar phase cycle in Earths days (rounded to the nearest integer) = number of days between the phases (New moon, First quarter, Full moon, Third quarter (or last quarter)), so it is definitely representing an astronomical reality. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_phase for details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.126.101.134 (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The effects on ordinary people/industry were indeed profound. Religious/traditonal practices of hundreds of years standing were upended, many couples were effectively seperated, varying time-schemes used by different industries led to confusion and chaos in many places, etc. You say it's "a testament to the USSR as a revolutionary society, rather than Stalin as tyrant", but of course Stalin gave the nod to all this, it's virtually impossible to separate him from Russian history in this period. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 20:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Early life

On 22 January 1905, Jughashvili was in Baku when Cossacks attacked a mass demonstration of workers, killing 200. This was part of a series of events which sparked the Russian Revolution of 1905. Riots, peasant uprisings and ethnic massacres swept the Russian Empire. In February, ethnic Azeris and Armenians were slaughtering each other in the streets of Baku. [Early life of Joseph Stalin] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liketeahouse (talk • contribs) 20:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2017

There is a line that 47 girls were found locked in Stalin's basement in the 1930's. This never happened and has no citation, so wtf? 206.63.236.221 (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Now removed. The editor concerned has been warned. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Reaction by successors

The subsection misinforms, tt was a sine function, Khrushchev rejected, Brezhnyev partially refurbished, Gorbachev rejected. Xx236 (talk) 08:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

My text was removed drop garbled mathematics comment.

The subsection misinforms isn't mathematics. Please don't defend misinformations.

The current text suggests that opinions of the succesors were more and more anti-Stalinist. It's not true because Breshnyev criticized Khrushchev so in some way accepted Stalin, compare Leonid Brezhnev#Legacy. Generally in Communism leaders criticized their removed predecessors and prised old dead leaders.Xx236 (talk) 07:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

"it was a sine function" is inarticulate as mathematics and as history. Try to express yourself in clear English. it looks more like binary: 1-0-1-0 Rjensen (talk) 07:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I write as I can. As far no one is capable to review the page better than me.Xx236 (talk) 07:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, the article includes a long condemnation of Stalin published in 1974 when Brezhnev was in charge.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Alleged Russian inventors

journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/002070204700200108 - probably here, I can't see the text.Xx236 (talk) 09:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Intellectuals and Apparatchiks: Russian Nationalism ... by Kevin O'Connor Xx236 (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

when he succeeded Lenin he promoted Russian nationalism

The recent edit is wrong, Stalin opposed Lenin, compare Georgian Affair. Xx236 (talk) 07:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Please see the discussion above "Russian nationalism". While the two clashed over the Georgian Affair, I don't see how that contradicts the edit.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Stalin had opposed Lenin even before he succeeded him. The quoted phrase suggests that Stalin changed his view.Xx236 (talk) 10:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Russian national heroes promoted by Stalin

Alexander Nevsky (film)

Ivan the Terrible (film)

Pyotr Pervyy, based on Peter I by Aleksey Nikolayevich Tolstoy

Alexander Suvorov#Legacy

A Life for the Tsar rewritten as Ivan Susanin.Xx236 (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but his regime also promoted other culture:

• The 750th anniversary of Shota Rustaveli's Georgian epic "The Knight in the Panther Skin" was celebrated in 1938.
• Stalin obviously liked Alexander Kazbegi's Georgian novel, The Patricide, because he took from it his pseudonym "Koba", and the author was honoured in many ways.
• And Quiet Flows the Don (a novel which became a film ) celebrated Cossack culture.
• As did the film Cossacks of the Kuban.
• Armenian composer Aram Khachaturian, who used Armenian folk tunes in his music, was highly decorated.
• Ukrainian Cossack leader Bohdan Khmelnytsky was glorified as a hero of class struggle and a film made about him in 1941.
• Ukrainian activist Taras Shevchenko was honoured in a number of ways, including by the naming of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv.

The regime also promoted non-Soviet heroes such as Spartacus and welcomed activists from around the world like Paul Robeson. As pointed out before, the USSR had a Russian majority. It is not surprising that the Russian language, culture, and history would feature in education, books, films etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Stalin started World War II

Without the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact Hitler (and Stalin) could not have invaded Poland in September 1939. (2A00:23C4:638F:5000:1DE8:35B4:521D:6763 (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC))

Stalin's Dictatorship

For several years, the lede referred to Stalin as a dictator. In April, Midnightblueowl deleted the reference without explanation or seeking consensus. In the last few days I attempted to restore information about his dictatorship to the lede, and Midnightblueowl reverted me. In fact he reverted me several times without bringing it to the talk page for discussion. Did some new source come out in recent years absolving Stalin? Why, Midnightblueowl, are you so intent on burying the most essential (as per every RS) fact of Stalin's political career -- that he ruled the Soviet Union as a dictator? Scaleshombre (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we cannot use the "dictator" label in any form, and am certainly not trying to "bury" the term. I did not "remove" the term "dictator" but moved it and slightly re-contextualised it, so please do not misrepresent my actions or my views; the term "dictator" needs to be in the lede paragraphs. I am simply asking for you (first) to discuss a controversial addition on the lede before imposing it on the article, and (second) not to edit war in complete contravention of WP:BRD. As you well know (given your previous failed attempts to get Fidel Castro uncritically labelled a dictator demonstrate), Wikipedia tends to avoid uncritically labelling Marxist leaders as "dictators" and tends instead to use terms like "widely regarded as a dictator". The FA-rated articles for Vladimir Lenin and Nikita Khruschev for instance do not label their subjects as "dictators" as if it were an unequivocal fact accepted by all; so why do you insist that Stalin should be treated differently? I will also repeat that my concerns regarding your addition lie not just in the uncritical application of the term "dictator" but also in the general information contained in the sentence "By outmaneuvering his rivals within the Communist Party and placing his supporters in key government and party posts, he ruled the state as a dictator". The fact is that that second paragraph of the lede already gives some attention to how Stalin secured control in the party so we are just duplicating information here. The lede needs to be kept crisp and concise, so this sort of duplication is just not warranted.

Moreover, you are continuing to edit war to add your chosen sentence into the article (you've breached 3RR). I have warned you about this but will not continue to entangle myself in an edit war. You are the one contravening WP:BDP and if you do not revert your addition then it may well be that another editor does it for you. Please, just be willing to cooperate and abide by Wikipedia's rules and regulations. We can easily have a civilised discussion about this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, it would be appreciated if you weren't presumptuous by using male pronouns when referring to me. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

First, I apologize for using male pronouns in referring to you. It was absolutely presumptuous on my part, and I won't do it again. As far as using "dictator" in the first paragraph, I know you place a lot of stock in how other Marxist leaders are dealt with in their articles. But those analogies only go so far. Stalin's despotism is the central fact of his life. Every RS highlights his tyranny. Although Hitler's article is not FA-rated, I think Hitler is the more appropriate comparison, not Lenin or Kruschev. You mentioned my attempts to label Castro a dictator; one of the byproducts of that effort was that it forced me to read more widely about Castro, and my opinion of him changed. I still think he did terrible things, but I understand now that my earlier views of him as a flat-out tyrant were wrong. The same can not be said for Stalin (or his doppelganger in history, Hitler). If Stalin's dictatorship doesn't merit "above the fold" treatment in his article, then the word "dictator" is meaningless. It should be struck from every dictionary, every WP article, every textbook. Scaleshombre (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology regarding pronouns, I appreciate it. I'm still hesitant with regards to the uncritical use of "dictator" for Stalin (or indeed, for almost any political leader) as it is such a politically loaded term. We see it used a lot by advocates of liberal democracy against certain other forms of governance with which they tend to come into conflict (particularly fascists, military juntas, Marxists, Arab and African nationalists etc) while at the same time rarely if ever being applied to absolute monarchies, including those from European history. Someone like Henry VIII probably wielded more centralised power than Stalin did, but when was the last time that you saw Henry VIII labelled a dictator? Although "dictator" is not listed as a contentious label over at the Manual of Style, surely it is just as emotionally loaded as terms like "terrorist" and "extremist" which are listed there? I think that your use of the word "tyrant" also illustrates my point to some extent; in the popular imagination, "dictators" and "tyrants" have become mixed and blurred. For most people, "dictators" are not just those who govern in a centralised manner that differs from the rules and strictures of a liberal democratic framework, but they are also horrid people, war mongers, guilty of human rights abuses and crimes against humanity.

However, this is a debate that we need to continue having, and it would be good to get some other voices in on this. What I would like to suggest is that (in the short term at least) we move the "dictator" label from the end of that first paragraph to the second sentence. That would mean having something like "He governed the Soviet Union from the mid-1920s until his death in 1953 in a manner widely regarded as dictatorial" or (if you prefer) "He governed the Soviet Union as its dictator from the mid-1920s until his death in 1953". That way we can be rid of the additional sentence which I just think is unnecessary and lengthens the first paragraph more than is necessary. We could even move "placing his supporters in key government and party posts" into that second paragraph, at the appropriate juncture. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

MBO, I respect what you're trying to do here, make Wikipedia as neutral as possible. I think, however, that not identifying Stalin as a dictator in the opening paragraph undercuts this goal. According to RS, Stalin (and Hitler) is the paradigm by which all dictators are now measured. Like you, I'm interested in hearing what others have to say about this matter. But for now, I think the sentence (and its placement) should stay as is. If you want to take a crack at shortening the paragraph, by all means have a go at it. I personally think the sentence about ideology doesn't belong so high up in the article. Stalin's place in history is primarily as a man of "action," not ideas or theories. Doctrines, dogma and slogans were merely means to an end for him -- camouflage and tactics -- not immutable laws of history. At the same time, because he's one of history's most momentous figures, I don't think it's so bad if his lede paragraph is a little longer than average. Scaleshombre (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with calling Stalin a dictator. But what about "placing his supporters in key government and party posts"? Who are you referring to? Is this supported by the body of the article? I think this is oversimplifying the situation.Jack Upland (talk) 09:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I've moved the "dictator" label to the second sentence, so that we now have "He governed the Soviet Union in a dictatorial manner from the mid-1920s until his death in 1953.". Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The comments above are suggesting a consensus around 'he was a dictator', not some mealy-mouthed version of it.

Gravuritas (talk) 11:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

You'd be hard pressed to find a reliable source that doesn't describe his role as that of a dictator. WP:NPOV is not about striking false balance because editors are uncomfortable with the use of terminology. Even tertiary sources (such as Britannica) use 'dictator' without any qualms. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

the onus is on those claiming dictatorship. mao's work and others will reveal that many millions of people did not consider stalin a dictator. Millions of people on this planet considered him a comrade and an ally. I have not added those words to his page. He was not a dictator. it's not within wikipedia's ostensible claims to "neutrality" to leave this ludicrous claim on this man's page. it's biased, and unfounded at that. please remove it, and keep it removed, to be in line with the goals of this web site

Stayhomegal (talk) 22:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Citing Mao as a character witness for Stalin is a game-changer. Now if you can just find comments by Hitler, or maybe Pol Pot, claiming Stalin wasn't a dictator, you'd have a rock-solid case. How about Charles Manson? I can't remember the source, but I recall Manson comparing Stalin to St. Francis of Assisi and Lassie. Or maybe it was Benji. Scaleshombre (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Stayhomegal: This is an article talk page, not a soapbox for your advocacy. Please stop trying to edit war your personal political views into the content of the article, and onto this talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Stayhomegal's views somewhat demonstrate my concerns. The term "dictator", like "terrorist", is intrinsically loaded and contentious and there will always be those who deny that Stalin fits that description (even if most RS certainly do use the term). We've seen the same debates happen over at other articles like those on Lenin and Castro, and in the end we inevitably end up using "widely regarded as Stalin" or something like that. If we keep "dictator" in the lede, then it will get challenged again and again. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

RS for 'those who deny that Stalin fits that description'?

Gravuritas (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Why on earth would I need a RS on a Talk Page? It's not like I'm adding this information into the article itself. Besides, surely Stayhomegal's post is evidence enough that some people refute the idea that Stalin was a dictator? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Not refute (because that suggests they have proof), but refuse to accept the verdict of history. Scaleshombre (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

If Stalin's "admirers" (I'm sorry, but my brain won't allow me to write that without quotes) want to challenge the dictator label ad nauseum, let 'em. As far as incorporating their fringe views into the article, they should be granted the same leeway as Holocaust deniers -- none. Scaleshombre (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: It's absolutely irrelevant whether we have POV pushers trying to remove 'dictator' in any shape or form. We're WP:HERE to create and maintain an encyclopaedic resource based on RS, not accommodate WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. RS and consensus on what RS tell us is that he was a dictator: no ifs or buts. If WP:FRINGE theorists keep edit warring because they don't think it to be a "fair" descriptor, it's just too bad. No one is writing a melodramatic scare piece on him, and we don't pre-empt upsetting edit warriors by modifying biographies to accommodate anyone's personal reservations about the use of prominent descriptors. We're not discussing neologisms or Godwin's law, but what sources actually say. Please don't confuse NPOV with rewriting what WP:BESTSOURCES say on the subject. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the policies and arguments that you cite and do not think that I am unwaveringly pandering to FRINGE views. However, I am not sure if there is a total unanimity of Reliable Sources applying the term "dictator" to Stalin. If there is, then fair enough, but is there? Certainly, all the Western biographies that I have read do so, but do works produced in the PRC or in other countries where one-party states are the norm say the same thing? As I said before, many of these arguments have been rehashed over at the Lenin and Castro articles, in both cases resulting in the consensus that they should not be unequivocally labelled "dictators" in the opening sentences. I appreciate that Stalin is a different figure to these two, but I am nevertheless conscious of the precedents set. I am also conscious of the MOS' Words to Watch advice, which—although not actually listing "dictator" as a word to watch—nevertheless urges caution. Anyway, I am certainly not going to force the removal of the "dictator" label without support from the Talk Page, support which (clearly) is not forthcoming at present. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I think what's there now is fine.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This article isn't about Lenin or Castro (or Trotsky, et al) whose status of being demonised was already seriously questioned by scholars (including many "Western" scholars) throughout the 20th century. The question of globalising English language Wikipedia is, to all intents and purposes, an essay, not policy. If you were to catch up on your reading of Eastern European scholars (that is, those who are not considered fringe), they are right behind the ball on calling Stalin a dictator. It is, in fact, an emphatically demure description if you were to read the literature. Stalin was most certainly not Lenin or Castro, and edging into discourses of 'branding' "communism" as if this were the 1950s is strange. Sorry, but was Castro a "communist"? Is the PRC "communist"? Where are we going with this dialogue? If you wish to write a separate article on what the PRC's take on Stalin is, you're welcome to do so, but it's off-topic for this article. As regards the reference to WEASEL, modifying language (to the point of eliminating it!) is a subsidiary of the concept in as much as it is avoidance language clearly being side-stepped around to embrace a "somebody won't like it" rationale (AKA censorship). Again, verifiability, not truth is in the spirit of the project. Catch-all, PC doubts as to what 'the truth' is, and constantly decrying "Western" research as if it were tantamount to tainted... well, it just doesn't cut the mustard. You have more than adequate experience and intelligence to know that Wikipedia is not a social experiment which runs contrary to common sense. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I've tagged the ever-changing content over 'dictator' or not(!?) for WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:POV issues. Exactly who are these 'supporters' of Stalin (Stalinists? Credible scholars?) as opposed to 'critics' (i.e., mainstream scholarship - whether editors like it or not). Mincing words as to how Stalin is viewed by mainstream scholarship is a revisionist, apologist stance that simply does not belong in an encyclopaedic article. When academic consensus changes, the lead and article can be changed to reflect any WP:DUE arguments. Until such a time, "supporters" can only be understood to be WP:REDFLAG. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Midnightblueowl. It was actually both Midnightblueowl and I who helped contribute to the lead before Scaleshombre edited in the non-neutral point of view edits such as "dictator" and the last line of the lead. The job of the article is to present facts. Joseph Stalin's official position was "General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union", not "dictator". On this basis, if dictator is included anywhere in the article, it must be after "has been regarded as" or something similar, otherwise it is misleading. To make an example, I legitimately had a girl in my college ask who Putin was, and after hearing the answer say "Oh. I thought he was the dictator of Russia". SpikeballUnion (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@SpikeballUnion: Such statements as to two editors who only began editing the article earlier this year as having more 'rights' over the content over an editor who started a little later are the equivalent of WP:OWNERSHIP and have no place in such discussions. The article has had 4,774 'authors' over the years since its inception. If you care to check the history of the article, the WP:CON by default was always using dictator in the lead. In fact, it was in the opening sentence. Your example does not justify changing what mainstream sources say about Stalin: it's a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS argument. It is not our function to teach readers, just represent what mainstream tertiary and secondary RS state on the subject. I had a university student in first year who didn't know who Hitler was... so what's your point? If you wish to write and publish your own teaching textbook, feel free to do so... but it isn't what we're WP:HERE, as neutral editors, to do. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Where did I say that I and Midnightblueowl had "more rights" over the article? You took what I said as something completely different to what it was. I was merely informing Scaleshombre that it wasn't only Midnightblueowl who was responsible for the edits that he didn't like. SpikeballUnion (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@SpikeballUnion: Where? Right above. The inference is clear. His title is presented in the infobox. As to what should or shouldn't be in the lead is based on that which is WP:DUE for the lead, and going against mainstream sources is the antithesis to what you are presenting as 'neutral'. Please don't point your finger at a single editor and make declarations about their position as being WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT when it is you, in fact, who is doling out the JDL arguments. If there are two of you who have redeveloped the lead, it doesn't make a jot of difference as to what you've been working towards - good faith aside - if it is does not reflect mainstream sources. Topping off your arguments by offering anecdotal information about some student's perception of Putin is WP:OFFTOPIC and emotive. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, something within you has fuelled your sudden unwarranted emotional tirade against me (likely your anger simply at my differing view on calling Stalin a "dictator" on Wikipedia). It was unproductive, and you took things I never said or "inferred", rather making them up yourself; I will not feed such unhelpful comments any further. SpikeballUnion (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

As there has been continued change to the lede regarding "dictator", I think that the best thing to do is to take this to RfC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm tagging all editors who have expressed an interest in this issue in the two previous Talk Page discussions about it to let them know about the RfC: SpikeballUnion, Iryna Harpy, Jack Upland, Scaleshombre, Gravuritas, C.J. Griffin, Galassi, Claíomh Solais, Martinevans123, Rjensen. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Georgian vs Soviet

Currently the article states that Stalin was a "Soviet" rather than a "Georgian". However, the article about the Soviet people refers to the people of the Soviet Union between 1922-1991. Stalin was Georgian born and was born decades before the existence of the Soviet Union. Would it not be more accurate to describe him as Georgian? Although he later promoted Russian nationalism to further political gain, he never denied his Georgian birth.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

We've already discussed this. The consensus was "Soviet". There are valid arguments on both sides. Let's improve the article, rather than argue in circles about terms in the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that the article about Soviet people refers to people from 1922-1991. Stalin was born decades before then so how can he be considered a "Soviet" just because he ruled the Soviet Union? I'll post my thoughts on the link you have provided, thanks for that.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 11:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

After reconsidering this issue, I was thinking that we probably should say " Georgian-born Soviet revolutionary and political leader". And then I saw that that's what you've just done. I support your change and I think that it adequately deals with the contradictory issues that you and others have raised.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Great. The problem lies with the fact that "Soviet" never referred to a nationality or ethnicity.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, I agree with your edit, but I think you're oversimplifying the problem. All forms of words have their problems (and this is a perennial problem in Wikipedia with people with multiple national/notional identities), but this form of words is an improvement. Now let's move on from the lead, and improve the body of the article!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 08:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)