Jump to content

Talk:Joseph Stalin/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

Request for Comment on the use of "Dictator" in the lede

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
(non-admin closure) Consensus is to keep "dictator" in the opening paragraph of the lead, with the option to clarify the use of the title in the body of the article. Snuge purveyor (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC question: Should the article state that Stalin was a "dictator", without qualification, in the opening paragraph of the lead? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Background: The article has varyingly gone for extended periods of time with the term "dictator" applied to Stalin in the lede and for fairly substantial periods with it absent. Over the past month, some edit warring on this issue has taken place and the issue has been discussed at the Talk Page (twice). Supporters of the use of "dictator" in the lead argue that it is a fair and accurate description of Stalin and that those who disagree with the idea of Stalin being a dictator are WP:FRINGE; they also note that the term is widely used in WP:Reliable Sources, namely historical biographies of Stalin. Opponents argue that the term has strongly pejorative connotations which raises concerns as per WP:LABEL, is disputed by Stalin's supporters, and contrasts with the FA-rated articles of both Stalin's predecessor (Vladimir Lenin) and successor (Nikita Khruschev), neither of which uncritically label their subject a "dictator". These editors argue that the application of the term "dictator" without qualification is unnecessary and that a better use of wording would be something like "widely regarded as a dictator". Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Please offer statements of "Keep" or "Remove" below. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Remove. Scaleshombre edited in the non-neutral point of view edits such as "dictator". 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 that he was the President say "Oh. I thought he was the dictator of Russia". SpikeballUnion (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. For more than sixty years, the consensus among top historians, political scientists, sovietologists, journalists, etc., has been that Stalin wasn't just a dictator -- he (along with his doppelganger from Braunau) was history's definitive dictator, the yardstick by which all subsequent tyrants must be measured. Scaleshombre (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Scaleshombre. neutral editing in Wikipedia is reporting what the reliable sources RS say--not the title that Stalin chose for himself. The RS say dictator. Just browse through google scholar, which indexes scholarly books and magazines: 37,000 publications link to "Stalin dictator" at https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=stalin+dictator&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C27 Rjensen (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, with qualifications: The mainstream view is that Stalin was a dictator, and I suspect a survey of reliable sources would be overwhelming, as RJensen has indicated. In fact, such was the view of the Soviet leadership after Stalin's death as expressed in Khrushchev's Secret Speech, noting particularly the critique of the "cult of personality" and the violations of "collective leadership". In fact, it was only a minority in the world Communist movement, notably Mao's China and Kim's North Korea that refused to accept this characterisation of Stalin. I think it would be hard to find a source, which was not written by an avowed Stalinist, which denied that he was a dictator. However, it is important to note a distinction. There are leaders in world history who have openly described themselves as dictators (or something equivalent): Julius Caesar, Oliver Cromwell, Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler (see Führerprinzip), Benito Mussolini, Augusto Pinochet (see Chilean constitutional referendum, 1980) etc. However, this is not true for Stalin. Until WW2 he was General Secretary of the CPSU, but was not officially head of government.[1] The 1936 Soviet Constitution did not grant him special powers, and portrayed the situation as a collective government. I think it is important to make this distinction: Stalin was a dictator, but he did not openly proclaim himself a dictator (or equivalent) and in fact put on an act of not being a tyrant, fooling people like Khrushchev and H.G. Wells ("no one is afraid of him and everyone trusts him", On Stalin's Team, by Sheila Fitzpatrick). Hence, the label "dictator" needs to be qualified, but not necessarily in the lead. Additionally, "dictator" from a encyclopedic standpoint should be viewed as a factual description, not a perjorative label. By many accounts, Lenin and Khrushchev operated within a collective leadership. Khrushchev was removed without a military coup. By contrast, Stalin was not removed until his death, and his death saw a dramatic change in the policies of the USSR (as Fitzpatrick has shown). Hence, the Soviet government was, in fact, completely bound up with Stalin, rather than emanating from a leadership group, party hierarchy, oligarchy etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
    • As a history buff, I think the distinction between Stalin's de facto autocracy and the de jure dictatorships of Hitler, Caesar, etc., is interesting. But for this article, it's only notable if it's been discussed in RS. Otherwise, it's OR. I don't have it in front of me right now, but I think Bullock's "Parallel Lives" compares the legal underpinnings (or absence of) of Hitler's and Stalin's dictatorships. Scaleshombre (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Ah, a Knights-Templar charging on the scene so soon! Lord Bullock, Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives (Fontana Press, 1993): "Unlike Hitler, whose unique position as Fuhrer was openly accepted by all the members of the Nazi Party as the linchpin which held them together, Stalin had both to conceal his ambition and at the same time find means of defeating any rivals in an unremitting but covert struggle for power..." (p 184); "the Stalin Constitution...[portrayed] the Soviet Union as a society moving in a democratic direction with the full support of the Soviet peoples" (p 505); in 1941 "after all the years he had been content to wield power as General Secretary, Stalin was taking Molotov's place as head of government... the explanation was taken to be that the international situation had become so dangerous that Stalin himself must publicly assume responsibility for Soviet policy" (p 775). There might well be better quotations, but I don't believe I need to provide a citation for every comment made on a Talk page.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Jack Upland cites Bullock incorrectly. He quotes Bullock on p 181 on how Stalin worked quietly to become a dictator in 1920s by destroying all his rivals one by one. He was a dictator in 1929 after he pushed them out. Browsing through his book I see Bullock repeatedly using the word "dictator" to characterize Stalin after 1929 (eg pp 123, 379, 567 etc) for example p 653: "there was also a great difference in style between the two dictators" As for ww2, fior the first time Stalin had to meet with presidents and prime ministers and a comparable status as head of government was useful in protocol at summits like Yalta. he kept his more powerful role as head of the Party. Rjensen (talk) 08:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
How did I cite Bullock incorrectly, Rjensen??? I never said that Bullock didn't say that Stalin was a dictator. The issue was the contrast between someone like Hitler who was politically and legally recognised as such in his own country and Stalin who wasn't.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Stalin was not born a dictator. it took him years to attain that status (by about 1929) and the way I read Jack Upland is that he uses a Bullock statement about Stalin before he became dictator to suggest that Stalin was never a dictator. Upland goes overboard when he says that Soviet people did not "recognize" Stalin's status--???? I think everyone in USSR knew Stalin had immediate power over life and death of anyone. read up on the purges. Rjensen (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, no, you're incorrectly citing me.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
    • That was the gist of my comment -- that I thought Bullock's writing confirmed your point. (Instead of "compares," I should have wrote "contrasts.") Of course you don't need to cite it on the talk page, but it makes your case for inclusion in the article that much stronger. Anyway, I apologize for taking this thread so far off topic. Scaleshombre (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - Firstly, a reminder that WP:LABEL is a guideline relating to contentious use of terminology to sway the reader, and does not pertain to the question being posed which is an true WP:NPOV policy issue where the term is used virtually universally to describe Stalin. We're not going the way of Godwin's law and reducing the term 'dictator' to a contentious label: it is what decades of research and scholarship have unreservedly called Stalin. It's also completely irrelevant that he did not self identify as a dictator where tens of thousands of reliable sources unreservedly call his actions and leadership that of a dictator. Personal concerns as to whether it is politically correct to state what thousands of WP:RS state is WP:GEVAL, and the current incarnation of the lead is textbook false balance. Per the tags, who are the significant number of respected 'supporters' as opposed to some imaginary equally balanced quantity and quality of detractors? As to concerns expressed by Jack Upland, the lead is not where intricacies are addressed, plus such complexities are only addressed if deemed WP:DUE. Again, we are addressing the WP:LEAD bearing 'Relative emphasis' in mind. The article does not deal with post-Soviet - or any other - 'supporters', hence reads as a 'teaser' suggesting that there are two arguments for and against developed in the article. This is misleading to the reader, and just plain unencyclopaedic. There's no small irony in the fact that WP:WORDS is being invoked when loaded language like 'denounce him as a dictator' has been brazenly introduced. Denounce him? History has pronounced him a dictator. Until such a time as there's a massive polar shift in scholarly opinion disputing the 'dictator' status, there is no argument for modification. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
As an addendum, the comparison between the Lenin and Khruschev articles in the RfC summary doesn't make sense. Neither have been overwhelmingly and unreservedly described as a 'dictator' by RS, therefore why would the LEAD in either article carry content to specifically illustrate the emphasis of mainstream scholarship? This isn't just a simple argument over an official job title. Apples and oranges. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Lots of RS for dictator. For a change to a phrase such as 'widely regarded as a dictator', some RS is needed for Stalin not being a dictator. None has been presented, so he's a dictator, tout court. Gravuritas (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Using the word "dictator" in any short description of Stalin cannot in any way be considered stretching sources or academic consensus to a non-neutral viewpoint. Saying that his regime is the archetype of a totalitarian regime would be perfectly fine as well, in my opinion. BTW, dictatorship of the proletariat and democratic centralism are key concepts of marxist and marxist-leninist (i.e. stalinist) thought, in the name of efficiency and vanguardism, so these terms are not even derogatory or distorting Stalin's regime or ideas in any way. Anachronistic attempts to present him as anything else, in turn, would be distorting Stalin's thought and action. Gems like "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." (punctuation kept) show that Wikipedia should be there to provide teenage readers with up-to-date unstretched and unbiased information, not that unchallengeable facts should be mouth-washed in the bizarre fear that "some people refute the idea". Place Clichy (talk) 09:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove - unless qualifications or clarification is added, and better elsewhere. As currently shown it is confusing whether the word is title of a position, judgement on actions, expression of level of power, a bit of WP:SOAPBOX or rant, historian view, or what. The "governed as dictator" among position titles sounds largely like 1920s Russia had an official government title translating to that and the line is only lacking dates he was held the office. It would be more clear to follow the guide of WP:MOSBIO and norms of English grammar paragraph separation so that all lines in the first para are related to one theme. Best to start the conventional first para being simple factual datum including office positions with years and put "dictator" in a later paragraph that is more clearly making summary of high points and commentary and judgements. "Should the article lede state dictator without qualification" is a no, and "in the first para" is a does not fit there. Markbassett (talk) 10:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, but .. I've read much of the above, the only valid argument for not saying this very directly AFAI could see, is the 'ambiguity/confusion' over whether this was his 'job title'. For that reason I would suggest "de facto dictator" or similar on first use. I don't buy any 'let's be fair to Uncle Joe' arguments, nor do I see validity in comparisons with Lenin, Kruschev etc. Although no sources are given on either side of the argument here, most sources I have come across personally, are pretty clear, Stalin had a personal power which was probably as great as any individual in history, which he exercised according to whim and without the smallest accountability. Most sources do not hesitate to call him 'dictator', nor should we unless serious RS can be found that contradict that. Pincrete (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
    • The original complaint was that it was a non-neutral term. No evidence is given for that assumption. Actually the USSR proudly proclaimed it was a dictatorship of the proletariat as guided by the party. Stalin was a PARTY leader who told both party & gov't officials what to do, and "dictator" is the term RS used to characterize his role. In Wiki talk, "non-neutral" refers not to Stalin but the the RS about Stalin. The complaint is not valid--no one here has pointed to a "not-a-dictator" RS Rjensen (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
    • @Pincrete: Which RS refer to him as being a 'de facto dictator'? I find the phrase bizarre, and I've never encountered that particular series of words put together in that order. A dictator by proxy? A de jure dictator having usurped the dictator of the previous dictatorship? An unofficial dictator who fulfils all of the obligations of a legal(?) dicatator? What does this OR term actually mean? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy, what the 'OR' is intended to mean is that this was what he actually was, even if it wasn't his 'job title', he held virtually limitless unaccountable power, masked by a relatively innocuous job title. According to other respondents here, some sources refer to Uncle Jo as 'effective dictator'. That is ambiguous, does it mean he was 'good at his job', or 'for all practical purposes' he was dictator? I'm suggesting that some form of words that reflects 'in fact if not in title' would be best. If I remember correctly, Adolf has 'as Fuhrer he was effective dictator' though I personally don't like 'effective' there because of the ambiguity mentioned. Pincrete (talk) 10:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
@Pincrete: If I understand correctly, the terminology editors who wish to qualify 'dictator' with is 'effectively dictator', not 'de facto' and other legal terms being bandied about. Yes, if qualification is WP:DUE, keep it simple... and 'effective' is so misleading that it implies something altogether antithetical to RS. My take is that it isn't DUE, and that his actual job title is already in the infobox, so there's no confusion as to what his position was. My greatest concern at this point is the gobbledygook final paragraph of the lead which reads as one of the most bizarre pieces of OR/GEVAL I've ever encountered on Wikipedia. "Stalin is widely considered one of the most significant and influential figures of the 20th century. Stalinism influenced various Marxist-Leninist groups and governments across the world, for whom Stalin was a champion of socialism and the working class." What? Who? "Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Stalin has been praised by supporters for his role in defeating the Axis powers and establishing the Soviet Union as a major world power. Critics denounce [my emphasis] him as a dictator at the front of an autocratic authoritarian government who approved mass killings and political repression." You what? What a load of WP:FRINGE. I've asked who these supporters (who can be taken seriously) are. I've asked which serious Marxist-Leninist groups and governments he influenced. Does anyone writing this WP:BOLLOCKS actually know anything about politics or political history? Jeez, which Marxist-Leninist government did he 'influence': Cuba under Fidel Castro? This is the stuff of WP:SYNTH and living in a parallel universe. I couldn't think of a better way to completely misguide readers as to his role in history if I blew a few million brain cells. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I tried to google China, but just got crockery. Sometimes, it's hard to know whether you've gone through a black hole or are just detecting emissions from Uranus.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jack Upland: Please keep your frustrations to yourself. You're not enhancing the discussion, just taking a cheap dig. Strangely enough, other editors seem to understand what I'm talking about... and 'China' is not a mainstream source equally balanced with other sources (including non-Western ones). Oh my aching head, Trotsky himself 'denounced' him in no uncertain terms. You seem to have a strange understanding of what 'Communist China' is as a political entity. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
The question, Iryna, is whether you're looking out the window, or looking in the mirror.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Iryna, I'm not going to comment on the rest of the lead, I sympathise but came here mainly for the RfC. Errrr, we mustn't say 'effective dictator' because it's undue and potentially misleading - though sourced - and we mustn't paraphrase it, because that's OR/synth! I'm sure someone could improve on my 'de facto' suggestion, I didn't claim it was perfect.
Of course JS ruled dictatorially, he probably had more personal power, and employed it more arbitarily, than AH. JS was probably responsible for more deaths than AH (not westerners, so he is not demonised in the way that AH is). I have read serious accounts that think that JS was probably more mentally unbalanced than AH. I just think that the 'standard' format, ie this was his job, this was how he ruled and/or history's evaluation is preferable for many reasons. ps I checked the AH page, at the end of para 1 (after mentioning AH's jobs), it says "as dictator he initiated WWII and ....". Pincrete (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
An inordinately sensible response, Pincrete, but not surprising given that being neutral and sensible is your trademark. The final lead paragraph only just 'evolved' into a lengthy piece of twaddle directly before this RfC was opened, and it was certainly the result of good faith attempts to balance the use of 'dictator'. I'm not actually emotionally invested in the article, but too much good faith tweaking can lead to disastrous content as evidenced in the final para. There may be an effective and succinct way to express his job and the mainstream understanding of what he was, but the ambiguity of "effective dictator" just doesn't cut it. As an aside, it's difficult to gauge who was more unhinged. By the time AH settled into the Wolfsschanze, along with the cocktail of drugs he was taking, he was living in a parallel universe. JS, on the other hand, had a far longer innings in which to indulge his paranoia. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • KEEP He was a dictator, that's literally how history shows him as being and how he is described by a great majority of people. This is one of those times, Wikipedia should just represents the facts, he called him self by a fancy title, but everyone else called him a dictator.  К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 20:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
He did not give himself a fancy title!--Jack Upland (talk) 08:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Re:"It's a foolish thing to say we can't call Stalin a dictator because some remember him fondly. Well yes, it probably would be, if any editor actually said anything remotely like that. I find slightly offensive the idea that editors who think that more complete and informative phrasing is possible, are Stalin-apologists, or afraid to give a spade its right name. Pincrete (talk) 11:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
"De facto dictator" there is no such thing. No major figure has officially called his office that of "dictator" (and yes, real dictators decide what they are officially called). Certainly not Hitler or Mussolini (they called themselves "leader" (Fuhrer, duce)]. Rjensen (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Actually Julius Caesar was officially titled Dictator perpetuo, so I don't think that's a strong argument. However I side with those who hold that it's very reasonable to describe a leader as a "dictator" if enough sources back it up. Having a 'dictatorial style' is characteristic of a dictator. It's not clear-cut, but with figures like Stalin—who was truly the archetype of a dictator—it should be a no-brainer; Wikipedia's neutrality should never impede common sense! Therefore I say keep.--Hazhk (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I think "effective dictator" would be good. There is a distinction here, as I attempted to explain earlier. Simon Sebag Montefiore has commented that people don't know much about Stalin (as opposed to Hitler, for example), and I think these Talk pages are an illustration of that. It is an important point that Stalin did not openly assume the mantle of dictator (and had no official role in government till WW2). The question of whether the title "dictator" was used is beside the point. Hitler called himself Fuehrer; Mussolini Il Duce; Napoleon the Emperor; Cromwell the Lord Protector. These titles meant "dictator". Stalin did not assume any new title after Lenin's death. He remained party secretary. He did not have a unique title, nor was his role enshrined in any law or doctrine. When he became premier he was taking on a role that had been filled by Molotov and others. Ostensibly he was simply a member of a leadership team, although the shining star according to propaganda. But of course he was dictator, effective dictator. Just as (to give a controversial example) Lee Kuan Yew was in Singapore. Stalin wielded his power behind the scenes and very secretively in some cases. This article should reflect that.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Jack likes "effective dictator" -- perhaps he will name some "ineffective dictators". Terms like "leader"/fuhrer/duce/Lord protector do NOT mean dictator---they are quite tame. In real history "dictator" is usually associated with tight control of a very powerful political party that had direct leverage over many areas of society not usually controlled by the government (such as the army, church, businesses and the private sector)--esp Communist and Nazi parties. Jack Upland wants a law passed or else Stalin is not what historians mean by a dictator. No RS supports him on that: zero--it's bad history. Rjensen (talk) 02:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Quite, Rjensen. I was just about to query as to which RS equate these titles with 'dictator'. I'm not interested in quibbling over OR niceties that appeal to people. We're not here to engage in our own original research, but to present content according to mainstream sources. This is getting old, and the RfC is only just short of SNOW, yet the GEVAL in the lead remains. Time to ask for a close. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Again, this is a perverse misconstruing of what I and others have said. "Effective" here means "de facto", not the opposite of ineffective. And a citation was given above, so it is not OR. If you want to criticise other editors, please read what they say beforehand.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Where does this 'de facto dictator' keep arising from? Which RS have ever called him (or any other politician/head of state) a 'de facto dictator'? The term doesn't mean anything that makes sense. (Please see my response to Pincrete above) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Aton above gave a source for "effective dictator" which means the same as "de facto dictator". If you google "Stalin" and "effective dictator" or "de facto dictator" you will find many sources. There's no point in listing them here. Equally, the term "de facto dictator" makes perfect sense and is widely used about many people, as a google search shows. The issue isn't about a particular form of words, but describing the reality of Stalin's dictatorship. How we summarise it is less important. Some lengthier quotations that I have found:
  • Alan Bullock, Parallel Lives: "...it was as General Secretary of the party – he assumed no other office until May 1941 – that he built up a position of arbitrary personal power which has scarcely been equalled in a modern state."(p 118) "...his power was concealed – 'the highest Soviet authorities' – a secret all the more powerful because it was known to everyone in any kind of office but not to be mentioned in public." (p 692).
  • J Archy Getty, 'Stalin as Prime Minister' in Stalin: A New History: "Those practices [of decision-making] were personal and personalised, having to do with loyalty, team effort, patronage and clientage, and a behind-the-scenes fluidity and informality rather than with formal structures, which were used merely as symbolic devices to project a power whose origins were primordial and personalised." (p 106)
I don't understand why this is a bone of contention.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Googling the terms only produces blogs and forums. The rest is pure WP:SYNTH. Your quotes say nothing of the use of 'de facto' or 'effective'. The only conclusion to be drawn from these interpretations of what was meant is WP:NOR, because that's what is being engaged in. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, I must be using a different Google!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 08:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with most of what is said above by those defending 'effective/de facto' or somesuch. The fact that we normally start an article with job title or profession is also a good reason IMO to prefer some form of words that reflects "this was his job, followed by this was how he did it (as dictator)" . I'm not arguing this from a fairness pov, (since you have to struggle to find any Western historian with anything nice to say about Stalin), rather from a clarity and consistency pov. It is not weaselling to say he was 'Gen Sec of the CP of USSR who ruled as a dictator', or some form of words with that meaning. Pincrete (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Well put, Pincrete.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree. That in the 20s the dictatorship of the Party became Stalin's personal dictatorship is significant enough to be mentioned in the lead. As Jack Upland has explained with various quotes above, however, Stalin's personal dictatorship was not official, but rather established and maintained by informal means. That's why several RS use qualifiers such as "de facto" or, as Pincrete suggests, just "dictatorially ruled" (but not "widely regarded as..."—that he was a dictator is a fact). Atón (talk) 08:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dictator
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Honours

The article appears to omit the honours and awards Stalin was given. The foreign honours are of particular interest. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Infobox Image

This discussion is being opened to get a consensus regarding Stalin's infobox picture. Seeing as how editors have tried to replace the current infobox picture several times over the past few months alone, it's safe to say that not everyone's satisfied with the status quo. Looking at the picture, I can see how some find it lacking. Since his face is partially obscured by his hat , the current photo doesn't really do much to distinguish him from any other glowering, mustachioed man in military garb.

As a potential alternative, [here] is a photo I recently uploaded to Wikimedia Commons for your consideration. If anyone has other ideas for a replacement, feel free to post links to them here. I look forward to hearing your opinion. Emiya1980 (talk) 07:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)Emiya1980

  • I support Emiya's proposed alternative; it offers a cleaner and clearer image of Stalin's face, and does appear to be (genuinely) Public Domain (unlike the many images which have had a PD label slapped onto them with no explanation as to why it counts as such). Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm fine with either. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

== Stalin was trying to say the he was a dumb girl from swizerland 

==

Stalin refused to accept he was a dicator. An American named Eugene Lyons interviewed Stalin in 1931 and asked him directly, "Are you a dictator?", Stalin replied:

"No, I am not a dictator ... No one man or group of men can dictate. Decisions are made by the party and acted upon by its chosen organs, the Central Committee and the Politburo."

R. J. Overy; Richard Overy (2005). The Dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia. Penguin Adult. p. 64. ISBN 978-0-14-028149-1.

Do you think this would be worthwhile adding into the article?--Mexican redknee tarantula (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure- in a seperate section, which could then be expanded. The title of the section, of course, would be "Stalin's sucks ".
Gravuritas (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Let's keep this WP:CIVIL. Essentially, it's WP:INTERESTING but, given the breadth of this article, it's WP:UNDUE. To expand further, the 'dictator' assignation was a cumulative one. An interview in 1931 pre-dates the mainstream application of the term to his status. Had this been his response to an interview in 1950, it might be DUE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if this would perhaps be more appropiate being placed in the Stalinism page. What do you think?--Mexican redknee tarantula (talk) 09:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
This information is actually already in the article; specifically, it receives a very brief mention in the Legacy section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

In regards to the question of the term "dictator", we would have to ask for NPOV, what are the sources for this claim and what is the political and economic agenda of those who make the claim?

Anglo-Saxon medias (and their vassals) have a tendency to cast aspersions on any political system which does not adhere to their own defined model and play-book; an oligarchy, with a sham multi-party "parliamentary democracy", where the public are allowed to choose between two tightly controlled capitalist parties. "Dictator" is a favourite term of abuse in this de-legitimisation process of any rival system, because it is a synonym for tyrant and tyrant = baddies.

The fact that the Soviet Union existed before Stalin and long after he died, would suggest given the pattern of most actual dictatorships of the age (Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, etc) that he was not one. There was no Duce, Caudillo, Fuhrer post in the Soviet Union, ever. Stalin also offered to step down as General Secretary of the Communist Party numerous times but was begged by his comrades to stay! Policy was created by the Politburo, not just whatever Stalin fancied on any given day. Stalin as a dictator is, ultimately, a British capitalist slander, ironically an empire with a head of state for life, de jure overlord of all lands, defined by bloodline and who cannot be removed from their post! We should not describe him as a dictator in this article. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

"Please stay Joe we love you!" Contaldo80 (talk) 09:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The issue has already been thoroughly discussed on this talk page, so there's no point in trying to engage other editors in your WP:PPOV. Please re-familiarise yourself with WP:SOAP. Thanks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

contradiction

>Montefiore suggested that Stalin was ultimately responsible for the deaths of between 20 and 25 million people, > Subsequent research revealed that this was erroneous; while the Nazi regime killed approximately 11 million non-combatants (which rises to above 12 million if "foreseeable deaths from deportation, hunger, and sentences in concentration camps are included"), Stalin's deliberately killed about 6 million (rising to 9 million if foreseeable deaths arising from policies are taken into account).

Snyder is not a God. Most historians recognize that Stalin killed more people than Hitler— Preceding unsigned comment added by Erni120 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think this whole section is too big. Here is the point: no one knows exact numbers, and a lot of people operate with numbers that represent different things. This is like comparing apples and oranges. None of the sources or historians (Montefiore, Snyder, whoever) should be treated as an ultimate source or authority on the subject. One should only mention their numbers briefly. I agree: there is now an undue weight towards opinion by Snyder, as if he was a final authority. This section should be simply shorten a little to fix it. My very best wishes (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I removed a couple of things, but there is still a lot of duplicate content in this section, especially about the famines. This is not the page to discuss this in depth. My very best wishes (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Speaking about the Table, I think it can be included because it improves readability, but only assuming that the numbers are indeed supported by quoted sources (I am not sure). My very best wishes (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Title of the section tells: " Calculating the number of victims". Depending on the definition on "victim", the numbers can vary greatly. Some historians count only numbers of executed, others may include all people from this category, all prisoners who came through extrajudicial procedures, etc. Are they victims? Yes, they obviously are. Hence the numbers like 50 millions are not surprising. My very best wishes (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Snyder's research is based on decades of archival research by other historians from around the globe. If you follow the historiography that has developed around this subject, you'll see the consensus has slowly shifted as new data emerged from newly accessible Eastern European archives which demonstrated that the old Cold War narrative which suggested Stalin killed more people than Hitler, some 20 to 50 million, no longer holds water (you can see some of the papers and debates here). If you look at the citations/footnotes/sources for many of these recent popular documentaries, biographies and other books on Stalin that still make this argument, you'll notice that very few of their assertions are based on this new research. Snyder, while not a "God" and actually a vehement anti-communist, actually did some of his homework and adjusted his figures accordingly to match the emerging consensus based on this research. His assessment of this subject is far more noteworthy than the recent addition of an outdated (1998) estimate from Norman Davies here, which is not based on more reliable archival data and serves no purpose other than to muddy the narrative and reinforce obsolete dogma from the Cold War.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, 50 million deaths to be blamed specifically on Stalin looks too high to me. I saw 43 million by another academic [2]. Since you are probably more familiar with the subject, can you explain where this 6 million deaths number by Snyder came from? Does it include Holodomor victims? Here he only tells the number and tells "the number of people who died in the Gulag between 1933 and 1945 ... is likely between two million and three million. The Great Terror and other shooting actions killed no more than a million people, probably a bit less. The largest human catastrophe of Stalinism was the famine of 1930–1933, in which more than five million people starved.". He then tells about about other cases and additional numbers, but his list is highly incomplete. This is not 6 million. My very best wishes (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that we do not know how accurate the archives areFor example, how many people died by collectivization

Molotov - 20 million demographic survey - 15 mln Snyder - 4 -7 mln How many people have died in gulags. Conquest - 10 mln Snyder - 1.7 million Applebaum - 3 mln How many died during the war with Stalin's guilt Davies - even 17 million How many died during the holodomor Snyder - 3.3 million Ukrainian researchers - 10 mln How many died the kulaks Snyder - 380 000 Volkogonov - 4.5 million [with families] How many Poles were deported NKVD Archives - 320 thousand Stalin - 500 thousand Polish researchers - 500 thousand to 1.5 million Davies based his 50 million on demographic research. Simon Sebag Montefiore is a better researcher of Stalin than Snyderand he estimated the number of victims of Stalin at 25 million. Now, most researchers believe that Stalin is responsible for the death of 20 million people - https://historyofrussia.org/stalin-killed-how-many-people/ C.J. ernii120 (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erni120 (talk • contribs)

My very best wishes, Snyder breaks down the numbers killed in various campaigns throughout that article and especially in his book. I'd look again (especially paragraphs 4 through 6). His numbers are very close to what other researchers are saying, especially historians such as R. W. Davies and Stephen Wheatcroft who, having near unprecedented access to archival materials, have produced some of the best research on the famine post-1991 and on excess mortality in the USSR in general. For example, Snyder's estimate on "holodomor" (Snyder explicitly states he refrains from using this term) victims, which he puts at 3.3 million, is about the same as numbers cited by Davies and Wheatcroft (3-3.5 million).[1] Snyder says on page 404 of his book Bloodlands that the number of 10 million, put forth by historians connected to Ukrainian state institutions between 2005 and 2009, is not at all reliable, and was "exaggerated to exceed the total number of Jews killed" in the Holocaust.
The reason for the consensus shift is that such data is far superior to what came before, such as anecdotes and a handful of smuggled documents. To say that archives are unreliable is merely a cop out. I think you'd be hard pressed to convince any historian who specializes in this field and is worth his salt that Conquest's outdated work on the famine (Harvest of Sorrow, 1986) is in any way superior to historical research using real data like the aforementioned work by Davies and Wheatcroft. Granted both could and should be cited, but one clearly should carry more weight than the other. His calculation of gulag fatalities is even worse, and completely upended by pioneering research by Getty, Rittersporn and Zemskov in 1993. And I don't know of any Sovietologist who takes Rummel's work seriously. 62 million "democides" by the Soviet state? Yeah, and I'm Santa Claus.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, I only asked what his number X (X=6?) million includes. Does it include people executed in countries of Eastern Europe after WWII, for example? Does it include people who died from the big hunger that had happen after WWII in the Soviet Union, etc.? My very best wishes (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't know of many historians who would brand famine deaths post-WWII as deliberate homicides (murders, or "democide"), including pioneering researcher on the subject Michael Ellman. Excess deaths from famine, etc are included in Snyder's higher estimate of 9 million, which he (rightly IMO) considers the highest credible death toll under Stalin based on the current consensus brought forth by archival research. Regarding executions post WWII, presumably these are included given his field of expertise is genocide/mass killings in Eastern Europe, but even if not, it wouldn't augment his numbers by much I imagine.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Regarding Sebag Montefiore (I just saw the comment above), just because one claims that he is a "better researcher" doesn't make it true. His work is not at all academic; he hasn't done any archival research on Soviet mortality rates specifically and merely parrots Conquest and many other historians throughout his 2004 book "Court of the Red Tsar" whose works themselves are outdated. This is why "popular" histories, which unfortunately line the shelves of bookstores, should be read with caution. ALWAYS check footnotes/endnotes which follow claims like "20 million killed Stalin" or "Stalin murdered 25 million" - it will most likely be based on Conquest's outdated work, and this goes for newer popular histories unfortunately; Snyder's book is one exception (and there are probably some I am unaware of). Articles published in peer-reviewed academic journals or books published by reputable academic publishers/university presses are much, much better sources if you seek reliable data on things like excess mortality rates in the Soviet Union. Here is a good example of solid academic research which compares the mass killings under Hitler and Stalin (http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/WCR-German_Soviet.pdf "The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings, 1930-45." S. Wheatcroft, 1996). A bit dated, but based on actual data post 1991 and still more reliable than bullshit "histories" which rely almost entirely on the wild imagination of Robert Conquest.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
So, you can not tell what exactly was included in his number (X=9?) million? That's fine. Not sure if you know it, but KGB archives about Gulag statistics were never opened to public and remain closed. The KGB archivists gave papers they wanted to Zemskov and some other researchers. As researchers tell [3],
'The counter-argumet to the authenticity of the NKVD documents has been elaborated by Laqueur. He and others point out that the KGB and military archives remain completely closed, together with most of the NKVD records, except those suspiciously available in the Central State Archive of the October Revolution of the USSR (TsGAOR), now part of the State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF), and he infers that they are disinformative, being either fabrications or incomplete." This allegation is supported by statements of various senior officials that the scale of mass killings by the NKVD was many times greater than the documents purport, and by suggestions as to where the missing millions may be concealed.... Although no summary judgment on this important matter is yet possible, it can be conclusively shown, contrary to the claims of Getty, Rittersporn & Zemskov and of Wheatcroft, that the documents are seriously internally inconsistent.
There were also many discussions like here. My very best wishes (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I've seen that paper by Rosefielde, and the subsequent massive rebuttal by Wheatcroft here (not going to copy and paste, would take way too much space on the talk page, but basically saying he doesn't understand what he is talking about). IMO, Wheatcroft et al have clearly won the debate, given the new consensus which has emerged on mortality rates, as emphasized by Snyder in his 2010 book and 2011 article. Conquest basically ended the debate by throwing a hissy fit and attacking Wheatcroft, whose insight and analysis of the events were far more thoughtful and in depth than Conquest's, and based on tangible data (for Wheatcroft's through rebuttal of Conquest's attacks, see here). This is why Snyder's analysis is more notable, as are works by Wheatcroft et al, than those who merely parrot numbers pulled out of thin air by Conquest and Solzhenitsyn, and Davies too for that matter.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Here is the bottom line. No one can really verify these papers provided by the KGB, beyond noticing they are "are seriously internally inconsistent" (as Rosenfelde and some others tell) and they are inconsistent with other materials (one can reed a book by Anton Antonov-Ovseyenko). This is because KGB archives were never open. Furthermore, they are "top secret". Lev Ponomaryov parliamentary commission get access to these archives for a short period of time in 1991. A few interesting names from the archive were published, and the commission was disbanded by Yeltsin. Hence the "newer" data are just as good as the older ones, and one must really provide whole range of numbers from RS. My very best wishes (talk) 02:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Also this discussion is interesting. Among other facts that cast serious doubts in numbers by Zemskov, his (KGB) papers do not include people executed in Katyn. This is simply the most famous example. Who knows how many other executions were considered secret and not included. Basically, it is enough to find one example of fake/not included data to disprove whole thing. My very best wishes (talk) 02:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Rather, Snyder is a follower of the "Holocaust religion." Simon Sebag Montefiore believes that 10 million people have died of hunger. 46 Ukrainian researchers in 2016 have announced, The archives say about 10 million killed. Volkogonov wrote that the NKVD was not counting the families of the kulaks. According to him, 9 million kulaks were deported. 4.5 million died. Simon estimated that 15 million were deported. Snyder did not count on it And he has no idea how many Stalin killed people during the war.Snyder is only one man, most historians believe that Stalin killed 20 million. Demographic research indicates that, that Stalin could have killed 15 million before the war. Molotov believed that by the collectivisation 20 million people died. 9 million is a funny number, Studies show that hunger alone killed 10 million -http://www.univ.kiev.ua/ua/

PS snyder to their 3.3 million dead by hunger, did not add 3.3 million deceased non-Ukrainian It is not up to us to judge. Tou treat Snyder as God, which knows more from the best biographers of Stalin 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.37.221.188 (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC) :
Follower of the "Holocaust religion"? Wow. This pretty much tells me what kind of person posted this, and buttresses the notion that certain radical nationalist/right-wing sects are keen on maintaining obsolete Cold War myths about Stalin being worse than Hitler.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not a nationalist
I just say that many people treat the Holocaust as a religion, I remember the professor who was criticized because he called Mao's hunger "the greatest crime in history."
Today we know a lot, hunger killed 10 million people, Hunger after the war killed 1.5 million 4.5 million kulaks died of deportation, 1 million nkwd scored in the back, We still do not know how much Stalin killed during the war. I do not want to censor Snyder, but he's in the minority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.37.221.188 (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
C.J. Griffin, please resist the urge to make personal attacks. Ultimately, in reading this thread, all I've been able to establish is that you have personal preferences as to who is 'right' and who is 'wrong'. This is a Wikipedia article, therefore all reliable sources have to be taken into account. We don't get to play at favourites. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I would hardly consider that a personal attack, more of just my reaction to rhetoric pertaining to Snyder following the "Holocaust religion" which, at worst, could be interpreted of some kind of Holocaust denialism. And I did not say that WP:RS should not be taken into account, just that proper context should be provided to such sources, especially in that section of the article (research based on Eastern European archives directly pertaining to repression/excess mortality vs research during the Cold War are not on the same level, sorry). I stated as much above in my second posting. I find it odd that I'm being called out for supposedly "playing favorites," when in fact I started posting here to defend the work of Snyder, which was under attack. Was the OP not playing favorites here to begin with, by squawking that Snyder "is not a God" and asserting, without evidence, that "most" historians "recognize that Stalin killed more people than Hitler"? (Which post-Cold War is absolutely not true, and not backed by any reliable cited material).--C.J. Griffin (talk) 02:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Previously you accused me of anti-Stalinist propaganda. I do not want to censor the Snyder, but you want to censor Davies. And most historians believe that Stalin killed about 20 million

Estimates of the death toll vary widely, from 3.5-8 million (G Ponton) at the low end to 60 million (A Solzhenitsyn) Today, most historians seem to have settled on a total of about 20 million. - https://historyofrussia.org/stalin-killed-how-many-people - Montefiore 2004, p. 649: "Perhaps 20 million had been killed; 28 million deported, of whom 18 million had slaved in the Gulags". 1. Jump up^ Volkogonov, Dmitri. Autopsy for an Empire: The Seven Leaders Who Built the Soviet Regime. p. 139. ISBN 0-684-83420-0. Between 1929 and 1953 the state created by Lenin and set in motion by Stalin deprived 21.5 million Soviet citizens of their lives. 2. Jump up^ Yakovlev, Alexander N.; Austin, Anthony; Hollander, Paul (2004). A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia. Yale University Press. p. 234. ISBN 978-0-300-10322-9. My own many years and experience in the rehabilitation of victims of political terror allow me to assert that the number of people in the USSR who were killed for political motives or who died in prisons and camps during the entire period of Soviet power totaled 20 to 25 million. And unquestionably one must add those who died of famine – more than 5.5 million during the civil war and more than 5 million during the 1930s. 3. Jump up^ Gellately (2007) p. 584: "More recent estimations of the Soviet-on-Soviet killing have been more 'modest' and range between ten and twenty million." and Stéphane Courtois. The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror Repression. Harvard University Press, 1999. p. 4: "U.S.S.R.: 20 million deaths." 4. Jump up^ Brent, Jonathan (2008) Inside the Stalin Archives: Discovering the New Russia. Atlas & Co., 2008, ISBN 0-9777433-3-0"Introduction online" (PDF). Archived from the original on 24 February 2009. Retrieved 2009-12-19.(PDF file): Estimations on the number of Stalin's victims over his twenty-five-year reign, from 1928 to 1953, vary widely, but 20 million is now considered the minimum. 5. Jump up^ Rosefielde, Steven (2009) Red Holocaust. Routledge, ISBN 0-415-77757-7 p.17: "We now know as well beyond a reasonable doubt that there were more than 13 million Red Holocaust victims 1929–53, and this figure could rise above 20 million." 6. Jump up^ Naimark, Norman (2010) Stalin's Genocides (Human Rights and Crimes against Humanity). Princeton University Press, p. 11: "Yet Stalin's own responsibility for the killing of some fifteen to twenty million people carries its own horrific weight ..."

Sorry, but naming a handful of historians and popular biographers does not constitute "most historians." Secondly, if you check footnotes/endnotes for these assertions, you'll see most can be traced back to R. Conquest, who revised his figure DOWNWARDS to 15 million in his 2007 edition of The Great Terror[2], or have no citations at all. Case in point, Davies almost entirely bases his asinine number of 50 million on Conquest while attacking so-called "revisionists" and saying that the highest estimates were right, which is such unbelievably poor scholarship on his part I don't know how people can cite that with a straight face; it's just an unrelenting polemic which is factually ass backwards. J. Brent is also a good example of the latter. In his 2008 book, he asserts 20 million is considered a minimum, but bases this on nothing - no sources to back this up. Bottom line is this magic number of 20 million almost exclusively comes from Conquest, who embarrassingly had to reduce it in the face documentary evidence, yet so-called historians still parrot this nonsense in popular histories sold at bookstores. At least Wheatcroft et al, the so-called "revisionists", base their numbers on tangible data, and don't make up numbers out of whole cloth.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with IP. This is reference work. As long as source X qualify as a good secondary RS and author qualify as an academic researcher (or even as a notable author), we can not and should not make our own research of various secondary and primary sources used in his work. They usually do not base conclusions on any single source. What exactly was reassessed by Conquest is a good question. He never reassessed his Holodomor numbers, for example. He is just another notable academic whose numbers should be used along with others. My very best wishes (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
You might be right about some of those historians above not basing their conclusions on a single source like Conquest, such as Gellately and Rosefielde, whose ranges are more modest and reasonable than the others. Gellately in particular notes that "more recent estimations of the Soviet-on-Soviet killing have been more 'modest'..." This is absolutely true, and reflects the shifting consensus in scholarship on excess Soviet mortality rates that Snyder refers to and I have been discussing here. Unfortunately both Gellately and Rosefleide still give the magic number of 20 million as the high estimate, but I digress...--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I would trust opinion of Alexander Yakovlev who was not only a historian (a director of Institute of World Economy and International Relations at some point), but also a highly knowledgeable "insider" of the Soviet system, and unlike others, he did had access to any Soviet archives he would be interested in. My very best wishes (talk) 18:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
But that was his opinion. He doesn't show the reader how he reached these estimates, we are just to take his word for it as he had access. And I'd consider him more of a politician who had an axe to grind against Stalinism rather than a scholar or historian, given the polemical nature of his work A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia. I'm actually surprised Yale University Press published this. Now if you look at the works of archival researchers like Wheatcroft, it is obvious that he utilized the archives more than the former, and actually demonstrates HOW he reaches his estimates with data, tables and calculations. And Wheatcroft has spent much of his career researching Soviet archives. Can one really state that Yakovlev has spent more time researching in these archives than someone like Wheatcroft?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Volkogonov believed that Stalin was responsible for the death of 6 million people but after the opening of the archives he believed that Stalin had killed 21.5 million And he was not a Conquest fan. I think we should leave Davies, and in the future to add other researchers who wrote about the number of victims of Stalin after the fall of the USSR

20 million - most historians agree 6-9 million - recognizes a minority of historians 30-60 million - Recognizes a minority of historians

We have to show people the opinions of historians and researchers and do not censor those with whom we disagree — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.8.230.254 (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

No. You cannot say that "most" historians agree with the 20 million estimate and then list several of them. For accuracy and to avoid WP:undue weight issues, it should be said that several (or some) historians agree with this number (and the last paragraph of that section already includes this). Some of those in that grouping, like Gellately, concede that more recent estimates are more conservative. And Conquest himself reduced his estimate downward; this is significant! Volkogonov, like many of the other historians who throw this number around, do not demonstrate how they get to this estimate. I find this problematic. Like I said before, either Conquest is cited in their footnotes/endnotes for this 20 million estimate, or there is no citation at all. This is why I firmly believe Wheatcroft et al, who demonstrate meticulously how they reach their estimates on excess mortality rates, are far superior to those who throw numbers around without showing how they got them in the first place, or citing Conquest's The Great Terror which is now extremely outdated.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
As follows from multiple quotations above, there is no academic consensus on the number of victims (the subject of the section). Also, there is no consensus what constitutes the "victim". Given that, on can simply quote notable historians (those we have WP pages about) sourced to secondary RS. But I do not think we can judge who of the historians was "better", assuming that none of them qualify as "fringe", "revisionist" or a pseudoscientist. Judging quality of their science is none of our business. Current version is more or less OK, except having some repetitive content and also some content which is not about the subject of the section. My very best wishes (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I tend to agree here. While it might require some minor cleanup, I see no need for any major change to the section at this time. My only reservation would be about the very recent inclusion of Davies, for purely ideological reasons by my estimation, and his ascension to the top of the section. His assertion of an absurd 50 million victims adds nothing to the discourse and only increases confusion over the issue. Judging from the footnote following his statement on a separate page (1164) I linked to above, he makes no attempt at serious analysis and instead proceeds to engage in ad hominem attacks on those "semi-repentant 'revisionists'" who present lower estimates and, bizarrely, claims the archives have vindicated the highest numbers, without providing a shred of evidence to support this, and which runs contrary to nearly every other historian/scholar on the issue, including Conquest himself, whose estimates went in the opposite direction. That's my opinion, anyway.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Again, we don't get to pick and choose on 'ideological grounds'. That's simply WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT exclusionism/censorship. All major historical opinions are included. We're not simply depicting current trends in some academic circles because 'current' thinking comes and go. Whether or not you, or the more contemporary academics you think are correct, tend towards highly conservative estimates is irrelevant. Assuming that their interpretations will remain the future of stats is WP:CRYSTAL. We're all welcome to have reservations, but it is not our job as editors to essentially censor stats because they don't seem plausible according to our own perceptions of what can and can't be: that's not scholarship, it's superstition. Ultimately, we don't have a clue as to the reality outside of what mainstream scholarship tells us. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Davies, Robert; Wheatcroft, Stephen (2009). The Industrialisation of Soviet Russia Volume 5: The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture 1931-1933. Palgrave Macmillan UK. p. xiv. ISBN 978-0-230-27397-9.
  2. ^ Robert Conquest, Preface, The Great Terror: A Reassessment: 40th Anniversary Edition, Oxford University Press, USA, 2007. p. xviii

baptism date

This process is all very technical, but I simply wanted to point out that Stalin is listed as being born on December 18th, but baptized on the 17th... Unless the mother drank a lot of holy water, I can't really see how this would have happened. (Unless this is the difference between old and new dates? In which case, an alternative date should also be listed.)

Thanks, and keep up the good work! DopeState (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

He was baptised on the 17th Old Style. We should put in the Gregorian date....--Jack Upland (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. That's the standard for all people born in the Russian Empire prior the revolution. It's used for Lenin, etc. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2017

Change X (Erroneous): "Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin" to Y (Historically correct): Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili (Stalin was a pen name he adopted in his 20's).

(source: https://www.biography.com/people/joseph-stalin-9491723)

[n.b. If Wikipedia is intent on protecting pages from editing, at least have the decency to have actual, verified facts, and not the fanciful on such pages] 163.47.238.39 (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The birth name is covered in footnote a, in the infobox, and in the early life section. Changing the name in the lead would require consensus as it appears this has been discussed extensively in the past. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Number of victims

1. In a long article as this, it may be legitimate to create a sub- article. However, given the shortness of the ensuing article: the length of other sections in this article; and the importance of the section, this particular split makes no sense. 2. The link refers to the number of victims, but the new article refers to victims only in the Soviet Union. Stalin’s victims elsewhere don’t count. 3. If it is intended to retain the split-off article, the importance of the subject (the number of victims) to any article on Stalin means that a summary needs to be included in this article. The respective size of split-off article and summary will show that splitting off was a bad idea. 4. The lede refers to the number of victins as 6-9 million. This is a biased summary of the split-off article, and cannot stand. Gravuritas (talk) 11:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC) 

Gravuritas (talk) 11:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The section should be restored and split-off article deleted. Any summary will eventually increase in size over time given the fierce academic debates on the topic, making the split pointless in the first place.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
It makes very good sense to have a paragraph or two summarising scholarship regarding how many died under Stalin's regime in the "Legacy" section. However I would really disagree with the idea that we delete the split-off article and return all of the information within it into this article itself. The section split-off was poorly organised, chaotic, and far too long to work as a section in this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
The section split off was shorter than other sections in this article, so ‘far too long’ could only be appropriate if you consider the subject matter of the split-off section is incidental or unimportant to the Stalin article. Please make that case. Splitting off does not solve your ‘poorly organised or ‘chaotic’ criticisms- it just displaces them. Why would that be a good idea?
Gravuritas (talk) 12:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Further point: I don’t understand why Stalin’s death toll would be under the Legacy section. Surely a legacy is what happens after death, so Stalin’s legacy refers to what happened after HIS death- most of his bodycount occurred during his lifetime.
Gravuritas (talk) 13:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Second paragraph of post-war section needs small edit

"He ensured that returning Soviet prisoners of war went through "filtration" camps as they arrived in the Soviet Union, in which 2775,700 were interrogated to determine if they were traitors. About half were then imprisoned in labour camps.[537]"

2775,700 needs a comma as a correction to be 2,775,700.

Grantduval (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Infobox Image

The current one is incredibly low-quality and there are plenty of higher-quality ones that can be used. MB298 (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

It looks good to me. What's the problem with it, and what are the alternatives?--Jack Upland (talk) 10:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2017

There is a run-on sentence that says, more or less, "Historians disagree as to whether the Ukrainian famine was a genocide, several nations have recognized it as such." It needs to start with "while" or separate the two clauses with "but". Kcarson89 (talk) 12:58, 29 December 2017 (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. It's not clear which sentence you mean when you paraphrase the current text. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2018

Giorgi Jughashvili (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Nationality - Soviet THIS IS WRONG!!! Nationality - Georgian THIS IS CORRECT!!!

 Not done this has been discussed 13 times before - please see the archives - search box above.
Briefly, he was born in the Russian Empire (Georgia was not an independent nation at the time) and died in the Soviet Union. Ethnically, he was a Georgian, but that could not have been his nationality. - Arjayay (talk) 09:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Stalin page section Death and funeral: 1953

I want to add two points with information without interpretation etc. It is verifiable, therefore in line with Wikipedia policy. It is also neural just statement of facts. 1)Stalin serious condition, caused by the stroke, was first reported to the general public on Wed Mar 4 1953. It was on the front page of Pravda issue 63 (12631). This information does not contradict anything, which is already on the page. 2)Stalin post-mortem examination was first reported on Sat Mar 07 1953 on the second page of Pravda issue 66 (12634). It was signed by the top medical establishment and stated the causes of the death revealed. This information contradicts one on the page which states that “An autopsy was carried out two and a half months later”. Apparently these two cannot "co-exist". Please let me know if you have the objections and why. --Armenius vambery (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing the issue here to the Talk Page. It's great that you are paying such focused attention to this article and have observed what might be factual errors. However, generally speaking, I think that we need to avoid using Pravda as a source. Stalin must be one of the most written about political leaders of the 20th century and we have a wealth of sources produced by academic historians and biographers that we can turn to; using a 1950s newspaper article is thus probably superfluous. As to the apparent discrepancy between the two dates of the autopsy, it may be that there were two separate autopsies, or that the biographical source is simply wrong. It is worth looking at a wider range of biographies to see what they say on the matter. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I've double checked Khlevniuk, and what he actually says is that the autopsy took place "two and a half months" after Stalin's December 1952 holiday, rather than his death. So there was an error in our representation of the original source. That has now been corrected. Once again, many thanks for bringing this to our attention, Armenius vambery. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I do not think that Pravda is reliable source, and never stated this. But somehow people of the world found out about the stroke and there is an apparent power vacuum in a big country. So I think it is significant. Of course, the date of autopsy should be linked to the day he died. Best, --Armenius vambery (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed infobox image change

File:Stalin lg zlx1.jpg
Option A and Option B

Hello fellow Wikipedians. Several weeks ago I made the change from a longstanding lede image to another, clearer alternative. Nobody objected at the time and the alternate image remained in place for some time. Today, User:Emiya1980 reverted to the prior image, suggesting that such any change should be made via a Talk Page consensus. For that reason, I thought it best to bring the issue to the Talk Page and see what everyone else had to say on the matter. Do you prefer Option A: Stalin at the Potsdam conference, or Option B: The portrait image of Stalin. In my view, the latter is clearly cleaner and clearer and gives a better impression of Stalin's facial features. It is certainly better for the purposes of the infobox. Any objections if I revert to it? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I prefer A.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
I prefer B. Gives a better impression of what Stalin actually looked like. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
B looks more like the man. Binksternet (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
As the person who originally uploaded Option A as the infobox image, it probably comes as no surprise that I'm in favor of it. However, I'd also like to point out that B is a retouched illustration of Stalin (see here for original) as opposed to an actual photograph of Stalin like A. Since the infobox image is intended to represent the subject figure as he actually appeared, I believe A is the better choice. Emiya1980 (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
What relevant difference do you see between the retouched and the original versions of B? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that there is any significant difference between the retouched and original versions of B. Both versions of B are artistic recreations of how Stalin appeared rather than a photograph showing how he appeared in real time (like A).Emiya1980 (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I also think that A has more character and context. He's at the Yalta Conference, one of the most important points in his career. He's wearing his Field Marshall's uniform, commemorating his role in WW2. He's smoking and relaxed, reflecting an image he frequently cultivated. It's clearly recognisable as Stalin.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't think we need context for lead images of historical figures. Most of those tend to be simple portraits showing what they looked like. I support B per above, and also because of the darker mustache/hair which makes him more recognizable than the aged look. LittleJerry (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

So that's two statements of support for A, against three for B. Hardly a resounding consensus either way. What I suggest that we do is to initiate an RfC, which should attract greater support, and perhaps might more clearly resolve this one way or the other. Any objections to this course of action? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Go for it. LittleJerry (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Misrepresented source

The following statement In a 2006 survey, 30% of Russians aged over 30 stated that they would definitely or probably vote for Stalin, seems to misrepresent the sources [4], [5]. These sources claim similar things (e.g. For example, one-quarter or more of Russian adults say they would definitely or probably vote for Stalin were he alive and running for president, and less than 40 percent say they definitely would not.), but not the claim in this article. -MarioGom (talk) 10:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I've deleted it. The statistic, even if corrected, is nebulous: what does voting for Stalin mean? Anyway, there is enough material making a similar point.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
"If Stalin was alive and running for president (ie. running against Putin), would you vote for him?" to which 30% said yes. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
But the hypothetical situation is so fanciful. Why are they voting for Stalin? What are his 21st century policies? If we use a survey, it would better to use one based on reality. For example, "Do you think Stalin was a good leader?"--Jack Upland (talk) 08:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

warfarin poisoning section Death and funeral

Dears participants. The page in section Death and funeral: 1953 has the following information: "Supporting the idea of an assassination, the neurosurgeon Miguel A. Faria later suggested that Stalin's symptoms might suggest an overdose of the drug warfarin." Two problems with this: 1) the actual symptoms were described in details in Pravda on Mar 04 and 05 (I put scans on Wikimedia Commons); 2) the symptoms of warfarin poisoning are well known and well described. I understand that the idea is to use the academic research rather than news reporting. At the same time, could not find that Miguel A. Faria is considered well established academic source on the issue. Since what is written on the page has an obvious conflict with what was reported, propose to remove this sentence.--Armenius vambery (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the mention of "warfarin" from Joseph Stalin and Lavrentiy Beria pages. It would be interesting to discuss with someone who put it in.--Armenius vambery (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Of course it is relatively well established that he was poisoned, but what was the poison is only a hypothesis. However, this is a well-sourced hypothesis having publications like that [6], [7]. Both pass WP:RS, first passes WP:MEDRS. On the other hand, whatever was published in Pravda is not an RS by any reasonable account. This should be restored. My very best wishes (talk) 04:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
I have found zero RS support for the poison theory in recent years. No scholar cites the Faria article. Poison gets no mention in The Last Days of Stalin (Yale University Press 2016) by Joshua Rubenstein, a well-known historian of the Stalin era. That makes it a far-out fringe speculation. Neurosurgical Focus Jul 2016 / Vol. 41 / No. 1 / Page E7 states:] " Stalin died 8 years later, also due to a hemorrhagic stroke. " Citation #2 above to a 2003 book states The book's "authors state that a cerebral hemorrhage is still the most straightforward explanation for Stalin's death, and that poisoning remains for now a matter of speculation." Rjensen (talk) 05:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree that mentioning the poison is probably undue on this page, but it was reliably sourced (a doctor comments on the subject of poisoning) and no, it was used as a reference in other publications (e.g. article in NYT linked to above). Unfortunately, I did not read the book by Joshua Rubenstein (and it is not available online). I'd like to know how he could refute a lot of indirect evidence as described in books by Anton Antonov-Ovseenko, Radzinsky, etc. This is complex story that includes Beria succeeding in removing all layers of Stalin's personal protection (e.g. Vlasik and Poskrebyshev), prior to the alleged poisoning of Stalin. It is also well known that Stalin planned to dismiss/"retire" Beria. My very best wishes (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Poisoning is a fringe theory not supported by any RS biographer or expert on Stalin or Beria. Poisoning is not reliably sourced, what we have is a doctor and his self published essay discussing a book that explicitly says cerebral hemorrhage is still the most straightforward explanation for Stalin's death, and that poisoning remains for now a matter of speculation. A reliable source must actually talk about the active poisoning instituted by someone in the Kremlin. The doctor's essay talks about possible symptoms that would result from a possible poisoning by various poisons. Fact is, the sudden death of any famous person is always followed by speculation about poisoning or assassination. Unless additional independent reliable sources accept the theory, it remains fringe speculation. As for Beria, Stalin was his chief protector with talent gone he was soon removed and executed. He might have poisoned Stalin but no reliable source claims that he did so. Rjensen (talk) 06:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
"A reliable source must actually talk about the active poisoning instituted by someone in the Kremlin.". Yes, it is exactly what the books by Anton Antonov-Ovseenko and Radzinsky (for example) tell in great detail, and I think they are a lot more notable authors than Joshua Rubenstein. The publication in medical journal tells about the same; this is basically a review article (he refers mostly to other sources) and also an opinion; it passes WP:MEDRS. But once again, I agree this is probably undue on this page, although it would be just fine on a page specifically about the death of Stalin. My very best wishes (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Not Radzinsky -- he explicitly states he has no documents or evidence on Stalin's death and relies on hearsay and speculation. He speculates that Beria was afraid Stalin would incite an atomic attack over his treatment of the Jewish doctors. he does not actually say Beria killed him or used poison. Stalin. pp 561-65. No factual info there. as he says on p 567, there is no end of "legends" about his death. Reminds one of the hundreds of books on JFK's assassination. Rjensen (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • You probably did not read the latest book and other publications by Radzinsky: he explicitly named the NKVD officer who poisoned Stalin on the orders from Beria: that was Khrystalev, very same person mentioned by Svetlana Alilueva in her memoirs. He also provides a lot of interesting details about the last night of Stalin. Now, speaking about sourcing, here are some well known books telling that Stalin was poisoned by Beria. That was first published in a book by Abdurakhman Avtorkhanov. That was also claimed in political memoirs of Vyacheslav Molotov (was sourced to Simon Sebag Montefiore on the page). That was published in a book by Jonathan Brent and Vladimir Naumov (2004, Stalin's Last Crime: The Plot Against the Jewish Doctors, 1948–1953. HarperCollins. ISBN 0-06-093310-0.). And finally, recent version of the page refer to a book by Robert Service. I did not read it, but should AGF here. My very best wishes (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Brent -Naumov speculate on poison but conclude that natural causes were the most likely cause. Robert Service devotes a couple sentences with various conflicting theories and says "the verdict must remain open." Khrustalev was indeed a guard that night but Radzinsky suggesting he sent all the guards away in order to allow some assassin into the room....that is what reliable history dies NOT look like. Molotov (40+ years later in very old age) said he remembers Beria saying "I did him in. I saved you all." hence poison!!.... It's just like JFK ----dozens of contradictory theories tossed out and none gets serious support. At least Radzinsky repeatedly says he is speculating and has no evidence whatever of foul play. Stalin was a very sick man at the time with multiple serious life-threatening conditions. The autopsy found zero poisons. Rjensen (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
You latest statement "The autopsy found zero poisons" sounds very strange. The autopsy published in newspaper Pravda has zero value, just as all other official info about deaths of famous Soviet assassinated people, like Solomon Mikhoels. Did not you know it? I did not really read other books, but Anton Antonov-Ovseenko, Radzinsky and Abdurakhman Avtorkhanov assertively concluded that he was poisoned by Beria based on indirect evidence (you distort the logic of conclusions by Radzinsky as described on many pages in his book: of course he did not just tell "... hence poison!"). I could check and find more sources, but do not have time. Happy editing, My very best wishes (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
The secret autopsy report was made public 4 decades later, and there's no mention of any poison. The several conspiracy theorists you mention do not agree with each other-- it just like the JFK conspiracies. For example Alex De Jonge says "Avtorkhanov produces a version derived from recent emigre sources, which he cannot reveal, according to which Beria, Malenkov, Khrushchev and Bulganin, recognizing that they were in imminent danger of being shot and after reviewing alternatives such as forcing Stalin to resign, concluded that the solution was to have Beria arrange a murder." he cannot tells us his sources??? These émigrés Heard thousands of rumors like everyone else, and they came up with their own version. Avtorkhanov believes them because the newspapers stopped talking about Jewish doctors after Stalin died. Avtorkhanov misunderstood the details of who actually censored the press And incorrectly assumed that all four men must have agreed on a plan that included the censorship and the murder. Anton Antonov-Ovseyenko wrote an extremely bitter book that reviewers don't trust (Anne Applebaum calls it "an extended polemic... his obstinacy shaded into fanaticism"). And no, Radzinsky does NOT tell us who poisoned Stalin: let me quote his book p 574: “Was it Khrustalev himself who ventured into the Boss’s room? Or someone else? Perhaps they gave the Boss... an injection? Perhaps the injection caused the stroke?" Or perhaps not. I call that totally unfounded conspiracy speculation that doesn't meet Wikipedia criteria for serious scholarship. It is not based on "indirect evidence" -- There is zero evidence, for the assumption that Beria had a motive, or that Malenkov, Khrushchev, Bulganin and Beria All simultaneously had a motive. One Stalin was gone from the scene, Beria was executed, so his expectations of a happy outcome were very poorly based. Rjensen (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't think you can use Beria's execution as evidence that he wasn't involved in Stalin's death. He didn't see it coming.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I am afraid that all analysis above qualify as WP:OR on the part of Rjensen. We are here only to identify reliable sources per WP:RS (all sources mentioned above, including the article in medical journal qualify per WP:RS) and to fairly describe what these sources tell per WP:NPOV. What Rjensen was saying is not a fair description of the claims by the sources, but a personal rebuttal of the claims and the sources. Maybe I can try to fix this later, but not sure. Probably not. Too busy. My very best wishes (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
OR means no footnotes. "reliable" is the word--it means fact checking by independent source. the medical journal item is a self-published essay by the editor of the journal (RS for a journal = peer reviewed). Radzinsky writes: “Was it Khrustalev himself who ventured into the Boss’s room? Or someone else? Perhaps they gave the Boss... an injection? Perhaps the injection caused the stroke?" is not a statement that Khrustalev poisoned Stalin. " what these sources tell" = different stories. Which ONE do you actually believe is true? Rjensen (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I guess you challenge me to return and include all this content on appropriate page(s). You are wrong on nearly every point here.
  1. Surgical Neurology International is a peer reviewed journal, and he is not an editor.
  2. Yes, Malenkov, Khrushchev, Bulganin and Beria were all under the threat of execution, and the Doctor's Plot and the Mingrelian affair were all initiated by Stalin to dismiss and replace Beria. This is something admitted by most sources (including all above), not only by Avtorkhanov. Not only they had a motive, but they fought for their lives.
  3. Yes, Radzinsky implies assertively that Stalin was killed by Beria (and possibly by others), but one should read the entire thing instead of making a selective citation,
  4. You are trying to discredit Ovseenko by citing Applebaum, but she never challenged his views about death of Stalin and described his work positively, as obvious from her review,
  5. You are telling nonsense about no traces of poison according to the official Soviet "expertise" or the execution of Beria as the "proof" that he was not involved (noticed by Jack Upland). Why exactly you are telling this and bending the sources is a good question I should not answer. My very best wishes (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
The problem is that you have not decided which conspiracy model you believe. the models contract each other. Do you think Malenkov, Khrushchev, and Bulganin planned the poisoning? The Wafarin hypothesis requires small doses in juice over a period of days and contracts Radzinsky's theory of a secret poison injection on the night Stalin collapsed. #Surgical Neurology International promotes the Wafarin theory in an essay by the executive editor. Rjensen (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Was Stalin poisoned by warfarin. This theory is introduced in Brent and, Naumov Stalin's Last Crime (2005) p 322. who state: "One conceivable scenario is that Beria, with Khrushchev's knowledge, slipped some poison, such as transparent crystals of warfarin, into the wine [the wine that Stalin drank the night before].... The right dosage over a over a period of 5 to 10 days could have induced hemorrhaging as well is the stroke in a patient suffering from acute arteriosclerosis. However, without further hard medical evidence, such as a tissue sample, this remains only speculation." -- "only speculation" -- now who here on this talk page truly believes in the warfarin theory--anyone?? Rjensen (talk) 02:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The theory itself is out there and should probably addressed putting forward both sides from the books mentioned. We need to be very careful with these so-called "Soviet dissident" writers though, a lot of nonsense has been written about the Soviet Union. Stalin was 74 years old, so I remain agnostic as to whether it has any meat. What does Rubenstein say about it? I have not read him.

However, one big problem we have on Wikipedia at the moment regarding assassination in the Soviet Union around that time by medical means is the article on the Doctors' plot, which, excuse the language, is a complete clusterfuck.... total full on, unabashed, American propaganda (using the well worn cry of "anti-semitism" as cover), as is anything which even tangentially touched the subject of Stalin and Jews. So any kind of theory of poisoning at all gets wrapped up in Cold War anti-Stalin propaganda automatically. Claíomh Solais (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Wiki rule = don't post fringe theories that very few people say are true. WP:PARITY states: Fringe views are properly excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are rarely if ever included by reliable sources on those subjects.] That fits the warfarin theory. Rjensen (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, this sounds pretty sketchy. We'd neither a debate among medical expert and historians about it, and/or multiple instances of non-trivial, independent, RS news coverage about the poisoning theory as some kind of public debate or meme, before we'd write about it here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
However, the article still mentions the suspicion that Beria murdered him, citing Service...--Jack Upland (talk) 07:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Service is a major source--Unfortunately, he cannot come to a decision & gives no citations. -It is impossible to paraphrase or say what Service really believes happened. Perhaps it's best to quote him [p 587]: The verdict must remain open. One possibility is that he was murdered, probably with the connivance of Beria and Khrustalev. Poison administered in Stalin's food is the method usually touted; another suggestion is that Beria arranged for his man to enter the dacha and kill the Leader with a lethal injection. Rjensen (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I think is OK as is.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree (and said from the beginning) that warfarin is a speculation that should not be on this page. As about views by Antonov-Ovseenko, Radzinsky, etc., I think they should be more prominently noted, but the discussion is meaningless until someone makes specific sourced changes. My very best wishes (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Dear Participants, excellent discussion! Thanks a lot to all contributors! I, who initiated, would like to indicate one more point, which escaped everyone’s (including Miguel A. Faria) attention: warfarin became a drug (approved by FDA for human consumption) in 1954, therefore Stalin could not be poisoned by the drug with the active ingredient warfarin in 1953. --Armenius vambery (talk) 08:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The date of approval of a drug by the FDA is not the date that a drug magically start to exist. Many drugs are tested for some time before approval. I am not saying that it was used, but this is not a reason why it was not, necessarily. Britmax (talk) 12:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Correct. However, the idea that experimental drug was used on such important person and was not reported, even after Nikita Khrushchev relaxed repressive machine, by top medical establishment of the country is rather difficult to imagine. --Armenius vambery (talk) 06:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Not only this your opinion qualify as WP:OR, but you probably do not know what you are talking about. The dose makes the poison. So whatever this medical expert was telling in the peer reviewed journal well could be true - we simply do not know. My very best wishes (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
We certainly know the following facts: 1) there was no drug (commercially available) with an active ingredient warfarin; 2) there were no reported clinical trial or any kind of experimental use of warfarin at this place at this time. The idea of peer reviewed journal is to professionally review the ideas presented. It by no means automatically approves everything that is published.--Armenius vambery (talk) 08:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Also it was not peer reviewed by historians--Armenius vambery (talk) 08:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)--
Once again, what you are saying here (and on some other talk pages!) is not supported by any references and therefore qualify as WP:OR. On the other hand, this reference passes not only WP:RS, but even WP:MEDRS - as a review article. No one tells this is the truth. But this is "reliably sourced". It does not need to be peer reviewed by historians because the publication is on medical matters and was published in a medical journal. My very best wishes (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to the article. I agree that it is better to use the researched materials. But it does not mean that the common sense should not be used. In this case, it is very easy to check the sequence of events: find out when the pharma product got approval. To follow your logic to remove the incorrect information one needs to wait until the book on warfarin research would be published. Thanks again for active participation.--Armenius vambery (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

added the image to illustrate the Great Purge section The Great Terror

Please see my addition with the caption "Alexander Kosarev image and name in the caption painted over soon after he was dismissed from the position of the First Secretary of the Central Committee of Komsomol and later executed. It was a common practice in the public libraries of the Soviet Union to deface the enemies of the people." It perfectly illustrates the period. Please voice your opinion!--Armenius vambery (talk) 08:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

image in the section Military Command: 1918–1921

Dear Participants, the image Stalin, Lenin and Kalinin is heavily edited version of the original. Should the original version be used? --Armenius vambery (talk) 09:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The article is excellent

The article is excellent . I don't find any contradictions or biased analysis .It has good references . The structure is clear and is neutral .Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antoninus1976 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Urination

The "Death and funeral" section says Stalin was found "having urinated on himself". Biographers might mention this, but it is trivial in an article of this length. (It might be appropriate in a "Death of Joseph Stalin" article.) I haven't seen anything like this in a comparable article. Obviously in death many bodily functions cease to work, but it is unnecessary to describe that here. It sounds almost like it is an attempt to ridicule Stalin, and that's inappropriate.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Support--Armenius vambery (talk) 08:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Upland.
Gravuritas (talk) 08:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing the issue to talk, Jack. Most of the Stalin biographies do mention the urination, and on that count alone I would be inclined to retain it, but it's not a big issue by any means and I have no strong objection to its removal. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

So, let's retain it. This is not "an attempt to ridicule Stalin", contrary to the claim by User:Jack Upland. My very best wishes (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
I say drop it--it degrades Wikipedia and makes us look petty. Rjensen (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
For removal. It could be said about anyone who suffers a stroke. --Armenius vambery (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
The vast majority of stroke victims are not notable, and we are not told whether most historical figures who suffered strokes wet themselves. It is, however, part of the historical record that Stalin was found soaked in his own urine - in an instant he had gone from being a terrifying dictator to a helpless dying old man. It needs to be part of a fuller narrative about his death - how his guards were too frightened to break down the door, how Beria insulted him as he lay dying only to panic as he showed signs of reviving, how he pointed at the picture of a little girl cradling a lamb etc etc. There is already a sub-article on his death and funeral and it really belongs there.Paulturtle (talk) 04:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Such physiological details add zero factual historical information and inappropriate. Almost all leaders of this country were in similar situation: Lenin, Brezhnev, Andropov and Chernenko. However, their health problems described in more respectable format. --Armenius vambery (talk) 09:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
The difference is that in Stalin's case the eyewitness account(s) draw attention to it so it forms part of the historical record. But as I said, it belongs in a more detailed narrative about his death.Paulturtle (talk) 05:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Eyewitness accounts and biographers mention a lot of things, but this is not a valid argument. Please everyone stop using it. This is an encyclopedic article. It cannot and should not include everything. We have to exercise editorial judgement to remove trivial and otherwise inappropriate content. We also have a NPOV policy, which no one else does. Turtle's comment that "he had gone from being a terrifying dictator to a helpless dying old man" proves my point at the start. It seems like an attempt to denigrate Stalin (whether or not that is intentional), and it makes Wikipedia look petty as Rjensen aptly said. In the context of a detailed account of the death at the Death and state funeral of Joseph Stalin this could be appropriate. I think there is a consensus here to remove it and therefore it should be removed.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jack Upland: I agree. There is a rough consensus here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Infobox picture change.

Hello, since in my opinion. The image in the infobox is low-quality. I would like to make a proposal for another image.

The image thus is higher quality, higher resolution and is the most recognisable. So, what do you think? Should we change? Thanks. Do the Danse Macabre! (Talk) 17:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed new image for Stalin article.
There has recently been an extensive and long-running RfC on the issue as to which image to use in the infobox. The present image was chosen from a wide range of options and had a clear consensus behind it. Perhaps it isn't perfect, but it is certainly a recognisable image that is of acceptable image quality. The image which you propose is a painting of Stalin rather than a photograph and on these grounds alone might be less preferable; it could for instance be seen as idealised (although this could perhaps be said of many Stalin photographs too) and the angle is less direct (Stalin is facing away from the viewer, much of his face is shrouded in darkness, etc). Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Midnightblueowl Actually, the issue is less cut-and-dry than it seems. While a consensus was previously reached regarding the current image, it has been nominated for deleted because it is subject to copyright protection. (For more information, visit https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Stalin_lg_zlx1.jpg). Should it be deleted, how about this as a potential alternative? Emiya1980 (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Is this image really free for use, however? I was under the impression that the previous (now removed) image was, and still have suspicions that it might have wrongly been removed, but international copyright law is hardly my strongpoint. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
If we can establish that the bottom image is free for use them I would prefer it as the lead image. LittleJerry (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Here is were the bottom images comes from. Can anyone tell if its free? Maybe we can just use this image. LittleJerry (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
As I mentioned to LittleJerry, this image would probably not be the best stand-in. Based on what I've read on other talk pages like this one, other wikipedians look down on using pictures that are widely used on other pages as the infobox image for a biographical article. Additionally, I think it is only fair that the picture should be bigger to reflect the historical significance of the person in question for better and worse.Emiya1980 (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Option A is still available!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 08:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm flexible either way. Let's put it to a vote between images A or B. Emiya1980 (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
There was a consensus against A in the previous discussion. Just become the consensus image was deleted doesn't mean A should be eligible again. The current option B is clearly superior. You can see more details of his face and it is closer to the "classic" image people have of him with the darker mustache and tunic. LittleJerry (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Option A
Option B
Option C
Option D


I like the image that has been recently presented as "Image B" but I have strong misgivings about whether it is free to use; certainly, the current proviso will not stand up to scrutiny because it lacks any real detail. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I found the original version of the image here. It is sourced to a Pravda article. LittleJerry (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

This one (C) has also been used in this article at some point and should be worth considering.--Staberinde (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2018

Spelling Correction:
CHANGE → "...bending too much to bourgeois nationalism, while wothers accused him of remaining too Russocentric..."
TO → "...bending too much to bourgeois nationalism, while others accused him of remaining too Russocentric..." Springhilljack (talk) 03:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks! RivertorchFIREWATER 03:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Image for the section Dekulakisation, collectivisation, and industrialisation: 1927–1931 Economic policy

Dear contributors, Relevant image

Avel Enukidze Joseph Stalin and Maxim Gorky Red Square 1931

propose to add to the section 1927-1931. The source identifies the specific date as well as the event. Any objections? --Armenius vambery (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Korea

The article says: "Stalin wanted to avoid direct Soviet conflict with the U.S., convincing the Chinese to hold the 38th Parallel". I don't know what the sources say, but "holding the 38th Parallel" isn't what happened.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Photo of Stalin in 1902

There should be a footnote mentioning the photo was doctored and Stalin in fact was afflicted by many pockmarks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.231.250.148 (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The question of the veracity of this image has been raised on more than one occasion. Looking at the history, it has been heavily photoshopped since it was originally uploaded. I've reverted the image at Wiki Commons to the original file. While the image may have been cleaned up prior uploading, it had certainly been reworked to the point of his looking like a contemporary male model. While we don't use images designed to be as unflattering as possible, we don't use images to entirely misrepresent the physical appearance of any person at any point in their lives per MOS:PERTINENCE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

It seems nothing is going to be done about this. I don't have edit privileges. I don't even care if the people in control of this article are cooky pro-Stalinists, but please show the actual photo. Just google "Stalin pockmarks" and you will see the actual photo. In fact, one can even look closely and realize the photo was faked since it is without as much noise as other pictures of the time. 104.231.250.148 (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no footnote on the various pictures of Franklin D. Roosevelt, or the picture of the statue showing him standing. In fact, many representations of people are not entirely accurate. I agree we should use the original mugshot photo. However, this photo has been used in Montefiore's Young Stalin. I think we need strong evidence to dismiss it as doctored.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC

Closing this discussion per request at requests for closure. As option B has been deleted at Commons due to copyright concerns, this whole thing is rendered moot I'm afraid, as Midnightblueowl says, we must stick with Option A until a better option presents itself. Fish+Karate 09:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Stalin lg zlx1.jpg
Option A and Option B

Main question: For the lede image, used in the infobox, should this article use Option A or Option B? A previous Talk Page discussion reached no consensus, so hopefully a wider RfC will. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Further detail: This is what the article looks like with Option A in the infobox; this is what the article looks like with Option B in the infobox.

Survey

  • Option B. It offers a clearer, cleaner image of Stalin's profile, which is ideal for the lede infobox. Other, FA-rated political biographies like Vladimir Lenin and Nelson Mandela also use similar profile images in their infoboxes. In contrast, Option A poses some problems in that the majority of the image consists of Stalin's torso rather than his profile; in addition, Option A is a fuzzier, less clean image. It does not do such a good job of visually presenting Stalin's appearance to the reader. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Option B. Per above. In addition Stalin is more recognizable with this darker hair and moustache. He is also wearing a tunic which was his everyday wardrobe during his time in power. Option A by contrast has him with aged grey hair and a Field Marshall's uniform, worn on special occasions. LittleJerry (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Option A. Notwithstanding prior remarks that Option B is a more recognizable image of Stalin, the fact remains that it is an artistic depiction of Stalin as opposed to a real-life image of him. B's reliability as an accurate representation of Stalin is further undermined by the fact that it was originally taken from a book written in the Soviet Union in 1934, a date when all Soviet literature and art disseminated to the public was strictly censored by Stalin's regime. Consequently,Option B is intended to be an idealized portrayal of Stalin that downplays or outright removes physically negative features that a close-up picture of Stalin would ordinarily reveal such as his scars from smallpox and his double chin. (Compare with close-ups below).
http://iv1.lisimg.com/image/4150824/615full-joseph-stalin.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/dVhFW8b.jpg
https://jl10ll.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/stalin.jpg
However, while I remain of the opinion that A is a better option than B, I think some of the concerns raised about A have some merit. Bearing this in mind, I had an alternative in mind that address some of the concerns raised by Midnightblueowl and LittleJerry. While Stalin's torso is visible, the overall picture is cleaner; it provides a more detailed view of his face; and he's wearing his trademark tunic as opposed to a field marshal's uniform. Here is a link to the picture. Option C Emiya1980 (talk) 23:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I suppose Option C would be better as an alternative if Option B loses. But I would also suggest Option D. LittleJerry (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
LittleJerry I'd be willing to consider D as a possible candidate. Do you know how to transfer it to Wikimedia Commons?Emiya1980 (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I do not think that there is anything inherently wrong with using an image that has been 'touched up' for propaganda purposes. After all, for most historical figures we use paintings in the infobox (which are often idealised) and for U.S. Presidents we use their official photographs (Donald Trump, Barack Obama, etc) which again are produced for propagandist purposes and have likely been tidied into shape, airbrushed etc. It seems like a slight case of double standards if we accept it for all of those other leaders but not for Stalin. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Option A for the reasons I gave earlier.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Option B if there is nothing better. Both images are terribly misleading because they were made explicitly with the purpose to "beautify" the "hero". Stalin looked very differently if anyone watched old black and white documentaries with him. However, image on A is further from the original (photographers can do wonderful job if they want someone to appear much better than in real life). This image is a classic "icon" of Stalin used by Stalinists in the Soviet Union. My very best wishes (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
How about these? Emiya1980 (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Option C and Option D2
Still B. My very best wishes (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
In what ways do you think they can be improved?Emiya1980 (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I would suggest using the picture where he shakes hands with Joachim von Ribbentrop (currently on the page). At the very least, it tells a lot about his smart expansionist strategy. That strategy finally led to his greatest achievement: bringing Eastern Europe, China and North Korea into the Soviet Empire. My very best wishes (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
But that's not the point of a leading image for a public figure. They are suppose to give a straightforward portrait focusing on the face, the thing that is most recognizable. Emiya1980, I forgot that the image is not on commons so it may not be reliable as PD. However, I did find this one. LittleJerry (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

How about these choices? LittleJerry (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Option A
File:Stalin lg zlx1.jpg
Option B
Option C
Option D
I'm unconvinced that Image D is copyright free. This claim has been made for it over at the image's page, but has not been substantiated with explanation as to precisely why it is copyright free in both the Russian Federation and United States. That being the case, I would warn against using it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • A (Summoned by bot) Ping me L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Option B. This is a more "classic" looking image of Stalin, with that darker hair, which IMO makes him instantly recognizable. Option A is a far less recognizable Stalin image, from the outfit to the lighter hair. Kerdooskis (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)n in
  • Option B. It's a classic, iconic image of him. A (and C) are zoomed too far out; they're less well-known and mostly focus on the uniform, which doesn't seem as relevant as his face. D is an obscure non-standard depiction that definitely isn't usable for the header. The objection that B is an artistic image is irrelevant; the primary image on a page should present the "classic", most expected image of the topic - the one that best reflects what people think of in relation to it. The relevant policy from MOS:LEADIMAGE says that "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see." It is obvious that option B best satisfies that requirement. --Aquillion (talk) 03:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Option C & (in the alternative) Option A. I don't see how having a view of Stalin's uniform detracts from the lead image's purpose of providing a "natural and appropriate representation of the topic" under Wikipedia's guidelines. According to the criteria for selecting images in general at MOS:IMAGES, "images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative and are often an important illustrative aid to understanding the subject. Both C & A satisfy this requirement by drawing the viewer's attention to things from his background which made him historically significant in the first place.
Firstly, the view provided in Option C of Stalin in a peasant tunic commonly worn by the likes of Mao Zedong and Kim Il Sung draws attention to the fact that he is a member of the Communist movement (without which he never would have come to power in the Soviet Union nor exercised influence on the world stage). Similarly, Option A's display of Stalin in his marshal uniform highlights that he was a wartime leader and alludes to his distinction as one of the three victors in the largest and most destructive conflict in history. Conversely, there's not much that readers can infer about Stalin from Option B aside from the fact that he was being an extremely brutal dictator with a unique mustache.Emiya1980 (talk) 05:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Still Option B for me, followed by D. Once again, the lead image of a historical figure is supposed to be a straightforward, recognizable portrait. Interesting that you mention Mao and Sung. Both of their articles have idealized portraits for lead images, even though their are plenty of alternatives. Of course those images are not as iconic. In addition, Aquillion's citation of wiki's image policy carries more weight. The line about "images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative" is clearly referring to image use throughout an article. That is, you can't just put any image anywhere but that the images should be relevant to the information that they are placed next to. LittleJerry (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Option B both pictures are good and I don't have a problem with either, but this is more of a classic Stalin look. The current picture is good too though, because it shows his importance at Postdam and the cool-calm-collected, cigarette in hand, is a nice touch. Claíomh Solais (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Probably A - Although both are pretty crap resolution scans. GMGtalk 03:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Option B As noted, its fairly straightforward, and similar headshots are used for at least four of his major biographies (Kotin's Volumes I and II, Khlevniuk, Service). While that obviously isn't an argument of itself, it does suggest that a headshot gives a clearer, more obvious look of the subject. Kaiser matias (talk) 08:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • B. Always use a clear headshot when possible, unless there's a really good reason not to.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, so far we have four for A and eight for B. I should also point out that two of the votes for A don't give an explanation for their choice. LittleJerry (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Option D which is both a close headshot and a photograph / non-artistic depiction of the subject (I think), which are the two qualities that we seem to more often privilege in other GA/FA biographies for infobox use. Chetsford (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Option B reasons already stated above. Dig deeper talk 02:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Option B. I see no issue with showing Stalin in posture, as this is a pretty common depiction and perfectly representative. It is also consistent with the lead images of Winston Churchill, Adolf Hitler and Franklin D. Roosevelt. All of which show a full torso. In my opinion option D is almost unusable due to it's low quality, and option C seems to show him falling over laughing, which seems an odd look for a leader who supervised the killings of millions of people and fought a major conflict with Germany where millions more died. Option A is a fairly decent photo, but the low resolution does show and makes it hard to see his face if trying to do a closeup. Prince of Thieves (talk) 10:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Option B. Very clear headshot for the times, and it shows his features perfectly fine. I see no reason to not use it. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Rounding off comment: Almost two weeks have gone since the last comment so I think it best we round this RfC off. More significantly, while it appears that there was a very clear consensus in favour of Option B, unfortunately said image has been removed by editors concerned that the copyright was not actually free on the image. For that reason, it seems sensible to stick with Option A in the infobox (because we know that the copyright on this image is free) until a more appropriate alternative can be obtained. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What does the Communist Party of China think?

The legacy contains good quotes from Western historians and some Russians. OK, intersting. More interesting however would be what China and the Communist Party of China thinks. Xi Jinping was quoted last year saying "To dismiss the history of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Communist Party, to dismiss Lenin and Stalin, and to dismiss everything else is to engage in historic nihilism, and it confuses our thoughts and undermines the party's organisations on all levels."

It proves that Stalin still has a place in CPC thoughts.. Secondly, as shown in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union#According to the Communist Party of China, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China actually ordered an analysis of the CPSU collapse, both in the 1990s and the late 2000s under Hu. In addition, most universities have classes on why the USSR collapsed.. Most importantly, many of those researchers seem to blame Stalin, or put much emphasise on Stalin.

China is an important country. The Communist Party of China, if one likes or not, is very important to the world.. Its seems only be logical that we we actually have some quotes on what the Chinese communists think of Stalin - they still like him, as the Xi quote shows.

So what do you think @Midnightblueowl:? --TIAYN (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, I think this would be a good addition to the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
statement above is pretty vague: Most importantly, many of those researchers seem to blame Stalin, or put much emphasise on Stalin. Everyone in China agrees with Xi but what Xi really thinks about Stalin is a secret--as you can see at MINGFU LIU; ZHONGYUAN WANG (2017). THE THOUGHTS OF XI JINPING (In English). American Academic Press. pp. 9–12. Rjensen (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I also think that it would be a good addition to the article, although we need some pretty good Reliable Sources in order to do so. If anyone has any suggestions for which RS to use, that would be smashing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
@Rjensen: Where have you got that from? I doubt everyone agrees with Xi Jinping. I mean, yes, China is a one-party dictatorship, but its not North Korea. People in China can debate, and researches can also debate. Generally the party policy is pretty clear, as long as you don't support or advocate liberalism and Western political values you can research whatever you want... and why would it be a secret? The quote above literally says that one should keep firm in Lenin and Stalin considering their importance to the development of the socialist political system... Its a sentence with a bunch of communist jargon, but its not very hard to decipher. If Xi looks up to Stalin or not is another question, but he obviously doesn't advocate hating the guy - Xi by no means needed to mention Lenin or Stalin (and no one would have questioned him if he didn't), but he did.
Where do I get the notion that everyone in office agrees with whatever Xi says?? try naming a few prominent Chinese in high position who publicly disagree with him. 1) Last fall = "For critics, foremost among them liberal intellectuals and human rights activists, Xi’s first term has proved calamitous. Some had hoped he would prove a political reformer. Instead China’s authoritarian leader has waged war on dissent with unexpected ferocity, throwing some opponents in jail and forcing others overseas. Hardcore objectors call him 'Xitler' " The Guardian article entitled "Chairman Xi crushes dissent" 14 Oct 2017. 2) recent = NY Times Mar 8, 2018: For all the orchestration of public support for the proposed changes, dissenting voices continue to surface. For now, at least, they are sporadic and apparently spontaneous, amounting to a faint rumble." Rjensen (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
@Rjensen: As I said, people who advocate liberalism, Western democracy and reforms in that direction are repressed... However, that doesn't mean communist researchers, Marxists who believe in the party, party believers and people who make no problems at all are repressed (read you're text; it says "liberal intellectuals and human rights activists"). They repress people who advocate for change; analysing the reasons for the CPSU's demise would not be included in that category... In addition, the people who are participate in the CPC Central Committee researches are involved because they want to a) save the party and b) save communism. Why on earth would they be repressed?
Not everyone are liberal intellectuals, human rights activists or people who campaign for liberal democratic changes to the political system... Other people exists as well. --TIAYN (talk) 06:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Everyone in China who disagrees with Xi gets repressed, including the richest and most prominent political and economic leaders--leaders who were as deeply communist as Xi himself, but belong to a separate faction. That's how you build a one-man dictatorship. Any communist intellectual wants to immediately end his research career will publicly disagree with Xi. Rjensen (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
@Rjensen: Who said China is a one-man dictatorship? Just because he's a powerful leader doesn't mean its a one-party dictatorship.. This is very much you're view of affairs.... In addition, there isn't a natural law which says what you're saying is a matter of fact... There is also very much a difference doing research for the party and publicly rebuking Xi. Very different matter all together. I don't think Xi is a paranoid man who represses everyone who disagrees with him. I've never read that before.
Its fine you have a different opinion, but this is a very simplistic view of dictatorship, Xi Jinping and the workings of modern China. Just because you have a strong leader and a dictatorship doesn't mean there is a natural law meaning that everyone else has to shut up. Never has been..... I mean, you literally had people who were opposed to Mao (and told him about it) and got away with it - the best example being Deng himself...
Just as its absolutely wrong to say everyone in democracies live free and have all the trappings of freedom, its absolutely nonsense to say everyone has to agree with Xi... But lets end this conversation here. This isn't North Korea, and people are allowed to disagree with one another! :) --TIAYN (talk) 09:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Wrong Deng Xiaoping was punished by Mao in a major way and survived because Mao died. Rjensen (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
That is wrong. He was punished, brought back, punished brought back, punished, brought back. Always brought back. Better example; Zhou Enlai. --TIAYN (talk) 09:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Here http://www.chinafile.com/reporting-opinion/viewpoint/has-xi-jinping-changed-china-not-really Just one of many, but still. You also have to put emphasize that Xi, and the party, have put great weight on inner-party democracy and so on. But again, I don't see the need to continue this discussion. I'm not all that into it, and hopefully you're not either. This will be my last reply. I hope thats ok (in this conversation) :) --TIAYN (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
@Midnightblueowl: While there are many books to chose from, David Shambaugh's China's Communist Party: Atrophy and Adaptation is the best one! :) I've read it countless of times, so yes, a must read. --TIAYN (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
@Midnightblueowl: If you're lazy, I found some of the pages are open for reading at Google Books pp 65-67.. It mentions Chinese criticism of Soviet totalitarianism, which most of them conclude was caused by Stalin. I still recommend everyone to buy that book; its a great read. But books cost money, so if not interested in buying you can always preview :) --TIAYN (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
"TIAYN" recommends David Shambaugh for reliable info on China. Ok. Shambaugh wrote this about Xi two months ago: Xi has systematically sought to roll back the collective and consensual leadership model; delegitimised the institutional decision-making system (which has resulted in a frozen bureaucracy); taken over all of the “leading groups” in the senior party hierarchy; unleashed a severe crackdown on civil society; and concentrated all power in himself. He has also permitted and encouraged the construction of a Mao-like personality cult around his persona. The full text is at http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/2135208/under-xi-jinping-return-china-dangers-all-powerful-leader Rjensen (talk) 09:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
@Rjensen: ah, yes he's of that opinion. He's also of the opinion that China will collapse if it doesn't become a democracy. Both of that is conjecture. If you'd actually followed clearly you would also know that Xi has strengthened institutions;
  1. He has strenghtened the institution of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection by establishing the National Supervisory Commission (head of the state commission is a deputy secretary of the CCDI and reports directly to the CCDI Head))
  2. He as increased the independence of the judiciary at the lower levels.. The number of people convicted in Chinese courts have actually dropped during Xi's rule, not increased. Why? Because, for instance, Xi has removed the Stalinist quote system that judges have to charge "so so many people each year".. Courts have also rolled back decisions, and even admitted to wrong doing - going so far to tell two families that their sons were put on the death penalty by court error.
  3. Its true that Xi has centralised, but its not been proven that the centralisation is Xi's doing alone. Maybe the party, after the wilderness years of Hu, wanted a stronger leader... This is an academic debate, and if you'd actually followed Chinese politics you now this to be a hot topic of discussion.
  4. The removal of term limits to the presidency don't to anything because a) there were never term limits to the office of General Secretary and b) the office of Chairman of the Central Military Commission. That is, Xi could have held power after 2021 anyhow. The change is a signal, but not neccesairly a change in direction. Note also that only one Chinese leader has ruled only 10 years (two terms), thats Hu Jintao. Not really a long-standing tradition is it.
  5. What we see in China, mostly, is that Xi is recentralising power that should never have been decentralised in the first place
  6. He has instituted laws which makes it easier for ordinary people to consult with party, and pointedly, the man talks about "Institution-building" all the bloody time. He's also proving he's doing it.
  7. As for this, "taken over all of the “leading groups” in the senior party hierarchy", its very wrong :P He has taken over the Central Leading Groups Hu Jintao led (4 of them), and has created 2-3 more. There are, however, still central leading groups he doesn't lead.
  8. "unleashed a severe crackdown on civil society" - as I said before, he is not a liberal democratic.. Are surprised?
  9. "and concentrated all power in himself" - not proven & hotly disputed. Just because you're face is everywhere doesn't mean you have absolute power. Ho Chi Minh never had, but he was everywhere. Le Duan, Le Duc Tho, Truong Chinh were the real powers during most of the war.
  10. He has also permitted and encouraged the construction of a Mao-like personality cult around his persona - jupp, but doesn't really say anything about inner-party discourse.
  11. as for this one "Xi has systematically sought to roll back the collective and consensual leadership model; delegitimised the institutional decision-making system"... "Xi has systematically sought to roll back the collective and consensual leadership model" - just go over the Hoover Institute.. and considering he is actually strengthening the CCDI and the supervision system over the party (an institution which has been weak and feeble for years), its rather strange that he is "delegitimised the institutional decision-making system"..
  12. Shambaugh's book is a great book, mostly because a) he actually researches what communists think about China. He clearly states in the book that he doesn't believe anything of what these people have to say make a difference because dictatorship is dictatorship and democracy is democracy. Shambaugh is a democracy man, and he thinks its impossible to develop without democracy. This is actually a very normal view (in my mind a very stupid and ideological view akeen to the Soviets "we will win no matter what because history is on our side" view).
  • Rjensen, you clearly don't much about China. Not only is it extremely simplistic. "Xi is a dictator, that's just how it is!" Xi has strengthened the party and the state, and has implemented institution building. The problem most Westerners have with Xi is that he is building institution in a very authoritarian manner (during his rule he has introduced 3-4 new regulations which strengthen the CCDI and its independence from other party organs). He is not building liberal democracy and he's saying very clearly that he doesn't want to. He's also saying very clearly that the party has to safeguard Marxism and has to hold Party Building sacred to survive. For Xi, these changes are a matter of survival (that is why he always talks about "life and death", "historical nihilism", "ideological bankrupcy" el cetra. Xi is not a democrat, he's a communist. As a good communist he opposes a) factionalism b) supports disciplined inner-party democracy c) Marxist propaganda and d) likes to crush ideological enemies.

Bloody hell Rjensen, you don't know crap. The fact that I know more about Shambaugh then you should also tell you something. --TIAYN (talk) 12:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

You were the one who highly praised Shambaugh. his book "is the best one! :) I've read it countless of times, so yes, a must read. " Wiki depends on reliable secondary sources line Shambaugh not on pure speculation. Rjensen (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
@Rjensen: He is reliable, but one has to accept that all social science is inherently ideological. That's just how it is. Shambaugh is a professor and writer, and a man who can be cited. --TIAYN (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Woah there folks - let's not forget WP:NOTFORUM! Let's stick to talking about what information to include in this article, not the governance style of Xi Jinping. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: I agree. Do you have access to the book? Do you want me to write a sentence or two which you can use? How do you recommend we can go forward with this? --TIAYN (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
@Trust Is All You Need: I don't think I do, unfortunately. If you have access to the book then I'd be very happy for you to put together a couple of sentences or so reflecting the reception of Stalin in the PRC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


Not the best prose in the world, but hope it has some info you can use. If you have any questions, please send me a message @Midnightblueowl:

During the 2000s under Hu Jintao's administration the CPC Central Committee ordered an inquiry into the CPSUs' demise.[1] Li Jingje, the Director of the Institute of Russia and Eastern Europe of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, notes that Communist Party of China's (CPC) view on Khrushchev denunciation of Stalin has changed and that the "vast majority believes [of the CPC] believes that his Twentieth Party Congress speech was correct."[2] Further, according to David Shambaugh, "the majority of analyses traced Soviet totalitarianism to Stalin."[1] Researchers criticised Stalin for introducing mass terror, intimidation, dictatorship, overcentralisation of power, establishing a cult of personality and abandoning collective leadership, Russification policies, equating ethnic tension with class struggle, the suppression of non-Russian minorities and distorting the economy with the introduction of state planning and collectivisation.[1] In conclusion, the Chinese researchers criticised what they saw as the establishment of the "dictatorship of the supreme leader."[1]

There were many perceived effects Stalinist totalitarianism had on Soviet society. Veteran Soviet specialist Xu Kui concludes it resulted in a "traumatised and morbid society", and Xiao Guisen argues Stalin's policies led to stunted economic growth, lack of democracy in decision-making, bureucratisation of the CPSU and its alienation from the masses.[1] More noteworthy is that researchers concluded Stalin's errors were caused by leftism and dogmatism, which deviated from Marxism–Leninism.[3] Zheng Yifan, from the CPC Institute of World Socialism, claimed Stalin's ideology was the "bastardization of Leninism".[3] Hong Zhaolong, from Beijing University, notes how the distortion of Lenin's democratic centralism was Stalin's biggest mistake, and how it rendered the party apparatus and the party's inner-supervisory mechanisms ineffective.[3] Lu Nanquan, from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, notes how the Stalin model failed to adapt:

"In my opinion, the fundamental cause for the drastic changes in the Soviet Union and East European countries at the end of the 1980s and beginning of the 1990s was the loss of dynamism in the Stalin-Soviet Socialist Model .... The demerits of this model were institutional and fundamental—not a single reform after Stalin's death brought fundamental change to the Stalin-Soviet Socialist Model. This model, with its problems and contradiction accumulating day by day, was finally in crisis, and the people of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe lost their confidence in it. The [only] way out was to abandon the Stalin-Soviet Socialist Model and seek another road for social development"[3]

--TIAYN (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that we can use some of this, in a condensed form. I'll have a look into doing so at some point in the next few days, unless someone else beats me to it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b c d e Shambaugh 2008, p. 65.
  2. ^ Shambaugh 2008, p. 61.
  3. ^ a b c d Shambaugh 2008, p. 66.

Killing of the CC

@Midnightblueowl: The article is very good, but it does not include information on the active killing and arrestation of the Central Committee. This can't be overlooked - he killed the country's leadership (and got away with it!)... In addition, he didn't just kill oppositional and former oppositional elements within the CC and party, he killed confidants and people who actively worked alongside him in the purging process.

The article is very good! But this is missing. Importantly, communists were forced to fullfill quotes of either killing or detaining anti-Soviet elements (if they didn't) they might get killed (many did and got killed anyway).

The important thing here is that the destruction of the Central Committee led to the "self-destruction" of the party (the fact that leading and lower level party members alike began accusing each other and, by extension, killing each other). Very important, because the party purge became, because of this, a purge of society in general. --TIAYN (talk) 09:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

This is mentioned, but could be expanded.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Jack. A brief expansion, if properly referenced, might well be warranted. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Marriage date of Stalin's parents

Is it really useful to include the marriage date of Stalin's parents? They have their own articles, that information should go there. Kurzon (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It provides the reader with a brief assessment on how long the parents had been married prior to Stalin's birth. Not absolutely vital information, granted, but perhaps of interest to some. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
@Midnightblueowl: I think those who are interested in such trivia should find it in the articles for their parents. We have articles for Besarion and Keke Jughashvili. I vote we put the information about their marriage and previous children there and delete it from this article. I plan, in fact, to expand their articles. Kurzon (talk) 06:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Georgian ethnicity in the lede

Is it necessary to have "of Georgian ethnicity" in the lede? His Georgian origin is mentioned throughout the article, the childhood section states, "They were ethnically Georgian". I think "Soviet" is enough since that also included the Georgians.--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

It is standard practice for the lede to summarise all the pertinent information, which of course means duplicating information also found in the main body of the text, so the fact that his ethnic/national origins are mentioned in the main body is not a reason for excluding this fact from the lede. That Stalin was Georgian—as opposed to Russian, Azerbaijani, Armenian, Ukrainian, or what not—is, in my view, of great importance and most certainly warrants inclusion in the lede. After all, it is standard practice to include an individual's nationality in the lede and even at the time (i.e. the Russian Empire then the USSR) he would have been recognised as being "nationally" a Georgian. In a sense he had two national identities—"Georgian" and (later) "Soviet"—in a similar manner to how folk in Britain can be both "British" and "English/Welsh/Scottish". Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Midnightblueowl Rjensen (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps the "Soviet" part could be used elsewhere and only the "Georgian" part mentioned in the lede of the article? The reason I mention this is that the articles about other historical figures such as Hitler ("German politician" and mentions that he was born in Austria in the paragraph below) and Napoleon ("French statesman" and mentions that he was born in Corsica in the paragraph below) compared to the Stalin article that mentions both "Soviet" and "Georgian" in the lede when he was not born a Soviet and only became one later on in life whereas he was a Georgian by birth.--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I can certainly appreciate your point, although the present wording is the result of extensive discussions in the past so I would hesitate to change it without a new consensus being established here at the Talk Page. Stalin was clearly "Georgian" by ethnicity/nationality but at no point in his lifetime was Georgia an internationally recognised independent nation-state, so on that count it might be inappropriate to refer to him solely as "Georgian" in the opening sentence. He was born and lived most of his life in the Russian Empire, and in a civic sense could perhaps even be considered "Russian" although he was not ethnically Russian, so calling him "Russian" in that opening sentence could again be seen as misleading. Of course, he was only a "Soviet" for the latter part of his life, but he is closely associated with the Soviet Union because of the prominent role he played in creating and leading it, hence the decision made to include it in the opening sentence. It's a difficult one and I don't think that there's an obvious course of action. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree with you that it can certainly be difficult to use the correct word to describe Stalin in the lede of the article. However, in the second paragraph of the article it states, "Raised in a poor family in Gori, Georgia—then part of the Russian Empire", this clearly tells the reader that Stalin was born in Georgia and was by nationality a Georgian. The "Early life" describes his origins and tells the reader he was also ethnically Georgian. I just don't see the emphasis of "of Georgian ethnicity" in the very first sentence. There also exists several rumours about Stalin's ancestry so someone could potentially argue that "of Georgian ethnicity" is somewhat problematic because his ethnicity has never been fully established. Several biographers have written about his unknown ancestry, there is some evidence he had distant Ossetian ancestry on his father's side although nothing has been fully established. Could a proposal be made for Georgian-Soviet in the lede article? In fact, if we compare Stalin's article and the lede sentence to Lenin's, "was a Russian communist revolutionary, politician and political theorist." and Trotsky's, "Russian revolutionary, theorist, and Soviet politician", what is the argument for the inclusion of "was a Soviet revolutionary and politician of Georgian ethnicity." in Stalin's article? I propose the possibility of changing this to: "was a Georgian revolutionary and Soviet politician" or something similar. I really don't see any need for "of Georgian ethnicity" to be included after the mention of "politician" in the article.--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
It only says that Gori is in Georgia because you added that in! But I agree with that edit. We have discussed this before. However, I agree the current phrasing is awkward. I would support "Georgian revolutionary and Soviet politician".--Jack Upland (talk) 08:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Being born in Georgia does not necessarily mean that one is Georgian, in an ethnic sense, and certainly did not at the time that Stalin was born. As for "Georgian revolution and Soviet politician", I quite like that and could certainly live with it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and it looks like James Joseph P. Smith has now been blocked as a sock puppet. Guess that puts an end to that then. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

What if we simply changed the first sentence to something like "Joseph Stalin was the ruler of the Soviet Union from 1922 to 1953", with no mention of his ethnicity? It is simpler, and gets right to the most important point about his life.Kurzon (talk) 07:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: What do you think? Kurzon (talk) 04:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC) Kurzon (talk) 04:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Doing so would be very atypical, and leave this article at odds with most other biography articles. I'd be concerned about that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it would be very strange, and I would totally oppose it. It also would have no effect, as someone would instantly insert some ethnicity or nationality. "Georgian revolutionary and Soviet politician" tells us a lot about who Stalin was, where he came from, and neatly deals with the whole nationality tangle. The fact that it might have come from a sock puppet doesn't mean it isn't a good suggestion. We should deal with proposed edits on their merits. There has been no objection to this turn of phrase.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
I'd be slightly concerned that "Georgian politician" might be read as suggesting that he was a revolutionary in Georgia, whereas of course he was engaged in revolutionary activity all over the Empire. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking. He's a bit like Che Guevara in that sense. Che was from Argentina but he came to power in Cuba. Lots of people think he was Cuban. Compare Stalin with Hitler: Hitler was born in Austria, but became German after he united the two countries. Stalin was born in Georgia but became a Soviet citizen after Georgia and Russia were united in the Soviet Union (how did citizenship work in the Soviet Union exactly?). Kurzon (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Can we be clear the suggestion is "Georgian revolutionary", not "Georgian politician"? Stalin started out in Georgia and was identified as a Georgian during his time as a revolutionary. His revolutionary activities were international. (Was Trotsky a North American revolutionary because he spent so much time in the US and Mexico?) The current wording is "Soviet revolutionary and politician of Georgian nationality". Well, the revolution was basically over when he became a Soviet citizen, so "Soviet revolutionary" is a bit odd. And this sentence is ambiguous: does it mean he was a {Soviet revolutionary} and {politician of Georgian nationality}, or that he was a Soviet and Georgian {revolutionary and politician}? Soviet people were citizens of the USSR and also had a "nationality" (which could include being Jewish). Guevara's article actually describes him as an "Argentine Marxist revolutionary, physician, author, guerrilla leader, diplomat and military theorist". Hitler was always German ethnically, and Austria has always been a German country. His article actually describes him as a "German politician". Those examples don't really help. Stalin basically went from being a Russian subject to being a Soviet citizen, while retaining his Georgian ethnicity. He wasn't a migrant.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2018

Stalin was born on June 27, 1901 DiamondDude978 (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

No he wuzzint. Kurzon (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
You gotta learn to laugh at trolls, buddy. Kurzon (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

image Stalin and top management of USSR 1925

Dear Contributors, I would like to add the image to either the section "Lenin's final years: 1921–1923" or "Succeeding Lenin: 1924–1927". The image is c: File:Stalin Rykov Kamenev Zinoviev 1925.jpg. I have provided the detailed description, annotations, hyperlinks etc. It is significant (my opinion) since it shows Stalin together with the top leaders whom he later repressed and executed. It has been scanned by myself from the primary source (identified), clearly in PD and has not been modified apart from removing some noise, sharper focus and contrast to compensate for aging paper. Your thoughts and objections?--Armenius vambery (talk) 06:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Joseph Stalin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 06:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


Happy to take this review, but I might need some time here. Comments to follow in the next days. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm through with the first third; a good read overall, and so far not really much to nitpick. More in the next days.

  • Better state that "Keke" is the abbreviation for his mother, as you did for "Soso".
  • You write that Stalin made several escape attempts, but according to the following there only have been two escape attempts?
It is well described in Oleg Khlevniuk's book. And there is a short description on the Russian language page of Yakov Sverdlov since he shared the room with Stalin.--Armenius vambery (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • His battle with Trotsky was of central importance for his rise to power. What I am missing is an explanation of how Stalin did achieve that, as this says a lot about the person (if I remember correctly, he was systematically replacing high-ranked officials with ones outside the old elite who owe their whole career entirely to him and thus are fully loyal, while Trotsky failed to to the same, and appeared somewhat arrogant to other members of the politburo).
  • I've added several sentences on how Stalin appointed loyalists throughout the party and administration (and on how he cosied up with senior figures in the secret police) to the second paragraph of the "Succeeding Lenin: 1924–1927" section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • You mention the August uprising just for completeness sake, but not how it relates to Stalin. Was Stalin not patriotic for his Georgian homeland at all, or was he originally and lost it since?
  • I'm actually included to remove mention of the August Uprising. As you point out, it has been included for completeness sake, but most of Stalin's biographies don't seem to even bother mentioning it. Would you object if I got rid of it? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I would suggest to just get rid of it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • the naming of Stalingrad – was this an honour given to him, or initiated by himself?
  • The image caption "Avel Enukidze Joseph Stalin and Maxim Gorky Red Square 1931" is not, unlike other captions, a full sentence, and could do well with some additional information.
  • The "Wehrmacht" is singular, so it should always be "the Wehrmacht was" instead of "the Wehrmacht were".
  • The whole "World War II" section appears to be slightly biased in favor of Stalin, while his defects are not as deeply discussed despite their hugely important implications for Russian history. Some positive war policies are described relatively detailed, on the other hand.
In fact it is probably the most controversial issue. I have tried to dig and found Khlevniuk's opinion that the professional (with reliable sources) assessments of his military achievements and failures do not exist. Of course there are politicians who (as usual) provide one sided argument. Overall the picture is that he significantly weakened the army with repressions, until the last day believed in agreement signed with Hitler and was totally taken by surprise when the war started. However, Beevor's assessment of his role in key Stalingrad battle is that in contrast to Hitler he listened to reports from his subordinates and made more balanced decisions. --Armenius vambery (talk) 06:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
This is a topic about which I do not know a great deal (military history isn't quite my thing) and I was simply following the RS available. Are there specific issues which you think need addressing to introduce more of a balance? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, see some of the comments below (more to follow). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Regarding winter war and second world war, it should be stressed that the red army was seriously weakened due to the fact that Stalin removed most officials during the Great Terror.
  • It might take me some time to find a citation to support the addition of this information, although I have come across that statement before and think it could be included in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Since I did the review for the article Winter War, I happen to know. That article states (with sources): Stalin's purges in the 1930s had devastated the officer corps of the Red Army; those purged included three of its five marshals, 220 of its 264 division-level commanders or higher, and 36,761 officers of all ranks. Fewer than half of all the officers remained. Half of the officers eliminated is a huge issue that needs to be mentioned. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Citing Conquest, I've added a sentence on this issue to the first paragraph of "Pact with Germany: 1939–1941". Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Despite having prior warning, Stalin was taken by surprise. – It would be good to mention that he prohibited most fortification and military buildup near the boarder despite urgent demands of his officials, as he wanted to not anger Hitler, and that this behavior left the red army unprepared for the attack, and caused heavy losses for both the army and the affected population.
  • There is already a sentence pertaining to this in the "Ideological and foreign affairs" sub-section. It states that "Stalin admired Hitler, particularly the latter's manoeuvres to remove rivals within the Nazi Party in the Night of the Long Knives." I think that that is probably sufficient detail on this matter. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok, over-read that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I have concerns about the section on the 1932 famine, also, this reads pretty much pro-Stalin. The first paragraph spends a lot of words to describe positive policies issued by Stalin that counter the famine, or are not directly related to the latter. Most of these seem almost insignificant for a two-paragraph summary of the famine. The second paragraph starts with "Such policies nevertheless failed to stop the famine" – which ready almost hypocritical, given the fact that it was because of Stalin's policies that caused the famine at the first place (or at least made it much more severe). These "negative" policies are not elaborated on, leaving the reader to wonder what the cause actually was.
  • The section now includes: "Stalin blamed the famine on hostile elements and wreckers within the peasantry;[381] his government provided small amounts of food to famine-struck rural areas, although this was wholly insufficient to deal with the levels of starvation." Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I've looked at some articles by Ellman and by Davies and Wheatcroft to provide some evidence for how Soviet policies exacerbated the famine. I'll keep my eyes peeled to see if there is any other citations I can introduce here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The world war II section reads a bit like Stalin would deserve all the credit for the victory. Didn't he left the major military actions in the hands of Georgy Zhukov, who was responsible for the strategy and victory in the important battles, and maybe deserves the most credit for the final victory? Zhukov is not even mentioned in the article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • There was a brief reference to Zhukov when discussing the post-war victory celebrations, but you are absolutely right that it would make sense to mention him in the WW2 section; I have added such a mention. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The article states "By the latter part of 1937, the purges had moved beyond the party and were affecting the wider population". I think it is a good idea to add a sentence how this worked; e.g. arbitrariness; the use of torture to enforce naming of further "accomplices"; encouragement to betray even friends and relatives in exchange for sparing; thus spread of distrust and psychological terror affecting large parts of the society, tearing families and other social bonds apart. It becomes not really clear that the terror was affecting everybody and not just officials.
  • The Gulag system was heavily expanded under Stalins rule, representing one of the darkest aspects of his rule in the eyes of many; this is not mentioned in the article.
Perhaps the "death toll" subsection can include more discussion of the gulag systems, including the total number of prisoners and morality rate. The subsection could be renamed "Repression, death toll and allegations of genocide". LittleJerry (talk) 04:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • A vast literature devoted to Stalin has been produced; it is so substantial that even specialists could not read it all. – I have my problems with the second part of the sentence. The information appears not very encyclopedic. I wouldn't deny any specialist of their general ability to read everything if they would want to. If they do not, then the reason might be simply that there is no need, as most relies on the same primary sources. If the case, the info would seem without point anyway.
  • Could you recheck this citation of Robert Service, if he really wrote "statesman" two times? "He was also an intellectual, an administrator, a statesman and a party leader; he was a writer, editor, and statesman."

That's it from my side. I think the most urgent issue is neutrality and balance (too much insignificant detail in favor of Stalin while the important repressions are not discussed deeply enough); if this is resolved, I think the article is on a good way becoming FAC nominee. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in this, Jens. There are a few final points where I'm having a little difficulty finding appropriate sources, but will keep trying. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
No problem, please take your time. I hope my critique is not too unreasonable and asking too much, and I'm not asking to resolve all concerns (only the neutrality issues are really standing in the way from my point of view); I am happy to discuss if there are any problems. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
No, none of it is unreasonable at all, your points are all good ones. It just takes a bit of time to go through those hefty volumes and find the appropriate pages. But we are in no rush. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Comment: I am concerned that many points in this review relate to the article not being negative enough about Stalin, and these are described as "neutrality" issues. Wikipedia does not need to depict Stalin as a cartoon villain. The distance in time has enabled some historians to take a more nuanced view of Stalin, and we should embrace it, not censor it.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. I did never ask to censor positive points made in the article. But a nuanced view should include both the positive and negative points; as for the latter, I am simply concerned that the article leaves out far too much. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Drop in comment from nonreviewing editor. This appears to be a very thorough review. Also there is Hannah Arendt's book on The Origins of Totalitarianism of which Stalin is considered a principle author with a substantial literature following. The lede section appears to have grown and grown, although it is 4 paragraphs by MOS those 4 paragraphs are very top heavy in the article. This makes it difficult to readily get into the main article which is, I assume, the purpose of creating this article. These comments are meant constructively given that the participating editors have been this diligent. JohnWickTwo (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
The lede is only marginally longer than the FA-rated articles for Vladimir Lenin and Nelson Mandela (two lines longer than the former, one line longer than the latter, in both cases due to the opening paragraph), and it follows the same four-paragraph structure that those articles also employ. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
@Jens Lallensack: If the main reviewer of this article is holding that there should be more material on extended dissent about Stalin both domestically and internationally, then more attention seems warranted to this extended topic. I have only named Arendt above since there is a convenient link even to her book dealing with Stalin's totalitarianism. The domestic issues of dissent towards Stalin alone following his death and Khrushchev's criticism make this larger topic of international criticism more notable and useful for readers to see in this article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
@Jens Lallensack: Is there a procedural point regarding the pass or fail on this article; I have voiced some support for your concern from 8 July regarding positive and negative viewpoints needing balance. JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Status query

Jens Lallensack, Midnightblueowl, it is now November, and the review was opened in late May. There haven't been any significant edits to the article since early October, and no reviewer comment since mid-September. Might it make sense to have a deadline for this review, perhaps November 21, this review's six-month anniversary? Progress really needs to be made here. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The article has always been very close, and the only problem was the issue of neutrality. This has been improved in parts since, but one of the most crucial paragraphs, the one about the 1932-33 famine, still is unacceptable in my opinion. As explained above, it reads like the droughts caused the famine, and Stalin tried to prevent it but didn't do enough. The fact that his own policies were among the main causes is unmentioned (from the lead of the 1932-33 famine article: The forced collectivization of agriculture as a part of the Soviet first five-year plan, forced grain procurement, combined with rapid industrialisation, a decreasing agricultural workforce, and several bad droughts, were the main reasons for the famine.) I know this is "only" a GAN, but an article about Stalin has to discuss whether or not he was responsible for a major famine, and I just cannot persuade myself to promote until this is fixed, as I consider these omissions severe. If this paragraph would be fixed, I can consider promotion (as the other outstanding issues are less important); I hope this can be done within this month. I would, of course, happy to ask for more second opinions on the matter if the author is of a different opinion here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I'll try and get to this as soon as I can. Jens], is there any specific source that you recommend I look at on this point? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Great, I would be more than happy to wrap this up soon. I am not sure about the best source, but there should be plenty; this for sure must be also covered in the Service 2008 biography in some depth. I only had a brief look, but on page 312, at least, he found clear words: "Probably six million people died in a famine which was the direct consequence of state policy [15]". Might also be worth looking into the source he is citing for this statement. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the section: I am promoting now. Congratulations, it is a huge pile of work. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

In case you were wondering...

This article is wall-to-wall non-NPOV capitalist garbage, and spares no literary expense in assailing Stalin in even the pettiest ways. Wikipedia is rapidly becoming irrelevant in the English-speaking world, a veritable mouthpiece of State. You'd have to be asleep to miss it. 76.71.49.36 (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. I would point out that "NPOV" does not mean what you think it means. Now please, desist from the trolling. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

NPOV? LOL

Stalin's lede includes mention of ...robberies, kidnappings, and protection rackets, but Yitzhak Shamir's doesn't have a word about being a murderous Stern Gang terrorist. Hmph. 76.71.49.36 (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, maybe Shamir's article should mention that fact, if it can be supported by WP:Reliable Sources. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is put together by volunteers and its coverage is patchy; some articles are very well put together, others are in a very poor state. The Shamir article clearly falls into the latter category. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

need your expertise

Dear Participants, you did such a good job with this article that you need to be really proud! The quality of discussions are superb. Moreover, the respect that you showed to the opposite opinions are really exemplary. I wonder whether we can use such good knowledge and expertise and improve the articles of Nikolai Bukharin and Leon Trotsky to Featured Article standards? I have provided the images. The historical context should be familiar. The help is needed to provide the sources. In other words, in order to be nominated, everything in the main body of the article has to be properly cited. Thanks.--Armenius vambery (talk) 12:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

They do certainly need doing, this is true. However, to do it properly is a massive undertaking. I'm certainly interested in helping out at some point—particularly on the Trotsky article—but right now my Wiki-energies are largely focused in other directions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Agree that Trotsky should be easier. --Armenius vambery (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't know about easier, but I think that he is the more important of the two. After all, Trotskyism remains a major Marxist denomination in the world today; Bukharinism doesn't (if such a thing even exists). Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Bukharin is more relevant for the left ideological movement "back home". When Gorbachev started changes in late 80th he used Bukharin as example and inspiration. Trotsky is indeed more important worldwide. --Armenius vambery (talk) 06:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2018

MadMax3249 (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2018 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 01:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Class background

Given this situation, the historian Robert Conquest later suggested that Stalin's class background was "uncertain and indeterminate".

I agree with the editor who previously removed it that this is problematic. After his business failed, Stalin's father went to work in a shoe factory. Stalin later joked, "he became a proletarian so his ruin was my advantage!" (Young Stalin, p 30). What exactly is the issue here? Why have one historian's point of view? What is uncertain and indeterminate about Stalin's class background? It's not explained. What theory of class is Conquest applying? A Marxist one? A Stalinist one? Conquest's own (unexplained) theory? Some standard theory, which is again unexplained. And what is the relevance of this issue? Because Stalin's father at one point ran a small business...um...not sure... It might have some relevance in the context of Conquest's book, but it doesn't seem to achieve anything here.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I see your point, Jack. I originally added the quote because I think that it reflects the manner in which Stalin did not grow up having a firmly determined class identity, with his parental economic status fluctuating during his childhood; this, in my opinion, is interesting in the context of his emphasis on class struggle later in life. I still think that it's interesting, but if there are now two editors who would rather be rid of it, I won't put up a fight to retain it. It isn't essential, certainly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I cannot agree with your thesis that Stalin did any emphasis of class struggle. Stalin adopted Marxist phraseology, but he used it exclusively for his opportunistic goals. He referred to class struggle just as a pretext for his repressions against his own political enemies and for justification of mass terror. No matter what your class background was, you could be blamed in being "a secret agent of world capitalism" and sent to Gulag or executed. The reason why he declared adherence to the idea of class struggle was that he wanted to create an impression of continuity between early Lenin's state and his own regime. However, that was not the case: Stalin killed more communists than any other dictator.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
It's clear that Stalin did not originate the Marxist doctrine of class struggle; he received it via Marx and Lenin, neither of whom were working class. However, I think you are overstating the case. Stalin did continue a radical social transformation which had begun with Lenin. Most existing owners were expropriated. Moreover, the rise of Stalin brought with it the rise of working class people like Khrushchev and the demise of revolutionary intellectuals like Trotsky and Zinoviev. It is clear that Stalin had a much harder upbringing than most of the leading Bolsheviks (and was more working class by anyone's measure), but he was also very well-educated. I don't know what was uncertain about Stalin's class background. His father was a factory worker who had been an independent artisan, and his mother was a housekeeper. Sounds fairly working class from a Marxist point of view. However, this would have been different if the cobbler's business had succeeded, as Stalin jokingly acknowledged. I would prefer to see Stalin's joke included than Conquest's comment...--Jack Upland (talk) 05:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't know why exactly Stalin joined Social-Democrats, but his activity as an independent leader demonstrated that his strategy was to re-build Russian empire. He was carefully weeding out everything that connected his regime with the early Bolshevik state and restoring an old system. He physically destroyed majority of Comintern leaders and then abolished this organisation, he converted peasants back to serfs, he created a new noble classnomenclatura, resurrected a system of state anti-Semitism, etc. He was copying Russian empire even in details: re-introduced shoulder marks and old rank system in army, separate education for boys and girls in schools, and many other things. The problem was that he was doing that very slowly, and he was covering that by pseudo-Marxis phraseology, so only few people were capable of recognising these changes.
The only Stalin's own improvement of the Marxian theory was a thesis about "intensification of class struggle" during the progress of a society towards Communism. This absolutely absurd thesis (absurd from a formal logic) was invented specifically to justify mass repressions. By no means it was Marxism.
Stalin was an absolute anti-Marxist. In that sense, it is useful to read books written (and published) in 1950-70 and watch those times movies describing the history of the USSR in 1920-40s. Although official viewpoint was that there was no break in continuity, these books and films (approved by state censorship) create an impression that something happened in 1930, and the country became totally different.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
The class question surrounding Stalin's childhood upbringing is less one of whether he was "working-class" or "middle-class" and more about the issue of whether he was from an "artisan" craftsman background or a "proletarian" one. The Marxists obviously came to power presenting themselves as the voice of the proletariat especially, in contrast to groups like the Socialist Revolutionaries who firmly rooted their self-identity in the peasantry, but Stalin did not have an unambiguously proletarian background. When Stalin was a child, his father ran a business and employed others (perhaps a "petty bourgeoise", in the Marxist phraseology), and it was only later, after he had been somewhat estranged from Stalin, that he was forced to work in a factory (as a "proletariat"). So there is this ambiguity about Stalin's class background; he was not a peasant, not a bourgeoise, but not quite petty bourgeoise or proletariat either. It's that which is interesting given his adherence to Marxism. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
@Paul Siebert:: It's not beyond the realms of total possibility that Stalin did not really believe in Marxism but simply pretended to be one for opportunistic purposes, but certainly that is not the understanding advanced by the Stalin biographers I am familiar with and it does sound a bit farfetched. Why would Stalin have joined the Marxist revolutionary underground at a time when their prospects were severely limited and it was the Socialist Revolutionaries who were the foremost radical force? Why would he have then allied himself with the Bolsheviks in the Caucuses when it was the Mensheviks that were then dominant? And why would he write voluminously on all manner of issues from a Marxist perspective throughout his life? These are not the actions of a non-believing opportunist. The reality must surely be that Stalin was indeed a very committed Marxist, and the fact that he persecuted so many fellow Communist Party members was a reflection of how passionately he believed in the "purity" (i.e. his unique interpretation) of Marxism coupled with his own personal ambition for total control and power. We are, however, going a little off topic here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
A partial response to that can be found in my above post. Regarding your: "Why would Stalin have joined the Marxist revolutionary underground at a time when their prospects were severely limited?", it is hard to tell. A possible explanation is that Stalin didn't see how can he take a leading roles in a powerful and well-established party, but he hoped that there is a possibility that he can take leading positions in small Bolshevik party, and then this party may take a leading role later. By the way, that is exactly how he took leading positions in the party itself: he took a small and technical position, but he gradually transformed it into the most influential one.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

You justified to me the inclusion of this line because it throws a light on Stalin's rhetoric on class politics. This is not the place to put it. This line should go in an article or subsection of this article dedicated to Stalin's political views. As it is, the line doesn't go anywhere. You throw a POV of some historian but without any conclusion (and his book, btw, is a bit out of date).Kurzon (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure it sheds light on Stalin's views about class politics so much as that it is an interesting piece of information given Stalin's later class politics. But if both Jack and yourself think it serves little purpose, I won't contest it's removal. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I think where Stalin came from is interesting. But, as I said, compared with other Bolshevik leaders, he was very "proletarian". He could quite rightly say that his father was a factory worker (even if his parents were separated at this point) and his mother (who seems to being ignored) was a housekeeper which is "proletarian" too. Class background didn't really come into it. Mikoyan was the son of a merchant; Kalinin was a peasant. Stalin invested in a lot of myth-making. He buried his background as a poet and cloaked his intellectual personality. Not only did Stalin become a Marxist; he also became a Bolshevik, when most Georgian Marxists were Mensheviks. I think this was because he rightly perceived that the Bolsheviks were going to make the revolution, rather than just talk about it. He admired Lenin's forcefulness. But it's very hard to understand Stalin's thinking because he didn't speak candidly very often. It would be good to have some information about Stalin's motivations, but we really don't know. Anyway, there seems to be a consensus to remove the sentence, so I'll remove it. [But it's already done.]--Jack Upland (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

controversy over Stalin's postwar role?

I think it's noncontroversial to state that Stalin took control of the three Baltic states, and most of the other states in Central and Eastern Europe, imposing communist parties that took control of all aspects of government, society and the economy, and which imprisoned the former leadership. The phrasing that he "helped" somebody else do this is very strange. Rjensen (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, the article already states that Stalin's USSR annexed the Baltic states and established sympathetic governments across Central and Eastern Europe, so these facts are already covered in the lede. It's not like these (important) facts are being omitted. The issue I had with some of your recent changes, Rjensen, was in the addition of words that I thought were simply superfluous and needlessly lengthened the lede, and also with the addition of words which have loaded connotations and which are generally avoided at Wikipedia. For instance, in a few of your edits ([8]; [9]) you changed "the Baltic states" to "the three Baltic states" and then "all three Baltic states". That's perfectly correct, of course, but I do not see what it contributes to the lede. It's just padding that we don't need. In another instance ([10]), you added "and imprisoned thire elites" [sic]. Again, it's definitely true that Stalin's government did throw a lot of people from the Baltics in prison, but he did the same in many different places and at many different times. Why does it need to be emphasised in this one instance? It's just unnecessary padding, again. The same goes for the addition of "There was no war in Europe" when discussing the Cold War ([11]). It's true—unless one counts the Greek Civil War—but not needed in the context of the lede.
The other change that I took issue with was your changing of "governments" to "regimes" ([12]; [13]). The former term has very neutral connotations; the second does not. It can be argued (fairly or not) that the only reason for that change is to make said governments look bad. That's why the term "regimes" is generally avoided at Wikipedia (WP:LABEL doesn't list it, but the sentiment probably still stands); I used to actually use "regimes" quite a lot in articles, in large part because its shorter and snappier than "governments", till other editors kept complaining about it! In reference to the establishment of Marxist-Leninist governments across Central and Eastern Europe, you then changed the long-established wording "helped establish" to "imposed" ([14], [15]). Again, it's certainly true that Stalin's government exerted significant pressure to ensure that sympathetic administrations came to power, but the term "imposed" has clear negative connotations and—in the case of Yugoslavia at least—may not be strictly correct. I don't mind finding alternative wording to "helped establish", but I don't think that "imposed" is the right choice. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_Stalin/Archive_20&oldid=1092030600"