This is an archive of past discussions about Joseph Stalin. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Spelling mistake in "death toll and allegations of genocide"
In the first paragraph in this section there is a spelling mistake. The fourth word from the end "attribute" should be "attributed".
The sentence should read:
"... due to lack of consensus among scholars on which deaths can be attributed to the regime." BlingPimpin (talk) 12:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't know how much debating there has been about this subject, probably a lot due to all the sensitivities, but right now the lead opens up with Stalin as a "Georgian Revolutionary", which I believes is only part of the truth and therefore misleading. Stalin was born in Georgia which was by then an integral part of the Russian Empire (and had been so for 78 years). Formally Georgia did not actually exist at the time (not even as a province) and all Georgian land remained part of Russia until the Revolution of 1917. While it is true that Stalin was ethnically Georgian, and never denied this heritage, there is no doubt he was a Russian national throughout his revolutionary years, just like all Georgians from his generation. Furthermore, while it is true that he lived for a long time in Georgia as a revolutionary, his revolutionary activities always concerned Russian politics (i.e. the sacking of the Tsar and the victory of Bolshevism), and not just local Georgian politics. The correct answer to the question whether Stalin was Georgian or Russian during his revolutionary years is that he was both: He was a Russian national of Georgian ethnicity who became involved in a Russian revolutionary movement on Georgian soil.
As for him identifying as Georgian: this concerns a different issue, but I'd just like to point out that back then this did not necessarily exclude a secondary Russian identity. For example, if today you would travel to Buryatia in Russia and ask several Buryats if they are Buryats, and then also ask them if they are Russians, they will most likely answer both questions with "yes". While you don't have that situation in Georgia today (or before 1800), I am pretty certain that this was different back in 1900.
Anyway, I suggest the following new options, let me know if you think they are improvements or not:
1) Stalin was a Bolshevik revolutionary and Soviet politician.. [..] Born to a poor Georgian family in Gori, Russian Empire (now Georgia), Stalin...
2) Stalin was a Russian revolutionary and Soviet politician.. [..] Born to a poor Georgian family in Gori, Russian Empire (now Georgia), Stalin...
3) Stalin was a Russian revolutionary of Georgian extract.. [..] Born to a poor family in Gori, Russian Empire (now Georgia), Stalin...
Yes, we have discussed this several times, and decided on the current wording here. I think it is always complicated when there are competing national identities. However, I have never seen any evidence that Stalin identified as Russian. I don't think we should start the article with wording that encourages the misconception that Stalin was an ethnic Russian. I don't think there is a perfect way of phrasing this, but I prefer the current wording.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and I will also briefly remind you that Stalin chose to change his Georgian surname from Dzhugashvili into a heavily Russified version of this name since his career as a revolutionary, which he kept throughout the remainder of his life. That doesn't really fit with the idea that he only identified as Georgian, right? Anyway, the lead of the biography should state a persons nationality, and not identity or ethnicity per WP:ETHNICITY, so what he identified as is not really what matters here. His Nationality was Russian during his revolutionary years and Soviet during his life in the USSR. Machinarium (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Could there be the option of using something like "Russo-Georgian" here (a bit like Anglo-Indian) or is that unhelpful? Perhaps we shouldn't be coining new words for Wikipedia. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I have an entirely different question: Is it even important to mention the ethnicity of a person in the lede of a biographical article, or even the MOS:FIRST sentence? As far as I am aware, many other articles include it only if it played a major role in the person's life and identity; otherwise most leads just go with their nationality. The first sentence in Albert Einstein doesn't say "Albert Einstein... was a Jewish theoretical physicist...", Adolf Hitler doesn't say "Adolf Hitler... was a Austrian politician and leader of the Nazi Party", and Suharto doesn't say "Suharto... was a Javanese military leader and politician". Instead, all of these say "German-born theoretical physicist", "German politician and leader of the Nazi party", and "Indonesian military leader and politician". Considering the lack of relevance that secondary sources place on Stalin's ethnicity, I have a concern that we may be creating WP:UNDUE emphasis by bringing it up earlier than is necessary. Because of this, I would support 1 or 2. Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 11:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
We have discussed this several times. I would suggest that people read through previous discussions before rehashing old arguments and jumping to conclusions. Stalin's Georgian identity is more than just an "ethnicity". Georgia was a country, and the final portion, Mingrelia, was not absorbed into the Russian Empire till 1867, only a decade before Stalin's birth. After the revolution, Georgia was briefly an independent republic, and then became a constituent republic in the USSR. As far as I know, everyone in the Russian Empire/USSR identified Stalin as a Georgian. Ill-informed outsiders have called him Russian. He was never a Russian citizen, no such thing existed. The examples you give are not perfect. The description of Einstein has clearly been debated for years, as has the one of Hitler. In Suharto's case I don't think there's much to debate. However, there is nothing in those examples that is misleading, while the description "Russian revolutionary" is. It implies Stalin was Russian. He wasn't.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jack Upland, when you say "he was never a Russian citizen" do you ingore that he was a citizen of the Russian Empire for the first 44 years of his life, including his revolutionary years? Because it's the phrase "Georgian revolutionary" that I find problematic. Machinarium (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Russian citizenship was not legally defined, but the concept was already there, with Russian subjecthood used interchangebly with Russian nationality long before the Revolution of 1905. If you want an example of that, just look up the law passed on 10 February 1864 by Tsar Alexander II titled "On the rules regarding the acceptance and abandonment of Russian nationality by foreigners" ("О правилах относительно принятия и оставления иностранцами русского подданства"). Machinarium (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
But that gives no clarity to the issue. Was he considered a Russian citizen? No, and there was no such legal category. It's like saying Gandhi was British.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
You can't make that comparison for several reasons. India was a British colony, whereas Georgia was not a Russian colony by this time. Georgia was incorporated into the Russian state long before Stalin was born, and Georgians could technically settle in other parts of Russia. Also, when it comes to politics, Gandhi affiliated himself with India which he wanted to be independent from British rule, whereas Stalin joined the Bolshevik faction of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, adopted a Russian surname, and sought to take power in the Russian capital St. Petersburg. He was undoubtedly a Russian national who was active in Russian politics during his revolutionary years (while indeed also remaining ethnically Georgian).Machinarium (talk) 10:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jack Upland: I understand your concerns, which are fair. I guess we can agree that tossing around "Georgian" and "Russian" so early in the MOS:FIRST sentence is prone to misinterpretation and misleading generalisations. If the subnational identity of a person really is that complicated, then it should be properly and accurately described later in the lead and body later. As such I will support neither option 2 nor 3, and support only option 1.
I did read the previous discussion, and my intention of mentioning the aforementioned national leaders was to highlight a certain principle: politicians and statesmen are typically identified in the MOS:FIRST sentence by the state they were associated with in their political career, which in Stalin's case was the Soviet Union, rather than their ethnicity or prior nationality, whether or not it was hotly debated. The fact that both Hitler's and Suharto's ethnicities are not mentioned in their respective article's first sentences - even though the former was argued over and the latter not debated at all - goes to show that it is not essential in describing the politician in the first sentence. As we know, the consensus among sources is that Stalin's political career was characterised as being a Soviet leader, regardless of whether he was described as ethnically Georgian or (mistakenly) Russian, so I think "Soviet leader" should suffice for the first sentence. Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
That's fair enough, and I would be happy with "Soviet leader". However, I would be happier if we left it as is, and didn't keep debating the same line.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Simple in the sense that it avoids the issue alltogether. I can guarantee you that this discussion will come up again and again if we introduce him as either a Georgian or a Russian revolutionary, whereas everybody can live with Bolshevik Revolutionary (I assume). Machinarium (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it will come up and has come up again and again. That's why a RfC is the only answer. Avoiding the issue doesn't make it go away.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Oh Lord no, not "Boleshevik revolutionary". That won't do at all. I think "Georgian" has to be in there. The question is, should there be a way of mentioning the imperial Russian angle too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm gonna have to repeat myself and say that stating his ethnicity in the lead is against Wikipedia's guidelines (see WP:Ethnicity). And that's for good reason because ethnicity is highly subjective and can change throughout someones lifetime. Machinarium (talk) 03:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Stalin's nationality and self-identification
Stalin self-identified as a Georgian and his nationality was Georgian. There can't be much discussion about that:
Questionary 1Questionary 2
(And so on.)
In all questionaries Stalin wrote Georgian as his nationality, i.e. "Национальность Грузин"
The source for Stalin being a "Russified Asiatic" is Trotsky, but there is no evidence he really said that.
Thanks for providing evidence of that. Saying a person is "Russified" is not the same as saying they were Russian. No doubt Stalin had Russian cultural influences and lived for a long time in Russia. There is certainly evidence he called himself Asiatic or Asian, as he said that to a number of people.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
It's true that Stalin was ethnically Georgian, but you have to be careful to cite this as evidence that he was supposedly not Russian or Soviet at the same time. The Russian word Национальность has a different meaning than the English "nationality". The Russian word more closely resembles the word for ethnicity (i.e. "people who identify with each other based on similarities such as common ancestry, language, history, society, culture or nation") than nationality (i.e. "the legal relationship between an individual person and the state"). In other words, during the early Soviet Period, Stalin simply indicated on a questionaries that he was ethnically Georgian, something which nobody disputes here. Note that Jews were also registered as having a different Национальность than Russian, but that doesn't prevent anyone from considering Trotsky a Russian politician / revolutionary. Trotsky was ethnically a Jew, but his nationality was not Jewish; it was first Russian and then Soviet, and the same goes for Stalin. Machinarium (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Stalin wasn't less Georgian than Trotsky was Jewish, arguably the opposite. Stalin would sometimes mention that he was Georgian. But being Jewish was more controversial than being of Christian Orthodox background like Stalin, so no Jewish Bolshevik would emphasize that fact. Despite this, I've never read that Trotsky, Sverdlov, Kamenev, Zinoviev or Kaganovich were "Russified Semites".
Alvaria (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, the normal expression would be "Russian Jew", and I've certainly heard that. I think the Jewish identity of those people was fairly obvious and not a secret.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, their Jewish identities were emphasized by their enemies. But here is a difference: No one of them was ever a Zionist. Stalin on the other hand, as his poem show, started out as a Georgian nationalist. He was no more "Asiatic" than part Kalmyk Lenin.
Stalin was only briefly a nationalist. Eventually he always favoured internationalism and the federalisation of Russia. Also Russian jew is exactly to the point. Someone could be a Jew and Russian at the same time, just like a Georgian could. You still have this situation today in Russia with some minorities (i.e. the Buryats). Anyway, what is your problem with calling him a Bolshevik revolutionary? Machinarium (talk) 04:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Of course he was a Bolshevik revolutionary and a Communist internationalist most of his life. But "Russified" implies he had given up his Georgian identity and the term has a very vague meaning anyway.
There's another Mugshot where he's listed as 1.69. The discrepancies are possibly explained by 1) Soviet propaganda. All his photos were republished without his pockmarks; it makes sense that they would also want to make him appear taller when republishing the documents. And 2) Like most people, he shrunk as he aged. Machinarium (talk) 12:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand the obsession with Stalin's pockmarks, but they are clearly visible here:
The claim that "Stalin wore platform shoes" originates from Alexander Orlov's "Secret History of Stalin's Crimes"(1953). Orlov was a NKVD-defector, hardly a credible source. In the same book, Orlov also indicated that Stalin was homosexual:
In the summer of 1937, when the majority of the NKVD chiefs had already been arrested, I met by chance in one of the Paris cafes a certain G, a Hungarian by nationality, who was an underground agent of the Foreign Dept. of the NKVD and an old pal of Pauker. Thinking that he had arived recently from Moscow and wishing to learn from him the latest news about the arrests, I sat down at his table. "Is Pauker still alive?" I asked by way of a joke, without the slightest thought that anything might threaten Pauker.
"How can you!" exclaimed he, deeply shocked as if I had said something sacrilegious. ”Pauker means to Stalin more than you think, more than a friend....and more than a brother. That's what I know,“ he said with emphasis and a meaningful hint. (Orlov 1953, 352-3)
I would agree about that. He was approximately the same height as Churchill or slightly taller. There is no evidence he wore platform shoes (he wore soft Caucasian boots), unless we are to believe the dubious Alexander Orlov: He [Pauker] saw that Stalin used heel pads in his boots in order to look taller, so he ordered special boots for him with unusually high lifts inside to give him an extra inch and a half. He also put a small wooden slab on the mausoleum of Lenin, so Stalin could stand on it when reviewing parades and gain two inches more.Alvaria (talk) 07:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Apparently Stalin revealed this to his sisters-in-law, because Svetlana Alliluyeva later wrote: My aunts told me that during one of his periods of exile in Siberia he [Stalin] lived together with a local peasant woman and that their son now lives there somewhere, poorly educated and preferring anonymity.
Based on the lack of evidence and on Konstantin's external appearance, I wouldn't believe he is Stalin's son. Unlike Alexander Davydov's son, Konstantin's descendants have refused DNA testing.Alvaria (talk) 08:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2019
This edit request to Joseph Stalin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This edit request to Joseph Stalin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
change
Stalin has retained popularity in Russia and Georgia
to
Stalin has retained popularity in Russia DatoAbes (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Reliable sources cited in the article testify to the ongoing popularity of Stalin among a sizeable portion of the Georgian population. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Stalin's born name Jugashvili meaning son of a jude
Should this be mentioned also or is this hidden/forbidden information because of Holomodor and other not-so-wellcomed doings by Jugashvili? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.245.249.245 (talk) 14:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Extended-protected-confirmed request
Personally I think this should be extended-protected-confirmed. Various reasons why that I can explain if you want but I still think this should be extended-protected-confirmed. Cinefan Cinefan (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that would be necessary. Yes, this article is very popular and has a highly controversial subject, but not on the level where setting such a protection level would be of more benefit than harm. If you look in the edit history, there are very few unconstructive edits made recently; reverting the occasional vandal takes little effort in the vast majority of cases. Preventing nearly everyone from editing simply because there were one or two bad apples in the last six months is not what made Wikipedia successful. (Also, it is extended confirmed protected, not "extended-protected-confirmed".) Geolodus (talk) 09:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
I've heard that it might be a fake. I have not heard that much about it, neither that it's real nor that it's true. My history teacher named it once, but that's not a good enough source for an article of this size. So I wondered if any of you had a good source on it or if I'm maybe completely wrong.
Any innocence photography ever clung to was worn away over the course of the 20th century. Propagandists used photographic tricks to rewrite history. In a 1949 portrait, the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin is seen as a young man with Lenin. Stalin and Lenin were close friends, judging from this photograph. But it is doctored, of course. Two portraits have been sutured to sentimentalise Stalin's life and closeness to Lenin. In the same era, Soviet photo-engineers were purging inconvenient faces from history; as old revolutionaries were killed or deported to Siberia, their likeness vanished from official images.
— Jonathan Jones, "The fake photographs that predate Photoshop", theguardian.com/artanddesign/2012/aug/29/fake-photography-before-photoshop (First published on Wed 29 Aug 2012 09.44 BST)
The photograph on the right does not seem to be the youth photograph mentioned in the quote. It is a 1922 photograph. Nobody would doubt that Lenin and Stalin were collaborators in 1922, and it would not be surprising to see Stalin visit Lenin then. Of course the Soviets were the Gold standard in terms of butchering photographs of past and current leaders, but it is not so obvious for the present photograph. Place Clichy (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
This edit request to Joseph Stalin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
a lot of the statements in the article are without evidence or biased towards\ against Stalin, like no evidence for ethnic cleansing e.g. I request that this article should be improved on. THEJUMPYWIZARD (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
"In 1939, it signed a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany, resulting in the Soviet invasion of Poland. Germany ended the pact by invading the Soviet Union in 1941. Despite initial setbacks, the Soviet Red Army repelled the German incursion and captured Berlin in 1945, ending World War II in Europe. The Soviets annexed the Baltic states and helped establish Soviet-aligned governments throughout Central and Eastern Europe, China, and North Korea."
Better would be:
"In 1939, it signed a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany, resulting in the Soviet invasion and annexation of Eastern Poland, the Soviet invasion of Finland (link to page), the annexiation of the Baltic States (link to page) and the annexation of Bessarabia (link to page). Germany ended the pact by invading the Soviet Union in 1941. Despite severe initial setbacks, the Soviet Red Army repelled the German incursion and captured Berlin in 1945, ending World War II in Europe. The Soviets [remove: annexed the Baltic states and] helped establish Soviet-aligned governments throughout Central and Eastern Europe, China, and North Korea." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.133.73.189 (talk) 10:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
This edit request to Joseph Stalin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change "Soviet invasion of Poland" to "Nazi then Soviet invasion of Poland".
In the 3rd paragraph of the introduction it is written "In 1939, it signed a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany, resulting in the Soviet invasion of Poland." Whereas it was Nazi Germany that invaded Poland first then the Soviets. The current wording could lead to understanding that the Soviets invaded first and alone.
There were two separate invasions, one German on the 1 the other Soviet on the 17th referring to the Soviet invasion in the lead (and not mentioning the German one) is not confusing and its linked to the Invasion of Poland so the reader could get more information Jack90s15 (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I disagree as I found it confusing and requiring the reader to read another article while still on the introduction seems unlikely. I actually did read it because I knew but someone who doesn't know may not see the need to which could result in them misunderstanding. Two extra words for the sake of clarity seems like a small price to pay.
saying it like Nazi then Soviet invasion of Poland". may make the The reader think it was joint invasion but it was not for the opening its fine it gets straight to the point like what was said above this one Jack90s15 (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I see what you're saying. Of course such a simple sentence can't contain all the details. However, it was a joint agreement to divide Poland and as such the invasion was, at least from that perspective, coordinated, so the reader may end up closer to the truth.
That is not fully correct. Neither the pact nor its secret protocol stipulated Nazi or Soviet invasion of Poland. According to Roberts, Stalin didn't take any obligation to invade Poland. In reality, the pact just outlined spheres of influence (the line Germany was not supposed to cross during its eastern expansion). It could be quite possible that, had Britain or France provided ma real support to Poland, and had Polish resistance not been broken so quickly, the Soviet Union would abstain from any actions. During then first half of September, Stalin was definitely waiting, and his actions strongly depended on the course of the events. He started preparation for invasion only when it became clear that Poland had been essentially defeated, and Britain and France provide no real support for it; in his telegram on Sept 8, Ribbentrop requested Stalin to invade Poland and threatened that if there would be no actions from the Soviet side, Germany would invade the "Soviet" part of Poland.
This edit request to Joseph Stalin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
in the second paragraph the information is written very subjectively was not there beforehand.
the repressions and collectivization were not as severe as described and the information is misleading. the numbers are exaggerated.
please move the information to the appropriate place by chronological order and expand on the repressions and collectivization in their proper section.
also, the doctors plot was antisemitic, but it wasn't initiated by Stalin, nor was it planned by Stalin, and that should be emphasized.
sources:Grover Furr,Stephen G. Wheatcroft, and some of the unbiased information from
Doctors' plot - Wikipedia. THEJUMPYWIZARD (talk) 08:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
"The original of the photo was published in 1937 (Газета «Правда» 30 апреля 1937 года) with attribution to the author of the photo Nikolai Sidorovich Vlasik (1896 - 1967). These can't be on Commons until 2042 (because US copyright expires in 2033 but Russian copyright doesn't expire until 2042). Hence these have to be deleted for now. They were not PD in 1996, and not PD right now."
Can someone change it back to the actual name? Don't forget to change 'Dumbass party' too and quite a few others too. The entire page has about 10-15 references to 'dumbass', including the 'chinese dumbass party'. I think someone just replaced all the words 'communist' on the page. Oh, those kids these days :-). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.173.120.185 (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Dear 82.173.120.185
I removed all of the Dumbass references and it should be back to normal. There may be one or two that i missed, but it should be clear.
Thanks,
CaptainAhab1841 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainAhab1841 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
@Mirek Goldberg: I double-checked this with a professor of Georgian: Stalin's middle name was "Besarionis dze". This is the proper way of writing the -dze suffix. It's only in Soviet passports that this was contracted to one. Kurzon (talk) 10:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2020 - Misleading Phrasing, not based in citation
This edit request to Joseph Stalin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Request adjustment of sentence preceding citation 391 be changed from:
"In keeping with their ideology, the Communists believed that food supplies should be prioritised for the urban workforce;[391]..."
To:
"The Russian state believed that food supplies should be prioritized for the urban workforce;[391]..."
The previous phraseology is not supported in the citation listed, in any shape or form. It is misleading to attribute this belief to that of Communism or Communists in general, as during that time period the economic theory being enacted was not, and indeed is not, generally considered Communism, but an interstitial form of Leninism and Stalinism, as during this period Stalin had retained power following the death of Lenin, but was in the process of enacting severe changes that make the form of government present in Russia c. 1932 exceptionally different from that of Communism. 50.84.204.66 (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Done, thank you for the much-needed correction, that sentence was actually why I viewed the talk page in the first place. :) Acalycine (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Evil
Block evasion by User:HarveyCarter, using IPs from Bury St Edmunds in Suffolk.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The lede should mention that Stalin's actions and ideology are almost universally regarded as evil today, except possibly in Russia. (86.160.101.254 (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC))
I think it's fairly clear, from context, that a man who's an alcoholic is "drunkenly" beating his family. Our readers are generally intelligent, and if the article says he simultaneously began drinking hard and beating people the connection is self-evident. Adding unnecessary details like that is not only not helpful, it actively detracts from the article by adding excess verbosity; detailing whether or not he was drunk while doing so is entirely unnecessary.The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 09:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it is clear. A man who is an alcoholic can do many things when he's sober. I don't think one adverb is excess verbosity. Why not leave it as is?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
The ISO 9984 system transliterates it to ioseb besarionis je ǰuḡašvili. I chose to go with the official national system because I don't like those funny accents. The Georgians themselves don't see the point of them. Kurzon (talk) 06:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I think that this article should have a section for Stalin's leadership style, things like how he ran the government, the sort of control he had which would mention the purging, the gulags
The article is long enough as it is, and there are discussions of Stalin's leadership style peppered throughout the article. That being the case, I'd be very cautious about adding a new section on the topic. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I think a section on leadership style would be incredibly complicated. He was the master of the charm offensive, attention to detail, propaganda, personnel management etc, etc. And there are so many different schools of thought on his style. I think it is probably better in an article of this length to discuss his style when relevant. Otherwise, I think there would need to be a separate article on the topic.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Courtois, Stephane (2010). "Raphael Lemkin and the Question of Genocide under Communist Regimes". In Bieńczyk-Missala, Agnieszka; Dębski, Sławomir (eds.). Rafał Lemkin. PISM. pp. 121–122. ISBN 9788389607850. LCCN 2012380710.
Article opens with a disclaimer that Stalin is the family name, but Stalin was a nickname
The Article, as per Wikipedia guidelines, opens with the disclaimer
This name uses Eastern Slavic naming customs; the patronymic is Vissarionovich and the family name is Stalin.
However, as the article also mentions in reference 143 [1]:
Throughout his life, he used various nicknames and pseudonyms, including "Koba", "Soselo", and "Ivanov",[733] adopting "Stalin" in 1912; it was based on the Russian word for "steel" and has often been translated as "Man of Steel"
The article states that his parents were ethnically Georgian. However, his father’s ethnic origins are unknown and some people have speculated that he was of Ossetian origin. Biographer Robert Service mentions various claims about Stalin’s ancestry in his Stalin biography. Should “ethnically Georgian” really be mentioned when we don’t actually know much about Stalin’s ancestry and we don’t know for sure that he was only of Georgian ancestry?--LeftiePete (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I doubt that. I have asked many Georgians and none of them holds special feeling of Stalin. Many even have a negative opinion on Stalin himself. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Who succeeded Stalin as head of state of the USSR?
The line of succession here is confusing, especially in the infobox. The text says, "Despite initially governing the Soviet Union as part of a collective leadership, he eventually consolidated power to become the country's de facto dictator by the 1930s." The infobox lists two positions he held:
I would naively think that following the first entries in the infobox forward and backward should produce the same answer. They don't.
I understand that the situation is not as simple as one might naively expect. Job titles change, and the de facto head of state may change without a change in job title. And Stalin was probably succeeded by a committee, with Nikita Khrushchev eventually emerging as the official head of state from that committee. I'm posting these comments here and not at the moment with the article on Khrushchev, because I suspect that that Khrushchev should be listed as the official successor from the top post in the infobox here.
Stalin's predecessors do not include Lenin???
Secondarily, I perceive a similar problem with Stalin's predecessor: I think it should be Vladimir Lenin or maybe someone else, who (eventually) got power from Lenin. However, I don't find Lenin listed anywhere as a predecessor of Stalin. That may be correct, but it doesn't fit with my understanding of the history of the USSR.
Thanks
Thanks to all the people whose work has helped bring this article to its current status. Sadly, I know how to complain. I don't know how to fix ;-) I hope these comments will help someone else use these comments as an inspiration on how to improve Wikipedia. DavidMCEddy (talk) 08:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
@GiantSnowman: It would not be obvious to me that Gori is in "(present-day Georgia)" without that text that you deleted. I'm therefore reverting that change.
Thanks for your efforts to improve the information available to the entirety of humanity (or at least those able to access Wikipedia). DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
The present day location is irrelevant. We do not say Caesar was born in modern-day Italy, do we? Why do you only have the present name for place of birth, not place of death? What do you do when the present name changes? GiantSnowman08:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
I think the test is whatever would best communicate with our target audience.
The birthplace of Julius Caesar is currently given as "Rome, Italy, Roman Republic". That seems appropriate for me.
The place of death of Stalin is currently given as "Kuntsevo Dacha, Kuntsevo, Moscow, Russian SFSR, Soviet Union". I think most people would conclude from this that "Moscow, Russian SFSR, Soviet Union" is indeed what is now known as Moscow, Russia -- and not, for example, Moscow, Idaho, USA.
The Wikipedia article on Istanbul says it was "formerly known as Byzantium and Constantinople".
Stalin was rumoured to have Ossetian ancestry. For example, Robert Service in his biography wrote, "A variant of this is that he leader was not of the nationality that was claimed. In Stalin's case the word was that he was not Georgian at all but an Ossetian." Or, Helen Rappaport who wrote, "Throughout his life, rumors persisted that Stalin's ethnicity was actually Ossetian...". The Wikipedia articles Early life of Joseph Stalin and Stalin Epigram mention the rumour. Shouldn't it be mentioned in this article?--LeftiePete (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
User:SpaceSandwich, please don't edit war to remove the statement that Stalin was a "dictator" from the opening paragraph. You've been repeatedly warned about edit warring before. If you think it inappropriate to refer to Stalin as a dictator, make your case here at the Talk Page - although bear in mind that this is a topic that has been discussed here previously, resulting in the present consensus. It is incumbent on you to convince your fellow editors to change that consensus if you wish to amend this element of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I support calling Stalin a dictator. This is factual, not pejorative, and is attested by many authorities across the political spectrum.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
That Stalin retains popularity in Russia as a wartime leader is not relevant to whether this Wikipedia article calls him a "dictator" or not. It is perfectly possible for someone to be a dictator and be popular (either in one's lifetime or posthumously). As for WP:Consensus, see the 2017 conversation archived here. The issue of whether to describe Stalin as a "dictator" was discussed and the consensus of Wikipedia editors was to describe him as such, based on the way in which he is described in WP:Reliable Sources. If you want that to change, we will need to have a new WP:Request for Comment or something. Also, why have you Wikilinked "people" (i.e. those who seem to disagree with you) to Nazis; do you really think everyone who regards Stalin as a dictator is a Nazi? Godwin's law I suppose... Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
And not for nothin', but there are several discussions of this in the Talk page archive, including some longer ones around 2006-2007. The most recent was in 2017, where there was some really good discussion. The consensus, though, was to keep the wording as is ("dictator").
I suppose that's why there is an archive Search box on this page that advises Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. Cheers! — UncleBubba( T@C )23:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Sali this is a warning you have been reverted 4 times and are currently edit warring. I am going to assume good faith but stop edit warring, as well as this there is consensus that Stalin targeted people based off their ethnicity. Des Vallee (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Only you have reverted. Either way the article does not even say Stalin committed genocide. The only time genocide is mentioned is in the "Death toll and allegations of genocide" section which treats them as allegations and rightfully so as it is debated among academics as to whether or not Stalin had genocidal intent.PailSimon (talk) 09:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
No it's not Seoul1989 was the editor who added the section of who you reverted. Please provide citations, because Stalin. There is no point at which point you could responsibly ever state Stalin did not commit Genocides. As an example the Deportation of Crimean Tatars. This is a common playing card, when you can not outright deny atrocities you can try masking it in a "debate". See "Stalin's genocide against the “Repressed Peoples” scholar by Journal of Genocide, by far the most reliable source on this subject, much more then your position. Completely clearly labels Stalin as a genocide perpetrator "Stalin's genocide against the 'Repressed Peoples': The Stalin regime systematically deported 13 whole nationalities to remote areas of the USSR from 1937 to 1951. The Soviet government ruthlessly cleansed these ethnicities from strategic areas of the Soviet Union without concern for their national or individual rights." read abstract. It's not a fact of the Holodomor, if the Holodomor was a genocide, possibly or perhaps a better title would be "man made famine". However Stalin did absolutely permit textbook genocides like persecution of Poles, mass killings, ethnic cleansing and cultural genocide Crimean Tatars, and persecution of other minorities. Des Vallee (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
No what is not? You're not making any sense. This is all your personal viewpoint but academics are divided on the matter as the article presently indicates as I already noted. Either way you need a consensus for inclusion so please stop edit warring.PailSimon (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment: There is an intent vs outcome debate, but that genocides occurred as a result or effect of Stalin's policies is not debated. There is no consensus to remove the category. Everyone needs to stop edit warring. // Timothy :: talk12:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Scholars are divided on whether Stalin committed genocide, regardless there is no consensus to include the category either so it should return to the stable version (i.e be removed) until then.PailSimon (talk) 12:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
TimothyBlue Your statement is incorrect because genocide requires intent. Unlike the Nazis or the Khmer Rouge, one cannot label Stalin (or other Soviet officials) as "genocide perpetrators" because no Soviet official was ever charged, much less convicted, of genocide. Including this category is inappropriate POV-pushing in favor of a minority view.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
TheTimesAreAChanging Can you provide sources for this claim, because scholarly sources such as the Journal of Genocide completely lays out bare that Stalin targeted ethnicity's and committed mass killings against them. It's not a "minority view" at all, it is the widely accepted scholarly consensus, unlike Soviet revisionism. Des Vallee (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
If you are asserting that Soviet officials were convicted of genocide by an international tribunal just as former Nazi German and Khmer Rouge officials were, then the burden of establishing that would be on you. In any case, the one source that you provided above appears to accuse Stalin's regime of "ethnic cleansing," which is not the same as genocide. By the way, your blind revert (with a totally non-responsive edit summary showing that you didn't even look at what you were reverting) of an edit I made at Darkness at Noon just two minutes after you commented above is remarkably inappropriate WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, and also misplaced insofar as you were literally restoring unsourced communist propaganda of virtually no relevance to the novel that had been previously rejected on the talk page, and I would have to assume that you are a Cold Warrior of a very different ideological persuasion than that. Finally, in response to your latest tweak to the comment above, I reiterate that the WP:BURDEN is on you to demonstrate the existence of an academic consensus that Stalin committed genocide, something that I am not aware of, that is not mentioned in this Wikipedia article, and that you have thus far been unable to substantiate.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
TheTimesAreChanging The source is quite literally called "Stalin's genocide against the Repressed Peoples". As well as this being convicted does not mean there was not a genocide. Perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide as an example were not prosecuted, the text lays bare that Stalin ethnically cleansed and deported an immense amount of people. We don't . Also what on earth is this nonsense on trying to derail towards battleground? I like going through users contribution and it seemed like a basic edit summary, if it was a real simply just Propaganda so it is. I am a leftist what on earth is a "Cold Warrior" but I appreciate if you would stop throwing out personal attacks. Ironically for bring up burden you fail to realize if you are going to review something you should at least read the first page, if you don't even have the time to read the first sentences you can't be expected to read the the inline citation either. Des Vallee (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
TheTimesAreAChangingJack Upland and everyone else this is a big misrepresentation of the source the journal isn't stating that Stalin committed genocide or ethnic cleansing he was a monster not denying that. It's being stated by the person writing the paper .Curlpercy (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Curlpercy Yes the journal states clearly that Stalin committed ethnic cleansing and genocide, it is being stated by an well known respected academic who works for Journal of Genocide. You understand no one can just go up and decide to write a paper for Journal of Genocide, you need to have it be peer reviewed and you need it to be a well respected academic. The paper is peer reviewed and has citations for its death count, yes this the Journal of Genocide extremely clear position on this, this is strictly waffle.
The of stating a peer reviewed paper, published and endorsed by the Journal of Genocide by a well respected academic J Otto Powl with a PHD in History attending the University of London with the paper having extensive citations present. To try to swipe this off as just a position of the person writing it is completely absurd, its a peer reviewed correct reliable source, published in the Journal of Genocide by a well respected author. Des Vallee (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
The burden of proof is on those seeking to include this category to demonstrate the existence of an academic consensus that Stalin is a genocide perpetrator. Citing one scholar's opinion does not cut it. (t · c) buidhe21:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment There are numerousreliablesources that argue that he did, and these sources generally tend to reject lesser lables of "ethnocide" as being an accurate descriptor. The ones that don't use the label of "genocide" tendtoaccept a label of "ethnocide" for some of the instances being contested. So I don't know which way we want to go, but one option is to simply state that scholars debate whether there were "genocides" or "ethnocides" under Stalin's regime, and use quotes from each to bring in their conclusions. Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
When revising this article yesterday, I noticed that some words were misspelled and could be spell-corrected by right-clicking with the mouse. Made a (-8) contribution which somehow was reverted on this page.
Because Wikipedia is an international collaberation, article can be written by people from different countries, using different spelling. Thsi article was originally written using British usage, and so retains that standard throughout. pleasde see WP:ENGVAR. thanks, IdreamofJeanie (talk) 13:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
He never did an Anti-semitic campaign
The doctor plot was not an Anti-semitic campaign. The doctors were trying to poison stalin and that's why they were imprisoned,not for their Jewish ethnicity.
Jewish people had rights under both Lenin and Stalin,Stalin condemned Anti-semitism.
Lazar Kaganovich,a high-ranking close cormade of Stalin was Jewish,as well as many winners of the Stalin prize were of Jewish nationality.
Stalin's daughter has said that stalin didn't believe the charges against the doctors at the start anyway.
- Whether or not Jewish people had rights under Lenin is surely irrelevant to the issue of Stalin's anti-Semitic activity, and the fact that he had Jewish colleagues such as Kaganovich hardly proves that he did not carry out an anti-Semitic campaign - indeed Kaganovich was pressured into joining it. How do you refute the details set out in pp520 onwards of Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar (Simon Sebag Montefiore) as to the various stages of the campaign?
Sbishop (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Sbishop
Why it is unnecessary to say that his deathplace is now 'Russia'
Simply because it is known to virtually everyone who might consult this article that Moscow is now in Russia, especially as it was also in Russia at the time of his death, as stated already. The fact that an explanation is given that his birthplace is now in Georgia is not a precedent - that information is necessary because it will not be commonly known to many readers that his birthplace of Gori is in what is now the independent state of Georgia, rather than Russia - especially because at the time of his birth it was part of the Russian Empire.
Saying Stalin was ranked "Generalismus" is inaccurate, as the rank was never officially established, only proposed. Should be changed to "Marshal of the Soviet Union." Wesser407 (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
April 2021
Originalcola, please familiarise yourself with WP:BRD. You were Bold - fine. You got Reverted. The next step is to Discuss - not to re-revert to your preferred version. I am restoring the status quo consensus version while the discussion is ongoing, as the WP:ONUS is on you to get consensus for your change.
Re that change: the coverage is reliable sourced. Further, it does not make a statement of incontrovertible fact, it says possibly composed by. Likewise, "Some historians have questioned whether Lenin ever produced these, suggesting instead that they may have been written by Krupskaya, who had personal differences with Stalin; Stalin, however, never publicly voiced concerns about their authenticity." is also a) referenced; b) factual; and c) balanced, presenting both views. It is therefore certainly worthy of inclusion, under WP:BALANCE. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!13:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for that, I made a mistake when I said that Wikipedia doesn't cover minor viewpoints(I meant to say it doesn't cover fringe theories) and I thought I had been reverted because of a misunderstanding caused by my mistake. I still shouldn't have reverted your edit, especially given the controversial nature of this article.
The main issue I had was that Kotkin's work has enjoyed little, if any, scholarly support and plenty of criticism making it a fringe theory that shouldn't be included. In Lenin's Collected Works, the Testament appears in volume 36 and is treated as a legitimate work of Lenin. A review from the Perspectives on Politics journal criticised the conclusions of Kotkin on the testament(https://www.jstor.org/stable/43867108).I also found that on the talk page for Vladimir Lenin this debate has already happened over Kotkin's works which contained many of the sources I had planned to cite and points I had planned to make so I'm just going to link to it here instead of writing it all out again-(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vladimir_Lenin/Archive_11). They also came to the consensus that it was a fringe theory that shouldn't be included although I'm not sure if a consensus on one article applies to other articles. Originalcola (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Lenin's Testament
It is a historical consensus that the Testament is legitimate. The only major historian to support the viewpoint is Kotkin who relied on the work of a Stalinist(V.Sakharov). As it has been rejected, doubts about the authenticity of the testament should not be mentioned on this article.Originalcola (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
The article is not objective. It clearly shows the historic figure from one-biased side, that is clearly from the side of his enemy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.189.140.201 (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This time, I found a the original document proving that she was 14, not 13. The original report from Serov to Khrushchev, it is clearly written that she was 14. This article goes over the history of this whole issue: https://www.sovsekretno.ru/articles/the-real-story-of-nonmarital-son-of-stalin/ But the important part is a physical scan of Serov's original letter concerning this matter. There's a translation in the article, but you can clearly see that the girl discussed here was 14 when Stalin lived with her. Here is the proof: https://imgur.com/a/38XkJod . This is 100% definitive evidence that she was 14, and not 13 as the wiki article writes. The bit about it should be changed, because here we have a Primary source, not an article from a British tabloid. This is the source being used in contemporary books like Ronald Suny's book, and why there is an age discrepancy pre-2015 and post 2015. This wasn't released until after Montefiore's book was published, which is the source of the confusion. But ya, this matter is settled.
"In the hamlet, Stalin had a relationship with Lidia Pereprygia, who was thirteen at the time and thus a year under the legal age of consent in Tsarist Russia."
Should be changed to
"In the hamlet, Stalin had a relationship with Lidia Pereprygia, who was fourteen at the time, but within the legal age of consent in Tsarist Russia."
I've updated the above discussion with the new information. Hopefully we can have a discussion there that will settle the issue. Greyfield44 (talk) 02:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Last sentence of lead
Whilst I fully agree with the deletion by TheTimesAreAChanging so that the lead section ends in 'Both his critics and his supporters agree that the Russia of today would be unrecognisable without the actions of Joseph Stalin.', I have to wonder what that sentence actually means. It seems to be trying to say something like 'Both his critics and his supporters agree that the Russia of today would be a very different place but for the actions of Joseph Stalin', but as written it makes no logical sense. If Stalin had not existed, then Russia's history would certainly have been very different and the country would accordingly be different from what it is like now; but however it turned out, it would be what it was and everyone would recognise that version of Russia. I would like to see this sentence recast.
I agree that it makes no sense at present. I would add that I don't see the purpose of such a sentence. All major historical figures have an impact — that should go without saying. Also, why Russia? Surely, his influence extends beyond the Russia of today? Also, the difference Stalin made is basically unknowable. Without Stalin, the Bolshevik Revolution would still have happened. Lenin would have died. Someone else would have stepped in as Lenin's successor. Most of Stalin's policies were not unique to him. In fact, his economic policies were copied from Trotsky. Stalin played a role in WW2, but it is impossible to tell whether someone else would have been able to play a comparable role. Then the Cold War started, but it is hard to believe this was uniquely Stalin's doing. Stalin was denounced after his death, and the USSR changed course. Then in 1991 the USSR fell apart. What part of today's Russia or today's anywhere is due to something Stalin did and no one else credibly would have done? If that is too hard a question what things today are due to Stalin?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
The idea that Trotsky was going to Collectivization is correct, but the speed in which Stalin did it was what made him unique. At least according to the Kotkin book, Trotsky said he'd do his version over the course of one or two generations. Stalin did it in 5 years. Goodstyle2 (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's true. In 1927, Trotsky was calling for the "more rapid development of collective farming".[2] I note, however, that this sentence has been removed.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Under economic policy, I would like to add a few sentences describing the economic work that the exiled kulaks performed in their forced servitude. Their work gave Stalin a lot of the natural resources necessary for the Soviet Union's industrialization. My main source would be Anne Applebaum's Gulag: A History. The author has won a pulitzer prize and has a history degree from Yale. My additions would be less than 100 words. If anyone wants to comment on these changes, please let me know on this talk page or on my talk page. Chapmanstudent00 (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Zenya Alliluyeva
If it is correct that she was Nadya's sister-in-law (and I think it is) then another source needs to be cited, because the one given (Montefiore) says, rightly or wrongly, that she was Stalin's sister-in- law.
there is one inaccuracy in this article, Stalin's religion was None, not atheism, just because he didn't believe in God doesn't mean that he automatically becomes atheists. it is like when you are refusing to eat spaghetti it doesn't mean that you automatically want to eat scrambled eggs.
An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a god. I know your point is that maybe he was a Buddhist or of some other religion without a god; but most Buddhists for example are atheists. I do agree though. His religious affiliation must be listed as none as atheism isn't a religion, and one can have a religion while being an atheist.
Biased White Harambe (talk) 07:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
The Korea War is mentioned under "Cold War policy: 1947–1950": "Asia". (Which doesn't exactly make sense chronologically).--Jack Upland (talk) 07:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
This edit request to Joseph Stalin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
His real name was not Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin it was just Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin means man of steel in Russian and he only adopted the the name Stalin when he joined the bolshevik party Ronald Reagan Fan 1984 (talk) 22:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Iosif Stalin's reputation has not been exceeded., but will be when Nadezhda Petukhova siezes power in Russia.
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. – NJD-DE (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
"... was a Georgian revolutionary"
Does it refer to his ethnicity? Is it right to use ethnicity in such phrases in Wikipedia? I don't see Frank Sinatra called "an Italian singer" in Wikipedia despite him being of Italian ethnicity. Stalin operated in Russia (long official name: Russian Empire) as a revolutionary, not only in the Georgian part of Russia. And he was a key figure in the Russian revolution of 1917 and in the Russian revolutionary movement. "A Georgian revolutionary" makes it sound as if he made some revolution in Georgia. Alexxzz123 (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Russian Empire was an empire, it would not be correct to state all subjects of the empire as Russian for their nationality. It would probably be better if this was something such as: "...Georgian revolutionary and Soviet politician..." as this is something similar done with some other articles of Soviet politicians. Mellk (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
"Empire" is just a name. Empires are different. Stalin was a regular Russian citizen, just like Lenin, for example. The only difference between them was their ethnicity. Lenin is by the way called a Russian revolutionary in Wikipedia. And I would not object if the article said "Stalin was Georgian". Of course he was Georgian (by ethnicity). But to say he was a Georgian revolutionary... it's like to say the he made some revolution in Georgia, while he was a key figure in the Russian revolutionary movement. Alexxzz123 (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Regardless of the wording, we should link to Georgians, the article about the ethnic/national grouping of people, and not Georgia (country), the article about the modern nation. For wording, how about we replace Georgian with ethnically Georgian; I believe it's then clear that the phrase is describing Stalin's person and not his status as a revolutionary. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
An ethnically Georgian revolutionary??? Sounds even more awkward. I think we should call him a Russian revolutionary. Otherwise we should call Napoleon an Italian military leader for consistency. That Stalin was of Georgian origin should be mentioned further. Alexxzz123 (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I was proposing that as a compromise. I have a slight preference for the existing wording. Regardless of the wording, do you agree about the wikilink change? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Your words from your link: "Soviet people were citizens of the USSR and also had a "nationality" (which could include being Jewish)". Soviet people had национальность, which is not the same as nationality, although it originates from the same Latin word. Russian национальность always means ethnicity. So in the sense the word nationality is used in say visas, Stalin's nationality was Russian (before 1922) and then Soviet. Alexxzz123 (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Sorry I'm late to this conversation. I would like to remove the phrase "a Georgian revolutionary" from the first sentence because it was a relatively minor aspect of Stalin's significance. Stalin's significance was that he was the ruler of the Soviet Union. I want to remove it make the first line more succinct. I realize Wikipedia is not meant to be fine literature, so if you disagree with me that's fine. Kurzon (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree. According to MOS:ETHNICITY, the opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is a citizen, national, or permanent resident; or, if the person is notable mainly for past events, where the person was a citizen, national, or permanent resident when the person became notable. Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability. The word Georgian should be replaced with Russian and Soviet. Aoito (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I would avoid changing this until there is clear consensus for changing something. There is no clear consensus of changing "Georgian revolutionary" to "Russian revolutionary". Mellk (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2021
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
There is an inaccuracy about the age of Lidia. At the time of his relationship with her, she was 14, which was the legal age of consent in Tsarist Russia. The Montefiore account is incorrect and outdated. The corrected account is in Ronald Suny's book "Stalin: Passage to Revolution". On page 559, it details how she was actually 14 at the time, which explains why Stalin wasn't arrested when the affair was discovered.
The entry:
"In the hamlet, Stalin had a relationship with Lidia Pereprygia, who was thirteen at the time and thus a year under the legal age of consent in Tsarist Russia."
Should be changed to
"In the hamlet, Stalin had a relationship with Lidia Pereprygia, who was fourteen at the time, but within the legal age of consent in Tsarist Russia." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greyfield44 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
@Greyfield44: I'd be happy to correct this, if I can substantiate the correction. I don't have access to the book. Online there are plenty or sources indicating both hypothesis (the 13-year old, and the 14-year old Lidia). Maybe the phrase should explain the contradicting theories. Ferkjl (talk) 11:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
@Ferkjl: Do you mean the original translation when you say "phrase"? As for the source, that's a bit complicated. The only source for this story is a report from an officer provided to Nikita Khrushchev at his request in the late 50s in an effort by him to find a way to further hurt Stalin's reputation (as they had a political need to do so since they had to distance themselves from his many, many atrocities). The report indicated that he was living with this girl around the time she was 14 and that she became pregnant in this interval and that a suspicious officer confronted Stalin about it, and he promised to marry her due to her pregnancy, but he abandoned her instead. The discrepancy could be about when he started living with her in their cramped Siberian town (he was also living with her family at the time) when she was 13, but when she allegedly got involved with him and became pregnant is without a doubt 14 according to the report to Khrushchev. Here is an image caps for one of the sources I used for this if you'd like: https://imgur.com/a/eChTW4MGreyfield44 (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
By “the phrase” I was refering to the phrase you are suggesting to change. My suggestion is simple: we can’t corroborate whether Lidia was 13 or 14 at the time that they started their affair. There are plenty of courses that contradict each other:
-Stating that she was 13: [[3]], here, here, and a million other sources.
-Stating that she was 14: here, here, here, and also a million other sources.
I suggest we change the offending phrase in the current article to something along these lines: “In the hamlet, Stalin had a relationship with Lidia Pereprygia. There are contradicting theories regarding Lidia’s age, with some reports and historians claiming that she was thirteen years old at the time, and thus a year under the legal age of consent in Tsarist Russia. Other sources claim that Lidia was 14 at the time their affair began, and that the rumours suggesting Lidia was underage were Western anti-Stalin propaganda.
I would wordsmith the new statement more carefully, and cite sources for both “theories”. What do you think? Ferkjl (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Honestly, that sounds good. That squares both, since like many things in his life, it's unclear what the truth really is.Greyfield44 (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
I would also like to add the physical, primary source of evidence that this discussion pertains to pointed out by the article that Suny used in his biography on the matter of age, that we only have access to now in recent years: https://imgur.com/a/38XkJod . Would love to hear anyone else's input on this.Greyfield44 (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Another note: One of the citationsused for the age of Lidia directly states that she was 14. If the citations themselves contradict the point being made by the article, it should definitely be changed.
The primary source seems accurate and I did buy the Suny book to check if you're correct. I'm curious though, where did the age 13 part come from? Why did Montefiore make that claim at all. If we're going to change this, we should at least find that out. Goodstyle2 (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
I was confused about this too, but then I really looked into it after the edit was denied. From my research, it seems Soviet archives open up fairly slowly. Some historians see some materials, but don't get to keep it so they write down what they can remember. It is only later when the source documents are released that we get a full picture. Remember, Montefiore's work was from all the way back in 2007, but the source document he used as a source actually came out many years later and contradicts his original claim. This isn't because he was lying, but likely because of limited access to the actual archives at the time and being forced to use secondhand sources. But we know have the original sourcing, and historians have followed suite in their assessment of it. Greyfield44 (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
So because the document you posted is relatively new and has the age on it, authors have been going with that now right? I'm curious about the document in general because Khrushchev asked for it. There's no police record or anything, all we have is a politically motivated report. How do we even know any of this legitimate? This is kind of a digression, but it's worth asking. Goodstyle2 (talk) 03:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Are you asking if the whole thing is fake report Khrushchev had made for the benefit of discrediting Stalin? That's plausible, but there are a few things countering that. One, the report was to investigate a bunch of things, like Stalin being a secret agent for the Tsarist police along with the underage story. But the report explicitly shows that she wasn't underage, and comes to the conclusion that he wasn't a Tsarist agent. Why would Khrushchev forge a document that essentially exonerates Stalin on the stuff he was trying to nail him for? Also, according to the Siberian Times article, that man really was his son. That's another more recent piece of evidence that also shows she was 14. According to the Siberian times article, she was born in 1900, but Stalin could not have met her until she was 14. She gave birth to their child that died at age 15, but was living with him since she was 14. It actually is impossible for him to have even met her before she was 14 according to this article in which her family was interviewed. Greyfield44 (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I was just trying to cover all the bases here. I even did some research into this and couldn't find any reputable sources saying it was 13 after the new info came out. Also the other Stalin article on his early years mentions 14, so this feels discordant with that. I agree that it should be changed, unless anyone else has found new evidence.Goodstyle2 (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
I think we have something of a consensus here, but I'll give it a few days before requesting the edit to give more people a chance to see/comment. Greyfield44 (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Not done for now: Personally, I find the sourcing on all sides for claims of Lidia's age to raise concerns; so, it seems appropriate for the text to suggest as such. Can editors please propose a replacement text before reactivating the edit request. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately, an ambiguous statement was rejected by someone else here, and we were forced to come to a consensus. Since 14 is the modern consensus and the number in the original report to Khrushchev, I believe if we have to pick one, we should go with that. The edit text I suggested was: "In the hamlet, Stalin had a relationship with Lidia Pereprygia, who was fourteen at the time, but within the legal age of consent in Tsarist Russia." Greyfield44 (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
“In the hamlet, Stalin had a relationship with Lidia Pereprygia. There are contradicting theories regarding Lidia’s age, with some reports and historians claiming that she was thirteen years old at the time, and thus a year under the legal age of consent in Tsarist Russia. Other sources claim that Lidia was 14 at the time their affair began, and that the rumours suggesting Lidia was underage were Western anti-Stalin propaganda." was the statement someone drafted earlier to account for the ambiguity that was then rejected for being too unclear. Also, her age isn't really Western anti-Stalin propaganda, the only reason we have any information about her is because of Khrushchev's report, so if it isn't true, it'd be part of Soviet de-Stalinization. With that said, I'd be curious as to what the concerns on this are, as we have the original documentation showing her real age at the time of her meeting Stalin was 14. We came to a consensus and discussed it extensively. What more is needed to show the truth here? The age of 13 is wrong, and there isn't a single modern source that uses it. The latest book from a respected Soviet historian, Ronald Suny's Stalin: Passage to Revolution, (published in 2020) uses the corrected age. I'd be happy to be contradicted here, but as of now, there isn't a single compelling reason as to why that incorrect date should stand in this article.Greyfield44 (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
My confusion is mainly about the perceived ambiguity here. If the original document has 14, what is the conflicting evidence causing editors to reconsider? Is there more to it that no one has brought up yet?Goodstyle2 (talk) 12:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
I understand the reason for carefulness, but consensus feels difficult to achieve as only one other person has participated in this discussion that's been up for over a month without prompting from the semi-edit request, and it's kind of hard to reach a consensus on a question that has more or less been settled when the original documentation was released a few years ago. I guess this factual error will stand indefinitely due to process reasons unless more people take part in the discussion, which seems unlikely at the moment. Greyfield44 (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
This is very interesting, why is Marc Chagall — born in similar time period in Belarus, is claimed as Russian. Seems like Russia has no problem claiming positive figures born in to other nationalities/ethnicities in Russian Empire… The negative ones? Well the other republics can have them. Oh the hypocrisy!--Bravopr (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Lead section: "was a Georgian revolutionary and political leader".
The current version in the leading section is misleading. He participated in the Russian revolution, not in Georgian.
According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography, Lead section#Context, "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is a citizen, national, or permanent resident; or, if the person is notable mainly for past events, where the person was a citizen, national, or permanent resident when the person became notable. Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability." For example, Sergey Brin, he was born in Russia, but the leading section does not say about this.
According to MOS:CONTEXTBIO, the leading section should indicate that he is Russian and Soviet. He was born in Russia (Russian Empire), was a citizen of this country, participated in the Russian revolution, and also became the leader of the Soviet Union.
How important is the fact of his ethnicity? Why should it be in the leading section? It is as if George Washington were called an English revolutionary, not an American.
I also opted before that 'Georgian' should be dropped in this form. Leon Trotsky's page also doesn't start with "Jewish revolutionary" and for good reasons. Stalin was both a Russian and later Soviet citizen, and always Georgian by ethnicity. He has described himself at times as a "Russified Georgian" to make it more complex. In order to completely ommit Russian is a bit of an anachronism in my opinion because we are used to there being an independent Georgia, but in Stalin's lifetime there never was such a state. Maybe "Russian revolutionary of Georgian origin" would solve the issue? Machinarium (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
It should continued to be discussed because whatever editors agreed upon before is anachronistic and against editing guidelines. Machinarium (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
I managed to get my hands on a high quality (ish) and color image of Stalin for the main infobox image. It has him in a recognizable outfit in a recognizable photograph from a recognizable event. Here it is. Thoughts? The Image Editor (talk) 23:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
What about this one ("Alternative Proposal")? It provides a clear view of his face and is a real-life photo of Stalin (rather than a propaganda portrait like the current image).Emiya1980 (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Alternative proposal
I would prefer that "Alternative Proposal". The current image in the article definitely has very strong propaganda image look.--Staberinde (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I prefer the current picture. I'm not sure if it was produced for propaganda purposes. It was apparently taken in 1937 when he was greeting polar explorers at an airport. I don't think it's exactly flattering. But I don't think that particularly matters. It is a picture that is characteristic of Stalin in an important part of his career. He actually looked like that. He often held a pipe. This picture gives an indication of his withered arm. Leave it as it is.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Seeing as how there have been a relatively small number of editors on this topic, I think it might be a good idea to get more editors in on this debate in order to obtain a broader consensus on what image works best.Emiya1980 (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
@DGG: Are you saying that you prefer the current infobox picture? Because its nature as a propaganda image was one of the original reasons I suggested it should be replaced. Emiya1980 (talk) 00:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
The current infobox picture as of right now is a particular sentimental and mendacious picture in the "Stalin, the everyday friend of the people" vein of propaganda, characteristic of the period around1937. ; the one above at the left is a much more straightforward picture, that doesn't attempt to humanize him but just give a portrait. I'm not sure it's any more"propaganda" than any official picture of anyone. DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
B. The current picture includes too much "character"; while this may not normally be an issue, it propagates historic propaganda, and that is not Wikipedia's job - as such, it must be replaced. Of A and B, A comes from shortly after his assumption of the position of General Secretary, while B is more representative of him at the peak of his international importance and recognition; the WWII and early cold war period. I also like the idea of a colour image from that period being used, but I don't believe the current option (above) is sufficiently well composed. BilledMammal (talk) 02:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Current image. I disagree that there is any question of "humanising" Stalin in using the current picture whose caption, in any case, points to its specifically propagandistic origin. Otherwise, I agree with Jack Upland's arguments above. —Brigade Piron (talk) 07:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
ProposalImage CHere’s another option. Like many living political leaders’ photos, it appears to be a high-quality official studio portrait, but it is more neutral than other choices by focussing on his visage and omitting folksy pipe or military accoutrements of the generalissimus. Would be better if it was full-face rather than profile, though, or at least facing left, into the body of the article. —MichaelZ.16:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Image C2I see Commons also has a version flipped left-to-right, but I am not eager to use an image with slightly compromised integrity for the sake of page layout.
Current image: for reasons given above. I don't see why this image is particularly viewed as "propagandistic", except that it appeared in Pravda. As I said before, that is what Stalin looked like. There are countless pictures of Stalin with a pipe, wearing a tunic and a peaked cap. The picture illustrates his withered left arm and his pipe-smoking habit which are mentioned in the article. It also illustrates Stalin's personal style, as the article says: "He had few material demands and lived plainly, with simple and inexpensive clothing and furniture". This is not a "everyday friend of the people" or "folksy" guise concocted for the camera. It is Stalin as he was.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Current Image I fail to see a compelling reason to change. The current image feels no more or less propagandistic than any of the others, unless you consider any expression by a dastardly communist propaganda. BSMRD (talk) 04:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
C or C2 - My problem with the current image has nothing to do with any purported propaganda value, but with it's quality. It's a very grainy picture that almost looks like an elaborate drawing. The C version is the image proposed with the sharpest quality. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Out of the options, C or C2 is clearly the best image. I would also prefer either A or B over the current image; NPOV of images is IMO not taken seriously enough on Wikipedia and so I object to a propagandistic image as the lead. Loki (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Image B. Definitely B. While image A is noteworthy, it is rather grainy and it does NOT well reflect how he is most commonly portrayed and how he is most familiar. Please see Google Image search results for Joseph Stalin. I would say image B best reflects and represents the most prevalent and familiar depictions of Stalin - he is iconic in uniform and it relates to his core notability. Image C is a rather strange/unrepresentative depiction, relative to typical image results for Stalin. Regarding the color picture, I would normally be inclined towards a color picture - however color pictures of Stalin are somewhat uncommon and this color picture is a tad blurry and at poor angle. Alsee (talk) 10:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Current imageI personally don't see a convincing reason to change it. Yes it was used as a propoganda image in the past, but it's probably more familiar than the other ones, and is definitely the clearest of the bunch.
On further inspection of the images, I think the the current image is kinda grainy, so while the current image would be fine if it wasn't, I think Image A would be the best image. It is perfectly clear and represents him the best out of all the alternative options. I still would be perfectly with the original though.Rexh17 (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Current image - His full face is clearly visible (putting it above C, which only has his profile) and his expression looks more natural than in A. In B, his mustache has gone gray, which lessens the visual contrast against his skin and makes the image marginally harder to parse. Overall, I think the current image is still the best choice. ModernDayTrilobite (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
C / C2, or, failing that, current image. It is undoubtedly true that these are (all) propaganda images, but the fact is that they are some of the most iconic and well-known images of Stalin and is therefore the most natural and appropriate images of the ones provided and what our readers will expect to see - these are images most people think of when they think of Stalin, and reflect the ones used in similar reference works. Intentionally trying to find an image that "debunks" a well-established visual of the subject (even one based on propaganda) seems comparable to using an image of Osama bin Laden from his college days when he is in casual Western clothes, or insisting that we use a page image of FDR that shows his wheelchair - that sort of thing is not really what is meant by natural and appropriate; we are looking for the mainstream vision of the subject, not a shocking "here is what they really look like with no makeup and normal lighting!" or the like. Image A is completely unacceptable because it doesn't even remotely resemble Stalin's mainstream image (being from the time in his life before he was most well-known), making it fail what our readers will expect to see. Image B isn't as bad (it definitely does reflect the appearance most people would expect), but is lower-quality, and since it is also a propaganda shot anyway it has nothing to really recommend itself over the current one or C. Between C and the current image, C is higher-quality and is, I think, slightly more iconic, but I do not have a strong preference. --Aquillion (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
"Koba" at "Military service"
It's an obvious nonsense to have "Nickname: Koba" rendered under the "Military service" section of an infobox.
@Dunutubble: You asked, 'How on earth is Stalin a "Folk Saint"?'
My answer, in brief, is that he transformed a backward agrarian society into a modern industrial state that not quite single handedly brought Hitler to his knees.
He was a brutal, despicable mass murderer, but that doesn't make him any different from people like Augusto Pinochet, the Shah of Iran or the Saudi royal family. To soldiers who had mutinied against the Tsar, the Bolsheviks offered a vision of a better life. Most of them supported the Bolsheviks in the Russian Civil War, defeating the White Russians and their foreign supporters in the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War. And he largely delivered a substantially better life for most of those he did not kill or send to Siberia. (By the way, the Bolsheviks did not invent The Gulag Archipelago: The Tsar sent Fyodor Dostoevsky there, 1849-1854.)
Is this perspective adequately represented in this article as currently written? Probably not. Should it be? I think so, but I'm not enough of an expert on Stalin and Russian / Soviet history to fix that problem. Should this article carry [[Category:Folk saints]] as it currently stands? Maybe not.
My point is that the world is rarely black or white but usually different shades of gray. A primary strength of Wikipedia is that it invites people with very different perspectives on any topic to collaborate in producing a narrative that all can more or less live with, as noted in the Wikipedia article on "Reliability of Wikipedia".
@DavidMCEddy: I respect your argument, but the problem is that the vast majority of people living in the Soviet Union (including Russia) don't consider him to be a hero. In those areas he's considered to be a murderous psychopath who caused some of the largest famines in World History.
Also, while Stalin was involved to an extent during the Russian Civil War and the Bolshevik Revolution, he wasn't really as relevant to the conflicts, nor did he play a huge role in them- his political role increased after the Civil War ended.
I wouldn't object to labelling him this if there were some community somewhere that thinks of him as a hero, but I can't find any, so I don't see why he should be classified as a "Folk Saint", which are usually associated with Religious customs or with Latin America. Dunutubble (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
@Guto2003: Am I correct that on 2021-03-07T03:49:15 you added [[Category:Folk saints]] to this article?
A few hours ago User:Dunutubble reverted that change asking, 'How on earth is Stalin a "Folk Saint"?'
See the discussion above. If Stalin is to be so categorized, we need at least one credible source, preferably mentioned in the text, to justify that categorization. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
"the vast majority of people living in the Soviet Union (including Russia) don't consider him to be a hero. In those areas he's considered to be a murderous psychopath who caused some of the largest famines in World History" Just to clarify, this is not true, according to many reliable polls:
-[2021] A poll reports that Stalin is the most important personality in Russian public opinion.[4]
-[2019] A poll reports that around 70% of Russians believe Stalin played a positive role in their homeland.[5]
-[2017] A poll reports that 77% of young Russians between 18 and 24 years old are in favor of the installation in public places of monuments, plaques, paintings, in memory of Stalin's political successes.[6]--Mhorg (talk) 11:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, User:Mhorg. I had a vague feeling I had heard something like that but was not sure. On a humorous side, I remember a joke I heard that was reportedly circulating Moscow around 1995:
Question: What has Capitalism done in 4 years that Communism couldn't in 70?
Answer: Make Communism look good.
A more serious perspective was provided by economist Paul Krugman in 1994: He said that when Soviet Premier Nikita Krushchev famously said "We will bury you", Western economists were worried that the Soviet economy was growing so fast, it could soon become the dominant economy on earth. However, not long after that speech, leading economists concluded that the Soviet economy was growing by increasing investment in human and physical capital and were not matching the West in creating new products and services nor more productive work methods. Not long after that, the Soviet economy stagnated, as Western economists had ultimately predicted. See Paul Krugman (1994). "The Myth of Asia's Miracle". Foreign Affairs. 73 (6): 62. doi:10.2307/20046929. ISSN0015-7120. JSTOR20046929. WikidataQ56096073.
And there is substance behind the surveys that User:Mhorg cited. I need to check to make sure, but if my memory is correct, Maddison Project data indicate that Soviet economic growth in average annual income (Gross Domestic Product, GDP, per capita, adjusted for inflation) in the 1930s was quite high, though not quite as high as that of contemporary Nazi German or the US under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. DavidMCEddy (talk) 13:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
@Dunutubble For now I don't want to get into this discussion about the "Folk Saints", I was just specifying that, at least in Russia, he is seen as a positive character. About the "first study" (this one,[7] right?), it says: "In May 2021, among the most outstanding personalities in the opinion of Russians were: I. Stalin (39%), V. Lenin (30%), A. Pushkin (23%), Peter I (19%) and V. Putin (15%) ).", so, according to this poll, Stalin is considered the most important person in Russia.--Mhorg (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
@Dunutubble, you are right, but those data, combined with the other polls, speak for themselves. In Russia he is a positive character for the majority of the population. Also, many reliable sources talked about this popularity.[8]--Mhorg (talk) 14:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
@Guto2003: I haven't seen a comment from User:Guto2003, who added to this article on 2021-03-07T03:49:15, if my research is correct.
However, at this point, I find persuasive the argument of User:Dunutubble that Stalin should not qualify as a "Folk saint", as that term is defined in the Wikipedia article on that term.
^Montefiore, Simon Sebag (2007). Young Stalin. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ISBN 978-0-297-85068-7.
Use of Robert Conquest as a source
I noticed in one part of the article, it says "Bolsheviks wanted to gain favour among ethnic minorities but hoped that the latter would not actually desire independence.[195]" Its source here is | this book by Robert Conquest , an author which in 1948 joined an anti-communist propaganda thinktank known as the IRD(Foreign Office's Information Research Department), which was involved in manipulating public opinion and supporting anticommunist publications. Conquest was also one of many historians who greatly exaggerated the death toll of purges, estimating it to be upwards of 20 million and then backtracking to 10-15 million. After the release of Soviet Documents, American historian J. Arch Getty wrote in 1993 that the archives did not support his casualty figures. In his book Stalin and the Kirov Murder, he argued Stalin both sanctioned the murder of Kirov but also used it as justification for the 1937-1938 terror, however there is no evidence for Stalin's role in the murder. I just think we should look a bit closer at this source and really ask if Robert Conquest is at all a reliable person to be getting information about Stalin and the Soviet Union from. Thats all. Thoughts?
The infobox currently lists his political party as CPSU, short for Communist Party of the Soviet Union. During almost all of Stalin’s leadership, the Party which controlled the Soviet Union was called the “All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)”.
It makes little sense to refer to the AUCP(b) with an anachronistic term which only originated the year Stalin died. I propose that we make the infobox read
I’m hoping to form a consensus so I can make the change safely. (If this is too long, perhaps we can condense the RSDLP(b)RCP(b) and AUCP(b) into just “Bolsheviks” for reading ease)TheAmericanWarlord (talk) 02:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
What is the quotes of Joseph Stalin He can't shoot straight
Because his son took the harsh decision of suicide on falling on train . Joseph Stalin says he should have shooted himself which is a lighter suicide of death for military man — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raja.m82 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
What about Joseph Stalin quote captain is not equal to general
This quotes was actually told by Joseph Stalin's son who was in arrest in Nazi's Camp
Joseph Stalin son made harsh decision by suicide on falling in train.
Joseph Stalin's son died due to the reason there may be talks in exchange between Joseph Stalin's son who was in rank of captain and German Airforce General — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raja.m82 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Quotes
I removed this quote[9] for two reasons: the first is that we already have two quotes from two important men: Harry S. Truman and W. Averell Harriman. The second is that the quote, which I have removed, is the first to appear in the "Personal life and characteristics" section, and is the most negative quote towards the character, and for this reason I would prefer to put quotes that maintain neutrality. To be clear, there are tons of praise and criticism quotes on Wikiquote about Stalin, I don't understand why to emphasize this quote.--Mhorg (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
If anything, quotes from Stalin's political contemporaries, such as the primary-sourced Truman quote just added two days ago, should be de-emphasized in favor of twentieth-century academic historians like Stephen Kotkin, although all of the quotes are relatively favorable to Stalin.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes. They encountered each other briefly in two consecutive annual conferences of the Society of Rhetorical Questions that Miss the Point Entirely. Firefangledfeathers05:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
I would question what value some randomly picked quotes add anyway? What deep insight Truman's first impression of Stalin really offers us? Frankly I would simply remove all those random quotes. You don't see such stuff in articles of Roosevelt, Churchill, Hitler, or Mussolini--Staberinde (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Staberinde, at this point it is best to remove all quotes and align with articles by other similar state leaders.--Mhorg (talk) 13:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Removing "all quotes" seems quite extreme to me.
I think such quotes make an article more interesting and readable, as long as they reasonably reflect the tenor of the times and are not excessive. If "You don't see such stuff in articles of Roosevelt, Churchill, Hitler, or Mussolini", that suggests opportunities to improve those other articles.
Beyond that, I don't feel I can afford the time to study this article enough to say whether that particular quote from Truman should or should not be part of this article. DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Simply being mentioned in a secondary source doesn't establish some inherent notability of quote that requires us to include it in the article. I am fairly sure if someone goes digging through secondary sources, then lots of quotes about Stalin could be found. For a quote to be relevant, a secondary source needs to actually explain how it is very much relevant for the section of the article where we use the quote, and then we must make sure that then using the quote its relevance in conveyed in a same way as the source used it. Did the source really suggest, that after meeting Stalin for a first time at the first day of Potsdam conference, Truman's quote represents an exceptionally insightful comment about Stalin's personal characteristics with no further comments or clarifications needed? I very much doubt it.--Staberinde (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Offner--a leading scholar--devotes a full paragraph to the quote to establish that in 1945 Truman indeed trusted Stalin--and notes that Truman repeatedly even in retirement said that he liked Stalin in 1945. Rjensen (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Alright, Truman trusted Stalin in 1945, that is definitely an interesting fact. But that fact seems more relevant to topics actually related to Truman-Stalin relationship, like for example Potsdam Conference. What great relevance it has to "Personal life and characteristics" of Stalin? Is it truly so important to deserve its prominent separate box presentation? I would note that we have quite a few quotes in that section from historians like Montefiore and Service, but those are limited to mundade inside prose text quotations. Is Truman's opinion on his first meeting with Stalin truly more important when assessing characteristics of Stalin?--Staberinde (talk) 19:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
yes -- ww2 leadership (FDR, Stalin Churchill) was based on FDR's trust in Stalin (Churchill distrusted him). The fact that Truman liked Stalin in effect postponed the start of the Cold War a year or two. Historians pay a LOT of attention to these specific personal interactions and so wikipedia follows suit. Rjensen (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Ok, so you agree that this quote isn't all that relevant to "Personal life and characteristics" of Stalin and should be moved to some more appropriate place?--Staberinde (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
I get the arguments that "one doesn't serve as a dictator". I also get the alternative, that "serving" "refers to his holding those offices, not the manner in which he attained" or executed them.
I don't know, but I think Stalin and his supporters would have said that they were "serving" the poor people of Russia. As a young man, Stalin risked his life in many efforts to try to improve the lot of poor people in Russia.
The Wikipedia article on "Droughts and famines in Russia and the Soviet Union" says, "Droughts and famines in the Russian Empire tended to occur fairly regularly, with famine occurring every 10–13 years". There was a famine under Stalin, for which he's been blamed.
However, is it accurate to say that Stalin provided education and rapid improvements in the quality of life for most of the people he didn't kill or send to the Gulags? (And Stalin didn't invent the Gulags: A century earlier Fyodor Dostoevsky was an involuntary guest of the Tsar in Siberia for agitating for political reform.)
My bottom line:
I think Stalin and his supporters would be incensed at the suggestion that he did not "serve" his people. And I think the term is appropriate.
"Served" is simply silly because it implies that Stalin merely fulfilled the duties of his office. General Secretary wasn't some exceptionally powerful office in 1922, it only became more and more important as Stalin amassed more power to his hands and removed all his competitors. So "held power" is just far more accurate. And yeah, "one doesn't serve as a dictator" is basically a correct assessment too.--Staberinde (talk) 14:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
"I think Stalin and his supporters would be incensed at the suggestion that he did not 'serve' his people." Yes, they would. So what? I don't think NPOV should extend to not offending tankies. (See WP:FALSEBALANCE.)
This issue has already been discussed up the wazoo. We don't need a vote.
I'm only involved here because I hassled @Lute88 into explaining his revert. Having done that, I can accept his argument. You should too. And maybe read a little Soviet history before bothsidsing one of the worst dictators in human history. — Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 00:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't think any serious commentator would suggest he was not a dictator.
However, poll results document very positive attitudes about Stalin in Russia today.
I grew up in the US in the 1950s and served in the US military 1967-73. I don't recall ever hearing one positive word about Stalin.
More recently, however, I've found documentation that indicates that soldiers who mutinied during World War I flocked to the Bolsheviks during the Russian Civil War 1917-23, during which the US, Britain, France, England, Czechoslovakia, and others tried to support the Whites. Stalin may have been an evil, criminal mass murderer, but my reading of history suggests that most of the people he didn't kill he educated. And in the process, he transformed a backward agrarian society into a modern industrial state in the span of one generation. For all his many faults and excesses, the sons of soldiers who mutinied during World War I brought Hitler to his knees. I think Stalin's soldiers knew that he had given them something to fight for.
I removed a new paragraph about other allegations of genocide. This article is already 21106 words and we don't need another chuck of text. If the information is so important, then we should create a new trimmed down paragraph that merges the Ukraine stuff with the population transfer stuff. LittleJerry (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2022 (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. QueerFilmNerdtalk 00:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Done, thank you for the much-needed correction, that sentence was actually why I viewed the talk page in the first place. :) Acalycine (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Vladimir Stalin. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 3#Vladimir Stalin until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 17:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Already done The article already mentions Stalin's birth name and the origins/translation of the name he later used. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
(2).jpg)
.jpg)
