Jump to content

Talk:Joseph Stalin: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Honours: added comment.
Archiving dead conversations.
Line 58: Line 58:
|archive = Talk:Joseph Stalin/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Talk:Joseph Stalin/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}

== Stalin's name ==

The Stalin Museum is a museum in Gori, Georgia dedicated to Stalin. [https://stalinmuseum.ge/geo/stalin/biography/ On this page] you can read their biography of Stalin. If you read the Georgian version of this page it will give you იოსებ ბესარიონის ძე ჯუღაშვილი as Stalin's birth name. If you put იოსებ ბესარიონის ძე ჯუღაშვილი in Google Translate it will transliterate it as "ioseb besarionis dze jughashvili". I think this is a good source to validate the original Georgian version of Stalin's name. [[User:MaisonHorta|MaisonHorta]] ([[User talk:MaisonHorta|talk]]) 09:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
:Well, I don't. We have to look at what secondary sources say. And secondly transliteration isn't that important.--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 09:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The Stalin Museum website is not a primary source, it's just in a different language. [[User:MaisonHorta|MaisonHorta]] ([[User talk:MaisonHorta|talk]]) 10:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
:Yes... and this is English language Wikipedia. The source you're citing has an English language version of the same page [https://stalinmuseum.ge/eng/stalin/biography/ here]. Please stop edit warring your [[WP:OR|original research]] changes to the content. You are using your own transliteration system (his original name in not written using Latin script, but using [[Georgian scripts|Georgian script]]), therefore we follow what [[WP:RS|reliable secondary sources]] write, not our personal interpretations. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 21:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


{{reply to|Iryna Harpy}} {{reply to|Jack Upland}} All right, all right, I'll hold of my editing for a while. So what if I cited some English-language books? How about these?

{{quote|The man who became known as Josef Stalin was born under the name Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili in the Georgian town of Gori in 1879.|Events That Changed the Course of History: The Story of the Russian Revolution 100 Years Later by Jessica Piper}}

{{quote|He had been born Ioseb Besarionis Dze Jughashvili, but he renamed himself “Stalin,” because it is the Russian word for “steel.”|Operation Long Jump: Stalin, Roosevelt, Churchill, and the Greatest Assassination Plot in History by Bill Yenne}}

{{quote|Stalin, Josef V. (1878–1953) Soviet leader, born as Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili (Georgian) or Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili (Russian), in Gori, Georgia, sometime around December 1878.|Russia at War: From the Mongol Conquest to Afghanistan, Chechnya, and Beyond by Timothy C. Dowling}}

If I cited any of these books, could I then use "Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili" in the article? [[User:MaisonHorta|MaisonHorta]] ([[User talk:MaisonHorta|talk]]) 09:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
:{{re|MaisonHorta}} I'm having difficulty in understanding which part of [[WP:3RR|edit warring]] you don't understand because you are reintroducing the same content for "Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili" despite promising that you won't do so until responses have been made per [[WP:BRD]]... in a sequence of edits only [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Stalin&diff=785755254&oldid=785745584 two days after said commitment]. Firstly, you've only managed to cite a couple of sources using this convolution of his name, none of which can be understood to be quality scholarship, nor reflect [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. Added to that, your English is not up to par for editing without some assistance (per [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Stalin&diff=next&oldid=785755254 this bizarre re-rending of 'birth name' to 'original name', and being born 'under' a name]), and what has ensued is a grammatically poor, unencyclopaedic description. There is nothing wrong with editing if English is not your native language, or if you are not a proficient speaker. There ''is a lot wrong'' with changing content against [[WP:CON|consensus]] without any regard for grammar or process. I see no evidence that the nomenclature you've unilaterally nominated as being correct actually meets with COMMONNAME, therefore the [[WP:ONUS]] is on you to demonstrate that it is more commonly used, more commonly recognised by scholarship, and not merely [[WP:V|verifable]] that a few sources use it. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 23:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

{{reply to|Iryna Harpy}} I am so hurt to be accused of bad faith. I thought that I had acted with sufficient consideration by waiting a couple of days since posting my new sources to await a reply from one of you. I see by your edit history that you were active on Wikipedia during this period, yet you ignored my pings so I assumed you lost interest in this matter. But at least you've finally replied! The other guy, [[User:Jack Upland]], hasn't made a peep. That's even more hurtful, because it feels like a hit and run. He didn't stick around to give me further guidance. Anyway, on to the matter…

I notice that the name "Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili" appears in other places on Wikipedia, including the first footnote of this very article, which reads:

{{quote|{{{{lang-ru|Ио́сиф Виссарио́нович Ста́лин}}. Stalin was born with the name Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili ({{lang-ka|იოსებ ბესარიონის ძე ჯუღაშვილი}}), which was transliterated into Russian as Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili ({{lang-ru|Ио́сиф Виссарио́нович Джугашви́ли}}). He adopted the surname "Stalin" after one of his revolutionary {{lang|fr|[[noms de guerre]]}}; see [[#Origin of name, nicknames and pseudonyms|Origins of name, nicknames and pseudonyms]].}}

This footnote, mind you, does not cite any sources.

"Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili" also appears in [[Early life of Joseph Stalin]]. You're not questioning those instances, just my edits. They are there because they slipped in when you did not care to pay attention. I can see in the edit history of [[Joseph Stalin]] that "Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili" was also used. It disappeared because [[User:Midnightblueowl]] decided to rewrite whole parts of the article. He didn't take kindly to my mild complaints about his work.

Stalin went by several official names ({{lang-ka|იოსებ ბესარიონის ძე ჯუღაშვილი}}) is what he was called at by birth. He got a Russian version of this name, ({{lang-ru|Ио́сиф Виссарио́нович Ста́лин}}). Are both of them equal? I sort of felt that since Stalin was born an ethnic Georgian that his Georgian name is closest to his true name, but that is kind of a value judgment and beside the point. The question is how these can respectively be transliterated.

WP:COMMONNAME has this to say on transliteration:

{{quote|Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, such as Greek, Chinese, or Russian names, must be transliterated. Established systematic transliterations, such as Hanyu Pinyin, are preferred. However, if there is a common English-language form of the name, then use it, even if it is unsystematic (as with Tchaikovsky and Chiang Kai-shek). For a list of transliteration conventions by language, see Wikipedia:Romanization.}}

"Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili" appears more often in books on Stalin, but it is the romanization of the Russian transliteration of his original Georgian name. It is a transliteration of a transliteration. The Georgian version of his name didn't appear often in Western texts, perhaps because of the information barriers thrown up by the Soviet Union.

This online encyclopedia has an article on how to romanize the Georgian script: [[Romanization_of_Georgian]]. There is one called ISO 9984, which is an international standard. I thought of going with that, but the text came out funny because this standard uses unconventional latin letters with breves: ioseb besarionis je ǰuḡašvili. In many fonts it doesn't come out right, particularly the j with a breve. It's such a hassle to type for anyone who doesn't use a specialist keyboard. I happen to have one of those but most people don't (God help those who work from smartphones!). And many English readers won't even understand those funny letters, because those only appear in foreign languages. So I looked at the first column, which presents the official romanization system of the Georgian government since 2002. I converted Stalin's Georgian name using that standard and got "Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili". It's so much easier to understand and type. Was I really such a jerk to go with that?

Is this honestly original research? To me, it's like converting Celsius to Fahrenheit. I am using guidelines that Wikipedia and the government of Georgia established!

But you think it is original research, so in good faith I went searching for some scholarly sources in English that used this transliteration. I found some, but you decided that these are not quality scholarship and too few in number. By what standard did you make this judgment? I feel like you're just shifting the goalposts. I am sure you are going to shift the goalposts some more in your next response. [[User:MaisonHorta|MaisonHorta]] ([[User talk:MaisonHorta|talk]]) 10:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

:MaisonHorta, I can see no evidence that Iryna Harpy ever accused you of bad faith editing; they merely pointed out that you are edit warring and seeking to impose changes on the article without consensus (which you are). Please stop making false accusations against other editors. [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 10:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

::MH seems to be actually someone who knows what he is talking about (in Georgian & Russian) and is making an honest effort to improve the article. I suggest the rest of those engaged on this thread welcome him and engage constructively with his comments. Given that there are only a few million Georgian speakers, and few of them until recently spoke English, then it seems highly likely that Stalin's original name has been unnecessarily and inaccurately intermediated via Russian in many sources.
::[[User:Gravuritas|Gravuritas]] ([[User talk:Gravuritas|talk]]) 16:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
:::{{re|MaisonHorta|Gravuritas}} Please do not make [[WP:AGF|bad faith assumptions]] about other editors, or hastily 'defend' editors from attacks that do not exist. You have both veered [[WP:OFFTOPIC|off topic]] in your commentary on this talk page (and, as an aside, note that [[:BGN/PCGN romanization]] is the standard transliteration system used for Wikipedia, but ''not'' where there is an English language [[WP:COMMONNAME]], so please [[WP:NOTGETTINGIT|pay attention to policies and guidelines]] being described to you). Google Ngram does not recognise [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Iosif+Vissarionovich+Dzhugashvili%2C+Ioseb+Besarionis+dze+Jughashvili&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CIosif%20Vissarionovich%20Dzhugashvili%3B%2Cc0 "Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili"]. Google Scholar comes up with [https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=Ioseb+Besarionis+dze+Jughashvili&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp= 66 results], the majority of which are wiki [[WP:MIRROR|mirrors]], and are not cited by any reliable sources. The search string for "Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili" results in [https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=Iosif+Vissarionovich+Dzhugashvili&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5 223 instances], many of which are heavily cited by reliable sources. The fact that "Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili" has stood, unchallenged, for years makes it the [[WP:CON|consensus]] variant accepted for his name. If you have a compelling argument for your preferred variant, you must present it and convince other editors that it meets with [[WP:PG|policies and guidelines]]. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 21:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

::::The BGN/PCGN romanization system for Georgian produces the same result as the Georgian national system. Their tables are nearly identical.

::::You're telling me that we should use "Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili" because it shows up more often in search engines. But that's not even his common name. Stalin's COMMONNAME in English is "Joseph Stalin". That's an anglicized version of his name from when he ruled the Soviet Union. His previous names are more esoteric information and I think that gives us more freedom to choose.

::::I think that using "Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili" in the childhood section of his biography is appropriate because it fits the context. He didn't speak Russian until he started schooling, and he didn't became active in Russia itself until well into his revolutionary career. I would like to call him "Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili" in the childhood section, and perhaps mention "Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili" in a footnote. [[User:MaisonHorta|MaisonHorta]] ([[User talk:MaisonHorta|talk]]) 08:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
:::::COMMONNAME also applies to other variants of a person's name therefore, as an example, [[:Lady Gaga]]'s article uses the name she is notable for, but her birth name is sourced. One thing I can agree on, however, is that there are not very many English language sources for Stalin's birth name, so I would suggest that this is (sort of) an issue of [[WP:IAR]], and is subject to [[WP:CCC]] (a change of consensus which should also extend to other Wikipedia articles such as the one dealing with Stalin's youth for the sake of parity. If there were hundreds of sources using the Russian variant, it would be a different matter. Ultimately, I think that an RfC is probably called for on this article as it would be the common article on Stalin with the most editors watching it. My preference would be that, for the infobox, both the (sourced) Georgian transliteration and commonly used Russian transliteration should be presented in that order according to alphabetical order ("G" coming before "R") so that there aren't any squabbles over which is more 'important' or 'appropriate' as the order is merely alphabetical. For the body of the text, the first mention (being the "Childhood" subsection) should feature both variants qualifying the Georgian and the Russian versions. Thereafter, the Georgian variant should be used as the differentiation has been qualified. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 23:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

My proposal is to create a '''Birth''' subsection in '''Early Life''' that details Stalin's date of birth, place of birth, and his birth name in Georgian and Russian with transliterations. [[User:MaisonHorta|MaisonHorta]] ([[User talk:MaisonHorta|talk]]) 13:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

{{reply to|Iryna Harpy}} Something we should ask about is if the birth register at the Upensky Church in Gori recorded Stalin's name in Georgian or Russian. My guess is that it would be the latter. In fact I bet there were hardly any official documents which recorded Stalin's name in Georgian. I hear at the time the tsar was very keen on russifying the region. This would explain why almost all historians use his russified name, even with the disappearance of the Soviet-era barriers to information.

Yet there is still good reason to mention his Georgian name. Stalin's father was nicknamed "Beso". This makes sense if you look at his Georgian name, Besarion, rather than his russified name, Vissarion. Like Stalin, Besarion was born when Georgia was part of the Russian Empire. Stalin didn't start speaking Russian until he started school, which means his parents and neighbors probably knew him as "Ioseb", and "Iosif" was just what the Russian bureaucrats and priests called him. [[User:MaisonHorta|MaisonHorta]] ([[User talk:MaisonHorta|talk]]) 05:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

:I don't really think that creating an additional "Birth" sub-section in "Early life" will really improve anything. [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 10:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

::Ok, I won't do that. What do you think about this edit? [[User:MaisonHorta|MaisonHorta]] ([[User talk:MaisonHorta|talk]]) 11:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

{{reply to|Iryna Harpy}} I got in touch with Donald Rayfield, a British professor of Russian and Georgian who wrote a book, "Stalin and his Hangmen". Here is an excerpt of interest:

{{quote|"Russian names are presented in a slightly simplified readable version of the standard Anglo-American system; Polish spellings are used for Poles, and Georgian names are transliterated directly from Georgian. Thus we have Dzierżyński, not Dzerzhinsky, Jughashvili, not Dzhugashvili. All translations are my own, unless otherwise indicated."}}

I contacted Prof Rayfield and he confirmed to me that "Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili" is correct, and that the birth registry of the church in Gori was written in Georgian. Local churches did everything in Georgian.

Is this good enough for you? [[User:MaisonHorta|MaisonHorta]] ([[User talk:MaisonHorta|talk]]) 17:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
:I agree with {{u|Midnightblueowl}} about creating a further subsection on "Birth" as redundant. It also isn't my [[WP:OWN|individual call]] as to whether the information is correct or should be used or not. What is of consequence is that so little attention has been paid to his birth name in English language scholarship, there is a very poor argument for the Russified variant meeting with COMMONNAME. As no other editors have indicated either objections or support for the use of the Georgian transliteration, my preference would be for the native language transliteration. If Midnightblueowl agrees with this variant, we have [[WP:CON|consensus]] for its use. Frankly, I think it would be a waste of the community's time to put this to an RfC. If there are solid arguments for restoring the "Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili" variant in future, it would need to be proposed and discussed anew per [[WP:CCC]]. Going on the arguments in this discussion, I would support the use of "Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili". --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 20:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

::{{reply to|Iryna Harpy}} "Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili" appears so often in the literature plus some contemporary documents, it should be addressed. [[User:MaisonHorta|MaisonHorta]] ([[User talk:MaisonHorta|talk]]) 17:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
:::Yes, I've [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_Stalin&diff=786202932&oldid=786200602 already addressed this], but will repeat it for the sake of clarity. The infobox and first instance of usage in the body should reflect both variants. Thereafter, the "Jughashvili" variant should be used as we do not need to repeat both variants every time his birth name is mentioned. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 20:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

:My view is that we need to go with whatever common name is used in the reliable sources. Even if that version is not the most accurate of transliterations. [[WP:Verifiability, not truth]]. [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 19:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

:I have given verifiable sources! Donald Rayfield used "Jughashvili" in his book! [[User:MaisonHorta|MaisonHorta]] ([[User talk:MaisonHorta|talk]]) 20:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

:: {{reply to|Midnightblueowl}} I'm not sure what more I can do. Did you not read the above conversation I had with User:Iryna Harpy? I think my take is verifiable. What you're saying is that "Dzhugashvili" appears more often in the literature than "Jughashvili", therefore that is what we must use. But [[WP:Verifiability, not truth]] makes no mention of frequency. There are no degrees of verifiability in Wikipedia. If there is at least one reliable source that mentions "Jughashvili", then it is every bit as verifiable as "Dzhugashvili".

:: It makes sense if you think about it! As human knowledge progresses, then older sources will contain obsolete ideas. Naturally, if you do a Google Books search those obsolete ideas will crop up more frequently than the new paradigm. [[User:MaisonHorta|MaisonHorta]] ([[User talk:MaisonHorta|talk]]) 06:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

::Georgian is also a difficult language with few speakers, so it is natural that many historians used Russian material and did not feel like rummaging through the oldest Georgian documents.

::But other than that, what sort of information requires verification anyway? To me, transliterating Georgian to Latin script is like converting Fahrenheit to Celsius. Is it original research to use an official transliteration table that other scholars devised? [[User:MaisonHorta|MaisonHorta]] ([[User talk:MaisonHorta|talk]]) 18:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
:::{{ping|MaisonHorta}} Did you not read my https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_Stalin&diff=788008428&oldid=788008344 my response below]? I did ping you, so I suggest that you read it carefully before continuing this issue. The issue of the fact that reliable sources use 'Dzhugashvili' remains [[WP:WEIGHT|no less salient as being the 'correct' English language form]] per [[WP:BESTSOURCES]]... and there is no doubt that the best sources use the naming convention you want to change. Arguments [[WP:CRYSTAL|predicting what may transpire in the future]] don't wash because we're here to follow what has been written on a subject, not to create a precedent in hopes that it will become the norm. [[WP:VNOTSUFF|Verifiability is not sufficient]]. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 21:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

:::: Why don't I just mention both transliterations? [[User:MaisonHorta|MaisonHorta]] ([[User talk:MaisonHorta|talk]]) 16:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

:::: We only even mention it in one paragraph. [[User:MaisonHorta|MaisonHorta]] ([[User talk:MaisonHorta|talk]]) 09:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on [[Joseph Stalin]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=785271739 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120824073308/http://www.as.wvu.edu/history/Faculty/Tauger/Tauger%2C%20Natural%20Disaster%20and%20Human%20Actions.pdf to http://www.as.wvu.edu/history/Faculty/Tauger/Tauger%2C%20Natural%20Disaster%20and%20Human%20Actions.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090615172355/http://info-poland.buffalo.edu/classroom/longhist6.html to http://info-poland.buffalo.edu/classroom/longhist6.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=true|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 15:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

== Religion in the infobox ==

There have been several RfCs on religion in the infobox:

*15 June 2015 RfC: '''[[Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 28#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion|RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion]]'''.

This RfC had a clear consensus for removing the religion parameter from the infobox for individuals (living, deceased, and fictional), groups, schools, institutions, and political parties that have no religion, but that RfC was determined by the closing administrator to not apply to nations.

*17 June 2015 RfC: '''[[Template talk:Infobox country/Archive 11#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations|RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations]]'''.

This RfC had a clear consensus for removing the religion parameter for countries, nations, states, regions, etc., all of which were determined to not have religions.

*31 December 2015 RfC: '''[[Template talk:Infobox/Archive 11#RfC: Religion in infoboxes|RfC: Religion in infoboxes]]'''.

This RfC was a response to certain individuals insisting that the previous RfCs did not apply to their favorite pages (schools, political parties, sports teams, computer operating systems, organized crime gangs...) and had a clear consensus that in all all infoboxes in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the "Religion=" parameter of the infobox.

*11 April 2016 RfC: '''[[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes|RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes]]'''.

In this RfC, there was a clear consensus to remove the "religion=" and "denomination=" parameters from all infoboxes, not just the ones that call atheism/agnosticism a religion.

There have been four RfCs on this, and all four showed the same overwhelming consensus. All of the RfCs also concluded that you are free to put a section about religion in the body of the article, subject of course to our usual rules such as [[WP:V]], [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:WEIGHT]]. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 14:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

== Bloat ==

I think the '''Early Life''' part of this article is too large considering there is another article focused on Stalin's early years: [[Early Life of Joseph Stalin]]. Midnightblueowl justified his expansion on the grounds that other biographies show similar bloat, but if there exists a focused article on Stalin's early life then in this case we should keep to concise details in the main article. It just makes sense. I will condense what Midnightblueowl wrote here, and suggest that he put his details into [[Early Life of Joseph Stalin]]. [[User:MaisonHorta|MaisonHorta]] ([[User talk:MaisonHorta|talk]]) 06:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
:Far too much information was removed by the recent edits. If you think that there is extraneous information here in this article then please, state which sentences you would like to see removed here first and the issue can be discussed. But it does need to be discussed first. Personally I do not think that there is much that can really be trimmed without losing quite important information; again, I would point to the FA-rated articles at [[Vladimir Lenin]] and [[Nelson Mandela]] as a template for the sort of length that we can get away with for each section. [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 12:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

::Ok, I will let some other editors weigh in on this, but I will restore Stalin's Georgian name as we had consensus on that. [[User:MaisonHorta|MaisonHorta]] ([[User talk:MaisonHorta|talk]]) 14:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

:::I don't see any consensus that has been established on the issue? [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 18:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

:::{{ping|MaisonHorta}} To clarify my observations, I've merely suggested that your preferred transliteration ''could'' be argued for dependent on consensus as to the arguments standing up to scrutiny under Wikipedia's [[WP:PG|policies and guidelines]]. A discussion between the two of us does not equal consensus, and COMMONNAME still stands despite the low frequency of "Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili" because it is used by scholarly sources. You've also completely overlooked the fact that I clearly stated that I would only be amenable if ''both'' variants were used, yet "Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili" has been eliminated entirely from the infobox and content. Such qualifiers are non-negotiable, and it may be advisable for you to [[WP:DEADHORSE|back away]]. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 22:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2017 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Joseph Stalin|answered=yes}}
Change: "Lenin's New Economic Policy was replaced with a centralised command economy, industrialisation and collectivisation. These rapidly transformed the country from an agrarian society into an industrial power,[3] but disrupted food production and contributed to the famine of 1933–34. Between 1934 and 1939, Stalin organised the "Great Purge", in which millions of so-called "enemies of the working class", including senior political and military figures, were interned in Gulag-run prisons, exiled or executed, often without due process.[4][5]"

to

"Lenin's New Economic Policy was replaced with a centralised command economy, industrialisation and collectivisation. These rapidly transformed the country from an agrarian society into an industrial power,[3] but disrupted food production and contributed to the famine of 1933–34. In 1924, after the XII Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Stalin asked to leave his place as General Secretary. This was rejected unanimously by all the delegations, including his detractors. He made three more attempts in 1926, 1927 and 1952. All of them were rejected and he had to stay as General Secretary.<ref>https://socialistmlmusings.wordpress.com/2017/02/23/stalins-four-attempts-at-resignation/</ref><ref>http://soviethistory.msu.edu/1954-2/succession-to-stalin/succession-to-stalin-texts/stalin-on-enlarging-the-central-committee/</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Service|first1=Robert|title=Stalin: A Biography|date=2006|publisher=Belknap Press|isbn=9780674022584}}</ref> Between 1934 and 1939, Stalin organised the "Great Purge", in which millions of so-called "enemies of the working class", including senior political and military figures, were interned in Gulag-run prisons, exiled or executed, often without due process.[4][5]

I think it is an important fact and will help to understand better. [[User:Parryx|Parryx]] ([[User talk:Parryx|talk]]) 14:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
{{talk reflist}}

:While Stalin's offers of resignation are worth noting, I don't think they are significant enough to mention in the lead. Most historians view these offers as mere ploys.--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 21:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

::I agree with Jack. The lede has to be concise and to the point. We can't expand it with the addition of information that just isn't super-relevant. By all means include this information in the main body of the article, but I can't see it as belonging in the lede. [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 10:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

:{{not done}} per above. [[User:Jd02022092|jd22292]] <span style="background-color:#368ec9; color:#6babd6">(Jalen D. Folf)</span> 13:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

== Ethnicity ==
Where is the paragraph on his race and ethnicity?--[[Special:Contributions/2605:6000:3D11:3200:7DBA:781D:C7DA:B215|2605:6000:3D11:3200:7DBA:781D:C7DA:B215]] ([[User talk:2605:6000:3D11:3200:7DBA:781D:C7DA:B215|talk]]) 01:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
:Fifth paragraph. [[User:Jpgordon|--jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; ]]</small></sup> 01:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

== Political Theorist? ==

The lede sentence calls Stalin a theorist. Is such prominent placement supported by RS? I'm in no way questioning Stalin's intelligence or even his abilities as a communicator of complicated political and economic theories. He was clearly a lot smarter than his rivals (especially Trotsky) recognized. But Stalin's main impact (bloody as it was) on history was as a "man of action," not an Ivory Tower type. It seems undue to call him a theorist so high up in the article. Along the same line, if we had to limit his contributions to just his three main roles, I think "modernizer of the world's largest nation, military leader, and mass murderer" conveys a lot more of his essence than "revolutionary, politician and political theorist." [[User:Scaleshombre|Scaleshombre]] ([[User talk:Scaleshombre|talk]]) 23:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
:I would support removing theorist, but leaving "revolutionary and politician", as I think your replacement is too POV. There is nothing in the body to support "theorist" in the lede sentence. "Theories" is a small section, and under "Political ideology" we say "Stalin referred to himself as a ''praktic'', meaning that he was more of a practical revolutionary than a theoretician."--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 00:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

How about just "Soviet revolutionary and political leader", without a third title? Clearly he was a politician (arguably the "ultimate politician", as one of his biographers wrote), but the term is so generic as to almost mean nothing in the case of an historical figure as ''sui generis'' as Stalin. After the Bolsheviks took power, Stalin was never in a position where he had to engage in routine politics (i.e., campaigning for the votes of the "masses") in order to maintain or advance his career. He basically went straight from revolutionary to administrator/policymaker in the upper reaches of the new state, then quickly rose until all meaningful decision-making power was concentrated in his hands. [[User:Scaleshombre|Scaleshombre]] ([[User talk:Scaleshombre|talk]]) 01:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

:I removed theorist and used the wording suggested by Scaleshombre. Very few of our sources refer to him as a theorist. He made his own rules as he went along rather than laying out a foundation for political thought. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 03:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
::Agreed that the removal of 'political theorist' is a balanced representation for the lead. I'm not sure of where 'modernizer of the world's largest nation' comes from. The Soviet Union was neither a '[[nation]]' or '[[Nation state|nation-state]]', but a [[State (polity)|collective political block of 'nations']]. The only resemblance it bore to 'largest' was in terms of territory (not population or any other descriptor that would suggest "nation"). --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 04:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

:::My "modernizer" comment was a bit fanciful. (I liked the alliteration of ''modernizer/military leader/mass murderer''.) As far as the Soviet Union not being a nation, is that accurate? I know the USSR was essentially an "overlay" atop the Russian empire, but given how tightly the various states were controlled by Moscow after the Revolution, didn't the Communists effectively create a unified nation out of Russia and its provinces? [[User:Scaleshombre|Scaleshombre]] ([[User talk:Scaleshombre|talk]]) 04:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
::::The answer is "yes and no". I suspect that you're conflating Russification, various shifts in policy, and "narod". I think you'd be hard-pressed to find scholarly sources to back up this contention. If anything, the concept of a new 'Soviet nation' was promoted which was supposedly a combination of various peoples (i.e., ethnic groups) joined as a political and working community... not as "Russians" or "Russia" ''per se''. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 06:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Stalin did publish voluminously on political subjects, through which he helped to standardise "[[Marxism-Leninism]]". In doing so, he was a political theorist. Whether this was sufficiently important enough to warrant a mention in the opening sentence is another matter. Personally, I think it is, but I can appreciate why others might think otherwise. [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 14:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

:Stalin's works were mostly either popularisations (such as the ''Short Course'') or practical analyses (such as ''Economic Problems of the Soviet Union''). Most of his publications were speeches, articles, and the like, not theoretical treatises. Some like Trotsky have accused him of distorting Leninism, but I haven't seen anyone say that he broke new theoretical ground. And he didn't say that himself.--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 12:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

== Edit warring and recent addition to the lede ==

In the past few days, [[User:Scaleshombre]] added the following sentence to the end of the first paragraph: "By outmaneuvering his rivals within the Communist Party and placing his supporters in key government and party posts, he ruled the state as a dictator." I do not believe that this is a particularly useful addition given that it unnecessarily lengthens that first paragraph, repeats information already featured elsewhere in the lede, and unequivocally presents Stalin as a dictator (which is something that is generally avoided on FA and GA rated articles about Marxist leaders). For that reason I removed the addition as per [[WP:Bold, revert, discuss]]. However, rather than bringing the issue to the Talk Page, Scaleshombre has engaged in edit warring to restore the sentence. Given that Scaleshombre has been repeatedly warned about edit warring on political biographies before ([[Rudy Giuliani]], [[Fidel Castro]] etc) I would hope that they decide to stop and instead seek to built consensus here at the Talk Page first. [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 11:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

=== Stalin's Dictatorship ===

For several years, the lede referred to Stalin as a dictator. In April, Midnightblueowl deleted the reference without explanation or seeking consensus. In the last few days I attempted to restore information about his dictatorship to the lede, and Midnightblueowl reverted me. In fact he reverted me several times without bringing it to the talk page for discussion. Did some new source come out in recent years absolving Stalin? Why, Midnightblueowl, are you so intent on burying the most essential (as per every RS) fact of Stalin's political career -- that he ruled the Soviet Union as a dictator? [[User:Scaleshombre|Scaleshombre]] ([[User talk:Scaleshombre|talk]]) 15:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
:I'm not saying that we cannot use the "dictator" label in any form, and am certainly not trying to "bury" the term. I did not "remove" the term "dictator" but moved it and slightly re-contextualised it, so please do not misrepresent my actions or my views; the term "dictator" ''needs'' to be in the lede paragraphs. I am simply asking for you (first) to discuss a controversial addition on the lede before imposing it on the article, and (second) not to edit war in complete contravention of WP:BRD. As you well know (given your previous failed attempts to get [[Fidel Castro]] uncritically labelled a dictator demonstrate), Wikipedia tends to avoid uncritically labelling Marxist leaders as "dictators" and tends instead to use terms like "widely regarded as a dictator". The FA-rated articles for [[Vladimir Lenin]] and [[Nikita Khruschev]] for instance do not label their subjects as "dictators" as if it were an unequivocal fact accepted by all; so why do you insist that Stalin should be treated differently? I will also repeat that my concerns regarding your addition lie not just in the uncritical application of the term "dictator" but also in the general information contained in the sentence "By outmaneuvering his rivals within the Communist Party and placing his supporters in key government and party posts, he ruled the state as a dictator". The fact is that that second paragraph of the lede already gives some attention to how Stalin secured control in the party so we are just duplicating information here. The lede needs to be kept crisp and concise, so this sort of duplication is just not warranted.
:Moreover, you are continuing to edit war to add your chosen sentence into the article (you've breached 3RR). I have warned you about this but will not continue to entangle myself in an edit war. You are the one contravening WP:BDP and if you do not revert your addition then it may well be that another editor does it for you. Please, just be willing to cooperate and abide by Wikipedia's rules and regulations. We can easily have a civilised discussion about this. [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 17:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
:Also, it would be appreciated if you weren't presumptuous by using male pronouns when referring to me. [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 17:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

::: The comments above are suggesting a consensus around 'he was a dictator', not some mealy-mouthed version of it.
:::[[User:Gravuritas|Gravuritas]] ([[User talk:Gravuritas|talk]]) 11:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

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

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

[[User:Stayhomegal|Stayhomegal]] ([[User talk:Stayhomegal|talk]]) 22:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Citing Mao as a character witness for Stalin is a game-changer. Now if you can just find comments by Hitler, or maybe Pol Pot, claiming Stalin wasn't a dictator, you'd have a rock-solid case. How about Charles Manson? I can't remember the source, but I recall Manson comparing Stalin to St. Francis of Assisi and Lassie. Or maybe it was Benji. [[User:Scaleshombre|Scaleshombre]] ([[User talk:Scaleshombre|talk]]) 22:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
:{{re|Stayhomegal}} This is an article talk page, not a [[WP:SOAP|soapbox]] for your advocacy. Please stop trying to [[WP:3RR|edit war]] your [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS|personal political views]] into the content of the article, and onto this talk page. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 23:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

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

:::RS for 'those who deny that Stalin fits that description'?
:::[[User:Gravuritas|Gravuritas]] ([[User talk:Gravuritas|talk]]) 17:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
::::Why on earth would I need a RS on a Talk Page? It's not like I'm adding this information into the article itself. Besides, surely Stayhomegal's post is evidence enough that some people refute the idea that Stalin was a dictator? [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 20:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
:::::Not refute (because that suggests they have proof), but ''refuse'' to accept the verdict of history. [[User:Scaleshombre|Scaleshombre]] ([[User talk:Scaleshombre|talk]]) 20:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

If Stalin's "admirers" (I'm sorry, but my brain won't allow me to write that without quotes) want to challenge the dictator label ad nauseum, let 'em. As far as incorporating their fringe views into the article, they should be granted the same leeway as Holocaust deniers -- none. [[User:Scaleshombre|Scaleshombre]] ([[User talk:Scaleshombre|talk]]) 18:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
:{{re|Midnightblueowl}} It's absolutely irrelevant whether we have POV pushers trying to remove 'dictator' in any shape or form. We're [[WP:HERE]] to create and maintain an encyclopaedic resource based on RS, not accommodate [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS]]. RS and consensus on what RS tell us is that he was a dictator: no ifs or buts. If [[WP:FRINGE]] theorists keep edit warring because they don't think it to be a "fair" descriptor, it's just too bad. No one is writing a melodramatic scare piece on him, and we don't pre-empt upsetting edit warriors by [[WP:WEASEL|modifying biographies]] to accommodate anyone's personal reservations about the use of prominent descriptors. We're not discussing neologisms or Godwin's law, but what ''sources actually say''. Please don't confuse NPOV with rewriting what [[WP:BESTSOURCES]] say on the subject. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 23:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

::I'm well aware of the policies and arguments that you cite and do not think that I am unwaveringly pandering to FRINGE views. However, I am not sure if there is a total unanimity of Reliable Sources applying the term "dictator" to Stalin. If there is, then fair enough, but is there? Certainly, all the Western biographies that I have read do so, but do works produced in the PRC or in other countries where one-party states are the norm say the same thing? As I said before, many of these arguments have been rehashed over at the Lenin and Castro articles, in both cases resulting in the consensus that they should not be unequivocally labelled "dictators" in the opening sentences. I appreciate that Stalin is a different figure to these two, but I am nevertheless conscious of the precedents set. I am also conscious of the MOS' Words to Watch advice, which—although not actually listing "dictator" as a word to watch—nevertheless urges caution. Anyway, I am certainly not going to force the removal of the "dictator" label without support from the Talk Page, support which (clearly) is not forthcoming at present. [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 23:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
:::I think what's there now is fine.--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 00:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

:::{{ec}} This article isn't about Lenin or Castro (or Trotsky, ''et al'') whose status of being demonised was already seriously questioned by scholars (including many "Western" scholars) throughout the 20th century. The question of globalising English language Wikipedia is, to all intents and purposes, an essay, not policy. If you were to catch up on your reading of Eastern European scholars (that is, those who are not considered fringe), they are right behind the ball on calling Stalin a dictator. It is, in fact, an emphatically demure description if you were to read the literature. Stalin was most certainly ''not'' Lenin or Castro, and edging into discourses of 'branding' "communism" as if this were the 1950s is strange. Sorry, but was Castro a "communist"? Is the PRC "communist"? Where are we going with this dialogue? If you wish to write a separate article on what the PRC's take on Stalin is, you're welcome to do so, but it's off-topic for this article. As regards the reference to WEASEL, modifying language (to the point of eliminating it!) is a subsidiary of the concept in as much as it is avoidance language clearly being side-stepped around to embrace a [[WP:THEYDONTLIKEIT|"somebody won't like it"]] rationale (AKA [[WP:CENSOR|censorship]]). Again, [[WP:V|verifiability, not truth]] is in the spirit of the project. Catch-all, PC doubts as to what 'the truth' is, and constantly decrying "Western" research as if it were tantamount to tainted... well, it just doesn't cut the mustard. You have more than adequate experience and intelligence to know that Wikipedia is not a social experiment which runs contrary to common sense. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 00:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
::::I've tagged the ever-changing content over 'dictator' or not(!?) for [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]] and [[WP:POV]] issues. Exactly who are these 'supporters' of Stalin (Stalinists? Credible scholars?) as opposed to 'critics' (i.e., mainstream scholarship - whether editors like it or not). Mincing words as to how Stalin is viewed by mainstream scholarship is a revisionist, apologist stance that simply does not belong in an encyclopaedic article. [[WP:CRYSTAL|When academic consensus changes]], the lead and article can be changed to reflect any [[WP:DUE]] arguments. Until such a time, "supporters" can only be understood to be [[WP:REDFLAG]]. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 00:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
:I agree with [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]]. It was actually both Midnightblueowl and I who helped contribute to the lead before [[User:Scaleshombre|Scaleshombre]] edited in the non-neutral point of view edits such as "dictator" and the last line of the lead. The job of the article is to present facts. Joseph Stalin's official position was "General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union", not "dictator". On this basis, if dictator is included anywhere in the article, it must be after "has been regarded as" or something similar, otherwise it is misleading. To make an example, I legitimately had a girl in my college ask who Putin was, and after hearing the answer say "Oh. I thought he was the dictator of Russia". [[User:SpikeballUnion|SpikeballUnion]] ([[User talk:SpikeballUnion|talk]]) 16:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
:::{{re|SpikeballUnion}} Such statements as to two editors who only began editing the article earlier this year as having more 'rights' over the content over an editor who started a little later are the equivalent of [[WP:OWNERSHIP]] and have no place in such discussions. The article has had 4,774 'authors' over the years since its inception. If you care to check the history of the article, the [[WP:CON]] by default was always using dictator in the lead. In fact, it was in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Stalin&diff=754543608&oldid=754543236 opening sentence]. Your example does not justify changing what mainstream sources say about Stalin: it's a [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS]] argument. It is ''not'' our function to teach readers, just represent what mainstream tertiary and secondary RS state on the subject. I had a university student in first year who didn't know who Hitler was... so what's your point? If you wish to write and publish your own teaching textbook, feel free to do so... but it isn't what we're [[WP:HERE]], as neutral editors, to do. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 23:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
::::{{re|Iryna Harpy}} Where did I say that I and [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] had "more rights" over the article? You took what I said as something completely different to what it was. I was merely informing [[User:Scaleshombre|Scaleshombre]] that it wasn't only Midnightblueowl who was responsible for the edits that he didn't like. [[User:SpikeballUnion|SpikeballUnion]] ([[User talk:SpikeballUnion|talk]]) 00:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
:::::{{re|SpikeballUnion}} Where? Right above. The inference is clear. His title is presented in the infobox. As to what should or shouldn't be in the lead is based on that which is [[WP:DUE]] for the lead, and going against mainstream sources is the antithesis to what you are presenting as 'neutral'. Please don't point your finger at a single editor and make declarations about their position as being [[WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT]] when it is you, in fact, who is doling out the JDL arguments. If there are two of you who have redeveloped the lead, it doesn't make a jot of difference as to what you've been working towards - [[WP:AGF|good faith]] aside - if it is does not reflect mainstream sources. Topping off your arguments by offering anecdotal information about some student's perception of Putin is [[WP:OFFTOPIC]] and emotive. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 01:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
::::::Obviously, something within you has fuelled your sudden unwarranted emotional tirade against me (likely your anger simply at my differing view on calling Stalin a "dictator" on Wikipedia). It was unproductive, and you took things I never said or "inferred", rather making them up yourself; I will not feed such unhelpful comments any further. [[User:SpikeballUnion|SpikeballUnion]] ([[User talk:SpikeballUnion|talk]]) 03:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
::As there has been continued change to the lede regarding "dictator", I think that the best thing to do is to take this to RfC. [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 16:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm tagging all editors who have expressed an interest in this issue in the two previous Talk Page discussions about it to let them know about the RfC: {{u|SpikeballUnion}}, {{u|Iryna Harpy}}, {{u|Jack Upland}}, {{u|Scaleshombre}}, {{u|Gravuritas}}, {{u|C.J. Griffin}}, {{u|Galassi}}, {{u|Claíomh Solais}}, {{u|Martinevans123}}, {{u|Rjensen}}. [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 17:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

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

{{closed rfc top|{{nac}} Consensus is to '''keep''' "dictator" in the opening paragraph of the lead, with the option to clarify the use of the title in the body of the article. [[User:Snuge purveyor|Snuge purveyor]] ([[User talk:Snuge purveyor|talk]]) 21:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)}}

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

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

===Survey===
Please offer statements of "Keep" or "Remove" below. [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 17:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
*'''Remove'''. [[User:Scaleshombre|Scaleshombre]]&nbsp;edited in the non-neutral point of view edits such as "dictator". The job of the article is to present facts. Joseph Stalin's official position was "General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union", not "dictator". On this basis, if dictator is included anywhere in the article, it must be after "has been regarded as" or something similar, otherwise it is misleading. To make an example, I legitimately had a girl in my college ask who Putin was, and after hearing that he was the President say "Oh. I thought he was the dictator of Russia". [[User:SpikeballUnion|SpikeballUnion]] ([[User talk:SpikeballUnion|talk]]) 17:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

*'''Keep'''. For more than sixty years, the consensus among top historians, political scientists, sovietologists, journalists, etc., has been that Stalin wasn't just a dictator -- he (along with his doppelganger from Braunau) was history's ''definitive'' dictator, the yardstick by which all subsequent tyrants must be measured. [[User:Scaleshombre|Scaleshombre]] ([[User talk:Scaleshombre|talk]]) 17:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' I agree with Scaleshombre. neutral editing in Wikipedia is reporting what the reliable sources RS say--not the title that Stalin chose for himself. The RS say dictator. Just browse through google scholar, which indexes scholarly books and magazines: 37,000 publications link to "Stalin dictator" at https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=stalin+dictator&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C27 [[User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] ([[User talk:Rjensen|talk]]) 18:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
*'''Keep, with qualifications''': The mainstream view is that Stalin was a dictator, and I suspect a survey of reliable sources would be overwhelming, as RJensen has indicated. In fact, such was the view of the Soviet leadership after Stalin's death as expressed in [[Khrushchev's Secret Speech]], noting particularly the critique of the "cult of personality" and the violations of "[[collective leadership]]". In fact, it was only a minority in the world Communist movement, notably Mao's China and Kim's North Korea that refused to accept this characterisation of Stalin. I think it would be hard to find a source, which was not written by an avowed Stalinist, which denied that he was a dictator. ''However'', it is important to note a distinction. There are leaders in world history who have openly described themselves as dictators (or something equivalent): Julius Caesar, Oliver Cromwell, Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler (see [[Führerprinzip]]), Benito Mussolini, Augusto Pinochet (see [[Chilean constitutional referendum, 1980]]) etc. However, this is not true for Stalin. Until WW2 he was General Secretary of the CPSU, but was not officially head of government.[http://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/sovnarkom] The [[1936 Soviet Constitution]] did not grant him special powers, and portrayed the situation as a collective government. I think it is important to make this distinction: Stalin was a dictator, but he did not openly proclaim himself a dictator (or equivalent) and in fact put on an act of not being a tyrant, fooling people like Khrushchev and H.G. Wells ("no one is afraid of him and everyone trusts him", [https://books.google.com.au/books?id=wQd6CgAAQBAJ&pg=PT62&lpg=PT62&dq=h+g+wells+stalin+georgian&source=bl&ots=3HXhQj9a2s&sig=IePBX36Wz6Bfhqix_DeokhD03w8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmkLfGj4zVAhWGmJQKHSdLDhAQ6AEISjAI#v=onepage&q=h%20g%20wells%20stalin%20georgian&f=false ''On Stalin's Team'', by Sheila Fitzpatrick]). Hence, the label "dictator" needs to be qualified, but not necessarily in the lead. Additionally, "dictator" from a encyclopedic standpoint should be viewed as a factual description, not a perjorative label. By many accounts, Lenin and Khrushchev operated within a collective leadership. Khrushchev was removed without a military coup. By contrast, Stalin was not removed until his death, and his death saw a dramatic change in the policies of the USSR (as Fitzpatrick has shown). Hence, the Soviet government was, in fact, completely bound up with Stalin, rather than emanating from a leadership group, party hierarchy, oligarchy etc.--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 21:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
** As a history buff, I think the distinction between Stalin's de facto autocracy and the de jure dictatorships of Hitler, Caesar, etc., is interesting. But for this article, it's only notable if it's been discussed in RS. Otherwise, it's OR. I don't have it in front of me right now, but I think Bullock's "Parallel Lives" compares the legal underpinnings (or absence of) of Hitler's and Stalin's dictatorships. [[User:Scaleshombre|Scaleshombre]] ([[User talk:Scaleshombre|talk]]) 21:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
***Ah, a Knights-Templar charging on the scene so soon! Lord Bullock, ''Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives'' (Fontana Press, 1993): "Unlike Hitler, whose unique position as Fuhrer was openly accepted by all the members of the Nazi Party as the linchpin which held them together, Stalin had both to conceal his ambition and at the same time find means of defeating any rivals in an unremitting but covert struggle for power..." (p 184); "the Stalin Constitution...[portrayed] the Soviet Union as a society moving in a democratic direction with the full support of the Soviet peoples" (p 505); in 1941 "after all the years he had been content to wield power as General Secretary, Stalin was taking Molotov's place as head of government... the explanation was taken to be that the international situation had become so dangerous that Stalin himself must publicly assume responsibility for Soviet policy" (p 775). There might well be better quotations, but I don't believe I need to provide a citation for every comment made on a Talk page.--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 22:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
::::Jack Upland cites Bullock incorrectly. He quotes Bullock on p 181 on how Stalin worked quietly to become a dictator in 1920s by destroying all his rivals one by one. He was a dictator in 1929 after he pushed them out. Browsing through his book I see Bullock repeatedly using the word "dictator" to characterize Stalin after 1929 (eg pp 123, 379, 567 etc) for example p 653: "there was also a great difference in style between the two dictators" As for ww2, fior the first time Stalin had to meet with presidents and prime ministers and a comparable status as head of government was useful in protocol at summits like Yalta. he kept his more powerful role as head of the Party. [[User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] ([[User talk:Rjensen|talk]]) 08:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::How did I cite Bullock incorrectly, {{u|Rjensen}}??? I never said that Bullock didn't say that Stalin was a dictator. The issue was the contrast between someone like Hitler who was politically and legally recognised as such in his own country and Stalin who wasn't.--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 09:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::Stalin was not born a dictator. it took him years to attain that status (by about 1929) and the way I read Jack Upland is that he uses a Bullock statement about Stalin before he became dictator to suggest that Stalin was never a dictator. Upland goes overboard when he says that Soviet people did not "recognize" Stalin's status--???? I think everyone in USSR knew Stalin had immediate power over life and death of anyone. read up on the purges. [[User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] ([[User talk:Rjensen|talk]]) 14:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::::Well, no, you're incorrectly citing me.--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 18:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
**That was the gist of my comment -- that I thought Bullock's writing confirmed your point. (Instead of "compares," I should have wrote "contrasts.") Of course you don't need to cite it on the talk page, but it makes your case for inclusion in the article that much stronger. Anyway, I apologize for taking this thread so far off topic. [[User:Scaleshombre|Scaleshombre]] ([[User talk:Scaleshombre|talk]]) 22:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
***Anything that contributes to improving the article is OK on the Talk page.--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 23:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - Firstly, a reminder that [[WP:LABEL]] is a guideline relating to contentious use of terminology to sway the reader, and does not pertain to the question being posed which is an true [[WP:NPOV]] policy issue where the term is used virtually universally to describe Stalin. We're not going the way of Godwin's law and reducing the term 'dictator' to a contentious label: it is what decades of research and scholarship have unreservedly called Stalin. It's also completely irrelevant that he did not self identify as a dictator where tens of thousands of reliable sources unreservedly call his actions and leadership that of a dictator. Personal concerns as to whether it is politically correct to state what thousands of [[WP:RS]] state is [[WP:GEVAL]], and the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Stalin&oldid=790749965 current incarnation of the lead] is textbook false balance. Per the tags, who are the significant number of respected 'supporters' as opposed to some imaginary equally balanced quantity and quality of detractors? As to concerns expressed by Jack Upland, the lead is not where intricacies are addressed, plus such complexities are only addressed if deemed [[WP:DUE]]. Again, we are addressing the [[WP:LEAD]] bearing [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Relative_emphasis 'Relative emphasis'] in mind. The article does not deal with post-Soviet - or any other - 'supporters', hence reads as a 'teaser' suggesting that there are two arguments for and against developed in the article. This is misleading to the reader, and just plain unencyclopaedic. There's no small irony in the fact that [[WP:WORDS]] is being invoked when loaded language like 'denounce him as a dictator' has been brazenly introduced. ''Denounce'' him? History has pronounced him a dictator. Until such a time as there's a massive polar shift in scholarly opinion disputing the 'dictator' status, there is no argument for modification. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 22:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
::As an addendum, the comparison between the Lenin and Khruschev articles in the RfC summary doesn't make sense. Neither have been overwhelmingly and unreservedly described as a 'dictator' by RS, therefore why would the LEAD in either article carry content to specifically illustrate the emphasis of mainstream scholarship? This isn't just a simple argument over an official job title. Apples and oranges. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 20:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Lots of RS for dictator. For a change to a phrase such as 'widely regarded as a dictator', some RS is needed for Stalin not being a dictator. None has been presented, so he's a dictator, tout court. [[User:Gravuritas|Gravuritas]] ([[User talk:Gravuritas|talk]]) 23:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' Using the word "dictator" in any short description of Stalin cannot in any way be considered stretching sources or academic consensus to a non-neutral viewpoint. Saying that his regime is the archetype of a [[totalitarianism|totalitarian regime]] would be perfectly fine as well, in my opinion. BTW, [[dictatorship of the proletariat]] and [[democratic centralism]] are key concepts of marxist and marxist-leninist (i.e. stalinist) thought, in the name of efficiency and vanguardism, so these terms are not even derogatory or distorting Stalin's regime or ideas in any way. Anachronistic attempts to present him as anything else, in turn, would be distorting Stalin's thought and action. Gems like "{{tq|mao's work and others will reveal that many millions of people did not consider stalin a dictator. Millions of people on this planet considered him a comrade and an ally.}}" (punctuation kept) show that Wikipedia should be there to provide teenage readers with up-to-date unstretched and unbiased information, not that unchallengeable facts should be mouth-washed in the bizarre fear that "{{tq|some people refute the idea}}". [[User:Place Clichy|Place Clichy]] ([[User talk:Place Clichy|talk]]) 09:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
*'''Remove''' - unless qualifications or clarification is added, and better elsewhere. As currently shown it is confusing whether the word is title of a position, judgement on actions, expression of level of power, a bit of [[WP:SOAPBOX]] or rant, historian view, or what. The "governed as dictator" among position titles sounds largely like 1920s Russia had an official government title translating to that and the line is only lacking dates he was held the office. It would be more clear to follow the guide of [[WP:MOSBIO]] and norms of English grammar paragraph separation so that all lines in the first para are related to one theme. Best to start the conventional first para being simple factual datum including office positions with years and put "dictator" in a later paragraph that is more clearly making summary of high points and commentary and judgements. "Should the article lede state dictator without qualification" is a no, and "in the first para" is a does not fit there. [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 10:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
*'''Keep, but .. '''I've read much of the above, the only valid argument for not saying this very directly AFAI could see, is the 'ambiguity/confusion' over whether this was his 'job title'. For that reason I would suggest "de facto dictator" or similar on first use. I don't buy any 'let's be fair to Uncle Joe' arguments, nor do I see validity in comparisons with Lenin, Kruschev etc. Although no sources are given on either side of the argument here, most sources I have come across personally, are pretty clear, Stalin had a personal power which was probably as great as any individual in history, which he exercised according to whim and without the smallest accountability. Most sources do not hesitate to call him 'dictator', nor should we unless serious RS can be found that contradict that. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 13:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
**The original complaint was that it was a non-neutral term. No evidence is given for that assumption. Actually the USSR proudly proclaimed it was a dictatorship of the proletariat as guided by the party. Stalin was a PARTY leader who told both party & gov't officials what to do, and "dictator" is the term RS used to characterize his role. In Wiki talk, "non-neutral" refers not to Stalin but the the RS about Stalin. The complaint is not valid--no one here has pointed to a "not-a-dictator" RS [[User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] ([[User talk:Rjensen|talk]]) 14:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
**{{re|Pincrete}} Which RS refer to him as being a '''de facto'' dictator'? I find the phrase bizarre, and I've never encountered that particular series of words put together in that order. A dictator by proxy? A ''de jure'' dictator having usurped the dictator of the previous dictatorship? An unofficial dictator who fulfils all of the obligations of a legal(?) dicatator? What does this OR term actually mean? --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 03:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
::[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]], what the 'OR' is intended to mean is that this was what he actually was, even if it wasn't his 'job title', he held virtually limitless unaccountable power, masked by a relatively innocuous job title. According to other respondents here, some sources refer to Uncle Jo as 'effective dictator'. That is ambiguous, does it mean he was 'good at his job', or 'for all practical purposes' he was dictator? I'm suggesting that some form of words that reflects 'in fact if not in title' would be best. If I remember correctly, Adolf has 'as Fuhrer he was effective dictator' though I personally don't like 'effective' there because of the ambiguity mentioned. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 10:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
:::{{re|Pincrete}} If I understand correctly, the terminology editors who wish to qualify 'dictator' with is 'effectively dictator', not 'de facto' and other legal terms being bandied about. Yes, if qualification is WP:DUE, keep it simple... and 'effective' is so misleading that it implies something altogether antithetical to RS. My take is that it isn't DUE, and that his actual job title is already in the infobox, so there's no confusion as to what his position was. My greatest concern at this point is the gobbledygook final paragraph of the lead which reads as one of the most bizarre pieces of OR/GEVAL I've ever encountered on Wikipedia. {{tq|"Stalin is widely considered one of the most significant and influential figures of the 20th century. Stalinism influenced various Marxist-Leninist groups and governments across the world, for whom Stalin was a champion of socialism and the working class."}} What? Who? {{tq|"Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Stalin has been praised by supporters for his role in defeating the Axis powers and establishing the Soviet Union as a major world power. Critics '''''denounce''''' <small>[my emphasis]</small> him as a dictator at the front of an autocratic authoritarian government who approved mass killings and political repression."}} You what? What a load of [[WP:FRINGE]]. I've asked who these supporters (who can be taken seriously) are. I've asked which serious Marxist-Leninist groups and governments he influenced. Does anyone writing this [[WP:BOLLOCKS]] actually know anything about politics or political history? Jeez, which Marxist-Leninist government did he 'influence': Cuba under Fidel Castro? This is the stuff of [[WP:SYNTH]] and living in a parallel universe. I couldn't think of a better way to completely misguide readers as to his role in history if I blew a few million brain cells. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 22:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::I tried to google China, but just got crockery. Sometimes, it's hard to know whether you've gone through a black hole or are just detecting emissions from Uranus.--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 09:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::{{re|Jack Upland}} Please keep [[WP:NPA|your frustrations to yourself]]. You're not enhancing the discussion, just taking a cheap dig. Strangely enough, other editors seem to understand what I'm talking about... and 'China' is not a mainstream source equally balanced with other sources (including non-Western ones). Oh my aching head, Trotsky himself 'denounced' him in no uncertain terms. You seem to have a strange understanding of what '''Communist'' China' is as a political entity. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 23:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::The question, Iryna, is whether you're looking out the window, or looking in the mirror.--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 10:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
::::Iryna, I'm not going to comment on the rest of the lead, I sympathise but came here mainly for the RfC. Errrr, we mustn't say 'effective dictator' because it's undue and potentially misleading - though sourced - and we mustn't paraphrase it, because that's OR/synth! <small>I'm sure someone could improve on my 'de facto' suggestion, I didn't claim it was perfect.</small>
::::Of course JS ruled dictatorially, he probably had more personal power, and employed it more arbitarily, than AH. JS was probably responsible for more deaths than AH ''(not westerners, so he is not demonised in the way that AH is)''. I have read serious accounts that think that JS was probably more mentally unbalanced than AH. I just think that the 'standard' format, ie ''this was his job, this was how he ruled and/or history's evaluation'' is preferable for many reasons.<small> ps I checked the AH page, at the end of para 1 (after mentioning AH's jobs), it says "as dictator he initiated WWII and ...."</small>. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 11:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::An inordinately sensible response, {{u|Pincrete}}, but not surprising given that being neutral and sensible is your trademark. The final lead paragraph only just 'evolved' into a lengthy piece of twaddle directly before this RfC was opened, and it was certainly the result of [[WP:AGF|good faith]] attempts to balance the use of 'dictator'. I'm not actually emotionally invested in the article, but too much good faith tweaking can lead to disastrous content as evidenced in the final para. There may be an ''effective'' and succinct way to express his job and the mainstream understanding of what he was, but the ambiguity of "effective dictator" just doesn't cut it. <small>As an aside, it's difficult to gauge who was more unhinged. By the time AH settled into the Wolfsschanze, along with the cocktail of drugs he was taking, he was living in a parallel universe. JS, on the other hand, had a far longer innings in which to indulge his paranoia.</small> --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 20:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''KEEP''' He ''was'' a dictator, that's literally how history shows him as being and how he is described by a great majority of people. This is one of those times, Wikipedia should just represents the facts, he called him self by a fancy title, but everyone else called him a dictator. <span style="border: 1px solid #666666;">[[User:KoshVorlon|<span style="background: #000000; color: gold;">&nbsp;К Ф Ƽ Ħ&nbsp;</span>]][[User_talk:KoshVorlon|<span style="background: #ffffff; color:#000000;">'''Speak'''</span>]]</span> 20:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
::He did not give himself a fancy title!--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 08:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' LABEL does not allow us to ignore the consensus of reliable sources. It's a foolish thing to say we can't call Stalin a dictator because some remember him fondly. Also, let's not maintain this falsehood of Stalin merely being the General Secretary when [[Stalinism#Legacy|his leadership diverged from that title and everyone not inspired by him denounced his actions]]. <span class="nowrap" style="font-family:copperplate gothic light;">[[User:Chris troutman|<span style="color:#345">Chris Troutman</span>]] ([[User talk:Chris troutman|<span style="color:#345">talk</span>]])</span> 07:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
:::Re:''"It's a foolish thing to say we can't call Stalin a dictator because some remember him fondly.'' Well yes, it probably would be, if any editor actually said anything remotely like that. I find slightly offensive the idea that editors who think that more complete and informative phrasing is possible, are Stalin-apologists, or afraid to give a spade its right name. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 11:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' a robustly sourced piece of information, central to the subject of the article and the topics surrounding it. [[User:Edaham|Edaham]] ([[User talk:Edaham|talk]]) 04:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''Keep, but...''' I agree with Pincrete's suggestion above, something like "de facto dictator" on first use would be appropiate to avoid confusion regarding his official title. For example, [https://books.google.es/books?id=2wd30pXJxpYC&lpg=PP1&dq=Oxford%20Companion%20to%20Politics%20of%20the%20World&hl=nl&pg=PA799#v=onepage&q&f=false The Oxford Companion to Politics of the World] describes Stalin, in the first sentence of the entry, as "effective dictator". [[User:Atón|Atón]] ([[User talk:Atón|talk]]) 18:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
:::"De facto dictator" there is no such thing. No major figure has officially called his office that of "dictator" (and yes, real dictators decide what they are officially called). Certainly not Hitler or Mussolini (they called themselves "leader" (Fuhrer, duce)]. [[User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] ([[User talk:Rjensen|talk]]) 18:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
::::Actually Julius Caesar was officially titled ''[[Dictator perpetuo]]'', so I don't think that's a strong argument. However I side with those who hold that it's very reasonable to describe a leader as a "dictator" if enough sources back it up. Having a 'dictatorial style' is characteristic of a dictator. It's not clear-cut, but with figures like Stalin—who was truly the archetype of a dictator—it should be a no-brainer; Wikipedia's neutrality should never impede common sense! Therefore I say '''keep'''.--[[User:Hazhk|Hazhk]] ([[User talk:Hazhk|talk]]) 19:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::I think "effective dictator" would be good. There is a distinction here, as I attempted to explain earlier. Simon Sebag Montefiore has commented that people don't know much about Stalin (as opposed to Hitler, for example), and I think these Talk pages are an illustration of that. It is an important point that Stalin did not openly assume the mantle of dictator (and had no official role in government till WW2). The question of whether the title "dictator" was used is beside the point. Hitler called himself Fuehrer; Mussolini Il Duce; Napoleon the Emperor; Cromwell the Lord Protector. These titles meant "dictator". Stalin did not assume any new title after Lenin's death. He remained party secretary. He did not have a unique title, nor was his role enshrined in any law or doctrine. When he became premier he was taking on a role that had been filled by Molotov and others. Ostensibly he was simply a member of a leadership team, although the shining star according to propaganda. But of course he was dictator, effective dictator. Just as (to give a controversial example) [[Lee Kuan Yew]] was in Singapore. Stalin wielded his power behind the scenes and very secretively in some cases. This article should reflect that.--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 02:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::Jack likes "effective dictator" -- perhaps he will name some "ineffective dictators". Terms like "leader"/fuhrer/duce/Lord protector do NOT mean dictator---they are quite tame. In real history "dictator" is usually associated with tight control of a very powerful political party that had direct leverage over many areas of society not usually controlled by the government (such as the army, church, businesses and the private sector)--esp Communist and Nazi parties. Jack Upland wants a law passed or else Stalin is not what historians mean by a dictator. No RS supports him on that: zero--it's bad history. [[User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] ([[User talk:Rjensen|talk]]) 02:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::{{ec}} Quite, Rjensen. I was just about to query as to which RS equate these titles with '[[dictator]]'. I'm not interested in quibbling over OR niceties that appeal to people. We're not here to engage in our own original research, but to present content according to mainstream sources. This is getting old, and the RfC is only just short of SNOW, yet the GEVAL in the lead remains. Time to ask for a close. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 03:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::::Again, this is a perverse misconstruing of what I and others have said. "Effective" here means "de facto", not the opposite of ineffective. And a citation was given above, so it is not OR. If you want to criticise other editors, please read what they say beforehand.--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 03:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::Where does this 'de facto dictator' keep arising from? Which RS have ever called him (or any other politician/head of state) a 'de facto dictator'? The term doesn't mean anything that makes sense. (Please see my response to Pincrete above) --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 03:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::Aton above gave a source for "effective dictator" which means the same as "de facto dictator". If you google "Stalin" and "effective dictator" or "de facto dictator" you will find many sources. There's no point in listing them here. Equally, the term "de facto dictator" makes perfect sense and is widely used about many people, as a google search shows. The issue isn't about a particular form of words, but describing the reality of Stalin's dictatorship. How we summarise it is less important. Some lengthier quotations that I have found:
::::::::::*Alan Bullock, ''Parallel Lives'': "...it was as General Secretary of the party – he assumed no other office until May 1941 – that he built up a position of arbitrary personal power which has scarcely been equalled in a modern state."(p 118) "...his power was concealed – 'the highest Soviet authorities' – a secret all the more powerful because it was known to everyone in any kind of office but not to be mentioned in public." (p 692).
::::::::::*J Archy Getty, 'Stalin as Prime Minister' in ''Stalin: A New History'': "Those practices [of decision-making] were personal and personalised, having to do with loyalty, team effort, patronage and clientage, and a behind-the-scenes fluidity and informality rather than with formal structures, which were used merely as symbolic devices to project a power whose origins were primordial and personalised." (p 106)
::::::::::I don't understand why this is a bone of contention.--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 07:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Googling the terms only produces blogs and forums. The rest is pure [[WP:SYNTH]]. Your quotes say nothing of the use of 'de facto' or 'effective'. The only conclusion to be drawn from these interpretations of what was meant is [[WP:NOR]], because that's what is being engaged in. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 22:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Well, I must be using a different Google!!!--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 08:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::I agree with most of what is said above by those defending 'effective/de facto' or somesuch. The fact that we normally start an article with job title or profession is also a good reason IMO to prefer some form of words that reflects'' "this was his job, ''followed by'' this was how he did it (as dictator)" .'' I'm not arguing this from a fairness pov, ''(since you have to struggle to find any Western historian with anything nice to say about Stalin)'', rather from a clarity and consistency pov. It is not weaselling to say he was 'Gen Sec of the CP of USSR who ruled as a dictator', or some form of words with that meaning. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 10:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::::Well put, Pincrete.--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 08:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I agree. That in the 20s the dictatorship of the Party became Stalin's personal dictatorship is significant enough to be mentioned in the lead. As Jack Upland has explained with various quotes above, however, Stalin's personal dictatorship was not official, but rather established and maintained by informal means. That's why several RS use qualifiers such as "de facto" or, as Pincrete suggests, just "dictatorially ruled" (but not "widely regarded as..."—that he was a dictator is a fact). [[User:Atón|Atón]] ([[User talk:Atón|talk]]) 08:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' He meets every criterion described on [[dictator]] and reliable sources often describe him that way. No need for weasel words in the lede. [[User:Power~enwiki|Power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|talk]]) 03:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' per [[User:Iryna Harpy]]'s keep rationale above (it perfectly sums up my thoughts on the matter and I doubt I could say it any better).--[[User:WilliamThweatt|William Thweatt]] <sup>[[User talk:WilliamThweatt|Talk]]</sup><sup>[[Special:Contributions/WilliamThweatt|Contribs]]</sup> 02:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
* '''Keep''': Overwhelming evidence of people claiming Stalin was a dictator. [[User:ImTheIP|ImTheIP]] ([[User talk:ImTheIP|talk]]) 13:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
* '''Keep''': A dictator, by definition, is "A totalitarian leader of a country, nation, or government"<ref>https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dictator </ref>. Stalin had absolute executive control over the Soviet Union, as exhibited in his political purges. [[User:Ontheroad1957|Ontheroad1957]] ([[User talk:Ontheroad1957|talk]]) 18:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''Remove''': dictator is not a job, like in Ancient Greece or Rome. It is not precise enough to be in the lede. --[[User:Guanatala|Guanatala]] ([[User talk:Guanatala|talk]]) 21:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
{{Reflist}}
{{closed rfc bottom}}

== Why no name of Stalin's born into religion? ==

Why no name of Stalin's born into religion? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2001:569:F90F:3A00:89D9:3F82:E955:3002|2001:569:F90F:3A00:89D9:3F82:E955:3002]] ([[User talk:2001:569:F90F:3A00:89D9:3F82:E955:3002#top|talk]]) 16:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== "General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union" ==

Is it okay to remove "of the Central Committee" in order to shorten the lede? Would it violate RS? [[User:Scaleshombre|Scaleshombre]] ([[User talk:Scaleshombre|talk]]) 17:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
:I appreciate that it is wordy but I would probably retain it as it was his official title. [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 18:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
No biggie. [[User:Scaleshombre|Scaleshombre]] ([[User talk:Scaleshombre|talk]]) 18:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

== Stalin's birth name resumed ==
{{reply to|Materialscientist|Iryna Harpy|Midnightblueowl}} I am revisiting a month-old debate regarding the birth name of Joseph Stalin. I argue that his Georgian name was "Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili" and that it should be noted in some part of the article. Here are some objections that I will address:

'''The Russification ("Iosif Vissarionovich Dzugashvili") appears more often in the literature that the Georgian original, and is therefore the most common name by which he is known'''<br/>
The most common name by which Stalin is known is "Joseph Stalin". That is thus the title of this article. All other names he might have gone by are just details and can be used freely in the article body where an editor feels it's appropriate. That "Iosif Vissarionovich" appears more often in the literature does not validate it as consensus. "Consensus" in the context of Wikipedia means consensus among editors, not Google search results.

'''There aren't any sources of sufficiently respectability to confirm his Georgian name'''<br/>
When this objection was proposed to me, nobody explained exactly what constituted "quality scholarship", or how many "quality scholars" I needed to cite.

[[File:Joseph Stalin birth registration crop.jpg|right|thumb|500px]]
Recently, I obtained from the National Archives of Georgia a scan of the birth registration of Joseph Stalin. It is written in Georgian. Although Georgia was a province of the Russian empire, at the local level things were still done in mostly Georgian. He was baptized in Georgian. His name was recorded in the register as "Ioseb", not "Iosif". He got the Russified version ''Iosif'' at a later date, probably when he enrolled in school.

The translations you can read in the Commons page come from Prof Donald Rayfield, a professor of Russian and Georgian at Queen Mary University of London. He has promised to write his findings in "something official" that I can cite in Wikipedia (he can't believe how stubborn y'all are).

I don't know what more you expect from me. [[User:MaisonHorta|MaisonHorta]] ([[User talk:MaisonHorta|talk]]) 16:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC) [[User:MaisonHorta|MaisonHorta]] ([[User talk:MaisonHorta|talk]]) 16:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

:All we asked for is [[WP:Reliable sources]] supporting your claim. Wikipedia fundamentally relies upon said sources - hence why we pointed you to [[WP:Verifiability, not truth]] and to [[WP:No original research]]. [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 22:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

{{reply to|Materialscientist|Iryna Harpy|Midnightblueowl}}
{{quote|The family that begot Ioseb (Soso) Jughashvili had no more reason than other Georgians to fear the future. The cobbler Besarion Jughashvili was in 1878 twenty-eight years old, a skilled and successful artisan working for himself;|-''Stalin and His Hangmen'' by Donald Rayfield}}

Donald Rayfield is a professor of Russian and Georgian at Queen Mary University of London

{{quote|Legends surround Stalin’s parentage. Sensation seekers proclaimed Ioseb (who later became Iosif once his interactions began to be primarily in Russian) to have been the illegitimate son of a prosperous merchant, a factory owner, a prince, and even Emperor Alexander III, who supposedly was attended to by Ioseb’s mother while the emperor was visiting Tiflis. The historical record suggests more prosaic origins. Ioseb was born into a humble Georgian family. His mother, Ekaterine or Keke (Yekaterina in Russian) Geladze, the daughter of serfs, was born in 1856. In 1864, after the abolition of serfdom, her family moved to Gori, where, at the age of eighteen, she was given in marriage to the cobbler Besarion or Beso (Vissarion in Russian) Jughashvili, six years her senior. Their first two children died in infancy; Ioseb (Soso) was the third.|-''STALIN NEW BIOGRAPHY OF A DICTATOR'' by Oleg V. Khlevniuk}}

Oleg Khlevniuk is a Russian historian who works at the State Archive of the Russian Federation in Moscow.

{{quote|The future Stalin’s father, Besarion Jughashvili (1850–1909), known as Vissarion in Russian and Beso for short [...] In December 1878, four years into the marriage, when Keke was around twenty and Beso twenty-eight, the couple had a son, Ioseb—the future Stalin.|-''Stalin: Paradoxes of Power vol 1'' by Stephen Kotkin}}

Stephen Kotkin is a professor of history at Princeton.[[User:MaisonHorta|MaisonHorta]] ([[User talk:MaisonHorta|talk]]) 05:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
:As a note on these discussions before this thread is archived, we are dealing with a [[WP:PRIMARY]] source in the birth certificate. As for the other mentions, this dwelling on what is essentially trivia has turned into [[WP:BLUDGEON]]. The transliteration of his birth name is so minor a point in the sum total of salient information in his biography that it's become nonsensical to obsess about it further. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 20:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
::I agree. It's trivial. Let's move on.--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 01:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2017 ==
== Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2017 ==

Revision as of 20:42, 16 August 2017

Template:Vital article

Former featured article candidateJoseph Stalin is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 18, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted


Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2017

The occurrences of these diseases dropped to record low numbers, increasing life spans by decades. The artificial healthcare created an aging and exploding population. Kentalynn (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joseph Stalin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Georgian vs Soviet

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

We've already discussed this. The consensus was "Soviet". There are valid arguments on both sides. Let's improve the article, rather than argue in circles about terms in the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the article about Soviet people refers to people from 1922-1991. Stalin was born decades before then so how can he be considered a "Soviet" just because he ruled the Soviet Union? I'll post my thoughts on the link you have provided, thanks for that.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 11:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After reconsidering this issue, I was thinking that we probably should say " Georgian-born Soviet revolutionary and political leader". And then I saw that that's what you've just done. I support your change and I think that it adequately deals with the contradictory issues that you and others have raised.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great. The problem lies with the fact that "Soviet" never referred to a nationality or ethnicity.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree with your edit, but I think you're oversimplifying the problem. All forms of words have their problems (and this is a perennial problem in Wikipedia with people with multiple national/notional identities), but this form of words is an improvement. Now let's move on from the lead, and improve the body of the article!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 08:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honours

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_Stalin&oldid=795843484"