Talk:Joseph Stalin/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Misspelling!

I came here from the Lenin mausoleum article as the reference seemed disturbing. Now I see the error is even in the title, his first name is Josif correctly. And if I remember well, his original name is Ioseb (in Georgian). I was quite surprised no one realized such a mistake yet. Didn't want to just change a title though, I am not aware of the process technically - not to damage references or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.76.81.254 (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

In the English-speaking world Stalin's first name is most frequently Anglicized to "Joseph". Xelkman (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC) -- In addition, "academically" is misspelled in the last paragraph in the first part of the section "Early Life."

Portraits

I've taken this out:

After the Soviet victory in World War II, all official portraits of Stalin omitted his Georgian origins, although this process had begun earlier, since the 1930s official portraits had begun to soften his prominent Caucasian features.(Medvedev, Zhores A. (2006) The unknown Stalin p. 248)

Firstly, because it's badly written. Secondly, it's a very big call. It was widely known that Stalin was Georgian, and he spoke with a Georgian accent. Could it just be that Stalin's hair was going white? I don't know what Mevdedev actually says, and what the basis for it is.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

we can reqrite it--but wiki editors can't argue with leading RS. See https://books.google.com/books?id=v3BrNF80AzUC&pg=PA248 for the statement. Rjensen (talk) 09:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, but this seems to be trivial speculation. Medvedev spends a lot of time on the rumour that Stalin was Nikolay Przhevalsky['s son]. According to Simon Sebag Montefiore, this is an "absurdity" and Przhevalsky was actually gay (Young Stalin, p 24). At the same time, there were biographies of Stalin and memoirs of people who knew him in the early days, so there was no doubt he was Georgian. I also don't think it fits under "Culture". It overlaps with information given under "Appearance". Maybe there should be a section "Portrayal"...--Jack Upland (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Stalin spent a lot of attention on his image and historians have paid attention to the Stalin cult and "the image of Stalin projected by the mass media". Davies (2004) says " While the cult of the leader has been a distinctive feature of communist regimes since the time of Lenin, Stalin's cult was a particularly striking example of the phenomenon. A recent study regards it as the defining theme of public culture in the Stalin era." [see also Gill, The Soviet leader cult 1980] . the portrait info looks good. I think you're missing the point: everyone knew he was Georgian. The idea was to glorify his heroism in the media and portray him as a hero to all groups in USSR. Take a look at North Korea imagery in 2017 to get a feel for USSR in 1950. Rjensen (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and as I said maybe we should have a section about that.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree --separate section - good idea. Rjensen (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The section "Cult of Personality" also talks about the portrayal of Stalin. (Incidentally, it gives a different measurement for his height). I think it would be appropriate to consolidate all information about the portrayal of Stalin there.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I've done some tidying up. There seems to be somewhat of a contradiction, in that the Medvedevs claim that his portraits were trying to airbrush away his Georgian origin, but we also record that the leading actor that depicted him in film was the Georgian Mikheil Gelovani... I think we need more information on this.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

All portraits, except one in the Stalin museum, hide his prominent pockmarks. Notable?

Gravuritas (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that's just normal.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

This article compared to Winston Churchill

There is an extreme bias, especially in the introduction of this article to questionable interpretations of historical events. If we compare this article to that of an equally controversial contemporary leader Winston Churchill, it looks very unbalanced and makes Wikipedia look partisan.

• Various "Famines" are mentioned in the introduction of this article and a supposed "kill count" in the millions provided, but the Bengal Famine (where millions of people died) is not mentioned in the introduction of Churchill's article.
• Churchill as Secretary of War supported the suppression of dissident groups and civilians in Ireland through the Black and Tans, who often murdered political dissidents without trial (for instance George Clancy, the Mayor of Limerick) and tortured civilians. That is not mentioned in the introduction for Churchill's article, yet here the trials of some Trotskyist and Bukharianite anti-Soviet elements is portrayed in bias language as a "show trial" and a "suppression" in the introduction of this article.
• This article is laughably put into the category of "Antisemitism in Russia", yet Churchill, who wrote an article for the Sunday Herald in 1920 entitled "Zionism versus Bolshevism" claiming that Bolshevism was an "international Jewish conspiracy" somehow does not have such a category attached to his Wikipedia article.

IMO we either need some balance across the board, or a re-write, de-emphasising the tabloid-esque controversy mongering which is so prominent on this article. Claíomh Solais (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

You have made several good suggestions for the Churchill article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

And it does show bias in this article. There is no reason that similar events should be treated differently because their alleged perpetrator is English or Georgian, Conservative or Communist. Wikipedia is neutral.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia's job is to report what the reliable sources say, whether favourable or negative. Wikipedia is only "neutral" regarding disputes between reliable sources. Otherwise It is not neutral about Stalin -- instead it reflects the consensus of RS that he was a very nasty person. Rjensen (talk) 10:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The supposed "kill count", the "famines", all nicely put into quotations marks. It's a rather sickening comment, denying historical facts, in the same way some deny that the holocaust ever happened. If anything, the OP's original comment is extremely biased, and that's putting it mildly. As Rjensen indicated, what matters is what reliable sources report, and the consensus on historians on Stalin and his court is quite clear. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, OP kind of lost me at "equally controversial contemporary leader Winston Churchill". There's really false equivalency there. Churchill wasn't responsible for the Bengal Famine, in any meaningful way (he did make a shockingly callous remark about it, but that's quite a different thing). And so forth. Not even exactly clear what OP wants, specifically. Herostratus (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The underlying issue is what happens if reliable sources and venerable Wikipedians are biased. Churchill's article does suggest he was responsible for the Bengal Famine, and he was head of government for the British Empire, so the responsibility lies ultimately with him. However, mainstream historians do not calculate a "kill count" for Churchill. With Stalin, however, for some historians this is all they do. No one has found an executive order by Stalin saying that he wanted the crops in Ukraine to fail. But this doesn't matter.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The idea that Stalin intentionally starved people in the Ukraine, just for being Ukrainian is a highly contentious suggestion. There have been famines in the Russian Empire for a long time before the Soviet Union ever existed and there were also famines in the Russian part of the Soviet Union at exactly the same time. It is in no way comparable to the Holocaust. So to put in the introduction that Stalin killed millions of Ukrainians, while not saying that Churchill killed millions of Bengalis is extremely bias as an interpretation.

The point is that, like in Bengal under Churchill's watch (there were active independence movements there too), many people did die in a famine.... but for one we put a sinister spin on it (Stalin) and in the other it does not get mentioned in the intro at all (Churchill). We mention purges of Trots and other insurgents against the Soviet state, but we do not mention Saint Winston's kill 'em all and let god sort them out antics in Ireland. The overall picture is systematically bias.

At the end of the day, Stalin dragged up a feudal nation to the status of an industrial superpower, raising the living standard of millions, saved the population of Eastern Europe from being reduced to the status of helots under the self-appointed herrenvolk of the Third Reich, stopped the successful completion of the Holocaust and the post-WWII "threat" of the Red Army forced Western governments to concede a social welfare state to their citizens. So Rjensen's assertion that it is a settled fact that he was a "baddie" of history and Winnie a "goodie" isn't so clear. Wikipedia should reflect that. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, but the Bengal Famine and the Ukraine Famine were different events. It makes no sense to say "If Stalin caused the Ukraine one, then Churchill caused the Bengal one; and if Churchill didn't cause the Bengal one, then Stalin didn't cause the Ukraine one". And that seems to be the gist of your argument. The two events have to be considered separately.

Stalin had a complicated legacy. IMO you're entirely correct that Stalin probably saved the world from Hitler (a Russia under a Czar, or Kerensky, or a White regime, or even Trotsky would probably have fallen to the Nazis, who probably would have attacked regardless of who was ruling Russia) and did other good things. So? Does that mean we should give him a pass on the other stuff? Hitler built good roads and was kind to animals, but so?

Churchill's Britain just quite simply didn't have anything like the Gulag. It just didn't, is all. I did Yakov Taubin's article, which has "Taubin was executed... This place is now Yuri Gagarin Park within the city limits of Samara and contains the mass graves of several thousand victims of execution by Soviet authorities". It's just a simple plain fact that they haven't dug up any mass graves from Churchill's regime in Finsbury Circus. IMO this is a significant difference between the figures, and I think that most people would agree. Herostratus (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Stalin's Soviet Union was a totalitarian oppressive dictatorship, there wasn't just Holodomor, there was also stuff like GULAG, executions, mass deportations, purges, overall a lots of really nasty stuff that happened on practically whole duration of Stalin's rule. Churchill's record doesn't really compare, which is also the reason why historical depictions of those two leaders are quite different.--Staberinde (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It would help if Claiomh Solais or Jack Upland would make concrete suggestions for the article, backed up by reliable sources. Instead of providing cynical commentary, defending not only a brutal mass murderer, but even worse, defending even his murderous actions. Not different at all from those who come to the Holocaust article and claim that it never happened. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:C04E:3594:1796:89BC (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

At least we could remove the category "Antisemitism in Russia" which is not supported by the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Stalin did not save anyone in eastern Europe - he began a world war by invading Poland in conjunction with Nazi Germany in 1939, and then invaded and enslaved all of eastern Europe and the Baltic States for the next 50 years. Stalin did not stop the Holocaust - he actually refused to bomb the death camps. (AndreMonahan (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC))

The above entry is HarveyCarter evading his ban. Binksternet (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

With your last comment, I think you are thinking of Roosevelt: see Auschwitz bombing debate.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Stalin refused to use his huge air force to bomb the death camps in eastern Europe. He also kept the Japanese informed on US movements and positions throughout the Pacific War. (AndreMonahan (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC))

Is that you, Harvey?--Jack Upland (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

What? My grandfather was murdered by the Soviets in Poland in September 1939, without trial. I find the idea that Stalin "saved" anyone in eastern Europe highly offensive. Do not forget the Soviets supplied the fuel the Germans used to wage war in 1939-41. (AndreMonahan (talk) 12:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC))

The above entry is HarveyCarter evading his ban. Binksternet (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Stalin's alliance with Nazi Germany almost destroyed the Soviet Union in 1941. Without the pact Hitler would not have been able to overrun France or invade the USSR. (81.135.14.62 (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC))

The above entry is HarveyCarter evading his ban. Binksternet (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, lucky he never got his hands on Bury St Edmunds, eh? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Antisemitism

Further to the point which got lost in the arguments above, I don't think the category "Antisemitism in Russia" is useful here. The main article is Stalin and antisemitism. This makes it clear that the sources and the evidence are equivocal. Historian Albert Lindemann is quoted as saying: "Determining Stalin's real attitude to Jews is difficult. Not only did he repeatedly speak out against anti-Semitism but both his son and daughter married Jews, and several of his closest and most devoted lieutenants from the late 1920s through the 1930s were of Jewish origin, for example Lazar Moiseyevich Kaganovich, Maxim Litvinov, and the notorious head of the secret police, Genrikh Yagoda." According to Simon Sebag Montefiore (Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar, pp 270-71), Stalin's "antisemitism" was a "mannerism", consisting of jokes etc, but he also campaigned against antisemitism, set up the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, and associated with Jews. I think this issue is complex and can't be reduced to a label.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe for a start you should refrain from misrepresenting sources. You claim that Montefiore describes Stalin's antisemitism as a mannerism, consisting of joke (how harmless!), but the sentence in question is: "Stalin was an anti-semite by most definitions, but until after the war, it was more a Russian mannerism than a dangerous obsession.". And to cite the Jewish Autonomous Oblast as evidence for the absence of Antisemitism, that's either naive or cynical, your choice. In any case, even ignoring your misrepresentation of sources, including Stalin in this category does not imply that he was an antisemite, but rather, that antisemitism is one of the defining feature of this person. That so many historians and scholarly sources devote so much attention to this question shows that indeed it is one of his defining features. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:10AD:C5A4:9EE1:64E0 (talk) 09:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Stalin was planning a new Holocaust at the time of his death. (2A00:23C4:6392:3C00:B98A:425B:9BF6:AD48 (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC))

The above entry is HarveyCarter evading his ban. Binksternet (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to the whole two pages written by Montefiore, not the first sentence.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

And?? To summarize these pages as saying that Stalin just liked to make jokes about Jews is a gross misrepresentation. That you keep insisting doesn't make it better. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:20CF:BE7A:7A79:8171 (talk) 12:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

There are historians besides Montefiore who are of the opinion that Stalin was in fact antisemitic. There is no reason to put all the WP:UNDUE WP:WEIGHT on the former.--Galassi (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I think both of you are going off on a tangent. Yes, Montefiore labels Stalin as an "anti-Semite", but he goes on to paint a more complex picture:

• "He enjoyed the Jewish jokes... But he also enjoyed jokes about Armenians and Germans..." And his close henchman Anastas Mikoyan was Armenian.
• "On the other hand, most of the women around him, and many of his closest collaborators, from Yagoda to Mekhlis, were Jewish."
• "Stalin was aware that his regime had to stand against anti-Semitism..."
• "Stalin founded a Jewish homeland, Birobizhan, on the inhospitable Chinese border..." (Not that the area is particularly inhospitable. It has high rainfall and is linked to the rest of the world by the Transiberian Railway.)
• "In 1937...[Jews] formed a majority in the Government."
• After hearing Kaganovich's complaint about Jewish jokes, "He never again allowed such jokes in front of Kaganovich".

As I said, I don't think this can be reduced to a simple label. Any serious analysis of Stalin and antisemitism has to weigh up a range of issues, but the category "Antisemitism in Russia" doesn't do that. It gives undue weight to something not discussed in detail in the article, and a similar category is not used for people such as Churchill, Richard Nixon etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Montefiore makes it very clear that Stalin was an Antisemite. That there are some nuances to this, fine, there always are. After all Hitler also protected some Jews, like Ernst Moritz Hess. In any case, the question is not whether Stalin was an Antisemite or not, but rather, whether this is one of his defining features. The fact that so many scholars and historians discuss Stalin's antisemitism indicates that yes, indeed, it is one of his defining feature. Much more so than many of the other categories. Your quotes, by they way, are selective and taken out of context. But I guess you know that. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:5042:69BE:99F7:76D4 (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

It's a difficult question. One vibe I kind of get from some editors is "Stalin was an evil monster, so let's put him in every possible bad category" which might not be the best way to approach it. Looking at another member of this category, Itzik Feffer, who "was a Soviet Yiddish poet executed on the Night of the Murdered Poets". Apparently this was part of the liquidation of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. All these people were Jewish, which makes sense given the name of the organization. But whether these people were killed specifically for being Jewish or just under Stalin's "let's kill lots of people generally, especially members of organizations" policy I'm not sure; probably the latter IMO. If there was a Catholic Anti-Fascist Committee or whatever I bet they didn't fare too well either. So maybe wiping out this particular group of Jews all at once just solidifies Stalin's membership in the category "All-round evil monster" rather than "Antisemitic evil monster". And so forth for a lot of the other stuff.

Since its contended, I wouldn't put him in the category. Categories are crude instruments and unlike text material you can't hedge membership with reasons and counter-examples; you're in or out. Because of this I think the question is not "Was Stalin antisemitic as a defining characteristic" but "Was Stalin antisemitic as a defining characteristic beyond reasonable doubt". I don't think you can answer "yes" to the latter question, so I wouldn't include him. Herostratus (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Whether Stalin was an Antisemite or not is irrelevant. What's relevant is that the question of Stalin's antisemitism is widely discussed in scholarly sources, and it is for that reason that he should be included in this category. That's what the policy on categories states. Case in point, the category is named Antisemitism in Russia, not Antisemites from Russia. But the article should be moved into the category Antisemitism in the Soviet Union. More appropriate. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:5042:69BE:99F7:76D4 (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

You make a good point. It's not "Antisemites", and since Stalin's antisemitism is widely discussed, and there is the doctor's plot and all, I can see how it would be a service for a reader looking into the general subject of antisemitism in the Soviet Union to be directed to this article. So I withdraw my objection and concur with your suggestion. Herostratus (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

There is very little in this article about antisemitism. The category makes sense at the Doctor's Plot and Stalin and antisemitism articles, but it is not useful here.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Stalin as an "anti-semite" is an American Cold War propaganda fiction. Anti-semitism as an ideology was criminalised in the Soviet Union and illegal throughout Stalin's time, being associated with White-guardists and Christian mysticism. Stalin and other Bolsheviks were opposed to reactionary tendencies in the Jewish community, such as the rabbis and ethno-nationalism (Zionism; especially after it became clear that it was allied to American Imperialism), but at the same time encouraged proletarian and progressive elements of the Jewish community (evidenced by the likes of Kaganovich). Just as the Bolsheviks were opposed to reactionary tendencies within all other communities. Bukharin was an ethnic Russian, does that make Stalin a Russophobe for opposing him? Or for removing Yezhov from power? Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

And in regards to espionage, there were absolutely pro-American spies in the Soviet Union (whether medical practitioners or otherwise), just as there were pro-Soviet spies in the United States during the Cold War. Some of these people happened to be of Jewish descent. By describing suppression of spies for carrying out espionage as antisemitic, we may as well say on Dwight D. Eisenhower's article that he was "killing Jews" because Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed during his presidency. It is silliness. Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

In the same spirit one could call your comment Stalinist propaganda. No thanks, I'd rather go with "American Cold War propaganda". At least that propaganda is supported by facts and scholarly sources, and displays human decency. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:3D10:EE4B:CB0F:30BA (talk) 11:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The point is we are meant to uphold a neutral point of view, not take sides. Just because the Americans and their associates found it useful to portray Stalin as an antisemite during the Cold War as an attempt to get the Jewish community to support their cause doesn't mean we should spout this war propaganda as if it were fact. Of course Imperialist publications are going to support an imperialist narratives, what does that prove? Claíomh Solais (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki rule is that we are neutral between the scholarly reliable sources. If you have reliable sources that say Stalin was not anti-semitic and was not planning to kill the Jewish doctors, please add it. No one has to be neutral between the killer and his victims. Rjensen (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Stalin carried out genocide against Jews and allowed the Warsaw Uprising to be crushed. He was beginning a new holocaust when he died. (2A00:23C4:6392:3C00:E911:27CD:6EA:A466 (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC))

The above entry is HarveyCarter evading his ban. Binksternet (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Even in Israel, despite the tumultuous relationship between the Soviet Union and Zionism, President Shimon Peres stated to President Vladimir Putin in 2012; "Without the Red Army victory it is unclear if we would be able to meet here as a free people." If Stalin was such a hardcore antisemite, as the Americans/British claim in their quest to prop up neoliberalism, why would leaders of a Jewish state praise an army under his leadership? Even those on the Israeli right such as Netanyahu have stated in 2016 of supposed genocidal antisemite Stalin's Army, "We will never forget that the Red Army liberated Auschwitz." - Claíomh Solais (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Re "Stalin carried out genocide against Jews and allowed the Warsaw Uprising to be crushed", what did the Warsaw Uprising have to do with Jews? It didn't have much of anything to do with Jews. I think this is an example of "Stalin was horrible, he killed my grandfather, he was a monster, the worst person ever, we need to put him in every bad category. Put him in Category:Coprophiliacs and every other bad category". This isn't helpful.

We need to think about what the purpose of a category is for the reader. Categories are to help the reader find and organize information, not for us to express our opinions. If a person is studying (or just perusing) articles about antisemitism in Russia and/or the Soviet Union, should we direct her to this article along with the others in that category? That is the main purpose of a category. Herostratus (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Peres was referring to the fact that Israel was only created because of World War II. Stalin began the war by invading Poland as an ally of Nazi Germany. If Stalin had cared about ending the Holocaust he would have bombed the death camps. Perhaps Netanyahu should remember the Holocaust would never have happened without Stalin helping the Nazis overrun Europe in 1939-41. (2A00:23C4:6392:3C00:E911:27CD:6EA:A466 (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC))

The above entry is HarveyCarter evading his ban. Binksternet (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

He/she probably meant the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. But anyway, the discussion goes from absurd to even more absurd, between the dude whose ancestors got murdered by Stalin and the Stalinist dude who not only defends, but even embraces murder and repression. It's either excellent trolling or ***redacted***. Anyway, it's hard to dispute that Stalin's antisemitism (or absence of) is discussed quite extensively in a wide range of reliable sources (or what others call imperialist/neoliberal/whatever sources - heck, who knows, maybe these are even Trotskyite-Zinovievite sources, the worst of the worst). PS: I wouldn't take statements from politicians on state visits too serious ;) Nice try though. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:AC92:7CA2:B658:82B6 (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

What is absurd about someone's ancestors being murdered? (2A00:23C4:6392:3C00:E911:27CD:6EA:A466 (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC))

The above entry is HarveyCarter evading his ban. Binksternet (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, yes, let's look at sources — rather than just talk about them.

• I don't agree that most biographies discuss this "extensively". For example, Stephen Kotkin's Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878-1928 barely mentions the issue in 900 pages, but perhaps he will discuss it in later volumes. Nor does Sarah Davies and James Harris (ed) Stalin: A New History.
• Sheila Fitzpatrick (On Stalin's Team, p 217) says: "Whether Stalin was a lifelong anti-Semite or became one in his final decline is a matter of debate. Khrushchev said he was, but other members of the team denied it. What seems clear is that until close to the end, he was careful in public to follow the Bolshevik party line, which had always been strongly condemnatory of anti-Semitism. There was never any hint of anti-Semitism in his public statements... That prohibition remained in force even in Stalin's last years, when, with de facto state-supported anti-Semitism rampant, the press continued not only to avoid overt anti-Semitism, even in coverage of the Doctor's Plot, but also from time to time to report punishment of specific officials guilty of it."
• Robert Conquest (The Great Terror, p 65) says that Stalin was guilty of "anti-Semitic demagogy" not antisemitism.
• In a blog post [1] Australian professor Roland Boer argues that Stalin was not antisemitic.

There is clearly a range of scholarly opinions, and (as I have said) the issue is complex and nuanced. (On the other hand, it is at best ridiculous to describe Hitler's antisemitism as "nuanced"!) While the category is "Antisemitism in Russia" (or the Soviet Union), almost all the people in these categories are either overt antisemites (and known for antisemitism) or victims of antisemitism. If readers are interested in the topic, they should be directed to Stalin and antisemitism rather than here.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for providing additional sources, that show that indeed Stalin's antisemitism is a recurring topic in scholarly sources. Which dovetails with why this category is accurate, needed and in line with the policy on categories. The sources you provide with the exception of the blog also show that Stalin indeed is considered an antisemite (or worse, an antisemitic demagogue, how nuanced is that?).

But I am also worried about how you misrepresent sources. Not cool. The quotes you provide are cherry-picked and conveniently leave out important parts that contradict your party line.

For example, you quote "There was never any hint of anti-Semitism in his public statements...". Full sentence, "Sheila Fitzpatrick - 2015 - ‎History

There was never any hint of anti-Semitism in his public statements, and as Khrushchev commented, "God forbid that anyone should quote publicly from any private conversation in which he made.. anti-Semitic remarks." [The part left out was left out in the source, too].

One should be able to trust other editors that they accurately present sources, but in your case, I don't think that's the case. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:D9CF:57A1:9372:34D3 (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I left out that Khrushchev comment because it was repetitive, and I was copying it from the book. By contrast, you haven't provided a single bit of evidence for what you are arguing.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, of course, that's the only reason why you left out that part. How convenient. It's then no surprise that you misrepresent the whole discussion so far, by claiming that I did not present a single bit of evidence, when in my very first edit I present an excerpt from Montefiore that makes it clear that Montefiore considers Stalin to be an antisemite. You misrepresent sources, you mispresent discussions, there is really no point in continuing this discussion if you sink to such low standards. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:C04E:3594:1796:89BC (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Claíomh Solais: It's rather bad style to remove the category, while the discussion is ongoing. Please self revert and seek consensus first. Same for removing Trotsky's text, using a rather cynical edit summary. Your promotion of a mass-murderer and his ideology is problematic to say they least. Although at least you are not even pretending to edit from a neutral point of view. Abovesky (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Axis ally

There should be more coverage of the fact that Stalin was Hitler's ally for the first two years of World War II, beginning with their joint invasion of Poland. (2A00:23C4:6392:3C00:B403:49FD:D376:4706 (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC))

The above entry is HarveyCarter evading his ban. Binksternet (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The Soviet Union was never a member of the Axis powers, nor was it ever in an alliance with the Third Reich. Unless you want to say that the British Empire and its proxy French Dominion were part of the Axis forces with the Munich Agreement in 1938 and collaborated with the takeover of Czechoslovakia. Never seen a picture of Stalin and Hitler together, but there are pictures of Chamberlain and Hitler palling around.

What the Soviet Union did have was a brief non-aggression pact in place, either side of defending against military attacks by the Third Reich in Spain and then the Eastern Front during the Second World War proper, after all other avenue, including approaching Poland for a defense pact, were frustrated. This article totally demolishes the bourgeois narrative about Molotov-Rippentrop and also outlines that the reactionary government in Poland was not just a passive bystander in the events. Claíomh Solais (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

no RS mentioned for the claim. our job is not to protect Stalin's reputation but to tell what the reliable sources say, They say alliance that involved military invasion of Poland & splitting control of much of eastern Europe--EG Baltic states became Soviet sphere--plus shipments of vital oil. look at the titles: 1) Roger Moorhouse - The Devils' Alliance: Hitler's Pact with Stalin, 1939-1941 (2014) at https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0465054927 2) Mark L. Haas - 2007 writes: "a tacit alliance with Germany against the Western powers with the signing of the Nazi-Soviet Pact in August 1939." 3) Timothy Snyder - 2010 - writes: "during the German-Soviet alliance (1939–1941)" 4) Angelo Tasca 1951 book title: The Russo-German Alliance: August 1939-June 1941; 5) a famous French historian: François Furet - 1999 writes: "The pact signed in Moscow by Ribbentrop and Molotov on 23 August 1939 inaugurated the alliance between the USSR and Nazi Germany. It was presented as an alliance and not just a nonaggression pact." Rjensen (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

These "bourgeois" sources are quite a bit more convincing then this article by a PhD candidate on an obscure webpage. Abovesky (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Stalin invaded Poland as an ally of Nazi Germany. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was NOT a non-aggression pact, it was a pact to create aggression. Britain and France did not invade Czechoslovakia in 1938. Stalin offered to formally join the Axis Powers as a full belligerent against Britain on 25 November 1940. (81.158.250.96 (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC))

The above entry is HarveyCarter evading his ban. Binksternet (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Saying that Stalin was an ally of Nazi Germany implies that he would have been cheering the Fall of France. In fact, he greatly disturbed by it.[2][3] In fact, according to this [4], the annexation of Moldava and the Baltic states was intended to strengthen the USSR's position against a German invasion, rather than part of an alliance with Germany. Stalin's reaction to the Fall of France isn't mentioned in the article, and perhaps it should be.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Stalin very much wanted France to be crushed and its vast colonial empire dismantled, he was just alarmed at the speed with which Hitler was able to defeat France in 1940 (as it showed how weak the Soviet Union was). The invasions of the Baltic States and Moldova were intended to recreate the Russian Empire as a Communist superpower. Stalin wanted the alliance with Nazi Germany to be maintained until the British Empire was destroyed. (FernandoHerndkl (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC))

Hi Fernando. Are you a sockpuppet of banned User:HarveyCarter? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Checkuser confirmation proves it, yes. Binksternet (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

It is also borderline obscene to quote the opinion of Leon Trotsky in the article under that section on the non-aggression pact. When the Nazis were rounding up Jews to send them to the gas chambers, many of Trotsky's disciples were organising strikes in Allied countries to try and retard the war effort. Trotskyists were careful to couch this as "revolutionary defeatism" for capitalist countries and making claims that they supported defence of the Soviet Union over the Third Reich (in reality, Trotskyist so-called "support" was used by them to try and infiltrate subversive propaganda against the Soviet government into Russia). Trotskyism was de facto pro-Nazism in WWII, no Trots ever fought in combat against Hitler, so lets spare the naked opportunism of their saints' quote (if he had lived to see Barbarossa, we don't know what position he would have taken, but his anti-Stalin views were certainly fanatical). Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I think your opinion of Trotsky is unfair and irrelevant, but it does seem questionable to quote him here. 'Economic cooperation was so considerable that in 1939 Trotsky called Stalin "Hitler's quartermaster".' Well, Trotsky called Stalin a lot of things. Why is his opinion decisive here?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Dictator?

I think it is somewhat contentious to use this word, in the introduction. It is essentially a snarl word used as a stand in for "bad guy." Simply describing him as the General Secretary of the CPSU is the most neutral;

Public policy in the Soviet Union was directed by the Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, not just Stalin as an individual. Stalin also offered to stand down as General Secretary several times but the party refused to let him. This doesn't sound like something a dictator driven by the lust for power would do. Also, Stalin did not amass any sort of personal fortune from his position, he did not pass on any fortune to his family looted from the public purse. Most of this "totalitarian dictator" mystification comes from the influence of Hannah Arendt's writings/opinions/gibberish. Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, biography.com is pretty clear, as is BBC, history.com and Encyclopedia Britannica. Just sayin'. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

British state media is not exactly going to have an balanced view of one of their most successful enemies. There was no Soviet equivelent of Hitler's Führerprinzip or even Mussolini's Duce in the system, marks of dictatorship of that age. The revolutionary vanguard in Marxist-Leninism leads the proletariat, it is true, but the vanguard isn't just one man, it is the party itself. Stalin was just the General Secretary. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't know. I read Robert Conquest's book on him, but long ago, and Conquest (and similar things I have read) sure give the impression that Stalin was calling the shots. My understanding that there was the "cult of personality". But more importantly, I don't think that the politburo or his ministers acted as much of a brake on him. His ministers feared him IIRC. To say otherwise would be historical revisionism, which is not proof that it is wrong, but we tend here to go with the generally-accepted consensus on stuff, and for us do otherwise requires quite a heavy burden of proof. Herostratus (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that biography.com isn't "British state media", and neither is Encyclopædia Britannica. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• It is a very much fringe view that Stalin was not a totalitatian dictator, it has no place in mainstream historiography. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

It says "effectively the dictator of the state.", which is very much supported by reliable sources. Abovesky (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

As its article shows, the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union grew out of an ancillary position, which under Stalin became all-powerful. Stalin did not have a government post until the German invasion, when he became Chairman of the Sovnarkom (Premier), the position that Lenin had held as head of government. To say that he was just party secretary the rest of the time would put him in the same league as people like Ronna Romney McDaniel or Patrick McLoughlin. No, clearly, he was a dictator, but this was not official and legal as it was in Germany and Italy.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Legally officially was the general secretary of the Communist Party. The party made the decisions and USSR, and told government officials what to do. You do not have to be a government official to be a dictator. Rjensen (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

If Stalin as party secretary had the legal right to tell the government what to do, he would have had the right to tell Lenin what to do. He didn't. He did not have the legal right to amass the power that he did. The 1936 Soviet Constitution was the first constitution to mention the party, but still did not mention the party secretary, and did not say that the party had the right to tell the government what to do. A dictator by definition is a government role. You can't be a dictator and not in government. But Stalin, up till the German invasion, did not have an official government role. That was the reality of how he operated. That is not an argument that he wasn't a dictator. It is the opposite.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Stalin was a dictator like Gaddafi, who had no government role in Libya and was not head of state. (81.158.250.96 (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC))

Hi IP 81. :Hi Fernando. Are you a sockpuppet of banned User:HarveyCarter? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is certainly HarveyCarter evading his ban. Binksternet (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing contentious in describing Stalin as "effectively the dictator of the state". Opposing viewpoint is basically just fringe Stalinist revisionism. If you want to see sources, then you can check archives for previous times this discussion came up, or maybe just use google and don't limit your search to blogs ran by Stalin fanboys. There are buttloads of sources describing Stalin as dictator, many biographies use "dictator" even in title.--Staberinde (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Jack Upland talks about "legal rights" under Lenin and Stalin. Who decides those rights? answer: the dictator does. Nobody tried to take him to court for violations. Rjensen (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

A gentle reminder: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Joseph Stalin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject."

Some of the recent sections of this talk page are too general, with too much wool-gathering about the person in general rather than precise suggestions for specific improvements. Granting that i've been as guilty as anyone of indulging in this scrum, maybe we should tone this down a bit; it's a time sink. I would say:

• General screeds such as "The general tone of this article is too harsh/kind, he was worse/better than depicted" aren't necessarily very helpful, and perhaps a good ignoring is called for.
• This is a mature article. Although this is not a hard rule, generally we want to make incremental changes, rather than rewriting whole sections.
• If you do want to rewrite whole sections, consider creating a draft in your user space for editors to view and consider.
• As for smaller changes -- it would be good to specify the exact text you want added/deleted/changed, and references are required, and they need to be good references, from respected and neutral historians or the the equivalent. Herostratus (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

But there are a lot of issues within the article that take a controversial or polemical view of Stalin and so some of these points need to be discussed and teased out. There is an orgy of diabolisation across not just this article, but many Marxist-Leninist articles in general (typically in the form of blood libels, "human rights" or whatever). A diabolisation which is not present on articles about bourgeois figures, ideas, states, dubious actions, legacies, etc. If Wikipedia is to properly apply a NPOV and avoid systemic biass, then we need to make sure there is no class motivated bias in articles. Claíomh Solais (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I quite agree. Apparently someone even had the gall to suggest that Stalin wasn't a dictator. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I seem to discern the handiwork of the diabolical User:HarveyCarter.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, yes. "Sword of Light", meet "broken spoon of plastic". Martinevans123 (talk) 08:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

In response to Herostratus's comment about this being a "mature" article, it is noteworthy that swathes of this article have no references at all, so to insist that any additions should have good references seems a bit perverse. Some of the information seems a bit quirky, such as the claim that Stalin (like a cartoon Captain Hook - see below) thought Hitler was still alive or that Truman thought that Stalin was a squirt. Sure, you can get references for these things, but do they belong in an article of this length? There is an issue of undue weight. Given that the Korean War, one of the major wars of the 20th century, is dealt with in two short paragraphs, the space given to many other issues seems excessive. Ironically, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact discussed above actually gets two whole sections, which is out of proportion to the short treatment of WW2, which doesn't mention the Battle of Stalingrad, the Siege of Sevastopol (1941–42), the Siege of Leningrad etc. In fact, it gives very little indication of Soviet contributions to WW2, even though that's a key part of Stalin's historical significance. Yes, this article has been around a long time. It might be mature; it might be decaying. But it is very far from a genuinely good article. If people want to discuss improvements — well, that cuts both ways. Critics should suggest concrete improvements with references etc. But equally other editors should accept fair criticism in a thoughtful and constructive manner. Dismissing criticism with flippant or bureaucratic remarks achieves nothing.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The Soviet "contributions" included starting World War II by invading Poland in September 1939 in conjunction with Nazi Germany. (86.179.100.252 (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC))

Definitely Poland then, and not Bury St Edmunds? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

What??? Stalin invaded Poland in 1939 in a pre-arranged joint invasion with Germany. Without the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact World War II would never have happened. Germany did not have the oil to fight until Stalin provided it in the German-Soviet Commercial Agreement. (86.179.100.252 (talk) 11:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC))

Has a branch in Suffolk, apparently. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Stalin didn't believe that Hitler was dead...???

Further to the discussion about this "mature" article, the section Final victory states:

Despite the Soviets' possession of Hitler's remains, Stalin refused to believe that his old nemesis was actually dead, a belief that remained with him for years after the war ended.

While this has two citations, it is only one view, and I don't believe that it is the consensus view of historians. This is not exactly what the Death of Adolf Hitler page says either. I think it would be better to leave any speculation about this in the Death of Adolf Hitler article.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Whether Stalin believed that Hitler was dead or not, I think it's not really that relevant for this article. So I would not oppose a removal of this sentence. Abovesky (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree. I think Stalin lost most of his beliefs after about a year, didn't he? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence and placed it on the Death of Adolf Hitler talk page. My understanding is that Stalin used to torment Zhukov by asking him whether he'd tracked down Hitler, never letting on that the NKVD had found the body. I think it was particularly objectionable to call Hitler Stalin's "old nemesis". I now realise it was more like "old Axis comrade".--Jack Upland (talk) 08:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Religion

There are currently two sections called "Religion", one under "Changes to Soviet society" and one under "Personal Life". While theoretically these could be different topics, the current content essentially covers the same ground in each. I query whether we need a section under "Personal Life", as Stalin was an atheist. Of course, it is important to note his time in the seminary, but we have already done this under "Early Life".--Jack Upland (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Merged.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Controversies about Stalin

I think the contents of this, if kept, should be merged into the relevant sections or other articles.

• Harriman: this should go under "Personality". It is not really a controversy anyway.
• Birth date: as it stands, this is confusing. We are given the choice of 1878 (here) or 1878 (under "Early life"). In any case, this issue is already covered in a footnote to "Early life" and in the Early life of Joseph Stalin.
• Death of one man: This is already covered in Wikiquote [5]. There seems to be some evidence that he did say it, so there's not much of a story here.
• Nicolay Przhevalsky: This really belongs in the Early life of Joseph Stalin article (if anywhere). According to Simon Montefiore there were many rumours about who Stalin's real father was. There doesn't seem any point in singling out one of them. As I said above, Montefiore considers this one to be ridiculous on the grounds that Przhevalsky was gay, among other things.
• Okhrana: This is already covered in the "Early Life" article. If mentioned here, it should be in the "Early Life" section.
• Red Terror: I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean and what the controversy is. The source doesn't use the phrase "Red Terror", and our article Red Terror refers to the period of Lenin. In any case, this would seem to belong under "Purges and deportations".

In all, there doesn't seem any point in this section, which is just a random collection of issues, some of them quite trivial.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Done.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

He had painters shot

Under "Appearance", it says 'he had several painters shot who did not depict him "right"'. The source is Nicolai Tolstoy's Stalin's Secret War. I can only see it through Google books in snippet view, but it appears that this comes from an anecdote by the composer Shostakovich. If that's all it is, it doesn't seem a good enough source. Historians such as Montefiore and Sheila Fitzpatrick indicate that Stalin took an indirect role in the purges, and that his motives were often hard to understand, so this seems uncharacteristic. It seems more like the action of a cartoon tyrant...--Jack Upland (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

An indirect role in the purges? Yes, poor old Stalin had to forgo the pleasure of shooting so many people himself as he was rather busy. And as the numbers rose, even signing all those death warrants himself got a bit tiresome. Must have been quite irksome for the genocidal bastard. Motives? When he ever need those? For goodness sake stop this rubbish.

Gravuritas (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not rubbish. You are misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying Stalin wasn't involved; I'm saying, in my understanding, it wasn't as simple as Stalin saying, "Shoot this man, he makes me look like a squirt". As you say yourself, when did Stalin need motives? But we are saying that painters were shot for not depicting him right. Even if they were shot, how would anyone know the motive?The main point is that Shostakovich is not a reliable source. How would he know? It's just a rumour. Unless there's more substantial evidence it should be removed.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Vsevolod Meyerhold, although not a painter, a friend of both Shostakovich and Prokofiev, was certainly shot under the Great Purge. James Meek in The Guardian discusses it here. So it would be no surprise if a few painters also met a similar fate. But you're saying we can't mention this as "Uncle Joe didn't actually pull the trigger", yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Of course he had painters shot, and writers, actors, etc. (although "he had them shot" is a simplification in many instances; rather, he created and ran a system that would allow and even ensure such people would be shot. How many of the people shot during the Stalin regime, how many of them were individually named by Stalin... most were not. And of course, although many were shot, more were sent to deadly camps and so forth.

Anyway, the question is not how many artists were liquidated under the Stalin regime, but whether Stalin actually said more or less "Comrade X painted me poorly, shoot him". I agree that that doesn't sound like Stalin, although it could be true.

Now, if it came to be understood that Stalin was unhappy with Comrade X's work, a very bad thing might happen to Comrade X somewhere down the line. The head of his local Artists Union, sensing the general climate, might not allow him to to renew his guild membership, and so he's unable to work. His friends avoid him. And from that he might be put on a list of unreliables. And then maybe the next year there's an arrest quota to fulfill. And so he's off to a camp, and dies there from pleurisy two years later.

But that's very different from "he had several painters shot who did not depict him "right""... who? How do we know this? This is not the sort of thing that good records were necessarily kept of. Herostratus (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Herostratus for understanding my point. Of course, Stalin murdered artists. But what's the evidence for this specific claim? As far as I can see, the evidence is just a rumour repeated by Shostakovich.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

David Remnick is quoted, by Antony Bell in his 2011 Great Leadership: What It Is and What It Takes in a Complex World, here making that claim. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Shostakovich is an unreliable source or is merely repeating rumours. After all, it seems that the source provided found it wortwhile to quote Shostakovich. Maybe someone should check the library and provide the full quote from this particular book. In any case, simple solution, attribute that claim to Shostakovich. Abovesky (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The story is probably an urban legend and if it cannot be shown who, when and where, then it should not be included in the article. Meyerhold was executed for spying for foreign powers not for his essentially reactionary contribution to the world of art. Once again, the problem with "Stalin did this, Stalin did that", is that it makes it look like the Soviet Union was just one man on a rampage and the entire project of Marxist-Leninism was just whatever Stalin personally decided it to be on any given day, all by himself. Political violence against what was deemed to be class enemies was always part of Bolshevism in general, including under Lenin. Stalin didn't invent it. I leave you with a quote from, of all people, Trotsky who explains their perspective;

"As for us, we were never concerned with the Kantian-priestly and vegetarian-Quaker prattle about the 'sacredness of human life.' We were revolutionaries in opposition, and have remained revolutionaries in power. To make the individual sacred we must destroy the social order which crucifies him. And this problem can only be solved by blood and iron." Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Did you say leave? But thanks so much, I must remember to use "vegetarian-Quaker prattle" in a Talk page discussion now and again. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Your claim of this probably being an urban legend is most likely as well supported by evidence, as the claim that Meyerhold was executed for spying for foreign (as in, tortured, coerced into confessing, then murdered - as thousands of others). Abovesky (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Of course we know that Meyerhold was not a spy--so said the Soviet Supreme Court in 1955--see Robert Leach (2004). Makers of Modern Theatre: An Introduction. Psychology Press. p. 93. Rjensen (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The wholesale "rehabilitations" under the revisionist regime of Khrushchev were politically motivated propaganda to oil the wheels of Khrushchev's Bonapartist ambitions (a man who in Stalin's day was regarded as little more than a court jester). So this should be taken with a huge grain of salt, as with the entire contents of the so-called secret speech. Nowhere was it actually demonstrated s that these people were innocent of the crimes for which they were convinced. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Fundamentally, it is about what reliable sources say, as I attempted to say in my initial post. I will attempt to find Tolstoy's book. I can't access the book mentioned by Mr Evans. What does it say? I don't think a simple anecdote by Shostakovich is very reliable. If there was a document in the archives, or if Beria had told the story of Stalin ringing him up and saying, "Shoot this vegan pig, he made my nose look big!" Or if there was a consensus among historians. Quoting an anecdote doesn't amount to endorsement. For example, Khrushchev in his memoirs says that Roosevelt was an Irish immigrant. That says a lot about Khrushchev, but it certainly isn't true. Equally, some people say that Stalin forgot to end Daylight Saving Time one year and it just continued indefinitely because no one was brave enough to tell him. Great anecdote, but not true.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah right, it was just the nose, then? Remnick makes the claim in his book Lenin's Tomb: The Last Days of the Soviet Empire. I expect you'll be able to find a copy if you look for it. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

let's go over the reliable sources that user:Claíomh Solais is using about Khrushchev. He has neglected to mention them or to tell us why he distrusts the Soviet Supreme Court. Rjensen (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

No. I created this section to query a specific point, separate from other discussions. Instead, I am greeted with avalanche after avalanche of largely irrelevant verbiage. Can we get back to improving the article?--Jack Upland (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The relevant quote from Remnick is given in the link provided by Martin above (which I have now been able to access). Thanks for that. "Stalin had his other painters shot and their paintings burned." However, the article here includes a portrait by Isaak Brodsky who apparently wasn't shot. The claim is vague and anecdotal. And both Nikolai Tolstoy and David Remnick are very polemical and populist writers.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see "very polemical and populist" at David Remnick. Maybe you need to add something over there? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

We do not need that kind of editorialising there or here. Intelligent readers can make up their own minds. Remnick is a journalist, not an academic historian, and you can see his polemical approach in this interview. The book's article describes it as an example of New Journalism, which (according to Wikipedia) entails having "a subjective perspective, a literary style reminiscent of long-form non-fiction and emphasizing 'truth' over 'facts'". It's the lack of factuality that concerns me. I would like to know who his source is and who was actually shot.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to know those things too. You're saying that you don't like the Tolstoy source, as it comes from "an unreliable source" Shostakovich. But when a second source is presented, you don't like that one either, because the author, who is also notable, has a style that concerns you. We could attribute to Remnick and let the reader decide? We could even provide both attributions. If you think Remnick is generally thought of as untrustworthy, however, you really should add a section to his article on "Criticism", or "Narrative style", or whatever, backed up with reliable sources. That might help the reader to decide about Stalin? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I have now tracked down the books. David Remnick (Lenin's Tomb, p 128) doesn't provide footnotes, but he has very similar information and phrasing to Nikolai Tolstoy, so it seems that there is ultimately a common source. Tolstoy (Stalin's Secret War, pp 19-20) quotes Shostakovich's memoirs, Testimony. Our article on the Testimony states that, "The authenticity of the book is still very much disputed". In any case, the book purports to be a collection of oral reminiscences, transcribed and edited by Solomon Volkov. In the book, Shostakovich begins a firsthand anecdote about meeting Stalin, and comments, "He didn't look anything like his numerous portraits" (p 254). Digressing, he tells an "Oriental parable" about a khan who executed portrait painters who didn't please him and adds "this khan sounds just like Stalin" (p 255). And then:

Stalin had several painters shot. They were called to the Kremlin to capture the leader and teacher for eternity, and apparently they didn't please him. Stalin wanted to be tall, with powerful hands, and he wanted the hands to be the same. Nalbandian fooled them all. In his portrait Stalin is walking straight at the viewer, his hands folded over his stomach. The view is from below, an angle that would make a Lilliputian look like a giant.

Shostakovich then goes on to mock the "luxurious dacha" that Nalbandian built with the money he got (p 256). (Apparently he's talking about this picture.) There is no suggestion that Shostakovich had firsthand knowledge about the painters being shot, and he doesn't name them. So the ultimate source is an secondhand anecdote recorded decades after the event in memoirs whose authenticity is disputed. And on the key part of the claim we use, the source says, "apparently they didn't please him", so even if we take this anecdote as reliable, it's only speculative. I think this claim fails verification. As it's only an aside in the "Appearance" section, it would be better to leave it out.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

That all seems very thorough and perfectly reasonable. Your claim that Remnick has the same source as Tolstoy is WP:OR supposition, of course, but it does look likely. So unless more solid sources can be found, I would not object to that being taken out. It might be useful, however, to replace it with a little more detail about how artists managed to please him - perhaps the bit about Nalbandian. Or don't you believe anything that Shostakovich says? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Given Jack Upland's history of misrepresenting sources and distorting quotes, I would prefer if someone more reliable checks these sources and provides full quotes. The fact that Remnick, a Pulitzer-prize winning author includes this in his book, long after the controversy about the authencity of Shostakovich's memoirs came to light, suggests that we can indeed accept as fact that Stalin had painters shot. Abovesky (talk) 09:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Alternatively I'd have no objection to having "Shostakovich claimed that Stalin had several painters shot." And I'd be surprised if Jack Upland would not want this too, as it would provide a correction to the unsourced statement in Remnick's book (not that it's Wikipedia's job to do this, of course). Or even "David Remnick claims that Stalin had several painters shot." Martinevans123 (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

All we can say about Shostakovich is he apparently said that Stalin had painters shot apparently because he didn't like the portraits. So it would be better to go with Remnick, because you can suppose that he has checked the story, even though he hasn't provided a footnote. In response to Martin's earlier question, yes, I think Shostakovich/Volkov are right about the composition of the Nalbandian portrait: it is both realistic and flattering, which is the point of the folktale about the khan. This seems to be a case of an anecdote being heavily embroidered. (And, if it matters, I think Shostakovich was a hero for what he did in Leningrad, but that doesn't make his memoirs infallible.) It's hard to prove a negative, but Jan Plamper in The Stalin Cult discusses the approving or disapproving of several Stalin portraits, but the story about painters being shot is conspicuous by its absence. In fact, several artists mentioned lived on for decades afterwards. Simon Montefiore has extensively researched Stalin's "court" and doesn't refer to this either, mentioning Alexander Gerasimov as a "court painter" but not Nalbandian. According to Montefiore, Stalin put on a show (at least) of being uncomfortable with the adulation (Court of the Red Tsar, pp 169-171, 504-506). He even defended a student who had hit his portrait with a paper plane as a good marksman (p 170). Stalin murdered a lot of people, but he didn't murder painters for getting his picture wrong. We should concentrate on facts that are well-documented, not anecdotes that are weakly sourced, vague, and misleading.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll let Martin know. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

And please pass it on to Martine Vansize as well, just in case.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Will do. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I have moved this claim into the "Cult of Personality" section, in line with the general consolidation of material about the portrayal of Stalin that I have been carrying out. I have attributed it to Remnick (as discussed above).--Jack Upland (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

PS I have come across a passage from Montefiore, Young Stalin, which has some bearing on this: "Stalin respected artistic talent, generally preferring to kill Party hacks instead of brilliant poets. Hence on Mandelstam's arrest Stalin ordered, 'Isolate but preserve.' He would preserve most of his geniuses , such as Shostakovich, Bulgakov and Eisenstein... But Stalin did preserve Pasternak: 'Leave that cloud-dweller in peace.'" (p 59 of the Phoenix Paperback).--Jack Upland (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Rise to power - no references

"In December 1934, the popular Communist Party boss in Leningrad, Sergei Kirov, was murdered. Stalin blamed Kirov's murder on a vast conspiracy of saboteurs and Trotskyites. He launched a massive purge against these internal enemies, putting them on rigged show trials and then having them executed or imprisoned in Siberian Gulags. "

This paragraph, with some quite startling claims has absolutely no references. It makes it sound like Stalin personally decided one day to kill everybody with his bare hands, just for fun. There is no real evidence that the Moscow trials were "rigged" or that the saboteurs were not actually working to overthrow the Soviet leadership. A lot of evidence exists to the contrary. In the United States, the death penalty for certain offenses exists; we do not attribute these to specific American presidents, so why are we attributing the capital punishment carried out on terrorists to Stalin personally? Prison labour is also common in many countries, including the US to this day (Federal Prison Industries and California Prison Industry Authority) so why are we treating criminals sent to them as "victims" (that word is even used!). Claíomh Solais (talk) 03:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

What you call "startling claims" is the scholarly consensus. Certainly citations should be added to this and other sections, but adding a fact tag is utterly inappropriate. WHat is startling are your absurd and offensive claims about the victims having been terrorists and criminals. Abovesky (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

WP policy is that we must assume good faith. On that basis, the OP's scepticism can only be explained by naivete and ignorance on a truly colossal scale. Go and read some more about the period and about Stalin's mass-murdering proclivities, then come back and use this talk page to apologise to any representatives of his victims, O ignoramus.

Gravuritas (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The shortage of references in this article generally is very bad for such a prominent topic.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

WP policy is not that everything needs to referenced, it is that references are available if something is challenged. Some of the challenges recently on this talk page have been quite ludicrous, and in the light of Stalin's record, hugely offensive. Other editors are responding professionally, but I find it inappropriate to reply politely to Stalin admirers.

Gravuritas (talk) 06:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

If you compare this with comparable articles — Adolf Hitler, Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt — it has far less references. The section on the Russian Revolution has no references at all! One sentence has been tagged "citation needed" since 2009. I think it's fair to say that references should be improved overall.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

If there are specific points which can genuinely be held in doubt, then by all means flag them and/or discuss them. But let's not bother too much with demands for references that the earth is not flat.

Gravuritas (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Gravuritas -- the problem is, since 1917, the British Empire has upheld an anti-communist narrative out of political self-interest. Almost all of the claims that Lenin, Stalin and Mao are this grand "trinity of evil" who swanned around killing random people just for fun, is a direct result of Anglo-Saxon propaganda and fear porn, or so-called "anti-Stalinist left" figures tacitly sponsored by the British and Americans. So we get a situation where, for example, the Chinese Wikipedia has a completely different, 180 degrees opposite, presentation of who Chairman Mao was to the English Wikipedia. I find it offensive that you are suggesting we just trust that the Anglos are telling the truth and paint whoever they don't like from other countries as sociopathic monsters, without even bothering to provide citations for such claims. Claíomh Solais (talk) 11:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Homegrown psychiatric diagnosis aside, I think Stalin was directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. I think that's an historical fact. If I came to this article and was told this was a myth, resulting from an "anti-communist narrative out of political self-interest", I'd probably think it was a quaint (but fundamentally very offensive) fairy tale. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@CS. Let's stick with Uncle Joe. It doesn't matter whether he killed people 'for fun' or to while away those long boring afternoons, the fact is that he did so on an (almost) unprecedented scale. Which makes you, as a denier of that fact, scum. 'Anglo-Saxon propaganda'? Ask the Ukrainians, the Poles, the Tatars, the Georgians.....

Gravuritas (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

it is not true that "since 1917, the British Empire has upheld an anti-communist narrative" No RS is provided for the claim and it overlooks the basic history as told in Russia–United Kingdom relations on March 16, 1921, the Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement was concluded between the two countries....Britain was the first country to accept Lenin's offer of a trade agreement. It ended the British blockade, and Russian courts were open to British ships. Both sides agreed to refrain from hostile propaganda. It amounted to de facto diplomatic recognition and opened a period of extensive trade.[ cite: Christine A. White, British and American Commercial Relations with Soviet Russia, 1918-1924 (U of North Carolina Press, 1992). ] Great Britain recognised the ... USSR on February 1, 1924. And of course they were allies 1941-45. In any case the "British Empire" was almost gone by 1960 so it did not sustain any narrative whatsoever. Rjensen (talk) 07:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

"O ignoramus", "Which makes you, as a denier of that fact, scum" - I strongly suggest that you apologise to Claíomh Solais for those remarks, Gravuritas. Whatever an editor's political beliefs, you are not entitled to break basic policies such as WP:Civility. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem is not CS's beliefs, whatever they may be, it's CS's statements. Flat dismissal of Stalin's mass-murdering record is so beyond the pale that civility is inappropriate, so an apology from me would also be inappropriate. Maybe an apology from you to Stalin's millions of victims would be a good idea, for defending the scum who deny their existence.

Gravuritas (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, Gravuritas. Civility is never inappropriate at Wikipedia - that's why it is one of the WP:Five pillars. Even if you don't feel like you can apologise to CS, please just hold your horses next time you want to insult someone. It is never necessary to call someone an "ignoramus" or "scum" on a Wikipedia talk page, regardless of how bizarre or offensive you may find their views. WP:Civility applies to everyone. You can't just break it whenever you feel like it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Claíomh Solais - what do you mean by Anglos?

The Polish propaganda is much more radical then the Anglo-Saxon one, compare e.g. the Katyn lies by Western allies. Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia have similar opinions.Xx236 (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Felix Dzerzhinsky, Vyacheslav Menzhinsky, Konstantin Rokossovsky would suggest that not all Poles were on the side of the reactionaries. Same with the Latvian Riflemen without whom the Bolshevik Revolution might not have been won. "Polish" propaganda was really only effective much later on, with Solidarity, Karol Wojtyla and the Vatican's Counter-Revolution (which by that point was a mere proxy of the Anglo-American Empire anyway). These issues are far too complex and multifaceted to say that all of the Balts and Poles were anti-Stalin and anti-Bolshevik, let alone "victims" of his. Claíomh Solais (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I think WP:NOTAFORUM reminder is appropriate here. Also starting comment of this section suggests that editor either lacks general knowledge to effectively edit this article, or holds extremely fringe views that would be impossible to fit with wikipedia policies on reliable sources. Btw, Moscow trials are also covered in article's purges and deportations section, with sources.--Staberinde (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't understand the connection between Claíomh Solais comments and biography of Joseph Stalin.

Generally Communists were atheistic internationalists. Some Christian nationalists survived Communist repressions and accepted some aspects of Communist politics, eg. Bolesław Piasecki in Poland, but they weren't notable for general history of Communism. Xx236 (talk) 07:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

the period of Stalin

Google doesn't support such name.Xx236 (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

A user introduced the phrase. It's OR, should be reverted.Xx236 (talk) 07:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

and other incidents

We have a pro-Soviet incident here.Xx236 (talk) 11:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC

BTW surely squabbles should be changed. Its not two children playing, it's two enormously powerful members of the communist party.

86.185.41.57

Dzhugashvili and other spellings

Please choose one.Xx236 (talk) 12:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't we need both English and Russian spellings, as appropriate? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Besarion Jughashvili had a son Dzhugashvili?Xx236 (talk) 07:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Cooperation with Nazi Germany

The description in the lead is biased. Please read The Devils' Alliance: Hitler's Pact with Stalin, 1939-1941 by Moorhouse. Xx236 (talk) 12:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The lead should summarize the article, regardless of what you'd like anyone to read. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I find your comment impolite.

after failed attempts to conclude anti-Hitler pacts with other major European powers THe SU had the biggest army of the world in 1939 and the strongest arm industry. Cooperation with Stalin would have allowed him to annect continental Europe in 1939.

The West tried to cooperate with Stalin since 1941 and Stalin destroyed the cooperation starving hundreds of thousands of Soviet people after the war. Do you care about Soviet people or rather about Chairman Stalin?Xx236 (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I find your instruction impolite. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't understand you. Is Please read impolite?

The phrase with Chairman Stalin uses language of User:Claíomh Solais, it wasn't addressed to you. I'm sorry if you believed it was.Xx236 (talk) 08:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

This episode lasted two years and we have two sections devoted to it. I think that's enough.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I have written The description in the lead is biased. Now you answer we have two sections.

The SU wanted in August 1939 to visit Poland. No Polish government would have accepted the Red Army (who had murdered, robbed and raped in Poland in 1920) nor the NKVD who murdered 111 000 of ethnic Poles, which was probably the biggest ethnic crime in Europe before 1941. So Stalin prefferred the business with Hitler.

Xx236 (talk) 08:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, you're talking about the lead, not the body of the article, but you apparently want to add more detail to the lead, which arguably has too much information about this episode, given that it was only an interlude of two years. The article doesn't mention Stalin's role in the Spanish Civil War and his leadership of the antifascist movement internationally. This prelude made the signing of the pact a shock to the Left round the world... But the question is how much information do we want here? In any case, you don't seem to be disagreeing with the current text, but rather adding your own commentary on it. The article can't discuss hypothetical scenarios (such as an anti-Hitler pact in 1939). It's hard enough managing events that did happen, without having to include events that didn't happen!--Jack Upland (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't like the phrase In August 1939, after failed attempts to conclude anti-Hitler pacts with Britain and France in the lead. It seems we have very similar opinions The article can't discuss hypothetical scenarios (such as an anti-Hitler pact in 1939)., especially the lead shouldn't. The pacts are being used by Soviet/Russian propaganda to rationalize the Soviet-Nazi cooperation.Xx236 (talk) 07:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you. To explain, I just changed to "...Britain and France.." from "major European powers" as this seemed slightly less bad. I suggest "after....France" is deleted.

Gravuritas (talk) 08:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Forced settlements

This edit reinserts an attribution to Rudolph Rummel, for the claim that "up to 43% of the resettled population died of diseases and malnutrition." Maybe he did make that claim, maybe others did too. But the source currently given in support of this statement has no author. So Rummel's name is unsupported. In fact the nature and origin of that source is somewhat obscure. I think the source should be improved and/or Rummel's name removed. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

It can be checked through the URL of source, http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/ is Rummel's website maintained by University of Hawaii.--Staberinde (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I searched there and failed to find it. Do you have a direct link to something? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1917 Appendix 1.2 Table 1.B. Soviet Transit, Camp, and Deportation Death Rates --Staberinde (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. That source has the phrase ""up to 43%" in it somewhere? I searched, but again could not find. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know Rummels methodology was rather naive - Arithmetic mean of any trash available. Rummel lacked any mathematical knowlledge. He has died, so we aren't able to discuss it with him.Xx236 (talk) 07:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Your edit reinserts an attribution to Rudolph Rummel, for the claim that "up to 43% of the resettled population died of diseases and malnutrition." Could you explain that to us please? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the table doesn't contain 43%. The phrase is quoted in Counseling Around the World: An International Handbook

Thomas H. Hohenshil, Norman E. Amundson, Spencer G. Niles John Wiley & Sons, 12 sty 2015 - 468 but the book probbaly quotes Wikipedia.Xx236 (talk) 08:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm getting a bit confused now. You are now giving the correct details of a source to support "43%"? How do we now if that book quotes Wikipedia or not? And that sounds an odd title in which to find such a figure. Where did that 43% originally come from? What has all this to do with Rummel? Is the existing source in the article still of any use? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The book was probably published, when the Wiki page already existed (I haven't verified it).

I have misunderstood, that the table contains the 43% number, but it didn't.

Could you please sign your last post, so that we can keep a track of who has said what? Thanks. And could you then please explain why you added, and then re-added, the name of Rudolph Rummel to that passage in the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

My guess is that 43% was taken from "Average deported dead" line where estimates low, mid and high(43.17%) are. I guess that value of those numbers may be questionable as they seem as rough estimates based on summarizing of various rough estimates.--Staberinde (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you could well be right. But is the authorship and provenance of that source clear to you? Perhaps you have some idea about the relevance of Rummel, who's name persists in that sentence? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Legacy outside the Soviet Union

It might be worth adding to the article Stalin's influence outside of the Soviet Union. For example, one of the preeminent figures of the second half of the 20th century, Che Guevara was completely onside with Stalin and rejected the Khrushchevite line on supposed "crimes." When Nelson Mandela was arrested, a significant body of Marxist literature, including works authored by Stalin were taken from his home and in interviews he openly admitted to being influence by such writings. Claíomh Solais (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The "Death and legacy" doesn't have much about his legacy and wastes space with various opinion polls. The article does not mention the Communist Party of China's continuing support for Stalin etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

At the same time, we need to be cautious not to allow any "Legacy" section to just become a mass of trivia. Obviously, someone like Stalin had a colossal impact on the world at large, influencing all manner of things and people, whether communist or anti-communist. We cannot simply start listing all of these things. Maybe restrict ourselves to mentioning things that the main Stalin biographers actually bring up as being particularly relevant? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I think we just need to exercise editorial judgement. An artificial restriction wouldn't help. If you want to talk about trivia, the two "Views on Stalin" sections are basically trivial, and could be reduced to a few sentences. On the other hand, the history of China and Maoism are clearly not trivial, but they are barely mentioned. But, no, we can't have a list of famous people who have read a book by Stalin etc. That would be a very long list.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080611034558/http://www.newseum.org/berlinwall/commissar_vanishes/vanishes.htm to http://www.newseum.org/berlinwall/commissar_vanishes/vanishes.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070630195229/http://www.skrobach.com/ukrhol.htm to http://www.skrobach.com/ukrhol.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ipn.lexi.net/images/uploaded/12-402934626c558--charles_steele_chapter6.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080611064213/http://www.etext.org/Politics/Staljin/Staljin/articles/AHR/AHR.html to http://www.etext.org/Politics/Staljin/Staljin/articles/AHR/AHR.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070827145945/http://www.joshuarubenstein.com/stalinsecret/intro.html to http://www.joshuarubenstein.com/stalinsecret/intro.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060221125439/http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060101facomment85101/sarah-e-mendelson-theodore-p-gerber/failing-the-stalin-test.html to http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060101facomment85101/sarah-e-mendelson-theodore-p-gerber/failing-the-stalin-test.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://bigstory.ap.org/article/stalins-victims-memorial-unveiled-outside-kiev

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

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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) 19:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• 4 out of 6 ok. Corrected formatting/usage for [6] has not worked and loooks dead? And the last link [7] appears to be not dead. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

'Critics' in the lede

@Midnightblueowl. Your words- 'critics see him as...' are trying to strike an artificial balance between different views of Stalin. However, those who view him as a tyrant and a mass-murderer are plainly right: you can't describe them as his 'critics' as this implies there are defenders who deny it. There are clearly a relatively small number of people who value his achievements and wish to offset those against his crimes, and that view should have appropriate weight in the article. But there is no legitimate view that he wasn't a tyrant: deniers of his murders have no place in the article (and preferably would have no place in WP talk pages). Hence those who view him as a tyrant are not his 'critics'- they are simply all rational people. My use of 'Most' was not a weasel word- it was correct- but on second thoughts it was too weak so I have now changed the wording to simply be that he was a tyrant etc. Gravuritas (talk) 04:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I can appreciate the argument that "critics" may not necessarily be the best word. "Most" is, however, clearly a WP:Weasel word (or at least, I regularly see it tagged as a weasel word on Wiki articles). I've gone with "More widely, he has been criticised as..." which hopefully does the trick. It would be good to see what other editors had to say on this issue, too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

"Most" may be weasel elsewhere, but in this usage it has the same meaning as "More widely". Both of them are true, but suffer from being too weak. Let's do it this way- is there any WP:RS which claims he was NOT a tyrant? If not, then the simple bald statement is better.

Gravuritas (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that they are necessarily too weak, at least from a Wikipedia standpoint. I don't know if you are actively suggesting that we describe Stalin as a "tyrant" in the lede, but I think that a term like that is frankly far too emotive for the purposes of Wikipedia. I certainly appreciate your point that we need to be cautious not to fall into some sort of utter subjectivity where denialist views are given equal weight to those fully substantiated by historical research. At the same time we cannot use rhetoric that deliberately demonises Stalin; that would be un-encyclopedic. We can state the pertinent facts without putting any particular slant on them, whether pro- or anti-Stalin. It's not always easy, but it's a balance that we have to get right. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, old sport, that response of yours is way off the mark. Stalin was a tyrant. Look up the definition of the word. Was he described as such by WP:RS? Yes. Are there any dissenting RS voices that claim he wasn't a tyrant? No. And as for your insinuations of "deliberately demonising", "slant"- rubbish. too emotive? If an epithet fits the facts by WP:RS standards, why be mealy- mouthed? Finally, your preferred term clearly is inadequate- "more widely" would fit a situation in which say 66% of scholars say yes and 33% say no. That's not remotely the case here, so 'more widely' is too weak.

Gravuritas (talk) 13:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, both User:FreeKnowledgeCreator and User:SpikeballUnion have now also backed the inclusion of "Critics say..." or something to that effect. Gravuritas, if you want to stand your ground, then maybe we need an RfC on this issue?

Georgia

change ((Georgia|Georgian)) to ((History of Georgia (country)|Georgian)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4305:c70:e99d:bade:9a88:a4d9 (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2017‎ (UTC)

Partly done: Please be more specific about exactly where in the article you think a change is needed. I did find one instance of a link to the Georgia disambiguation page, in the "Childhood" section, which I have corrected to link to Georgia (country). If you believe that History of Georgia (country) would be a better link, please explain why, as the main country article seems appropriate to me. Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead has been bastardised since 28 April 2017

Since revision 777616680 (the link works) on 28 April 2017, the lead has been completely changed, mostly by the editor Midnightblueowl. Of course, the intentions of the editor are good, however there has been a corruption of the lead since this time. The lead on/before 28 April 2017 was relatively neutral in its point of view and reflected the article well. It didn't include original presuppositions; "He was a totalitarian dictator", "[Stalin's] policies ... contributed to the 1932-33 famine" and others, which, in the body of the article, are accurately represented as subjects of debate instead. Unimportant details such as "impoverished mother" have been added in, right at the top of the lead, instead of being left out for the Early life section (additionally in the "impoverished mother" sentence, his country of birth Georgia has been removed; only Gori and the Russian Empire have replaced it; this is not a representation of relevant information). There are other issues which I could go on regarding this, however I wish to hear the view of the editor(s) involved to see why they edited the lead in this manner. Additionally, some of my wording edits for neutral-point-of-view ("government" instead of "regime", "personality cults were established" rather than "established personality cults") to the original revisions have been eliminated. Indeed as a whole, the original lead was much more neutral in wording than this new revision. SpikeballUnion (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, SpikeballUnion. I am certainly more than happy to see further changes made to the lede, but I really do not think that we should just return to the previous lede, which was far too lengthy, contained excessive detail on certain issues (particularly WW2), and omitted other pertinent facts (such as his family background, the Tiflis robbery, etc). My reformatting of the lede was designed to mirror the lede sections of FA-rated political biographies like Vladimir Lenin and Nelson Mandela, so I do think that the present structure is something worth keeping, even if it is tweaked in various places. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. What do you have to say specifically regarding the few specific issues I mentioned? Why do you think that his mother being impoverished and the omission of his country of birth is a more important summary of information than the inclusion of his country of birth? Additionally, why have you made those statements, the topics of which are shown as being under considerable debate in the body of the article? Also, what kind of a statement is "[Stalin] established personality cults around both Lenin and himself."? It gives the impression that Joseph Stalin grinned, drifted his hand through the air and suddenly parading people and posters of himself and Lenin appeared all over the Soviet Union. Exaggerations aside, you get my point. The details about his personality cult is already made clear in the body of the article - the statement you have written in the lead doesn't match what is written in the article. Finally, explain please how the original lead as a whole was not as good as the version you've written - i.e., explain why you can't simply remove the lengthy parts you don't see fit and leave the remainder as it is. SpikeballUnion (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

"He was a totalitarian dictator" is not my wording (or at least, not in its present context). I went with "Critics regard him as a totalitarian dictator" (again, mirroring the Lenin article) but Gravuritas has changed that to the present wording (there's a section about this above which you are more than welcome to contribute to). As for the "[Stalin] established personality cults around both Lenin and himself", that was my attempt to summarise the construction of the personality cult that occurred in the USSR but if you feel that it poorly reflects the situation then we can certainly change it; I nevertheless do think it pertinent to note in the lede that there was such a personality cult during the Stalinist period. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Is there anything that you feel was present in the previous version but which has been lost in the new one and which you think really is vital for inclusion in the lede? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

By the way, editing an article to mirror the content of another article is not an advised procedure (I learnt that when trying to edit RT's lead based on other publicly owned TV networks). Sure, the other articles may be FA-rated, however only meeting the criteria to become a Featured article is what is required, not observing and copying the structure of any part of a Featured article per se. The people you mentioned are not the same, and their life and political careers cannot be paralleled. I don't see how the original revision of the lead was not worthy of simply being tweaked into something of Featured rating, i.e., resizing its content, as you wished, rather than having its entire wording changed. Out of the FA people you mentioned, Stalin has had the longest time period and largest part of his career directly involved in a major war. His decisions were crucial in determining how the 6-year World War played out, within his 20-year tenure. I think that the content in the lead regarding his role in the war was fine, but not only that, it was more neutral than the current version. Less did it demonise Stalin and portray him as an aggressor, and more did it simply describe the role he played in World War II. SpikeballUnion (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

In my many years experience of getting political biographies (and other biographies) to GA and FA level, I have found it very advisable to ensure that there is a level of standardisation among related topics (Lenin and Stalin of course being closely related). Moreover, I do not believe that the previous lede could just be "tweaked into something of Featured rating" - it had too many problems. That being said of course, the entire article is a very long way from being even GA-quality, let alone FA-quality. Anyway, let's wait and see what other editors have to say, and if you feel that there are any ways in which the present lede can be tweaked then it would be good to hear them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

In reply to your 2nd post: yes indeed. Absolutely should the personality cult of Stalin be mentioned in the lead, however, in accordance with the info in the body, to claim, or should I say word, that he singlehandedly physically achieved it would be inaccurate, as that is impossible; it required the public support of the participating populace. Indeed, in the body it is stated that he felt humbled by the cult (a similar piece of information is stated in the Lenin article). Secondly, thank you for informing me of Gravuritas's edit to your revision. I made care to state that the overall current version of the lead was possibly the product of multiple editors. Regarding the statements and the edits, I would just say refer back to the version of 28 April 2017 linked above, as I think it serves as a good reference for the neutral wording I'm trying to get across. The thing I agree should be removed is the "capitalism" speech. The war summary however describes crucial events like the capture of Berlin, the division of Europe, the Battle of Stalingrad, etc. It's the wording which I'm most concerned about. SpikeballUnion (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I very much understand your preference for standardisation. I had the same frustrations on my Balgo-Zaoce (link works) article. However, I do believe that tiny villages in Burkina Faso within the same Department, Province and Region are much more similar than Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin, individuals with their own courses of life and different events notable for inclusion in their summaries. SpikeballUnion (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

With regard to the mention of personality cults, I've tweaked the prose to "while a cult of personality developed around him." I think that that works better; would you agree? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I've also added mention of the Battle of Berlin at the appropriate juncture of the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

In reply to the second message above: yes, I agree that that works better. It is the same as is worded in the body of the article. The stain I can see in the lead now however is the "He was a totalitarian dictator", which I think you would agree would be appropriate for me to revert rather than you. Additionally, I wish to challenge the editor's inclusion of the phrase "human rights" in the lead, as during Stalin's time (particularly the time of most of the said "abuses" - pre-1939), there wasn't much of a concept of human rights, nor did the UN even exist to define them. I think that the original summary of deaths caused by his government was very much more appropriate than the current one overall. SpikeballUnion (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, if you don't mind, I wish to embark on an edit which would include most of my suggestions and concerns but within the framework of the lead you've written. I can revert it if you don't agree and don't wish to accrue reverts yourself. How does that sound? SpikeballUnion (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Be my guest. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I published the edit. I've added some things from the original lead I felt were missing but kept it a reasonable length, and I adapted the wording in certain places for neutral point of view. I kept many of your added facts in the edit. SpikeballUnion (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I shall point out that I took the out "priest" part from the lead, because it is mentioned in the body that he became an atheist within one year, and, out of all of his Early life section, the priest occupation only takes up a single phrase. I also took out the "impoverished mother" part for reasons aforementioned. SpikeballUnion (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

"During the 1940s, the Soviets annexed the Baltic states, installed Marxist-Leninist governments throughout the Eastern Bloc, and backed Marxist-Leninist takeovers in China, North Korea, and North Vietnam" is both far more honest and more to-the-point than "In the 1940s, in addition to the Soviet occupation the Baltic states, communist governments loyal to the Soviet Union gained power in most countries freed from German occupation by the Red Army, which later constituted the Eastern Bloc. Stalin also had close relations with Mao Zedong in China and Kim Il-sung in North Korea." In a sane world, we should restore the former language, but I know there are a surprisingly large number of commie editors out there who still prefer to think of these events as "People's Revolutions" that just happened to coincide with Soviet influence/occupation.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I find this sentence in the lead problematic: "Ideologically a Marxist-Leninist and Russian nationalist, his policies and theories became known as Stalinism." The reference to Russian nationalism appears to reflect Robert Service's view, but Simon Montefiore (for one) has a different view. As discussed previously, the argument that he was Russian nationalist relies on a comparison with Lenin, who was an extreme internationalist. Stalin was not a Russian nationalist by the standards of the Russian Empire in which he was born. In addition, this sentence implies that Russian nationalism is inherent to Stalinism. However, there have been Stalinists all round the world (e.g., in China) who were not Russian nationalists. Overall, this sentence is misleading.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

As I say, it is best to describe what occurred rather than place individual entities as the sole participants involved, at least when it better summarises the article rather than says something new. Yes, while the Soviets did obviously have a major role in laying the foundation for these governments to be set up, they could not have been sustained without at least some support from the populace initially. There was not a Red Army soldier left in the country for every citizen of that country watching them closely. It was rather the legacy of Red Army occupation which fostered the sentiments needed to establish and sustain these communist governments. SpikeballUnion (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree Jack. I placed that addition among the concerns I had with the new version of the lead. I don't even think it's appropriate to say ideologically he was a Marxist-Leninist, because he essentially invented the term to describe any of his policies during his tenure in the Soviet Union. I think the original lead is more appropriate with its lack of a statement regarding an ideology of Stalin, except for Stalinism (as it is described in the current version). SpikeballUnion (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. I feel that this new version restores too much of the older, problematic version. Again, it's just too long and includes trivia (do we really need to list all seven members of the first Politburo in the lede?). I've reverted, but let's continue the back-and-forth. We could perhaps go through each line in question and debate how it could be improved? Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

To address your concerns over the lead's length, I've seen many many leads which are of comparable length. However, I agree that the cabinet members he shared in the Politburo don't necessarily need to be included (although I do think it puts his role in perspective during that time). I will try to edit it again in a shorter version. SpikeballUnion (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe provide a list here at the Talk Page of things that were in the older version and which you feel should be added into this one? That way we can discuss the different proposed sentences and the ways in which they might be reworded. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Two problems with both your versions. In a misunderstanding of what NPOV means, you both try to say that "critics" say e.g he killed millions. But there is no RS denying that he killed millions, so your statement is misleading. He killed millions. And prefacing the non-aggression pact with the failure to sign other agreements suggests that one was a consequence of the other. Who says so?

Gravuritas (talk) 04:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Gravuritas I know that you have a personal problem with the way Stalin is portrayed in the encyclopaedia, however the job of Wikipedia is just to display what historians and academics think, not to point fingers itself, and on controversial and/or debated items it's even more important to point out that certain groups of people think certain things. Your claim is that he singlehandedly killed millions; I wish to refer you to the third message in this thread, the one about drifting Stalin's hand hand through the air and suddenly repression appearing. The various processes that resulted in people's deaths were absolutely not as simple as that, and it would be very misleading to portray it as such in the lead of the article. SpikeballUnion (talk) 13:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Plus, it is already stated that it is widely agreed that the number of deaths resulting from his government are in the order of millions. That is enough summarisation of the collective opinions of writers. To get even more specific on what happened and make claims based on it would be inappropriate, especially for the lead. SpikeballUnion (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, I'm sure you know the policy about words to watch - contentious labels. Whilst the definition of a word may seem to be suitable in someone's eyes for something, words carry connotations. The job of Wikipedia is to describe as neutrally as possible, and if there are views of writers which involve words that carry connotations, its job is to state them as views of writers. SpikeballUnion (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I've published another lead edit, this time keeping much more to the original paragraphing structure. I removed the Politburo members, Trotsky's views on world revolution and several other things, and I added in more facts that Midnightblueowl added. I also put Soviet in the start for his nationality. If there are disagreements you can discuss them here or edit them in, however I do hope that this revision won't get reverted to the mess that the old one was. SpikeballUnion (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks good, SpikeballUnion. There are some areas where the prose could be tweaked (a few superfluous words etc) but generally I'm very happy with this version. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

You misstate, or misunderstand, my point, and it is not 'my personal problem', it is a matter of precision in the syntax. I am not particularly trying to select the epithet: dictator, mass- murderer, whatever. I am kicking against any construction of the form 'Critics say...' where what follows is not disputed. 'Critics say he was a dictator' implies that there are those (or rather there is some WP:RS) that says he was not a dictator. That's not true: his fans point to what they view as his achievements, but nobody well-informed and with a brain claims he was not a dictator, or was not responsible for millions of deaths. So I will keep deleting the inaccurate 'Critics say' clause when needed to restore a sentence to a non- mendacious version. Feel free to find an alternative version which is actually true, and also is sufficiently mealy- mouthed to satisfy your feelings on what a NPOV looks like. I am perfectly happy, for instance, with a slight restatement of your words above: the number of deaths resulting from his government were in the millions. Just don't put 'His critics say' in front of it.

Gravuritas (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Qzd. Suggest you deal with the reasoning in the para above before asserting that I'm POV pushing.

Gravuritas (talk) 01:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't need a [citation needed] notice because the body of the article contains many viewpoints critical of Stalin; these are critics of Stalin. Also, the burden of proof is not on me to find writers who aren't critical of Stalin, but on whoever wants to claim that "He was a totalitarian dictator" or make other standalone statements critical of him. They have to find in the writings on Stalin every single one agree that he was a dictator. Regardless, in the body of the article it is stated that "54% of Russian youth agreed that Stalin did more good than bad while 46% disagreed that Stalin was a "cruel tyrant"", which already discredits any attempt to make these non-universally agreed statements. The part of the lead about opinions on Stalin is best left how it is. SpikeballUnion (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

First sentence is a thoroughly disingenuous sidestep of the point: shame on you. As you are fully aware, it is no part of my point to deny that critics say this: my whole point is that nobody RS denies it. My point is supported by all the RS that describes Stalin as such. And as you are equally aware, Joe public in Russia or any other country is not WP:RS, so trying to counter a point supported by lots of RS by reference to 'wot some people think' is a garbage argument. To emphasise: my point is that there is no RS that he wasn't a dictator, and your slithering this into a different point- that 'every single one agrees that he is a dictator' is a straw man argument. Now please refrain from rhetorical slithering and address the point fairly: can you find some significant RS that claims he was not a dictator? If not, then stop wasting time.

Gravuritas (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Gravuritas, please keep your comments within the bounds of WP:Civility. You've been warned about this before, here, here, here, here, and here. There's really no excuse. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@ MBO. On this particular issue then you have been very free with your conclusions; keen to sprinkle unsupported assertions such as 'slant' or POV into the talk and the edit summaries; and yet very shy of engagng with the substantive argument. Stick to the knitting. Meantime, maybe you can explain why your 'side' of this discussion wishes to misrepresent my point; use a straw man argument; and most blatant of all, use an opinion poll as RS. Maybe you can encourage the reading and inward digestion of Fallacy and dispense your advice in a different direction. Or maybe you could just address the point, fairly.

Gravuritas (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Supporters emphasise one thing about a figure; detractors and critics emphasise another. Both things can be based in reality (i.e. Stalin could be a hero of socialism and of the Second World War while at the same time being a tyrannical totalitarian dictator responsible for mass atrocities). However, specifying that "Supporters think x" while presenting the critical view in a totally different, and authoritative voice, raises concerns. Your perspective would effectively present the view that okay, his supporters think this, but the reality is that. There's a definite undercurrent of anti-Stalin prejudice there and that is not encyclopaedic (and I say this as someone who is most certainly not sympathetic to Stalin). That is why I favour something like "Critics emphasise that..." or "Critics highlight..." That way we can keep a more even-handed balance between 'critics' and 'supporters' while at the same time not presenting the view that mass killings and repressions only occurred in some subjective anti-Stalin view of the universe. I also think it worth pointing out that similar forms of 'critics/supporters' wording are employed in FA-rated political biographies like Vladimir Lenin and Nelson Mandela, so there is certainly a precedent there. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging with the point, and I love the typo- there is 'certainly a president there', though probs not an apt precedent. Let me try to distinguish the cases once more. Let's consider e.g. the fast- paced industrialisation. Afaik, which is not far in this particular topic, nobody disputes that he achieved this. So, and I haven't checked the article, it would be best to say something along the lines of "Stalin (or his government) achieved very fast industrialisation, with steel production rising by a factor 10 in 15 years" or whatever. I would deprecate the use of "Supporters say Stalin achieved..." because there is a false implication in that syntax. The false implication is that Stalin's detractors deny that he achieved fast industrialization. The statement 'achieved fast industrialisation' deserves to be "in an authoratitive voice" because it is not seriously disputed. Similarly, if you wish there to be anything in the lede about Stalin being a dictator, we should not shy away from saying so "in an authoratitive voice" just because it doesn't sound nice. The appropriate test to make the full, unqualified statement must be: Does any RS deny that statement?

PS Let me answer my own question. This issue has been rumbling around for sometime now, with multiple posts. My repeated challenge to find RS denying that Stalin was a dictator has not been picked up, and as you've found the time to research irrelevancies such as my previous less-than-polite treatment of wilful mendacity, then I can only assume that such a source has been looked for, and not found. Tant pis.

Gravuritas (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@MBO. Following your latest edit to this bit of the lede "Critics emphasise...". then it is no longer misleading. Thank you.

Gravuritas (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Stalin's nationality in the opening sentence

Midnightblueowl I wish to point out that Soviet was indeed a nationality; it's even listed in Stalin's infobox. Georgian was his other nationality, but the job of the lead is to convey the most important information as such, and his Georgian ethnicity is something that is more relevant to his early life rather than his life as the leader of the Soviet Union. SpikeballUnion (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I can certainly understand why Stalin could be considered "Soviet" (is it a nationality though, or just a citizenship?), however he could only be considered such post-1922. He only became a Soviet citizen after he was forty-four years old. Given that he died at the age of seventy-four, this means that he was only a Soviet citizen for a minority of his life. For that reason I think that there are very serious problems with labelling him "Soviet" in the opening sentence. Conversely, he was Georgian from the moment that he was born to the moment that he died. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I still relatively strongly object to him being labelled as a "Georgian revolutionary" within the first few words of the entire article. It only serves to mislead and give wrong context, especially to uninformed readers. The most notable portion of his life, by far, was his tenure as the Soviet leader; he never had such fame or notability as a "Georgian". Additionally, it was his nationality too. There's nothing wrong with referring to his early life as Georgian and emphasising that the life we all know of Stalin was while he was Soviet. It in fact adds clarity rather than subtracts from it, especially since Georgian is already still mentioned in the lead right after the beginning. SpikeballUnion (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

In reading this debate, it seems that there may be a misconception about what "nationality" means. It is a common mistake to confuse "ethnicity" and "nationality". As the first sentence of our article explicitly says "nationality" is the legal relationship between a person and a state. While Stalin's ethnicity was undoubtedly Georgian, his nationality at birth couldn't have been Georgian, because there was no Georgian state until 1918. (see Georgia within the Russian Empire, Georgia Governorate) So at his birth in 1878, his nationality was technically Russian: he was a subject of the Russian Empire and that was really the only "legal relationship" he had to any existing state. After the foundation of the Soviet Union in 1922, Stalin a Soviet: his legal relationship was with the Soviet Union. So, while his ethnicity is always "Georgian", his nationality was "Russian" then "Soviet", but never "Georgian".--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 20:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. This was my hunch. I never had a confusion over what ethnicity and nationality are, however I was pulled into believing that he had a Georgian nationality, merely because it was established in the article. SpikeballUnion (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

However, that still doesn't change the fact that he wasn't of Soviet nationality for the majority of his life, because the Soviet Union simply did not exist. How about we find some kind of compromise by opening the sentence with "Georgian-Soviet"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

He was famous for being Soviet. He was a citizen of Soviet Russia since 1917, so that's roughly half his life. Georgian, while true, makes him sound as if his activities were largely based in Georgia. Georgian-Soviet is confusing, a kind of neologism which begs for a definition.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

My point exactly, Jack. SpikeballUnion (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Didn't Stalin say: "I am Russian of Georgian origin" (я русский грузинского происхождения)? Just google it. Machinarium (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, he might have done. I can't find that in English. If you look in the "Personality" section, you can see historians have said he was profoundly Georgian. The page of Anastas Mikoyan, one of his henchmen, has the following quote: "I am not a Russian. Stalin is not a Russian." He and Stalin were said to share a toast: "To hell with all these Russians!"--Jack Upland (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

That page didn't convince me, it seems historians are still careful about this. Anyway, to call Stalin 'Georgian-Soviet' in the lead is rather unusual. We don't refer to Leon Trotsky as 'Jewish-Soviet', or to Nikita Khrushchev as 'Russian Soviet'. Why not just call Stalin a Soviet which is the proper thing to do? Machinarium (talk) 22:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I've changed ti to Soviet, as there seems to be a consensus here in favour of Soviet.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Only Russian nationalists appreciate Soviet WWII victory?

There are still some problems with the introduction;

"After the fall of the Soviet Union, Stalin has been praised by Russian nationalists for his role in defeating Nazi Germany and establishing the Soviet Union as a major world power."

I don't see why we should emphasise in the introduction that Russian nationalists in particular think it is good that the Soviet Union under Stalin defeated the Third Reich. Most people across the world, who aren't, you know, Nazis, think its good thing that Eastern Europe wasn't permanently subjugated under the Third Reich! Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The prose does not claim that only Russian nationalists hold this view, but it is a view that is held by many Russian nationalists (and we have reliable sources cited in the article which state that). I think it important to reflect that Stalin does remain an important figure for many in the Russian nationalist milieu, both for his actions in WW2 and for establishing the USSR as a Soviet Union. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Unbalanced praise for Stalin's role in WW2 is largely limited to his fans. The grown-ups believe that, before helping to win WW2, he damn near lost it. Shooting most of his officers; poor strategy, and disregarding warnings from various sources were some of his major errors. And most people who aren't, you know, Stalinists, think it's a bad thing that Eastern Europe continued to be subjugated afterwards, by the Soviet imperialists.

Gravuritas (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Here in the USA, Stalin has not been praised for his role in defeating Nazi Germany. I mean, not at all. Among the average person, well most people don't even think about WWII anymore, but when it was more current, people just mostly didn't think of crediting the Russians that much, and especially not Stalin. Ditto for our elite leaders, who within a few months of the close of WWII would have stopped praising Stalin (if the ever did) out of political expedience. Actual professional historians I don't know but they don't much matter. So for the USA at least you can't say Stalin was praised. For the UK and Europe, I dunno, maybe kind of the same (although the Europeans had communists, the USA didn't). So on that basis the statement kind of makes sense.

Maybe (probably) people who weren't Russian nationalists should have given Stalin more praise and credit. But if they didn't we can't say that they did. Herostratus (talk) 03:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, Stalin has been widely praised for his efforts in WW2, being presented with the Sword of Stalingrad by the British government. This article contains a quote from American diplomat Harriman in 1972 which claims that Stalin was the greatest of the Allied leaders. A similar conclusion was reached by British historian Geoffrey Roberts in his 2006 book Stalin's Wars (for a summary, see here). Time magazine made Stalin "man of the year" twice and in 1943 Warners Bros produced the pro-Stalin Mission to Moscow. The US State Department historian currently says that, "Without the remarkable efforts of the Soviet Union on the Eastern Front, the United States and Great Britain would have been hard pressed to score a decisive military victory over Nazi Germany". At the time Stalin was praised as far afield as the Republic of China and Australia. Clearly this was affected by the Cold War and by nationalism, but to imply that only Russian nationalists have praised Stalin for his role in WW2 is very misleading.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's true -- during the war of course. But not much after. But yes, during the war Stalin was heaped with praise generally, in the west. Herostratus (talk) 05:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

It was a businees, the UK and USA delivered arms and food, the SU delivered millions of mistreated soldiers. It's immoral to describe the business the way you do. It was exactly W. Averell Harriman who did the business with Stalin, don't expect him to understand anything and to tell the truth. Xx236 (talk) 06:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The other problem is that some Russian nationalists deplore Stalin: some support the Tsar and some think the Soviet government was run by Jews. I think it would be better not to single out Russian nationalists. We could say something like Stalin has been widely credited with helping defeat Nazi Germany, but he has also been widely condemned for...--Jack Upland (talk) 12:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The lead is biased

Soviet forces occupied the Baltic states and communist governments loyal to the Soviet Union gained power in most countries freed from German occupation by the Red Army, which later constituted the Eastern Bloc.

Czechoslovakia was the only state, where Communists gained power. Other states were occupied by the Red Army, NKVD and Smersh, it's yoyur opinion they were freed.

Part of Czechoslovakia was liberated the US Army.Xx236 (talk) 07:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The author is User:SpikeballUnion. Please don't impose your POV.Xx236 (talk) 09:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not the author of the use of the term "freed" - that was transferred from an earlier revision of the lead. If you don't like that particular word, feel free to change it. All I did in my edits was replace the the terms "annexed", "backed" and "takeovers" in the former edit, which were politically charged and were not NPOV, and not completely accurate choices of words. SpikeballUnion (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry to misunderstand so many edits. However it's you who invented and imposed The period of Stalin. Xx236 (talk) 06:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

It's funny how you say "imposed". It's probably the least possibly non-neutral phrase in existence for what it's referring to. SpikeballUnion (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

It's funny that - thanks to Stalin and his friends - I had to learn Russian at school and wasn't allowed to learn English.

You did your edits without discussing them here. Please describe such behaviour in your perfect English. Xx236 (talk) 08:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Totalitarian censorship

The page does not describe the system of totalitarian censorship, in which people were imprisoned or killed because they had a pre-revolution book.Xx236 (talk) 07:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Former Soviet leaders, especially Trotsky, were ereased from the Soviet history.Xx236 (talk) 07:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

And their texts deadly.Xx236 (talk) 07:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)

It's listed as Stalin's work. Stalin was an editor.

The page does not inform about the indoctrination of the society (and other nations). Any educated Soviet citizen had to learn the book by heart.Xx236 (talk) 07:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The period of Stalin

User:SpikeballUnion introduced many times the - allegedly neutral - phrase. Unsourced, undiscussed. Xx236 (talk) 09:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Soviet terror in occupied Poland should be mentioned

Other annexations are unproportionally described.Xx236 (talk) 06:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

This is why I mentioned a "Polish opinion". You have to remember this is an article on the life of Joseph Stalin. SpikeballUnion (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

What is Stalin government?

who had been publicly denounced twice by the Stalin government

Stalin personally decided.

What is the government?Xx236 (talk) 07:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

It took the work of the entire government to remove people from photos and historical references, i.e. the "denunciation" process. Don't make a figurehead of Stalin more than is necessary. SpikeballUnion (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I have asked what is the Stalin government? You don't answer and attack me.

Soviet ex4ecutive was specific, so the word government has to translated into Soviet language.

Stalin decided, who was to be removed and yes, he didn't do it personally, but using different institutions, mostly NKVD.Xx236 (talk) 08:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

In "Soviet language" that would be "Soviet government". I think you need a wikibreak. My very best wishes (talk) 02:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Service, an expert?

• [8]
• [9] Xx236 (talk) 08:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Amazon brings a short critics, I don't know if I'm allowed to quote it here, but you may read it yourself. Xx236 (talk) 08:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Virtually all biographies on a figure as controversial as Stalin have attracted criticism on various fronts. That does not stop them from being WP:Reliable sources. The links that you cite are to a website run by the World Socialist Web Site, a Trotskyite group. Clearly, their own review is likely to be impacted by their particular ideological focus, one that is pro-Lenin yet anti-Stalin and certainly anti-conservative. Indeed, they criticise Robert Service for being a "historian with reactionary ideological conceptions". That's fine; they are entitled to their opinion. But I would also caution that what a Trotskyite regards as "reactionary" is probably a lot broader than the way in which the term is commonly understood within political science and mainstream discourse. Basically, their central complaint is that Service is not a Marxist, let alone a Trotskyite, and for that reason his book is bad. Nevertheless, it is important that we not rely too much on any one historian, and that is why my recent additions have utilised not just Service, but also the biographies of Dmitri Volkogonov, Robert Conquest, and Simon Sebag Montefiore. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

As for Xx236's reference to Amazon customer reviews, I would not give much credence to them, but for what it's worth, Service's book has nineteen "five star" reviews, eleven "four star" reviews, six "three star" reviews, one "two star" reviews, and two "one star" reviews at amazon.co.uk. The proportions are very similar over at amazon.com. Of the two "one star" reviews, one slates the book because it is (allegedly) "nothing more than a petty-minded character assassination derived from half-baked ideas", while the other attacks it for being "gentle and supportive" of Stalin, thus "boost[ing] the reputation of a monster". Sometimes you just can't win... Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

New biography

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/2015-10-20/stalin-new-biography-dictator Xx236 (talk) 10:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2017

"It was at he conference that Stalin met Lenin for the first time." Should be changed to "It was at the conference that Stalin met Lenin for the first time." 95.46.32.147 (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Done, thanks for spotting and reporting the error. Murph9000 (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Removal of uncited material

Some 40 quite sensitive statements are made in this article without any citation given. I recommend that this material is either removed or citations found. I believe that to be very important in an article with a potentially sensitive subject like this. The neutrality of the article could be badly affected if statements are made on the basis of "common knowledge" rather than reference from a factual source, whether they are true or not. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 10:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm working on this problem; the situation that you mention will certainly be rectified, although it may take a few months to complete fully. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I think removing so many statements would be too drastic.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I have corrected one false statement and removed one spurious cn. Xx236 (talk) 09:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

cities, villages and farms as being open to pillaging and looting

And burning, many former German towns in Poland document the tactics.Xx236 (talk) 09:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Słupsk [10].

Ostróda [11]

Kietrz [12]

Olecko [13] Xx236 (talk) 09:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Greece

Yugoslavia and Albania supported the partizans. Is suspected encyclopedic here?Xx236 (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090303231527/http://www.cepr.org/meets/wkcn/7/753/papers/brainerd.pdf to http://www.cepr.org/meets/wkcn/7/753/papers/brainerd.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121114050425/http://anikov.myweb.uga.edu/intel/freire.pdf to http://anikov.myweb.uga.edu/intel/freire.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425121806/http://www.surgicalneurologyint.com/article.asp?issn=2152-7806%3Byear%3D2011%3Bvolume%3D2%3Bissue%3D1%3Bspage%3D161%3Bepage%3D161%3Baulast%3DFaria to http://www.surgicalneurologyint.com/article.asp?issn=2152-7806%3Byear%3D2011%3Bvolume%3D2%3Bissue%3D1%3Bspage%3D161%3Bepage%3D161%3Baulast%3DFaria

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 13:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Friends

Under "Relationships and family", we say (citing Volkogonov):

Stalin had very few close friends and none whom he retained throughout his life.

Taken literally, this is a platitude. Close friends tend to be few in number, and many people lose friends over their lifetime. But I think the implication, that Stalin was relatively friendless, is misleading. According to Montefiore (Young Stalin, p 385), Stalin kept in touch with old friends from Georgia, including Sasha Egnatshvili who became his food-taster (pp 387-9). Stalin was close to Alexander Svanidze (who was later executed). Stalin was close to Sergo Ordzhonikidze (who later killed himself). He was close to Anastas Mikoyan who he first met in 1919 and remained in his inner circle up to the end. In fact, Stalin was quite close to his colleagues, including Khrushchev and Zhdanov. Of course you can argue about the quality of these friendships, particularly given the reign of terror, but nevertheless this statement is either a platitude or misleading.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. I see your point. It might be best to keep the Volkogonov, but expand on it with some more in-depth information about his friends (citing Montefiore)? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't see the point of keeping a platitude. What Volkogonov actually says is "virtually no close friends", which goes further, and I think is false, or at least is contradicted by Montefiore. I think the fact is that Montefiore is done more research in archives, memoirs, and interviews, and has uncovered much information about Stalin's personal life that simply wasn't known previously. In Stalin, Montefiore says, "While incapable of true empathy on one hand, he was a master of friendships on the other. He constantly lost his temper, but when he set his mind to charming a man, he was irresistible" (p 49). Montefiore describes Sergei Kirov as Stalin's "closest friend" ('Stalin, p 114), Stalin and Artyom Mikoyan as having a "close relationship" (p 81), Stalin in the 1940s responding warmly to a "friend" from his exile (p 538), Stalin and Kliment Voroshilov having a "long friendship" (p 539), Stalin having an "old fondness" for Lavrenti Beria (p 549), Andrei Zhdanov as "Stalin's special friend" (p 553), and Stalin being "fond" of Mikhail Kalinin (p 569). I think we have a contradiction of sources, and Montefiore himself is contradictory. I'm not sure what we can say...--Jack Upland (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

You make a good point. I don't mind if you remove the Volkogonov-cited sentence. Alternately, we could ave something like "Volkogonov said that Stalin.... Conversely, Montefiore noted that Stalin had...." Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I would actually like to see the whole of what Volkogonov says, because I could only see it on snippet view. It would be good to say something about Stalin's friendships, but it's a matter of finding a source that sums it up aptly.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the Volkogonov quote. I've tried to find a replacement quote from Montefiore, but I can't find one. We say elsewhere that he could be very charming, so that's something...--Jack Upland (talk) 08:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Stalin was quite close to his colleagues, including Khrushchev and Zhdanov., Stalin and Artyom Mikoyan as having a "close relationship".

Stalin forced his friends' to drink heavily, according to Khrushchev and Mikoyan.

Regarding Svanidze and Ordzhonikidze - a deadly friendship. Their example proved, that noone was secure. Xx236 (talk) 08:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the drinking sessions are mentioned in the article. However, Stalin tried to stop Zhdanov from drinking because he was an alcoholic and had a heart condition. Yes, being close to Stalin didn't make anyone safe. You can also note the imprisonment of Molotov's wife Polina, Kalinin's wife Ekaterina, and Anastas Mikoyan's sons. Clearly, Stalin's friendships are rather ambivalent. It's just a matter of summing it up in a way that is factual, without being a synthesis.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

References

his role/ his government's role

From the lede: "Stalin has been praised by Russian nationalists for his role in defeating Nazi Germany and establishing the Soviet Union as a major world power. Critics emphasise his government's role in causing millions of deaths and numerous political, religious and ethnic repressions." Why is it his role for the positive and his government's role for the negative? I propose changing the latter to 'his role' but if anyone prefers changing the former then that would be acceptable.

Gravuritas (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. It should be the same. Also, I think it should be "supporters" rather than "Russian nationalists", as discussed before.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I am also happy with the proposed change from "his government" to "his role". Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Tiflis/Tbilisi

..changed its name in the 1930s, but Tiflis is still sprinkled through the article. Is there a general WP policy on how cities are referred to: by their contemporary name e.g. when Stalin was born, or by the name that exists today? In English. Gravuritas (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources like Montefiore's Young Stalin use the name that was utilised at the time (in this case Tbilisi). I think that it makes sense to follow these RS on this issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I think when Stalin was young, it was Tiflis.

Gravuritas (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, I think using Tbilisi, its modern name, would make sense throughout.

Gravuritas (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the policy is WP:MODERNPLACENAME. I would also favour Tbilisi. I think using Tiflis only confuses readers.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The WP:MODERNPLACENAME specifies: "Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources does the same; this includes the names of articles relating to particular historical periods." That would suggest we use Tiflis (not Tbilisi, as I mistakenly wrote above). I'm not super fused about which we use, but the policy would suggest that we use the term that was in use at the time. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Stalin was a hero

Closing discussion initiated by banned User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article is too biased against Stalin. He tried to stop World War II, even issuing a peace proposal on 28 September 1939 which the imperial powers Britain and France rejected. (2A00:23C4:638A:5000:D520:4830:1BA4:C241 (talk) 01:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)) It is the job of Wikipedia to neutrally present the information on Stalin produced in WP:Reliable sources. I am not aware of any reliable sources that uncritically claim that "Stalin was a hero". Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Personal life and characteristics

What is the rationale behind the changes to this section? Most of the subsections like "Appearance" have been removed. On the other hand, a lot of opinions by historians have been added. For example: "According to Service, Stalin's personality was 'a dangerously damaged one'...". How does he know this? In what ways damaged? I find the opinions of people who actually met Stalin interesting and informative, but historians playing at psychologists less so, particularly when their opinions are so platitudinous. And why have a framed quotation of Robert Service? I thought the quotation from Harriman was far more fascinating.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Service is a mixed bag. His biography of Trotsky is ok. Ultimately as an anti-communist and an essentially reactionary author though, his psychoanalysis of Stalin should be taken with a huge grain of salt. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I think that presenting the assessments of biographers who have clearly made an extensive study of Stalin's life is worthwhile. Historians like Simon Sebag de Montefiore and Robert Service have made thorough studies of Stalin's personal and public writings, and of the descriptions of him provided by various figures who knew them well, or met them only fleetingly. Their summaries thus carry some weight; that being said, they do of course have their own particular slants and biases, which is why I think it important to say thinks like "Service said that Stalin was..." rather than "Stalin was...". In general, additions that I have made to this section have been done with the intention of shaping this article so that it is more like that over at Vladimir Lenin, so I am hoping to get the Stalin "Personal life and characteristics" section looking more like the "Personal life and characteristics" section of the Lenin article. However, I am happy to discuss further if you feel that there is too much Service, or too much Montefiore here, or whatever the situation may be. It is of course a work in progress. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, but what about the elimination of subsections?--Jack Upland (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Potential sainthood?

Ignoring the usual claims from the news article ("reign of terror", "killed billions"), this might be worth mentioning. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation have lobbied the Russian Orthodox Church to recognise Stalin as a saint. While very strange it is an actual thing and maybe we should put it in the legacy section? Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the story is substantial enough. Online polls are a dime a dozen.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Jack. If the Russian Orthodox Church actually decides to go through with the canonization then I would definitely consider that worthy of addition, but not just the fact that the Communist Party have suggested it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Stalin's name

The Stalin Museum is a museum in Gori, Georgia dedicated to Stalin. 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. 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.--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. 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 here. Please stop edit warring your 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 script), therefore we follow what reliable secondary sources write, not our personal interpretations. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: @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?

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

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

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? MaisonHorta (talk) 09:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@MaisonHorta: I'm having difficulty in understanding which part of 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 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 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 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 verifable that a few sources use it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@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|{{Russian: Ио́сиф Виссарио́нович Ста́лин. Stalin was born with the name Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili (Georgian: იოსებ ბესარიონის ძე ჯუღაშვილი), which was transliterated into Russian as Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili (Russian: Ио́сиф Виссарио́нович Джугашви́ли). He adopted the surname "Stalin" after one of his revolutionary noms de guerre; see 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 (Georgian: იოსებ ბესარიონის ძე ჯუღაშვილი) is what he was called at by birth. He got a Russian version of this name, (Russian: 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:

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. 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. 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.

Gravuritas (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@MaisonHorta and Gravuritas: Please do not make bad faith assumptions about other editors, or hastily 'defend' editors from attacks that do not exist. You have both veered 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 pay attention to policies and guidelines being described to you). Google Ngram does not recognise "Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili". Google Scholar comes up with 66 results, the majority of which are wiki mirrors, and are not cited by any reliable sources. The search string for "Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili" results in 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 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 policies and guidelines. --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. 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. --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. MaisonHorta (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@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. 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. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

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

@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:

"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? MaisonHorta (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Midnightblueowl about creating a further subsection on "Birth" as redundant. It also isn't my 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 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". --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: "Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili" appears so often in the literature plus some contemporary documents, it should be addressed. MaisonHorta (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I've 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. --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. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

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

@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. 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? MaisonHorta (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@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 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 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. Verifiability is not sufficient. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

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

We only even mention it in one paragraph. 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 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:

• 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.

Y 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) 15:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Religion in the infobox

There have been several RfCs on religion in the infobox:

• 15 June 2015 RfC: 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: 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: 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: 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. --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. 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. 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. MaisonHorta (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

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

@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 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 back away. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2017

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. 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. Parryx (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

References

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.--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. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per above. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 13:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Where is the paragraph on his race and ethnicity?--2605:6000:3D11:3200:7DBA:781D:C7DA:B215 (talk) 01:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Fifth paragraph. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 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." 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."--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. 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. 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', but a 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"). --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? 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. --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. 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.--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. 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? Scaleshombre (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

(non-admin closure) Consensus is to keep "dictator" in the opening paragraph of the lead, with the option to clarify the use of the title in the body of the article. Snuge purveyor (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

---

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

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

Survey

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

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

• Keep. For more than sixty years, the consensus among top historians, political scientists, sovietologists, journalists, etc., has been that Stalin wasn't just a dictator -- he (along with his doppelganger from Braunau) was history's definitive dictator, the yardstick by which all subsequent tyrants must be measured. Scaleshombre (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with Scaleshombre. neutral editing in Wikipedia is reporting what the reliable sources RS say--not the title that Stalin chose for himself. The RS say dictator. Just browse through google scholar, which indexes scholarly books and magazines: 37,000 publications link to "Stalin dictator" at https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=stalin+dictator&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C27 Rjensen (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
• Keep, with qualifications: The mainstream view is that Stalin was a dictator, and I suspect a survey of reliable sources would be overwhelming, as RJensen has indicated. In fact, such was the view of the Soviet leadership after Stalin's death as expressed in Khrushchev's Secret Speech, noting particularly the critique of the "cult of personality" and the violations of "collective leadership". In fact, it was only a minority in the world Communist movement, notably Mao's China and Kim's North Korea that refused to accept this characterisation of Stalin. I think it would be hard to find a source, which was not written by an avowed Stalinist, which denied that he was a dictator. However, it is important to note a distinction. There are leaders in world history who have openly described themselves as dictators (or something equivalent): Julius Caesar, Oliver Cromwell, Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler (see Führerprinzip), Benito Mussolini, Augusto Pinochet (see Chilean constitutional referendum, 1980) etc. However, this is not true for Stalin. Until WW2 he was General Secretary of the CPSU, but was not officially head of government.[14] The 1936 Soviet Constitution did not grant him special powers, and portrayed the situation as a collective government. I think it is important to make this distinction: Stalin was a dictator, but he did not openly proclaim himself a dictator (or equivalent) and in fact put on an act of not being a tyrant, fooling people like Khrushchev and H.G. Wells ("no one is afraid of him and everyone trusts him", On Stalin's Team, by Sheila Fitzpatrick). Hence, the label "dictator" needs to be qualified, but not necessarily in the lead. Additionally, "dictator" from a encyclopedic standpoint should be viewed as a factual description, not a perjorative label. By many accounts, Lenin and Khrushchev operated within a collective leadership. Khrushchev was removed without a military coup. By contrast, Stalin was not removed until his death, and his death saw a dramatic change in the policies of the USSR (as Fitzpatrick has shown). Hence, the Soviet government was, in fact, completely bound up with Stalin, rather than emanating from a leadership group, party hierarchy, oligarchy etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • As a history buff, I think the distinction between Stalin's de facto autocracy and the de jure dictatorships of Hitler, Caesar, etc., is interesting. But for this article, it's only notable if it's been discussed in RS. Otherwise, it's OR. I don't have it in front of me right now, but I think Bullock's "Parallel Lives" compares the legal underpinnings (or absence of) of Hitler's and Stalin's dictatorships. Scaleshombre (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Ah, a Knights-Templar charging on the scene so soon! Lord Bullock, Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives (Fontana Press, 1993): "Unlike Hitler, whose unique position as Fuhrer was openly accepted by all the members of the Nazi Party as the linchpin which held them together, Stalin had both to conceal his ambition and at the same time find means of defeating any rivals in an unremitting but covert struggle for power..." (p 184); "the Stalin Constitution...[portrayed] the Soviet Union as a society moving in a democratic direction with the full support of the Soviet peoples" (p 505); in 1941 "after all the years he had been content to wield power as General Secretary, Stalin was taking Molotov's place as head of government... the explanation was taken to be that the international situation had become so dangerous that Stalin himself must publicly assume responsibility for Soviet policy" (p 775). There might well be better quotations, but I don't believe I need to provide a citation for every comment made on a Talk page.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Jack Upland cites Bullock incorrectly. He quotes Bullock on p 181 on how Stalin worked quietly to become a dictator in 1920s by destroying all his rivals one by one. He was a dictator in 1929 after he pushed them out. Browsing through his book I see Bullock repeatedly using the word "dictator" to characterize Stalin after 1929 (eg pp 123, 379, 567 etc) for example p 653: "there was also a great difference in style between the two dictators" As for ww2, fior the first time Stalin had to meet with presidents and prime ministers and a comparable status as head of government was useful in protocol at summits like Yalta. he kept his more powerful role as head of the Party. Rjensen (talk) 08:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

How did I cite Bullock incorrectly, Rjensen??? I never said that Bullock didn't say that Stalin was a dictator. The issue was the contrast between someone like Hitler who was politically and legally recognised as such in his own country and Stalin who wasn't.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Stalin was not born a dictator. it took him years to attain that status (by about 1929) and the way I read Jack Upland is that he uses a Bullock statement about Stalin before he became dictator to suggest that Stalin was never a dictator. Upland goes overboard when he says that Soviet people did not "recognize" Stalin's status--???? I think everyone in USSR knew Stalin had immediate power over life and death of anyone. read up on the purges. Rjensen (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, no, you're incorrectly citing me.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• • That was the gist of my comment -- that I thought Bullock's writing confirmed your point. (Instead of "compares," I should have wrote "contrasts.") Of course you don't need to cite it on the talk page, but it makes your case for inclusion in the article that much stronger. Anyway, I apologize for taking this thread so far off topic. Scaleshombre (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Anything that contributes to improving the article is OK on the Talk page.--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 current incarnation of the lead is textbook false balance. Per the tags, who are the significant number of respected 'supporters' as opposed to some imaginary equally balanced quantity and quality of detractors? As to concerns expressed by Jack Upland, the lead is not where intricacies are addressed, plus such complexities are only addressed if deemed WP:DUE. Again, we are addressing the WP:LEAD bearing 'Relative emphasis' in mind. The article does not deal with post-Soviet - or any other - 'supporters', hence reads as a 'teaser' suggesting that there are two arguments for and against developed in the article. This is misleading to the reader, and just plain unencyclopaedic. There's no small irony in the fact that WP:WORDS is being invoked when loaded language like 'denounce him as a dictator' has been brazenly introduced. Denounce him? History has pronounced him a dictator. Until such a time as there's a massive polar shift in scholarly opinion disputing the 'dictator' status, there is no argument for modification. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

As an addendum, the comparison between the Lenin and Khruschev articles in the RfC summary doesn't make sense. Neither have been overwhelmingly and unreservedly described as a 'dictator' by RS, therefore why would the LEAD in either article carry content to specifically illustrate the emphasis of mainstream scholarship? This isn't just a simple argument over an official job title. Apples and oranges. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. Lots of RS for dictator. For a change to a phrase such as 'widely regarded as a dictator', some RS is needed for Stalin not being a dictator. None has been presented, so he's a dictator, tout court. Gravuritas (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Using the word "dictator" in any short description of Stalin cannot in any way be considered stretching sources or academic consensus to a non-neutral viewpoint. Saying that his regime is the archetype of a totalitarian regime would be perfectly fine as well, in my opinion. BTW, dictatorship of the proletariat and democratic centralism are key concepts of marxist and marxist-leninist (i.e. stalinist) thought, in the name of efficiency and vanguardism, so these terms are not even derogatory or distorting Stalin's regime or ideas in any way. Anachronistic attempts to present him as anything else, in turn, would be distorting Stalin's thought and action. Gems like "mao's work and others will reveal that many millions of people did not consider stalin a dictator. Millions of people on this planet considered him a comrade and an ally." (punctuation kept) show that Wikipedia should be there to provide teenage readers with up-to-date unstretched and unbiased information, not that unchallengeable facts should be mouth-washed in the bizarre fear that "some people refute the idea". Place Clichy (talk) 09:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• Remove - unless qualifications or clarification is added, and better elsewhere. As currently shown it is confusing whether the word is title of a position, judgement on actions, expression of level of power, a bit of WP:SOAPBOX or rant, historian view, or what. The "governed as dictator" among position titles sounds largely like 1920s Russia had an official government title translating to that and the line is only lacking dates he was held the office. It would be more clear to follow the guide of WP:MOSBIO and norms of English grammar paragraph separation so that all lines in the first para are related to one theme. Best to start the conventional first para being simple factual datum including office positions with years and put "dictator" in a later paragraph that is more clearly making summary of high points and commentary and judgements. "Should the article lede state dictator without qualification" is a no, and "in the first para" is a does not fit there. Markbassett (talk) 10:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• Keep, but .. I've read much of the above, the only valid argument for not saying this very directly AFAI could see, is the 'ambiguity/confusion' over whether this was his 'job title'. For that reason I would suggest "de facto dictator" or similar on first use. I don't buy any 'let's be fair to Uncle Joe' arguments, nor do I see validity in comparisons with Lenin, Kruschev etc. Although no sources are given on either side of the argument here, most sources I have come across personally, are pretty clear, Stalin had a personal power which was probably as great as any individual in history, which he exercised according to whim and without the smallest accountability. Most sources do not hesitate to call him 'dictator', nor should we unless serious RS can be found that contradict that. Pincrete (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The original complaint was that it was a non-neutral term. No evidence is given for that assumption. Actually the USSR proudly proclaimed it was a dictatorship of the proletariat as guided by the party. Stalin was a PARTY leader who told both party & gov't officials what to do, and "dictator" is the term RS used to characterize his role. In Wiki talk, "non-neutral" refers not to Stalin but the the RS about Stalin. The complaint is not valid--no one here has pointed to a "not-a-dictator" RS Rjensen (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Pincrete: Which RS refer to him as being a 'de facto dictator'? I find the phrase bizarre, and I've never encountered that particular series of words put together in that order. A dictator by proxy? A de jure dictator having usurped the dictator of the previous dictatorship? An unofficial dictator who fulfils all of the obligations of a legal(?) dicatator? What does this OR term actually mean? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, what the 'OR' is intended to mean is that this was what he actually was, even if it wasn't his 'job title', he held virtually limitless unaccountable power, masked by a relatively innocuous job title. According to other respondents here, some sources refer to Uncle Jo as 'effective dictator'. That is ambiguous, does it mean he was 'good at his job', or 'for all practical purposes' he was dictator? I'm suggesting that some form of words that reflects 'in fact if not in title' would be best. If I remember correctly, Adolf has 'as Fuhrer he was effective dictator' though I personally don't like 'effective' there because of the ambiguity mentioned. Pincrete (talk) 10:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Pincrete: If I understand correctly, the terminology editors who wish to qualify 'dictator' with is 'effectively dictator', not 'de facto' and other legal terms being bandied about. Yes, if qualification is WP:DUE, keep it simple... and 'effective' is so misleading that it implies something altogether antithetical to RS. My take is that it isn't DUE, and that his actual job title is already in the infobox, so there's no confusion as to what his position was. My greatest concern at this point is the gobbledygook final paragraph of the lead which reads as one of the most bizarre pieces of OR/GEVAL I've ever encountered on Wikipedia. "Stalin is widely considered one of the most significant and influential figures of the 20th century. Stalinism influenced various Marxist-Leninist groups and governments across the world, for whom Stalin was a champion of socialism and the working class." What? Who? "Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Stalin has been praised by supporters for his role in defeating the Axis powers and establishing the Soviet Union as a major world power. Critics denounce [my emphasis] him as a dictator at the front of an autocratic authoritarian government who approved mass killings and political repression." You what? What a load of WP:FRINGE. I've asked who these supporters (who can be taken seriously) are. I've asked which serious Marxist-Leninist groups and governments he influenced. Does anyone writing this WP:BOLLOCKS actually know anything about politics or political history? Jeez, which Marxist-Leninist government did he 'influence': Cuba under Fidel Castro? This is the stuff of WP:SYNTH and living in a parallel universe. I couldn't think of a better way to completely misguide readers as to his role in history if I blew a few million brain cells. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I tried to google China, but just got crockery. Sometimes, it's hard to know whether you've gone through a black hole or are just detecting emissions from Uranus.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: Please keep your frustrations to yourself. You're not enhancing the discussion, just taking a cheap dig. Strangely enough, other editors seem to understand what I'm talking about... and 'China' is not a mainstream source equally balanced with other sources (including non-Western ones). Oh my aching head, Trotsky himself 'denounced' him in no uncertain terms. You seem to have a strange understanding of what 'Communist China' is as a political entity. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The question, Iryna, is whether you're looking out the window, or looking in the mirror.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Iryna, I'm not going to comment on the rest of the lead, I sympathise but came here mainly for the RfC. Errrr, we mustn't say 'effective dictator' because it's undue and potentially misleading - though sourced - and we mustn't paraphrase it, because that's OR/synth! I'm sure someone could improve on my 'de facto' suggestion, I didn't claim it was perfect.

Of course JS ruled dictatorially, he probably had more personal power, and employed it more arbitarily, than AH. JS was probably responsible for more deaths than AH (not westerners, so he is not demonised in the way that AH is). I have read serious accounts that think that JS was probably more mentally unbalanced than AH. I just think that the 'standard' format, ie this was his job, this was how he ruled and/or history's evaluation is preferable for many reasons. ps I checked the AH page, at the end of para 1 (after mentioning AH's jobs), it says "as dictator he initiated WWII and ....". Pincrete (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

An inordinately sensible response, Pincrete, but not surprising given that being neutral and sensible is your trademark. The final lead paragraph only just 'evolved' into a lengthy piece of twaddle directly before this RfC was opened, and it was certainly the result of good faith attempts to balance the use of 'dictator'. I'm not actually emotionally invested in the article, but too much good faith tweaking can lead to disastrous content as evidenced in the final para. There may be an effective and succinct way to express his job and the mainstream understanding of what he was, but the ambiguity of "effective dictator" just doesn't cut it. As an aside, it's difficult to gauge who was more unhinged. By the time AH settled into the Wolfsschanze, along with the cocktail of drugs he was taking, he was living in a parallel universe. JS, on the other hand, had a far longer innings in which to indulge his paranoia. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• KEEP He was a dictator, that's literally how history shows him as being and how he is described by a great majority of people. This is one of those times, Wikipedia should just represents the facts, he called him self by a fancy title, but everyone else called him a dictator.  К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 20:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

He did not give himself a fancy title!--Jack Upland (talk) 08:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• 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 his leadership diverged from that title and everyone not inspired by him denounced his actions. Chris Troutman (talk) 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. 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. 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, The Oxford Companion to Politics of the World describes Stalin, in the first sentence of the entry, as "effective dictator". 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)]. Rjensen (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually Julius Caesar was officially titled Dictator perpetuo, so I don't think that's a strong argument. However I side with those who hold that it's very reasonable to describe a leader as a "dictator" if enough sources back it up. Having a 'dictatorial style' is characteristic of a dictator. It's not clear-cut, but with figures like Stalin—who was truly the archetype of a dictator—it should be a no-brainer; Wikipedia's neutrality should never impede common sense! Therefore I say keep.--Hazhk (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I think "effective dictator" would be good. There is a distinction here, as I attempted to explain earlier. Simon Sebag Montefiore has commented that people don't know much about Stalin (as opposed to Hitler, for example), and I think these Talk pages are an illustration of that. It is an important point that Stalin did not openly assume the mantle of dictator (and had no official role in government till WW2). The question of whether the title "dictator" was used is beside the point. Hitler called himself Fuehrer; Mussolini Il Duce; Napoleon the Emperor; Cromwell the Lord Protector. These titles meant "dictator". Stalin did not assume any new title after Lenin's death. He remained party secretary. He did not have a unique title, nor was his role enshrined in any law or doctrine. When he became premier he was taking on a role that had been filled by Molotov and others. Ostensibly he was simply a member of a leadership team, although the shining star according to propaganda. But of course he was dictator, effective dictator. Just as (to give a controversial example) Lee Kuan Yew was in Singapore. Stalin wielded his power behind the scenes and very secretively in some cases. This article should reflect that.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Jack likes "effective dictator" -- perhaps he will name some "ineffective dictators". Terms like "leader"/fuhrer/duce/Lord protector do NOT mean dictator---they are quite tame. In real history "dictator" is usually associated with tight control of a very powerful political party that had direct leverage over many areas of society not usually controlled by the government (such as the army, church, businesses and the private sector)--esp Communist and Nazi parties. Jack Upland wants a law passed or else Stalin is not what historians mean by a dictator. No RS supports him on that: zero--it's bad history. Rjensen (talk) 02:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Quite, Rjensen. I was just about to query as to which RS equate these titles with 'dictator'. I'm not interested in quibbling over OR niceties that appeal to people. We're not here to engage in our own original research, but to present content according to mainstream sources. This is getting old, and the RfC is only just short of SNOW, yet the GEVAL in the lead remains. Time to ask for a close. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, this is a perverse misconstruing of what I and others have said. "Effective" here means "de facto", not the opposite of ineffective. And a citation was given above, so it is not OR. If you want to criticise other editors, please read what they say beforehand.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Where does this 'de facto dictator' keep arising from? Which RS have ever called him (or any other politician/head of state) a 'de facto dictator'? The term doesn't mean anything that makes sense. (Please see my response to Pincrete above) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Aton above gave a source for "effective dictator" which means the same as "de facto dictator". If you google "Stalin" and "effective dictator" or "de facto dictator" you will find many sources. There's no point in listing them here. Equally, the term "de facto dictator" makes perfect sense and is widely used about many people, as a google search shows. The issue isn't about a particular form of words, but describing the reality of Stalin's dictatorship. How we summarise it is less important. Some lengthier quotations that I have found:

• Alan Bullock, Parallel Lives: "...it was as General Secretary of the party – he assumed no other office until May 1941 – that he built up a position of arbitrary personal power which has scarcely been equalled in a modern state."(p 118) "...his power was concealed – 'the highest Soviet authorities' – a secret all the more powerful because it was known to everyone in any kind of office but not to be mentioned in public." (p 692).
• J Archy Getty, 'Stalin as Prime Minister' in Stalin: A New History: "Those practices [of decision-making] were personal and personalised, having to do with loyalty, team effort, patronage and clientage, and a behind-the-scenes fluidity and informality rather than with formal structures, which were used merely as symbolic devices to project a power whose origins were primordial and personalised." (p 106)

I don't understand why this is a bone of contention.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Googling the terms only produces blogs and forums. The rest is pure WP:SYNTH. Your quotes say nothing of the use of 'de facto' or 'effective'. The only conclusion to be drawn from these interpretations of what was meant is WP:NOR, because that's what is being engaged in. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, I must be using a different Google!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 08:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with most of what is said above by those defending 'effective/de facto' or somesuch. The fact that we normally start an article with job title or profession is also a good reason IMO to prefer some form of words that reflects "this was his job, followed by this was how he did it (as dictator)" . I'm not arguing this from a fairness pov, (since you have to struggle to find any Western historian with anything nice to say about Stalin), rather from a clarity and consistency pov. It is not weaselling to say he was 'Gen Sec of the CP of USSR who ruled as a dictator', or some form of words with that meaning. Pincrete (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Well put, Pincrete.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. That in the 20s the dictatorship of the Party became Stalin's personal dictatorship is significant enough to be mentioned in the lead. As Jack Upland has explained with various quotes above, however, Stalin's personal dictatorship was not official, but rather established and maintained by informal means. That's why several RS use qualifiers such as "de facto" or, as Pincrete suggests, just "dictatorially ruled" (but not "widely regarded as..."—that he was a dictator is a fact). Atón (talk) 08:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• Keep He meets every criterion described on dictator and reliable sources often describe him that way. No need for weasel words in the lede. 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).--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 02:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
• Keep: Overwhelming evidence of people claiming Stalin was a dictator. ImTheIP (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
• Keep: A dictator, by definition, is "A totalitarian leader of a country, nation, or government". Stalin had absolute executive control over the Soviet Union, as exhibited in his political purges. 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. --Guanatala (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Why no name of Stalin's born into religion?

Why no name of Stalin's born into religion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:F90F:3A00:89D9:3F82:E955:3002 (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

"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? 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. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

No biggie. Scaleshombre (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Stalin's birth name resumed

@Materialscientist, Iryna Harpy, and 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
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
When this objection was proposed to me, nobody explained exactly what constituted "quality scholarship", or how many "quality scholars" I needed to cite.

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. MaisonHorta (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC) 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. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Materialscientist, Iryna Harpy, and Midnightblueowl:

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

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.

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.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. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. It's trivial. Let's move on.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110106221058/http://stalinism.ru/Stalin-i-Armiya/O-prikaze-270.html to http://stalinism.ru/Stalin-i-Armiya/O-prikaze-270.html

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

Y 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)

Lead changes

@Midnightblueowl: Not only have you ignored the WP:CON for retaining 'dictator' in the lead of the article with multiple changes to the text, you have now attempted to archive the RfC calling the multiple discussions here 'dead conversations' in your edit summary. An RfC is not a 'conversation', it is community consensus which you don't override because you don't want to adhere to it. Please explain why you retained the final lead paragraph in dispute with minor tweaks: "Stalin is widely considered one of the most significant figures of the 20th century. Stalinism influenced Marxist–Leninist groups and governments across the world, for whom Stalin was a champion of socialism and the working class. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Stalin has retained popularity in Russia and parts of Eastern Europe as an effective wartime leader who established the Soviet Union as a major world power. Conversely, his autocratic government has been widely denounced for overseeing mass repressions, hundreds of thousands of executions and millions of deaths through famines and labour camps.", removing the tags here and here by modifying the content into generic WP:GEVAL. Whether you like it or not, 'dictator' was to be retained. The other 'dead conversations' about this GEVAL are, by no means, 'dead'. You ping editors who have been involved in the discussion to respond at the RfC you initiated, then ignore the outcome and quickly remove the RfC? Let me spell it out for you: that's known as trying to game the system. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[EDIT] See below. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Woah, woah, woah Iryna, I think that there has been a misunderstanding here. I was the one who initiated the RfC in the first place (on 15 July). The RfC was discussing whether Stalin should be described as a "dictator" unequivocally in the first paragraph; not in any other part of the lede. Now, that RfC went through and ran its course; it was closed by User:Snuge purveyor on 13 August. They noted that there was a consensus in favour of calling Stalin a "dictator" in the first paragraph. That's that; I have certainly not gone against that consensus decision in any way, shape or form. I did not remove "dictator" from the first paragraph - it is still there and I have no intention whatsoever of removing it unless consensus changes. However, the resulting situation meant that—in the fourth paragraph of the lede—we stated that critics regard Stalin as a dictator, wording which had not been debated in the RfC. I thought that said wording was a little superfluous given that we already explicitly refer to him as a dictator in the first paragraph! Hence I did a bit of pruning and that was one of the things which I cut. Do we really need to say "Stalin was a dictator... critics regard Stalin as a dictator"? As part of my pruning I also tried to avoid the "critics think this" and "supporters think that" wording which had resulted in the addition of the tags; I removed the offending wording along with the tags.

I archived the (closed) RfC alongside a number of other older conversations because they were no longer continuing. The RfC had been closed, it was dead, a decision had been made. There was little need to leave it on the (increasingly lengthy) Talk Page. You reverted my archiving and that's okay, I'm not going to be precious about whether or not it is archived or not. I just thought that it—alongside several Talk sections discussing how to accurately render Stalin's Georgian birthname in the English language—were now superfluous and clogging up the page. I still think that, but it's really not a big deal. Anyway, I hope that that clears things up; this appears to have just been one big misunderstanding as to both my actions and my motives. No biggie. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: Facepalm Sincerest apologies. I've only been flitting in and out and had my eyes on the final paragraph of the lead. Yeesh, what a dunce! I was aware that you'd initiated the RfC (see the end of the stupid comment above), which was why I jumped the gun. I'm still having problems with the final paragraph as WP:SYNTHy with a whiff of GEVAL, but the rest of the work you've put into improving the article is commendable. I guess that was why I overreacted to the apparent lack of use of 'dictator' as it seemed out of character with the improvements you've been making. Forget the trout, hit me with a whale... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy; no worries, these things happen. I see from your user page that you are in the midst of moving house - hope that that goes well! Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: Thanks for being so (erhem) understanding (understatement of the year). I have no objection to the various discussions over minutia being archived, but I think that the RfC should remain in place until it's auto-archived. The close addressed the immediate concern, but other issues were brought up and, given WP:CCC, there were valid questions as to a more neutral descriptor for dictator being appended, as well as other issues in the mix. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Iryna Harpy; I'll archive the other bits and pieces but the RfC can stay for a few more weeks (or months... or however long it is of use to people). Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Auto-archive is set for 90 days, so I think that's ample time for other editors to be aware of the RfC discussions and outcome. Would you be amenable to my collapsing this section, or would you prefer to retain it as is as a badge of shame for me. I'm willing to wear it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy: You're more than welcome to collapse it. Or, if you wish to go one further, it can always be moved to the archive in its entirety? I do not mind either. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Archiving would be fine by me. Keeping the talk page focussed is the priority. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)