Talk:Joseph Stalin/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25

Stalin did not establish China as a Soviet-aligned government

China was quite independent from the Soviet Union (which previously nearly supported the KMT more than the CCP), they even broke relations after a few years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pol revision (talk • contribs) 12:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Stalin before the 1949 Chinese revolution supported KMT but later switched support to the CCP Στάλιν και παραλλαγή (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

"Joseph Stalin and religion" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Joseph Stalin and religion and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 31#Joseph Stalin and religion until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Seventieth/Seventy-first birthday photos

Hello,

I noticed that there are two photos, one that claims to be Stalin on his seventieth birthday, and one on his seventy-first birthday - but the two appear to be the same image. Can I get some clarification on what these photos are? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tallestmanintown (talk • contribs) 04:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

It is his 71st. I have removed one.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
who is who?
@Tallestmanintown and Jack Upland:
Can someone please review the photo used at the start of the section on Cold War policy: 1947–1950 and revise the caption? It currently reads, "Stalin at his 71st birthday celebration with (left to right) Mao Zedong, Nikolai Bulganin, Walter Ulbricht and Yumjaagiin Tsedenbal? I see 5 or 6 faces that I think should be identified in order left to right: Mao is the second and Stalin the fourth. I don't instantly recognize the others. However, Mao is clearly the second and Stalin the fourth from the left, and Stalin is not even identified in this order. You have to know the image to read the figure, and we should not require that of the reader in this context, I don't think.
Checking the images of the articles on the others, I think it should probably read something like, "(left to right) Yumjaagiin Tsedenbal, Mao Zedong, Nikolai Bulganin, Stalin, and Walter Ulbricht" at Stalin's 71st birthday celebration". However, I'm not sure.
Can someone else who knows these figures better than I do correct this? (I think it would be good to have the sixth face identified, also, if that's feasible.)
Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 10:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Statesman

An editor has added the word statesman to Stalin's description. I have asked them to discuss it here. What are the opinions of other editors? Britmax (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The WP article on the word defines it as 'A statesman or stateswoman typically is a politician who has had a long and respected political career at the national or international level.' I am not sure that Stalin meets the 'respected' part, although obviously views will vary. Neither Hitler nor Mao, his closest analogues in historical terms, are described thus in the lead to their articles. Sbishop (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd prefer to exclude the term. It comes with some positive POV and little substance. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2022

Could you please change the Joseph to Josef because that is his name Yoyoyomunbruh (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok Yoyoyomunbruh (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2022

I'd like to change the line which states that Stalin was born in december 18 1878.

Stalin was born in december 21 1879 (I got this source from the book "Me- Ioseb Stalin" The authors of this book were Karlo Cqitishvili, Tinatin Meshakeli and Alexander Gabelia it got published in Tbilisi in the year 1990.) 46.49.102.181 (talk) 07:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Need a link or something to your source, can't find the book or any of these authors from a quick google search Cannolis (talk) 07:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Stalin and the millions quoted

Very concerned that in the Wikipedia page Stalin is not portrayed realistically. His system of terror on his own people ran into 20 Million deaths- and does not mention torture and conditions . This is appalling and embarrassing. Or maybe, as Martin Amis refers to, one just has to laugh at the ongoing power of the man beyond the grave. Readbooksdaily (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

There is a whole section in the article on proper estimates of death toll, and the article contains many references to the regime's use of imprisonment etc. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for including round figures plucked from the air. Sbishop (talk) 06:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

"斯大林" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 斯大林 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 9#斯大林 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TraderCharlotte (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Khruschev propaganda threat !!!

Is what we know about Staltin quite correct ? Khruschev liked to defame Stalin, and did not hesitate to produce false documents to prove so ? The famines were not at the hand of Stalin as he as not God. Kulaks hoarded grains, killed cattle to deliberately make USSR fail.Stalin didn't kill them unlike Hitler would have done. Also Gulags had quite many features of recreation. Why would we belive in what the USA newspapers said when it was capitalist? After all it was Stalin who defeated Hitler. Stalin dismantled in that way many concentration camps. He might have resorted to some unscientific methods of food production, due to his lack of knowledge of those ( Mendelian ) principles and unreasearchers backed by Communist party, due to the government's faith in them due to the services rendered by their ancestors. Can't we forgive him for this , because US (USA) presidents too have done mistakes like him earlier, e.g., during Great Depression and Dust bowl incident. It is how effectively one deals with a situation, without his/her mistakes. 2409:4060:89:5068:0:0:28C6:78AC (talk) 00:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

We don't go by what Khruschev said. We go by multiple, independent WP:RS written by mainstream historians. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia allows biased/non objective sources, as long as Wikipedia deems them reliable. Ie, the material doesn't have to be objectively "true" or trying to be, as long as Wikipedians as a whole agree the source is reliable. From WP's policy:
.
"reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."
.
A reliable source (according to Wikipedia) is including but not limited to (unless decided otherwise) is published, new (unless we prefer the older publications, context matters)and has multiple people working on the source.
.
Some sources NOT considered reliable:
.
Fox News (for politics and science)
New York Post
The Federalist

.

Some sources which are considered reliable:
.
MSNBC
Buzzfeed News
Pink News Thespearthrower (talk) 07:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Health problems

Stalin suffered a series of mild strokes in 1945, and in October 1945 he had a severe heart attack. DelbertMann (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@DelbertMann: Thanks for this. I'm not sure that's sufficiently important to merit inclusion in this article. However, you can suggest here exactly how you think this article should be changed. That includes exact verbiage, where it should go, AND a credible citation to back that up.
You may know that this article is semi-protected. If you have made enough edits to be "autoconfirmed", you can make the changes yourself. Otherwise, someone else would to make the change if they agree it's reasonable.
The case would be stronger if it seemed to have an impact in the evolution of events at that time. That does not seem likely to me, because October 1945 (the date you gave for a heart attack) was after Victory over Japan Day, over 3 years before the Berlin Blockade, and over 7 years before his death.
Thanks for your interest in Wikipedia. DavidMCEddy (talk) 11:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2022

He changed his name legally to Joseph Stalin not Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin he should be called his legal name Not a russian hacker (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Recoil (talk) 23:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2022 (2)

{his name was changed legally to Joseph Stalin} Not a russian hacker (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Duplicate of the above request. – Recoil (talk) 23:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

New Infobox image

CONSENSUS FOR B
The result of this discussion about which image to use in thes article's infobox eventually settled on option B.

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

Recently, I found the following image of Joseph Stalin at Wikimedia Commons. In addition to being cleaner than the current infobox image, it also has the added advantage of being a real-life photo of the man and not a propaganda portrait. Thoughts? Emiya1980 (talk) 02:59, 29 August 2022 (UT–C)

File:CroppedStalin1943 (2).jpg
Infobox Image Proposal
Emiya1980 (talk) 02:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
This has been over-talked. Can you at least provide some evidence that the current image is "a propaganda portait"?--Jack Upland (talk) 03:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't the caption expressly identify it as such? Emiya1980 (talk) 04:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Even if it is, does it matter? He's just standing there holding a pipe, what's the big deal? LittleJerry (talk) 11:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Personally I like the new image better. ~mitch~ (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
The current picture is cropped from a newspaper photo. I fail to see how it's propaganda. It doesn't become propaganda just because some editor labels /it as such.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Said newspaper was Pravda, the official propaganda mouthpiece of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. I have provided a copy of the uncropped image below. Given there is no background, it seems likely it has been altered for propaganda purposes. Even assuming this is not the case, one cannot deny the new image is far less grainy than the current one and hence is a much better-quality image for the infobox.Emiya1980 (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Original uncropped image.
Just because it appeared in Pravda doesn't make it a "propaganda portrait". The new photo is a cropped version of the Big 3 portrait at Yalta, which seems to me more propagandistic. Also, as discussed before, it suggests that Stalin wore a military uniform for most of his life. He didn't.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Yep. The current image shows Stalin in a tunic and normal cap, which was his typical attire when in power. Unless we can find a better image with that attire, the current one should stay. Any proposed image of Stalin in military uniform should be shot down. LittleJerry (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
That's a pretty strong statement for a proposal which is 2:2. I think we need more users' opinions before coming to a consensus decision. Any opposition to me conducting an RFC?Emiya1980 (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
There was already a discussion last year. How many do we need? LittleJerry (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
The new image was not set for discussion then. Moreover, as previously stated, the thread here shows two for and two for against. This is clearly enough to bring the current consensus into question. Hence the reason for an Rfc.Emiya1980 (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't object to an RfC with a range of images.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Jack Upland The only alternative I have in mind is the one above. I'm familiar with the options put forth in the prior Rfc a few years back. However, seeing as those three alternatives were shot down in favor of the current image, I don't think it would be constructive to bring them back up again for consideration. If you are aware of any new alternatives, you can include them in the thread. Sound fair?Emiya1980 (talk) 05:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Sounds headstrong.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


A
File:CroppedStalin1943 (2).jpg
B
C

Which image should be the infobox picture? The current image (A) or one of the alternatives (B/C)? Emiya1980 (talk) 07:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

B It looks a bit more professional and it is a proper photo. Thanks, Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 09:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
A for reasons stated above. LittleJerry (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
A That's the photo I like the most. (Summoned by bot) I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 16:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
B looks best and is the most standard portrait. Ortizesp (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
B Of the three options, it appears to be the most "official" photograph. Kerdooskis (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
A for the reasons given above. See also the reasons given previously.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
B superior quality photo, simply cropped version with no ahistoric editing to erase parts of other people like on the current one, standard photo not a propaganda image from Pravda.--Staberinde (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Not a propaganda image? Are you seriously saying that the US military took a photo of Stalin et al at their historic meeting in Tehran in the middle of WW2 and this wasn't a propaganda image? Jack Upland (talk) 06:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
That wasn't the point. B is simple cutout from the original photo, it is about as authentic as you can get. For A we have no original photo, we only have a scan from Pravda when it already must have gone through some editing as at minimum it is not very realistic that they stood in front of a perfectly white wall. This has been followed up by "wikipedia experts" editing it further, to erase parts of other people. B (and C) is simply flat out more historically authentic image.--Staberinde (talk) 07:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
With the Pravda photo I think it is just relatively primitive technique.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Staberinde, A presents Stalin as he actually was in everyday life. A smoker who wears a tunic. Not a military general. LittleJerry (talk) 12:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree. It also shows that he had a withered arm, which is hardly propagandistic.--Jack Upland (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I mean, you could reasonably argue that a propaganda photo with ahistoric editing to erase parts of other people is a natural and appropriate image of Stalin, in that it captures an aspect that he's famous for. --Aquillion (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
  • B  It’s a formal portrait, and the best quality photograph. A is a stylized photo-based illustration with a mezzotint or something. C is not a sharp and has a good range of tones from black through very light grey. A and C are trying to look folksy or whimsical, while B is just a straight portrait. —Michael Z. 21:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
    B - For essentially the same reasons provided by Michael Z, I will also add that B is far the more readily identifiable with Stalin than any of the others. OgamD218 (talk) 07:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
  • B - Best quality, also seems to be the least "choreographed" image of the three and best fits with the typical image of Stalin.
PraiseVivec (talk) 08:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
B - Go with the familiar uniform attired photo of Stalin for the infobox to give a quick visual sum up. --Guest2625 (talk) 11:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Also on a side note, the infobox is too long when viewed on the desktop version and should have some more of its sections collapsed.--Guest2625 (talk) 11:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
  • A – I feel his facial features are clearer in this than in B. Madeline (part of me) 17:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
  • A: option B has a weird filter and C is too low quality --FMSky (talk) 07:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
  • B – Real photo preferable to portrait, and features the characteristic military attire (unlike C) without appearing propagandistic (like A). ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 13:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
B, as per reasoning given by previous users. Its framing/positioning is more in line with the typical infobox image. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
  • B: A seems a bit too positive (if thats the proper term) and C simply looks weird. B looks like a proper, nuetral photo of a leader. 168.8.125.20 (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
  • B This is best option of the 3 choices. Nemov (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
B — it's more professional and less casual than the others. Cessaune (talk) 13:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

A. Stalin was known to quite enjoy the pipe, so it shows his character, and the photo is quite pleasing to the eye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thespearthrower (talk • contribs) 06:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)


Question regarding option B: Why this pointless crop and not use the original photo?

--FMSky (talk) 03:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, that is a crop too. Jack Upland (talk) 03:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
That one definitely looks better to me than the one which is more cropped. Madeline (part of me) 06:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
FMSky Because using the uncropped photo would place Stalin's facial features more out of focus, hence defeating its purpose as an infobox picture for the article.Emiya1980 (talk) 08:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
  • B Better quality image; more standard profile. Pickalittletalkalittle (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
  • B Looks more formal and fitting for a Head of State, a traditional sitting-down, facing-the-camera image. "A" is just a crop from a candid newspaper photo. I can't even take "C" seriously, he looks like Sid Caesar about to do a stand-up routine. Zaathras (talk) 12:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
  • B Clear, crisp and concise. At the end of the day, the photograph is more of a clarification as to who the article is about; it's something that most people will look at and move on from quickly. The most important aspect of this particular photograph is the face. Example B is the clearest in regards to the face. BenBrownBoy (Aye?) 20:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
  • B most definitely. The composition, focus, angle of his face, and (most importantly) the outfit are all superior. — LumonRedacts 04:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
    The outfit isn't superior because that's not what he typically wore. LittleJerry (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • B as best quality image. Agletarang (talk) 07:23, 22 September 2022 (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.

Name

It says in the gray box on top that his family name is Stalin, which is incorrect since Stalin is his nickname (meaning man of steel), while his family name is Jugashvili. 5.173.249.39 (talk) 13:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2022

"Party dogma" in the second introductory paragraph should be changed to "party's guiding principles" (or similar) to be clearer. While I understand what's meant here, it's likely that it could be confused with standard dogmatism, something which Stalin was notably against: [1]

"Marxism is the science of the laws governing the development of nature and society, the science of the revolution of the oppressed and exploited masses, the science of the victory of socialism in all countries, the science of building communist society. As a science, Marxism cannot stand still, it develops and is perfected. In its development, Marxism cannot but be enriched by new experience, new knowledge -- consequently some of its formulas and conclusions cannot but change in the course of time, cannot but be replaced by new formulas and conclusions, corresponding to the new historical tusks. Marxism does not recognize invariable conclusions and formulas, obligatory for all epochs and periods. Marxism is the enemy of all dogmatism." Amyipdev (talk) 00:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done Link goes to a page with "ideology" in the title, seems like as good a word as any.

Infobox titles of Stalin

Why are the titles listed above Stalin's name in his Infoxbox Vozhd and Generalissimus? The latter is a title he rejected, whilst the former is an unofficial title applied to multiple Soviet leaders such as Lenin, who has no such title in his Infobox. TheOfficially (talk) 22:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC) TheOfficially (talk) 22:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Source for saying he rejected Generalissimus?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Service, Robert (2005). Stalin: A Biography. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. p. 548. ISBN 978-0-674-01697-2.
↑ Thespearthrower (talk) 07:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
The Brezhnev-era Great Soviet Encyclopedia has an entry for Generalissimo which states, "In the USSR the title of Generalissimo of the Soviet Union was established by the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR of June 26, 1945, and it was conferred on J. V. Stalin on June 27, 1945." Robert Service indeed writes that Stalin "came to regret allowing himself to be called Generalissimus," but the fact remains it was one of Stalin's titles; it was never revoked. Whether it ought to be in the infobox is another matter, of course. --Ismail (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree, Vozhd just means leader. I will remove it.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Captured Berlin?

Misleading to state this in the lede. The only reason the USSR was allowed to take Berlin in 1945 is because the city had been allocated to the Soviet sphere at Yalta, otherwise Patton's Third Army would have been given the necessary resources. Gfestly (talk) 09:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

It is not misleading - it simply states the fact as to which army captured the city. The article text has some material on the tensions over this issue.Sbishop (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Role of the General Secretary

The position of General Secretary was abolished from 1953 to 1966. Add “office abolished” above “Malenkov (de facto successor)” 2.135.65.195 (talk) 06:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Remini(?)

I'm all for the infobox image but the version we are using has been heavily altered with Remini or some other AI upscaling application. I feel strongly that this isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. It's inauthentic; that's not Stalin's face - it's an approximation of what his face might look like if the source image was of higher quality. I don't think Remini belongs on Wikipedia at all, especially not in the infobox image of a highly notable historical figure. What do we think? ~~~ Humbledaisy (talk) 00:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I think your objections are kind of baseless. Why should we limit ourselves to the contemporary technology of 1943 when the ability to reproduce a high-resolution likeness is available? Zaathras (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Because film is an infinite resolution, why not just scan his photo? 2.135.64.96 (talk) 10:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Because it's not actually him anymore? There will exist an HQ version of this image somewhere, no doubt about it. The contemporary technology of 1943 was more than capable of producing HQ images, but a LQ version bolstered by AI is not fit for an encyclopedia IMO. It doesn't fully look like a photograph (it has lots of artifacts and is overly smoothed out) and it doesn't fully look like Stalin either (it's given him a facial hair texture on his chin and below his lower lip). The LQ source image would be better IMO. Humbledaisy (talk) 11:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Of course it is him, just as File:Abraham Lincoln O-77 matte collodion print.jpg is a cleaned-up version of the original. Zaathras (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
This is a very different situation to the Lincoln photograph; that has simply been cleaned-up. There has been no new information added to it. In the case of the Stalin photograph, the image has been put through an artificial intelligence app that creates a new image based on guesswork. Compare the original with the current version. The new one looks superficially high quality, but it isn't really. What's really going on is a gaussian blur over most of the image (which has removed any texture from Stalin's clothes and created new artefacts such as the ripple effect next to his head) and a complete replacement of the original face with new, AI-generated features. As I mentioned before, the AI has given him facial hair on his chin and lower lip that he didn't have. You can see it has struggled a little with his eyebrow. The horizontal crow's feet are new and the groove in the tip of his nose has gone. There's an uncanny look to it, especially with the eyes. The face is now much more detailed than the rest of the image, too. That's what I mean by it's not him anymore - it's no longer photographic, it is AI's best guess at what he looked like based on a low-quality source image. I really feel this is important, and that we shouldn't be doing this. Humbledaisy (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Secret Protocols

Why is there no mention of the Secret Protocols in the Hitler-Stalin pact? This article's treatment of the subject seems to purposefully whitewash and minimize the role of Stalin's pact with Hitler.

Original New York Times coverage.

Academic Source. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Well the content of the secret protocols are discussed it's just that it isn't explicitly mentioned which isn't really a serious issue. The article doesn't gloss over the less savoury parts of Stalin's life. Originalcola (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

“We don't go by what Khruschev said. We go by multiple, independent WP:RS written by mainstream historians.”

That’s kind of the human centipede of Khruschyov propaganda 95.59.45.103 (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense. David J. Dallin, Isaac Deutscher, Merle Fainsod, and numerous other authors were writing works critical of Stalin years before Khrushchev's speech, often covering subjects Khrushchev never so much as alluded to. Anyone who has read the writings of subsequent authors such as Roy Medvedev and Oleg Khlevniuk can likewise see how they were/are not reliant on Khrushchev for their critical views of Stalin. In fact, one can find historians who point out Khrushchev's speech had a bigger impact on foreign Communists rather than non-Communists, e.g. "specialists found little that was really new. . . Communist leaders of many years standing in the Western world must have known these things also. They cheered these crimes when they were ordered to cheer them, and are shocked only now when they are ordered to be shocked, without even the excuse that they were under the duress of terror." (Bertram Wolfe, Khrushchev and Stalin's Ghost, 1957, pp. 68-69.) --Ismail (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2022

194.75.199.114 (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

He has a cool tash!

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. 💜  melecie  talk - 14:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

CIA: Stalin not a dictator, remove mentions of "dictator"?

(Redacted) [Copyvio Izno (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)] https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf FF toho (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Your analysis of a dated primary source CIA document is original research and not usable in article space. This article reflects the consensus of modern academic experts that Stalin ruled as a dictator.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
To add to that, the notion Stalin was beholden to a collective leadership was actually pretty widespread at the time. Truman claimed during the 1948 election that "Joe is a prisoner of the Politburo." Historians such as Oleg Khlevniuk, Yoram Gorlizki, and Stephen Wheatcroft have noted how untrue this was of the postwar period by looking at the Soviet archives. To take the case of Molotov as an example, Robert Conquest pointed out that, "It is only recently that we have had the letters written by Stalin to Molotov in 1945-46. . . We had always thought of Molotov's stance in these negotiations [with the Western powers] as the most uncooperative and hard-line conceivable, earning him the nickname of Stone-bottom. But we now find Stalin continually upbraiding him for inadequate hostility to the West. Molotov was blamed for having relaxed censorship on foreign journalists in Moscow. And in November 1945, in Stalin’s absence, Pravda had been allowed to print a speech of Churchill's praising the Soviet war effort and Stalin personally—this was 'servility towards foreigners.' And when Molotov returned to Moscow, he was, on Stalin's orders, formally reprimanded by a commission of the Politburo." (The Dragons of Expectation, p. 136) Khlevniuk writes in his biography of Stalin how Molotov was reduced to tears during this time and had written an apology to Stalin. Molotov himself, interviewed in retirement, said "I think that if [Stalin] had remained alive another year, I would not have survived." (Molotov Remembers, p. 237) --Ismail (talk) 03:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
@TheTimesAreAChanging: Izno is not posting an analysis, it is stated in the opening paragraph that the western idea of a dictator in the Communist setup is exaggerated. This comes from the CIA, who keep in mind was (and is) run by the capitalist United States who launched a slander campaign against the Soviet Union, transitioning the hatred of Nazi Germany and Hitler by Americans into the hatred of the Soviet Union and Stalin. Kalivyah (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
The point remains: The CIA is not a reliable source for Wikipedia article content. The U.S. was formerly a wartime ally of Stalin, and the CIA's dated analysis is flawed according to contemporary academic scholarship. Additionally, you have presented no evidence that modern-day historians attach any significance (at all) to the CIA document in question. It is not incumbent on Wikipedia editors to determine said significance through navel-gazing.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
The CIA was not around during WW2.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
That’s true, but they may have at this time still be beholden to or aligned with the US line of thinking that Stalin was beholden to the collective. Also due to the necessarily secretive source and lack of wider info about the agency at the time maybe the writer(s) of this document were a minority among the CIA that felt this. The situation, history, and gov agencies are complex but more transparent/clear and up to date modern historians seem to have a clearer picture of this and a further rebuttal will be needed rather than one “unevaluated”(also not sure what that means) CIA document Justanotherguy54 (talk) 14:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
We don't know who wrote this document and who didn't evaluate it. I think the document is quite prescient in saying Khrushchev would succeed Stalin without a major purge. However, it is not useful for this page.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:20, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Even if one wants to assume a single document (marked "unevaluated") from the mid-50s not only reflected the consensus of "the CIA" during that period on Stalin's political role, but that this consensus was never modified in the ensuing years and decades, it isn't as if the CIA enjoys the reputation of never being wrong about the USSR. A prominent example is how its analyses made during the 80s were criticized as being overly optimistic about the Soviet economy and as downplaying the prospects of the USSR's demise (see for instance Melvin Goodman in a Washington Post article.) As TheTimesAreAChanging noted, historians evidently don't attach any importance to the document's claims of Stalin being beholden to a collective leadership, and I see no reason for it to be in the article except in the context of discussing debunked notions about Stalin which were widespread at the time, like that he married a sister of Kaganovich named Rosa (who, in fact, never existed.) --Ismail (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Nearly all RS call him dictator/totalitarian ruler, there is no good reason to use a 1950s CIA doc to override them. Mellk (talk) 10:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Boris Berezovsky

The information in "Personality" section attributed to a source by Boris Berezovsky is not reliable. On the fact he even is an historian or an expert in the life of Stalin. He is just a businessman. I don't see any condition of such kind of source in a so important GA like this. --Zoldyick (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Svetlana Alliluyeva's article confirms that she was in fact married to a Jewish man.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
So let's bring in a truly credible source for this case, because this one isn't. A good article is made by reliable sources, published by experts and peer-reviewed. --Zoldyick (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

one-sided and unsubstantiated claim

CLOSED
Closed (the Red Army did in fact capture Berlin)

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


The third paragraph contains the following claim:

"the Soviet Red Army repelled the German invasion and captured Berlin in 1945, ending World War II in Europe"

As far as I am concerned this is not accurate and even contradicts a referenced statement from the Wikipedia entry about the Red Army, i.e.:

"The Red Army provided the largest land force in the Allied victory in the European theatre of World War II, and its invasion of Manchuria assisted the unconditional surrender of Imperial Japan. During operations on the Eastern Front, it accounted for 75–80% of casualties the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS suffered during the war and ultimately captured the Nazi German capital, Berlin."

I wonder whether this particular claim and some other related statements belong in the introductory paragraphs about Joseph Stalin. If at all they ought to be integrated under the respective sub-headings further down in the article. Hskoppek (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The Red Army did, in fact, capture Berlin.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2023 (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.

Infobox image proposal

The photo of Stalin that is currently being used in the infobox has been nominated for deletion and, given the several issues it has, will likely be deleted. However though, I have uploaded the following file to Wikimedia Commons:

-Stalin Yalta Conference.jpg

This is a crop from the well-known photo taken at the Yalta Conference centered on Stalin. I believe that this is a good candidate for the infobox, as it is non-manipulated, high resolution, and non-upscaled.

Comitialbulb561 (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

This has really been much ado about nothing, but since we recently had a consensus earlier to use this picture, then we should at least keep to a derivative of the same source rather than entertaining something wholly different. File:CroppedStalin1943.jpg appears to have had the AI-upscaling reverted. Zaathras (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Agreed with Zaathras (though this is not much ado about nothing), that version seems our best bet. It does have a weird ripple/fingerprint effect not on the source image, not sure how that got introduced, but it is at least a version of the original photograph. Humbledaisy (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Can people stop warring about the image?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:13, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
I do not thing that's a great picture to present the Article, remember, for example, in the page of the Soviet union, there are multiple links that redirects to the page of Stalin, and see that picture as a presentation of the Article... I do not see it that good. Reasons:
  • Colored. This may be good but is the colors are not accurate to the real world and the shadows are pretty weird.
  • Angle. The guy who took the photo, took it in a bad position, above of Stalin, this is not good because we badly see the Facial characteristics of Stalin or another stuff the readers may want to see about him.
  • Saturation. The image, which is cropped... Is very saturated and we can see it in the hands of Stalin and even in the bald head of Churchill. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Yalta_Conference_1945_Churchill%2C_Stalin%2C_Roosevelt.jpg
Gabriel Ziegler (talk) 10:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I have a few points to make regarding this
• Regarding the color, this is a contemporary color photo and was not colorized. The reason for the odd coloration in places is due to the wear and age of the photo. Remember that coloring can be adjusted with photo editing software (such as Photoshop).
• Saturation can also be adjusted in photo editing software.
• Additionally, I really should have clarified that I proposed this as a possible alternative, and I don't think that this should necessarily be THE image for the infobox, it was rather just an alternitive. It's really my fault for not clarifying. Comitialbulb561 (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I personally think that the Images of persons (The first one or the one which is in the infobox) may be something like epic or very atractive, not that picture where Stalin seems distracted and innocent. The Picture gotta be scary, epic and visually shocking. Gabriel Ziegler (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I've uploaded a better quality version of one of the most recognizible Stalin's portraits. It fits the infobox much better since it's an en face, not colorized, and not cropped out of a much bigger image. This photo is iconic and was used throughout Soviet propaganda during Stalin's era. CapLiber (talk) 01:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I believe that we should return to using a more "conventional" head-and-shoulders portrait photograph, like the one you propose. The current photo, where he's holding a pipe, is (1) quite unconventionally framed, and (2) is less neutral because it appears to have the aim of portraying him in a sort of thoughtful/friendly/personable light (being sourced from cult of personality propaganda). — Goszei (talk) 08:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree, head-on is much more desirable. Comitialbulb561 (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2023

Georgian nationality should be emphasized in the beginning Joseph1873 (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done that request is too vague to execute. You haven’t specified the exact wording that needs to be changed and why. Dronebogus (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
please take this somewhere else, why are you using an answered good faith request to argue about this Dronebogus (talk) 07:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

This is just a terrible edit. Stalin was of Georgian nationality and was known by his Georgian nationality throughout the Soviet Union. You clearly don't know how the WP:ETHNICITY works. In the Soviet Union, there wasn't anything known as "Soviet nationality" because the Soviet Union wasn't a nation. Stalin in all of his personal documents was listed as a Georgian. The reason Trotsky isn't listed as Jewish is because Jewish was not a nationality in the Soviet Union, it was an ethnicity, and still is so pretty much everywhere around the world to this day. You can take Sergo Ordzhonikidze as another example similar to Stalin, a Georgian Bolshevik who spent most of his time in Russia yet he was known by his Georgian nationality. Clearly no one here agrees with your edits either, the consensus seems to have been reached, better to change it as it was before. Rahammz (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

You are confusing many things here. Nationality refers to someones affiliation to a sovereign state. All inhabitants of the Russian Empire had Russian nationality, and all inhabitants of the Soviet Union had Soviet nationality. The guidelines for Wikipedia are to list someones nationality in the lead header and not their ethnicity. In the Soviet Union, Jewish and Georgian were both equal registered ethnicities that were marked on people's passports (often confused with nationality because the Russian word that was used for ethnicity is/was Natsional'nost'). So I have to disagree, in the Russian and Soviet empires, Stalin was no more Georgian than Trotsky was Jewish. And fyi, Trotsky being a Jew was as well known as Stalin and Ordzhonikidze being Georgians. Machinarium (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Georgian and Jewish were not equally registered. Georgians were an official nation within the USSR, hence why they had their own SSR, while Jews were just an ethnicity. Jewish itself is not a nationality, an American Jewish or a German Jewish man are always simply referred to as either German or American respectively. Because "Jewish" is not a nation. This is a similar case with other Soviet politicians of different ethnicities and nationalities. Latvian and Ukrainian Bolsheviks in Wikipedia are referred to as Latvian and Ukrainian regardless of which part of the Soviet Union they worked most of their careers. Anyways this whole conversation is pointless because as you can see no one agrees with you here. So either change it yourself or wait for an administrator to intervene. Rahammz (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

In the Soviet Union, both Jewish and Georgian were only official in that they were inscribed on people's passports. Georgians were indeed given their own SSR, but Stalin tried to do the same for the Jews, namely the Jewish Autonomous Oblast. But many ethnic groups or 'nations' were never given their own oblast or republic (Avars, Nogais, Mingrelians etc.). Anyway, descent cannot be used to deny someones nationality. And the comparison with Americans is simply not true. Americans of Georgian, Russian, or Jewish descent are all referred to as Americans, and German citizens of Georgian or Russian descent are also referred to as Germans. Machinarium (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Georgian nationality - footnote in lead

The footnote reads: "Stalin was Georgian, but during his revolutionary campaigns, adopted the Soviet Nationality law and also changed his Georgian name to a Russian Name." What is the relevance of the "Soviet Nationality law"? Also, I don't think Stalin is a Russian name; it's a pseudonym. Jack Upland (talk) 01:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes it looks a bit strange, I am not sure if it belongs there but I've tried improving it. Mellk (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I don’t think that the bit about the Soviet Nationality Law is necessarily relevant, but the assertion that he changed his name to a Russian one would be correct. A better way of describing it would be that he Russified his Georgian name from Ioseb Besarionis to Iosef Vissarionovich. The Stalin part was initially a pseudonym, but was his legal last name after the Revolution. SmallMossie (talk) 13:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

So the way it is now — a 'Georgian-born Soviet revolutionary' — is better than it used to be, but still not free of anachronisms. He was a revolutionary before there was a Soviet Union, so to call him a "Soviet revolutionary" is anachronistic. More correct options are "Georgian-born Russian revolutionary" or "Russian revolutionary of Georgian origin" with a hyperlink to the Russian Revolution and Georgian people pages. In this way it is NOT suggested that he was an ethnic Russian. A revolutionary in the Russian empire does not have to be ethnic Russian or born and raised on Russian soil to be called 'Russian revolutionary'. Take Leon Trotsky for example, who was a Jew from the Kherson Governorate (i.e. Ukrainian soil), but is still widely known in history as a Russian revolutionary. Machinarium (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

It would be better say that he was a Georgian revolutionary and Soviet political leader.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
But 'Georgian revolutionary' makes it sound as if Stalin only advocated revolution in Georgia, when in reality he participated in revolutions that concerned the entirety of the Russian Empire. In fact, in 1921, before the Soviet Union was proclaimed, he was one of the leaders of the Russian SFSR who decided to launch a major war against Georgia to destroy their officially recognized independence. Machinarium (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Taking into account the complexity of this issue as well as the strict WP:ETHNICITY guideline, I suggest for now we keep "a revolutionary in the Russian Empire and political leader who led the Soviet Union". In the Personal life and characteristics section it can all be elaborated. Machinarium (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@Machinarium WTF is even your point?!?! He was Georgian hence 'Georgian-born' (=Georgian, if you didn't know). ?????????????????????????????? De Statskvinde (talk). 08:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Georgian-born either means ethnic Georgian, which is not supposed to be in the lead header per WP:ETHNICITY, or it means born in Georgia, which we know isn't true since he was born and raised in the Russian Empire. Check the page for Napoleon for comparison which had similar issues. To the dismay of some, he is not called "Corsican" or "Corsican-born" even though his native tongue was an Italian dialect. That's because Corsica was annexed by France shortly before his birth (and Georgia was annexed by Russia 77 years before Stalin was born). Machinarium (talk) 09:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
@Machinarium Disagree. That's a slippery slope - he was born in the historico-geografical region of Georgia (which was an independent entity till the early XIX c.) which didn't stop existing just because the Georgian people lost their statehood and became part of the Russian empire. Things don't happen that way. There isn't a Russian empire-nation or people in the sense of the so-called Soviet people or the Yugoslavs and there are no different arguments and controversies about his ethnicity (like in the case of Krste Misirkov who is claimed by the Bulgarians to be a Bulgarian and by the Macedonians - a Macedonian while he himself changed his ethnic self-identity many times during his life and thus he is described in the article as being "from the region of Macedonia.") Also, it's not true that ethnicity shouldn't be mentioned in the beggining of an article - that's almost always the case and in this case (about this well-known historical figure) it's even more the case - Wikipedia:Ethnicity is important. Also cf. Lenin - "[...] was a Russian revolutionary [...]" (not "a revolutionary in the Russian empire), Kim Il-sung (born in Korea when it was part of the Japanese empire) - "[...] was a Korean politician [...]" - not "a politian/revolutionary/whatever in the Japanese empire" etc. etc. Many such examples. Your argument gets destroyed by itself. De Statskvinde (talk). 12:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
That Georgia used to exist long before he was born is true, but is of no relevance here, as blunt as it sounds. Take the article Khabib for example — it says he is a Russian MMA fighter, even though he is an ethnic Avar from Dagestan (which was an independent entity till the late XIX c.). This is in accordance with WP:ETHNICITY. The examples that you give do not actually refer to ethnicity. Like Stalin, Lenin was a national of the Russian Empire (and by the way he wasn't purely ethnically Russian) and therefore a Russian revolutionary. The same goes for Trotsky, who was Jewish and from Ukraine but still called Russian revolutionary. Hence Stalin should also be called a Russian revolutionary. If that's too sensitive then it can be avoided by saying "a revolutionary in the Russian Empire". The only thing that makes Stalin a special case is that he himself introduced the Soviet Nationality Law, which changed Russian nationality into a Soviet one, but that was after the revolutions. Machinarium (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
I think we need to mention his Georgian nationality in the introduction, merely because it's who he was.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
But he didn't have Georgian nationality. The English definition of nationality refers to citizenship (or in absence of citizenship subjecthood), and we know he never had Georgian citizenship, just Russian and later Soviet. His self-identity is a different topic. There's a clear editorial policy that states lead headers shouldn't start with someone's ethnicity, and I think that for a figure like Stalin it's extra important that we stick to it (also because raising his ethnicity can be contentious and we should not encourage it). Anyway, as it stands now there is no mention that he was Russian either, and it's mentioned in the second paragraph that he was born to a Georgian family, which might be a good enough compromise. Machinarium (talk) 10:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Of course in this case it would be ethnicity, not nationality. The MOS states that ethnicity generally should not be included unless relevant to the subject's notability. This could also include "Soviet Georgian" or "Georgian-Soviet". The other option is mentioning birthplace ("Georgian-born"). The second paragraph already mentions where he was born. Whether these are relevant to his notability (to the point it is in the first sentence), probably not. Mellk (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
His Georgian background is indeed not what made him notable in his time. Tsars before him were also not ethnically Russian, it didn't matter as much as people like to think now. Anyway, 'Georgian-born' or 'Georgian-Soviet' is problematic because it suggests he was born a Georgian citizen before becoming something else (like Hitler was born an Austrian citizen and later became German), but that's not the case. Machinarium (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Maybe it can be written as "Bolshevik revolutionary and Soviet political leader"? Mellk (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Good one. Machinarium (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Or maybe 'Stalin was a Soviet politician, political theorist, and revolutionary who led the Soviet Union from ...'. Revolutionary doesn't actually have to come first because he was more notable as Soviet leader. Machinarium (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I think the issue is that he was not really a revolutionary anymore during the Soviet period as that wording implies. Mellk (talk) 12:24, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I raised that point myself, but thought maybe if its at the end less so.Machinarium (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Lidia Pereprygina

The thing about age of consent is a bit of a weird addition and some sources I've read claim that she was 13 when they first were engaged in a relationship. I've also read that she was born in 1901 which makes the maths a bit suspect if their first child was born in 1914. Can't access the sources given atm but it's worth looking into (I'll see if I can find some other sources too). 81.78.85.158 (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

OK just got hold of *one* of the sources cited Joseph Stalin#CITEREFKhlevniuk2015 to demonstrate that the relationship was legal because 14 was the age of consent and it says that Stalin managed to avoid being charged for a "transgression with a minor" because the local police chief was Ossetian.
The other source Joseph Stalin#CITEREFSuny2020 says that he was reprimanded by the local gendarme.
This seems to fly in the face of the claim that their relationship was within the age of consent in the Russian Empire (which ironically these sources are supposed to demonstrate). 81.78.85.158 (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2023

Change "Trotsky and several other Soviet figures promoted the idea that Stalin was a mediocrity."

to

"Trotsky and several other Soviet figures promoted the idea that Stalin was mediocre." NewEditor101101001 (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The original wording is grammatically correct, no need to change. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 04:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Also, saying someone is a 'mediocrity' is slightly different in nuance from describing them as 'mediocre' and that nuance should be preserved. Sbishop (talk) 09:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The Picture of Stalin and Lenin

I Have Been Told By A Rather Reliable Source That The Picture Of Lenin And Stalin May Be a Fake, If This Is True Then May I Suggest That You Put In Brackets “Maybe Faked” Or Something Along Those Lines In The Description Of The Image. This Dose Not However Mean That You Should Outright Get Rid Of The Image, If You Wish To Do That And You Think It Would Be A Good Idea Then Maybe You Should, But I Am Only Saying That You Should Make It Clear That The Image May Be Faked In The Description Or Something Like That

Thank You, Have A Good Day, And Mind The Gap

By OrangeFox (Not A Troll Account, Seriously) TheLaughingOrangeFox (talk) 11:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I Am Sorry I Offended Anyone By This, And’Or Made Someone Not Take This Seriously, This Is A Real And Serious Comment And I Am Not Trying To Make A Joke. TheLaughingOrangeFox (talk) 12:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi TheLaughingOrangeFox, it's really hard to take you serious when you write a message like that. Please Do Not Write Messages Like That Again. Please do not write messages like that again. For clarity, here's a copy-paste of your text with improvements.
I have been told by a rather reliable source that the picture of Lenin and Stalin may be a fake. If this is true then may I suggest that you put in brackets "maybe faked" (or something along those lines) in the description of the image. This does not however mean that you should outright get rid of the image, if you wish to do that and you think it would be a good idea then maybe you should, but I am only saying that you should make it clear that the image may be faked in the description or something like that.
Thank you, have a good day, and mind the gap.
By OrangeFox (not a troll account, seriously).
I am sorry I offended anyone by this, and/or made someone not take this seriously, this is a real and serious comment and I am not trying to make a joke.
What is the "reliable source"? That you've been merely told this information is rather vague.
There's a joke by Sarah Silverman. It's like saying, 'Hey, when you get in the shower, I'm not gonna read your diary.' 'Wait--are you gonna read my diary?' 'No! I said I'm not gonna read your diary. Go take a shower!' That you insists you're not a troll account and you are apologising in advance... soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 19:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Good point 195.224.83.131 (talk) 08:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Dmitri Volkogonov's Lenin: A New Biography contains the photo in question and accompanies it with the following text: "This photograph has been the subject of speculation that Stalin had it 'doctored' to reflect his intimacy with the leader. The original negative, held in the archives, shows that it was taken by Lenin's sister Maria, and is genuine." --Ismail (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

"Asian"

In fact, he never said he was Asian. This is just a rumor that cannot be confirmed. This part of the article should be corrected. 2A0B:6204:41B9:EC00:3698:3986:5E2B:9A7B (talk) 05:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

It think it actually comes from the idea, also prevalent at the time, that Georgians are Asians because the region is geographically in Asia. So not that incorrect. Machinarium (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
The claim that Stalin referred to himself as "Asian" actually originates from Trotsky's biography of Stalin, which isn't the most reliable source. Alvaria (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Lede is pro-Stalin inclined, has to be changed (MILD VERSION) - improving the flow, calling a spade a spade

Hello. Some of you may know me and may have heard of or seen the trouble I have personally had with applying changes to this article with staunch opposition from some user. I have decided to formally disjoint my attempts and highlighted the earlier attempt as BOLD VERSION where it is currently Supported by 2 users (including me) and no further feedback. This MILD VERSION concerns the change I have most recently tried to get accepted which I consider as quite cosmetic and one which shouldn't cause any uproar at all. Alas it did. Well here goes: (1) I think it would be good to fix the flow of the first paragraph of the lede after the "He held power as ..." sentence as currently it's too lengthy in my opinion and constructed in a turgid way with redundancies. Here is my proposition for the flow of the rest of the first paragraph:

This at the same time improves upon the long-standing discussion whether Stalin should be given the title of "dictator" by removing the word altogether by turning away the discussion from titles to the status of the regime of the Soviet Union in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s and so on.

  • (2) The most egregious whitewashing in this article that I have seen so far is the euphemizing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact by linking to it only as to "a non-aggression pact" (as if it was just a generic, peaceable non-aggression pact, lookie how good a man our boy Stalin was) in the rest of the lede. It's important to note that this was the style of official Soviet historiography with its historical revisionism, and later has been continued by post-Soviet Russia too and is now universally recognized as Russian propaganda. The solution required and suggested by me is only cosmetic also, just remove the euphemizing linking and input the title of the article as it is, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

What do you guys think? Galehautt (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

See WP:NOTVOTE. You also seem to have forgotten you were reverted several times already by multiple editors, therefore framing this as "staunch opposition from some user" comes across as disingenuous. Also it was a non-aggression pact. By invading the USSR, Germany broke the pact of non-aggression. The invasion of Poland is mentioned right afterwards anyway. Mellk (talk) 01:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I wrote "some user" without naming names to avoid accusations of personal attacks. I'm glad you showed up but I'm concerned why you aren't alright with just linking to the article Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact as it stands and are afraid of WP:SPADE. Note the secret protocol.
Galehautt (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Ummm, it is linked. Mellk (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah it's linked: "his regime signed a non-aggression pact with Germany" and I propose just: his regime signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Germany
Galehautt (talk) 01:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
The next sentence becomes less clear. Mellk (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
How so? Galehautt (talk) 01:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
"Germany ended the pact" (but then it is not clear this is a non-aggression pact). Replacing this makes it unclear to the reader what "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" is. Therefore, "non-aggression pact" suffices. Mellk (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
It's pretty clear to me that you end any sort of secret pacts you have with someone when you invade them. Maybe it's not clear to you but I think to everyone else it is. If there is no further trouble with this proposed edit, I hope the positive feedback is secured and I can go through with it. Galehautt (talk) 01:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Your proposed change does not indicate this was a "secret pact". And the pact itself was not secret, there was a secret protocol. Mellk (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
You're pasting snippets from the paragraph to pretend there would be some inconsistency in it after applying my proposition, which is absurd. To demonstrate this, let me paste the whole thing with my clearly sensible cosmetic Wikipedianism applied:
Furthermore, using your logic, as it stands right now it actually is inconsistent because it does not follow how a non-aggression pact could pave the way for the Soviet invasion of Poland while the Germans were busy invading Poland themselves. Galehautt (talk) 01:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
The article on the pact says it was a non-aggression pact between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union that partitioned Eastern Europe between them. If you have a problem with it being defined as a "non-aggression pact", you should go to that talk page instead. Mellk (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I have no problem with that article. Any further questions? Galehautt (talk) 02:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Then the current wording is fine, because "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" does not tell the reader what it is. Mellk (talk) 02:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Uh, it does. It says "resulting in the Soviet invasion of Poland." Galehautt (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
This does not mention it is a non-aggression pact. Mellk (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
It was an aggression pact truth be told. Galehautt (talk) 02:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
And "a non-aggression pact" does not tell the reader what the M-R Pact was at all because it's WP:SPADE Galehautt (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
This is not weasel wording. Mellk (talk) 02:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
My bad. It's WP:SPADE Galehautt (talk) 02:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
That article defines it as a "non-aggression pact". Also, you keep editing your comments after someone has replied to them. See WP:REDACT. Please self-revert. Mellk (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Fixing typos is OK. Galehautt (talk) 02:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
The article doesn't even end the opening sentence on that. It continues and only then places the period. Galehautt (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Edits like this and this are not fixing typos, you have changed the meaning. Mellk (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2023

Please add the title of Dictator JitsuAttack (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

'Dictator' isn't a title, it's a description of a de facto position.Sbishop (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Confusing wording

in August 1940, Trotsky was assassinated in Mexico, eliminating the last of Stalin's opponents among the former Party leadership. In May, this was followed by the arrest of most members of the military Supreme Command and mass arrests throughout the military, often on fabricated charges.

What is "this". Trotsky's death? May is before August. If it is May 1941, then it should say. LittleJerry (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Length

At over 20k words of readable prose, this article is too long to read comfortably. It would be beneficial to condense and/or migrate content to subarticles to make this one more readable. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I added the section sizes template just above. Just going by the numbers, and starting at the top: §Early life is about half the size of its corresponding sub-article and could probably be 30-50% shorter. Joseph Stalin during the Russian Revolution, Civil War, and the Polish–Soviet War is listed as the main article §In Lenin's government, and it could definitely be expanded and possible re-titled to something like Joseph Stalin during Lenin's government. The section here is longer than that article, though it covers a few more years of history. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. This is a Good Article that has been reviewed by others for months. It is a biography that satisfactorily summarizes Stalin. From May to November 2018 the article was reviewed by many editors who consensually agreed to the promotion. Editors who call for content splitting forget that the article is a biography of a central historical figure. Furthermore, Wikipedia has many biographies longer than this one, and few have received a content splitting proposal. They are complaining that the 20k word article is difficult to comfortably read, yet the article is well written, unlike much longer articles. --Zoldyick (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
But WP:AS states that articles over 15,000 words should "definitely" be split (or trimmed?). I brought it down close to 18,000 words by spinning off personal life and political views. But I'm stumped on what else to trimm. LittleJerry (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
I believe it's because it's not that simple. All sections of the article are balanced in terms of text content, coverage of facts, and information about Stalin's life. By unilaterally splitting this content, we are unbalancing information and texts. (Look at the Political views section...) I insist on this point, the article is about one of the most relevant personalities in recent history, and it will inevitably be fulfilled. But in this GA version the article is very well written and organized. We cannot say that at some point he goes off topic. What WP:AS doesn't realize is the fact that some articles are vital to the project. --Zoldyick (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Trotskyist propaganda

I disputed the validity of a source and an editor reversed me. It turns out that the source In Defense of Leon Trotsky is clearly Trotskyist propaganda. First of all, its author is not a historian like the other sources cited. As we can see on the "About the author" page, "David North has played a leading role in the international socialist movement for nearly 40 years, and is presently the chairperson of the International Editorial Board of the World Socialist Web Site." In other words, David North is anything but a historian. This is a Good Article based on the sources of renowned historians, and the content I disputed to is referenced by a source wishing to defend Trotsky, an opposition figure to Stalin. It seems to me to be a case of a conflict of interest from a source who will be partial to one of these historical figures. The disputed text says "Other socialist writers have challenged the interpretation presented by Service and pointed to the fact that the generation of bureaucrats that rose to power under his tutelage presided over the stagnation and breakdown of the Soviet Union." By who? Who are these "other socialist writers"? --Zoldyick (talk) 21:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I doubt North qualifies as a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. There are academic works that discuss avowedly socialist critics of Stalin and the USSR, such as The Social and Political Thought of Leon Trotsky by Baruch Knei-Paz and Western Marxism and the Soviet Union by Marcel van der Linden which would make more sense to cite. --Ismail (talk) 08:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
I agree. North is not a good source.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I call for content and source removal. This is a GA. We need to maintain the level of quality. --Zoldyick (talk) 01:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that piece of propaganda should be removed as an obvious case of going against WP:RS. Cukrakalnis (talk) 10:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Request for edit

Although I know this subject is already highly controversial, there is a glaring error/bias in the Legacy subsection that states characterizations of Stalin as all powerful are “‘over-simplistic stereotypes’—promoted in the fiction of writers like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Vasily Grossman, and Anatoly Rybakov’”.

My argument is that the sentence should instead read “McDermott nevertheless cautioned against "over-simplistic stereotypes" that portrayed Stalin as an omnipotent and omnipresent tyrant who controlled every aspect of Soviet life through repression and totalitarianism.” While it should be common knowledge with a figure as controversial as Stalin to err on the side of fact, referring to these authors as “promoting fictions” of Stalin, even if a direct quote from McDermott clearly violates the integrity of the article by implicitly 1. Assuming McDermott’s cautioning/advice about how one should view Stalin is immediately correct and must be taken into account for an understanding of the facts of Stalin’s life, and 2. Disregarding the works of three authors’, one of whom was a Nobel Prize recipient, as fictions. I understand this phrasing may be a literal use of “fictions” to refer to fictional works that take place during Stalin’s tenure as Premier, the wording is, at best, confusing and unnecessary. Additionally, the connotation of the pejorative “promoted” makes that best-case scenario less likely.

Ultimately, that particular sentence adds nothing to the article about Stalin and would perhaps be better suited in a slightly less controversial article about McDermott’s feelings on those authors perceptions of Stalin. 96.245.165.159 (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree. It's important to be more cautious on these kinds of topics. What do others think? Atinoua (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
I disagree. The sentence makes sense in context.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
I don’t mean this in an aggressive manner towards you, but how does the context make that sentence any less confusing or biased? To be honest, the section is a little disjointed anyway, so I don’t think context helps much. It uses the qualifying word “fictions” to describe the work of an author whose most well known Nobel Prize winning work is a non-fiction. At its worst impression, it’s biased slander of a well known author. Alternatively, if it’s referring to their fictional works, it still gives a confusing impression that their works are mainly fiction.
I think a good common ground here would simply be change the word “fictions” to novels; it can’t be read with a negative connotation, and makes it clear that it’s referring to fictional characterizations of Stalin by those authors. That way, it changes very little, retains as much as possible of the original meaning, and reduces confusion. 96.245.249.198 (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Battles in infobox

I have recently been checking infoboxes of various political leaders and I noticed the battles they fought only include the physically fought ones e.g. the infobox of Adolf Hitler includes World War I and not World War II, Harry S. Truman includes WWI and not WWII, Korean War etc. Thus, I will be removing the battles in which Stalin did not physically fight in. MawlidistMan (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Heads of states don't personally participate in wars. But they cause them.--Aristophile (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes but the wars which heads of states cause are not shown in the infobox. See Stalin's WWII ally Winston Churchill, see Stalin's successor Nikita Khrushchev, Hitler, Truman etc. They only include the wars which they personally participated in. Thus, I proposed the Russian Revolution and Russian Civil War in Stalin's infobox since Stalin's personally participated in them. MawlidistMan (talk) 8:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree with the logic of removal in the light of the other examples. The infobox for Stalin is already long enough without being bloated by this long list.Sbishop (talk) 09:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Due to the examples you provided I agree that this article should be like those other articles. Perhaps that infobox part can be divided into two separate sections, one with battles that he was more physically involved with/in like the Battle of Tsaritsyn and the other section with battles that match the description “Heads of states don't personally participate in wars. But they cause them.”
But I reckon the examples you provided would have to be changed too. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 04:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
I have attempted to better reflect this point as of this revision: Special:Permalink/1170721708. Based on my review of the articles you linked and others, I believe that the undocumented "rule" is that only the years-of-service/wars in which a military rank was held are listed, while those in which the person was a civilian commander-in-chief are not. In Stalin's case, this excludes 1941–1943, since he was the CiC but held no rank until he made himself a Marshal in 1943. I think what is acceptable to list in this case is somewhat open to interpretation, however, since in other cases like Hitler or Truman the position of commander-in-chief is implied by their other offices (Fuhrer, President) listed in the infobox, while that is not the case here. — Goszei (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Portrait

Because of Stalin's immense significance in history, I believe that a high-quality portrait for him is necessary. If you have a problem with this, feel free to let me know. SurrealSurgeon (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion about the lead image above at #Infobox image. — Goszei (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
User blocked for trolling/abuse/whatever. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Infobox image

File:Iosif Stalin.jpg
Stalin in the 1940s

I propose the use of this official portrait of Stalin in the 1940s (File:Iosif Stalin.jpg) in the infobox over the current image, a 1937 portrait in which he holds a pipe (File:Stalin Full Image.jpg). The 1940s portrait has several advantages over the pipe portrait, consistent with the "natural and appropriate" guidance in MOS:LEADIMAGE:

  • It is his most famous portrait by a wide margin (being widely issued to commemorate his 70th birthday in 1949), and is more representative of him at the peak of his international importance and recognition, in the World War II and early Cold War era. He is wearing his Marshal of the Soviet Union epaulettes and Hero of the Soviet Union badge.
  • It is higher quality, and has a conventional composition typical of Wikpedia's infobox images. He is centered, with a clear view of his face, unlike in the pipe portrait.
  • It is more neutral than the pipe portrait, which has too much "character" and seeks to portray him as "folksy" and "the everyday friend of the people". Both portraits are propaganda images, but the 1940s portrait is more straightforward in portraying him as a political leader and historical figure, rather than "humanizing" him.

To quote the MOS, the 1940s portrait is "the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see". I have read the somewhat recent discussions at Talk:Joseph Stalin/Archive 22#New infobox image and Talk:Joseph Stalin/Archive 23#New Infobox image, at which this image was not proposed but the deficiencies of the pipe portrait were pointed out by several editors. The alternatives proposed there had various problems, such as low quality or poor poses. — Goszei (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I concur. --Ismail (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
You made some good points, and I would like to hear what other people think about this. This image you suggest does play into Stalin's cult of personality and I worry it idolizes him. Of course both images do this, but it may be better to portray him as folksy rather than godlike. What are your thoughts? Atinoua (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
That portrait is included in the article 4 times. We don't need another one. The current image is more realistic and recognisable as Stalin.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Stalin in 1950

I have just found and uploaded a seated portrait of Stalin in 1950 to Commons. I think this cropped version is an even better candidate for the infobox than the 1940s portrait, as his appearance seems minimally retouched and closer to other photos, like those from the Yalta Conference. Overall the image strikes a more natural tone, and he lacks his ostentatious military decorations, reducing the concern about idolizing him. Thoughts? — Goszei (talk) 07:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

This one is much better! I am OK with this change. Atinoua (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
IMO the previous one is better. It may lack "his ostentatious military decorations," but on the other hand these hint at his role in the Great Patriotic War, which was clearly a major part of his life. --Ismail (talk) 02:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I personally don't think the proposed one is perfect either since, like all other Soviet photos, it's been retouched to look as if he had perfect skin. Photos from 1941 by Margaret Bourke-White are one of the few that showed what he really looked like, see here for example: [2] but unfortunately they are not available on Wikimedia. Maybe this one from the Tehran conference is a good alternative (it's currently also used on the Russian and Georgian wikipedia pages): Machinarium (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

"...been retouched to look as if he had perfect skin." This point has been brought up multiple times and has been found to be invalid. MOS:LEADIMAGE states "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see." It doesn't matter if the skin is cleared up. Does the image show Stalin as he would be recognized by the average reader? Would we expect the lede image for Britney Spears to show her without makeup? LittleJerry (talk) 01:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
But anyway, I prefer the current image or the 1950 one. Stalin is more recognizable for his tunic. After this, I think we need to stop with these image discussions (unless the lede image is deleted). They keep occurring every couple months and its getting repetitive. LittleJerry (talk) 01:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
I agree this is getting repetitive.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
There's a difference between make up and 'photoshopped' imagery (for lack of a better word). This article heavily favors old propaganda images that make him look prettier than he was, but I don't think an informative encyclopedia should be doing that. Neither for the lead image, with MOS:LEADIMAGE also stating that images "should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic".Machinarium (talk) 10:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Make-up also makes people "prettier" than what they are. These are the same photos used in RS books about him. Hence the "type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see" LittleJerry (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
I support the 1950 one, as there he's without a hat and the photo is taken from a shorter distance, unlike the 1937 one GreatLeader1945 (talk) 07:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Stalin in 1943
Again, there's a difference between a person wearing make-up, which is the way a person managed to present himself/herself in real life, versus a manipulated photo of that person which is not what the person actually looked like. Non-manipulated photos of Stalin are also used in RS books and are essentially superior to distorted ones, especially since the latter are known to have helped shape his cult of personality. Machinarium (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
I see that Machinarium has a uploaded a much higher quality scan of the 1943 Tehran image (with fewer scratches and marks) to Commons. That portrait was favored (by a large margin) at the previous discussion in Archive 23, but I believe that it was replaced at some point with the previous pipe image due to quality defects. Now that those have been resolved, I support it as the best available choice. Side note: in an ideal world, I agree that the photos of Stalin taken by Margaret Bourke-White for Life magazine would be excellent, and I hope they will be used here when the copyright lapses (I believe in 2036). — Goszei (talk) 06:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
That photo is already in the article. I'll support the 1940s photo instead. LittleJerry (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

It can we please settle on the image already? I thought we were done with this but people are still obsessed and can't move on. The 1950 portrait shows Stalin in his familiar tunic, which he wore during his rule, and focuses in his face. I don't get the obsession with the Tehran photo. His face is a tiny part of the photo and he is wearing atypical attire. LittleJerry (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The Tehran image is also from a weird angle; the 1950 portrait is so much more natural. Loytra (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I support the portrait I have provided in the article since it is a high-quality and vintage version of the 1940s portrait and emphasizes Stalin's importance as a historic figure. SurrealSurgeon (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
You don't get to just change the main image without support from other users. If you revert one more time I will report you for edit warring. LittleJerry (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
PS. Your image is terrible. Its not even a photograph. Its not accurate and glorifies Stalin LittleJerry (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
"A biography should lead with a portrait photograph", per MOS:IMAGEQUALITY. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 22:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
LittleJerry Goszei Personally, I prefer the Tehran photo. Among other reasons, it is significantly less blurry than the current image.Emiya1980 (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
The current image focuses on the face and has a better angle. So it's positives outweigh the negatives. I really wish this conversation would end. LittleJerry (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
LittleJerry Regardless of whether you find this topic drawn-out or not, the fact remains you have not obtained a consensus in favor of your image. Based on my review of the discussion, you have 4 editors in favor of the current 1950 image, 3 in favor of the 1943 Tehran photo (including myself), and 2 others who (while not supporting the Tehran photo) have voiced opposition to the current image. In total, that's a vote of 5:4 against the present image.
When this issue was decided on a year ago by numerous editors including myself, we reached a consensus by holding an Rfc. Seeing as how we now have another ongoing debate about this issue with no firm consensus in sight, I propose we hold another one to put this argument to bed once and for all. Emiya1980 (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Just my 2p: I see the appeal of the Tehran photo. It's clear, crisp and well-framed. IMHO, it just doesn't look as much like Stalin as the current (Stalin in 1950) version. However, I don't think either of them would be a mistake. The "Stalin in the 1940s" one would be a distant third. He looks like something from a wax museum. Any of those three, however, is far better than the plastic abomination that just reverted a couple weeks ago. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Fine. Start it. LittleJerry (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2023

Please add Alexander Davydov to the list of Joseph Stalin's children in his fact file, as mentioned under "Relationships and family" under "Personal life and characteristics". N9isnoob (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Added to infobox which I guess is what you mean by "fact file". Lightoil (talk) 02:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Part of lede about Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and WWII

Why are events of 1940, i.e. occupation of the Baltic states and Bessarabia (part of the sentence The Soviet Union, which had annexed the Baltic states and modern Moldova during the war, established Soviet-aligned governments in Central and Eastern Europe.) mentioned after the end of World War II? The sequence is illogical.

In addition, why is it not made clear that the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact directly led to World War II, while there is a whole sentence dedicated to Despite initial catastrophes, the Soviet Red Army repelled the German invasion and captured Berlin in 1945, ending World War II in Europe.?

I propose that the Soviet occupations of 1940 be mentioned as part of the sentence In 1939, his regime signed a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany, resulting in the Soviet invasion of Poland and that something be written to clarify Stalin's role in beginning WWII. --Cukrakalnis (talk) 11:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

See: Causes of World War II. Mellk (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
You addressed nothing and practically ignored most of what I wrote. Cukrakalnis (talk) 11:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Indeed. Worrying. Malecide (talk) 23:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Lede is pro-Stalin inclined, has to be changed (MILD VERSION) - improving the flow, calling a spade a spade

Hello. Some of you may know me and may have heard of or seen the trouble I have personally had with applying changes to this article with staunch opposition from some user. I have decided to formally disjoint my attempts and highlighted the earlier attempt as BOLD VERSION where it is currently Supported by 2 users (including me) and no further feedback. This MILD VERSION concerns the change I have most recently tried to get accepted which I consider as quite cosmetic and one which shouldn't cause any uproar at all. Alas it did. Well here goes: (1) I think it would be good to fix the flow of the first paragraph of the lede after the "He held power as ..." sentence as currently it's too lengthy in my opinion and constructed in a turgid way with redundancies. Here is my proposition for the flow of the rest of the first paragraph:

This at the same time improves upon the long-standing discussion whether Stalin should be given the title of "dictator" by removing the word altogether by turning away the discussion from titles to the status of the regime of the Soviet Union in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s and so on.

  • (2) The most egregious whitewashing in this article that I have seen so far is the euphemizing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact by linking to it only as to "a non-aggression pact" (as if it was just a generic, peaceable non-aggression pact, lookie how good a man our boy Stalin was) in the rest of the lede. It's important to note that this was the style of official Soviet historiography with its historical revisionism, and later has been continued by post-Soviet Russia too and is now universally recognized as Russian propaganda. The solution required and suggested by me is only cosmetic also, just remove the euphemizing linking and input the title of the article as it is, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

What do you guys think? Galehautt (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

See WP:NOTVOTE. You also seem to have forgotten you were reverted several times already by multiple editors, therefore framing this as "staunch opposition from some user" comes across as disingenuous. Also it was a non-aggression pact. By invading the USSR, Germany broke the pact of non-aggression. The invasion of Poland is mentioned right afterwards anyway. Mellk (talk) 01:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I wrote "some user" without naming names to avoid accusations of personal attacks. I'm glad you showed up but I'm concerned why you aren't alright with just linking to the article Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact as it stands and are afraid of WP:WEASEL WP:SPADE. Note the secret protocol.
Galehautt (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Ummm, it is linked. Mellk (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah it's linked: "his regime signed a non-aggression pact with Germany" and I propose just: his regime signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Germany
Galehautt (talk) 01:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
The next sentence becomes less clear. Mellk (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
How so? Galehautt (talk) 01:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
"Germany ended the pact" (but then it is not clear this is a non-aggression pact). Replacing this makes it unclear to the reader what "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" is. Therefore, "non-aggression pact" suffices. Mellk (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
It's pretty clear to me that you end any sort of secret pacts you have with someone when you invade them. Maybe it's not clear to you but I think to everyone else it is. If there is no further trouble with this proposed edit, I hope the positive feedback is secured and I can go through with it. Galehautt (talk) 01:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Your proposed change does not indicate this was a "secret pact". And the pact itself was not secret, there was a secret protocol. Mellk (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
You're pasting snippets from the paragraph to pretend there would be some inconsistency in it after applying my proposition, which is absurd. To demonstrate this, let me paste the whole thing with my clearly sensible cosmetic Wikipedianism applied:
Furthermore, using your logic, as it stands right now it actually is inconsistent because it does not follow how a non-aggression pact could pave the way for the Soviet invasion of Poland while the Germans were busy invading Poland themselves. Galehautt (talk) 01:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
The article on the pact says it was a non-aggression pact between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union that partitioned Eastern Europe between them. If you have a problem with it being defined as a "non-aggression pact", you should go to that talk page instead. Mellk (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I have no problem with that article. Any further questions? Galehautt (talk) 02:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Then the current wording is fine, because "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" does not tell the reader what it is. Mellk (talk) 02:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Uh, it does. It says "resulting in the Soviet invasion of Poland." Galehautt (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
This does not mention it is a non-aggression pact. Mellk (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
It was an aggression pact truth be told. Galehautt (talk) 02:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
And "a non-aggression pact" does not tell the reader what the M-R Pact was at all because it's WP:WEASEL WP:SPADE Galehautt (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
This is not weasel wording. Mellk (talk) 02:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
My bad. It's WP:SPADE Galehautt (talk) 02:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
That article defines it as a "non-aggression pact". Also, you keep editing your comments after someone has replied to them. See WP:REDACT. Please self-revert. Mellk (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Fixing typos is OK. Galehautt (talk) 02:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Edits like this and this are not fixing typos, you have changed the meaning. Mellk (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I was meaning to write WP:SPADE. English is not my first language, English-language Wikipedia isn't my first home, it is 4 AM here and I mistakenly linked to WEASEL instead of SPADE. Galehautt (talk) 02:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
That doesn't matter, I already replied to that comment. You should strikethrough it instead. Mellk (talk) 02:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
OK. Good suggestion. Galehautt (talk) 02:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
The article doesn't even end the opening sentence on that. It continues and only then places the period. Galehautt (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
So if there are no further questions to calling a spade a spade, I would be glad to complete this edit. Galehautt (talk) 02:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
This is not how consensus works. You do not proceed with your edit if "there are no further questions", especially when you have been reverted countless times already. You have been told this multiple times already. Mellk (talk) 02:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
The edit was only reverted by you. Then my reverts of your reverts were reverted by you and other users claiming to counteract an alleged edit war on my part. If there are no further questions, the case is then clear. Galehautt (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
This is not what the edit history shows, but frankly, I have ran out of patience now. Mellk (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
The edit history shows what I said. You were the first to revert each time. Then my reverts of your reverts were reverted by you and other users. Galehautt (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
No, this was the first time you were reverted. Mellk (talk) 02:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
That was the bold edit. I am speaking of this mild edit. Galehautt (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't think you have made your case for a change.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Yup. Galehautt (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I was addressing you, Galehautt.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Oh okay. If that's the case, you have sadly not made any argument to the contrary. Galehautt (talk) 04:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
  • The line read better, as is, and has been taken from the starting line of our article. The OP is seeing things where none exist and so, I oppose the proposed changes.TrangaBellam (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
    Which line? Galehautt (talk) 09:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I await a time when not mostly Stalin fanboys who worship Juche pay interest to this article. This time will come, it always does, to all articles. I wonder how Hitler articles would look if mostly Hitler fanboys paid attention. Yuck! Yuck twice over, against reason and morality. Galehautt (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Assuming bad faith and Demanding change in an uncivil way isn't going to work. I do personally think this article could start a bit stronger, maybe by changing the first sentence like this: "a politician ... who led the Soviet Union from 1924 until his death in 1953" into "a politician ... who gained dictatorial power over the Soviet Union in the 1920s and held it until his death in 1953". But maybe I'm alone in this (among the civil users). Machinarium (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
That would be OK, but sources don't agree when he became dictator.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
True, though I believe at least there is a general consensus among historians that it was during the late 1920s, right? Machinarium (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't think I've seen a survey of the dates given by historians.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Montefiore 2003 assesses that in 1929 that "Stalin was the leader of the oligarchs but he was far from a dictator" (this quote is included in the article), that in 1934 just before Kirov's assassination "Soviet Russia was enjoying its last months of oligarchy and approaching the first of dictatorship", and that in 1937 after the first of the Moscow show trials and amid spreading arrests, "If there was any moment when Stalin emerged as dictator with power over life and death, it was now." Most other historians are not this specific, but there is a general agreement that Stalin was the undisputed leader after Trotsky and Bukharin were expelled in 1929, if not already a personal dictator, and that after the Great Purge he was certainly a dictator. I think the best way to reflect this is the phrase "who led the Soviet Union from 1924 until his death in 1953, ruling as a dictator after consolidating power in the 1930s". — Goszei (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
I support this proposition. Malecide (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Lede is pro-Stalin inclined, has to be changed (BOLD VERSION)

Unlike leads for other genocidal dictators such as Pol Pot or Adolf Hitler, Stalin's lead presents him as a normal figure all the way until the last part of the last paragraph. Even the last paragraph isn't good, because over half of it refers to how much cherished Stalin is. This is an absurd article and the lede needs to be immediately revised. Here is the edit I applied, which should stay, which improves NPOV and likens the article to others like it on Wikipedia (Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler etc.) beginning of the lede " was a Soviet politician, political theorist, revolutionary and dictator " end of first paragraph of the lede " With the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact signed shortly before the start of World War II in Europe, he is responsible for aiding Nazi Germany and co-responsible for starting the war, from joint military action to the sharing of intelligence and critical supplies. His policies, chiefly the Great Purge, the Holodomor and multiple massacres, genocides of ethnic minorities and deportations, resulted in millions of victims. " By the way, Hitler has his fans, too. Galehautt (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

By the way, referring to an earlier argument posted here above, that "dictator" isn't a title. "Leader" isn't a title either, and Stalin wasn't a president or prime minister. He was the general secretary with absolute power from 1928 until his death. Galehautt (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
And of course, "dictator" itself has a grounding in marxism/leninism/stalinism. Marx referred to the "dictatorship of the proletariat" which Lenin changed into the "dictatorship of the vanguard" which Stalin changed into just a dictatorship where he dictated with decrees the course of the country. There's also Lenin's concept of "democratic centralism" which is dictatorial in its very nature, with Stalin narrowing the governing body of "democratic centralism" to himself. And let's not forget that the Soviet Union was totalitarian, especially under Stalin. Galehautt (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
The introduction already states that he was a dictator.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Where? Galehautt (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
First paragraph. Mellk (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Mind telling me what discussion is here? I see no discussion, so I assumed everyone agrees. There has to be a time limit. Galehautt (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Silence is not consent. You made a bold edit, it was reverted (twice now), your obligation if you want your material included now is to gain WP:CONSENSUS, and there's no time limit for that. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 14:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Okay, how do I go about it now? Galehautt (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
You try to gain WP:consensus on this page. If you can't, you move on to something else. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 21:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
How and when was consensus gained for the horrendous way the article looks now? If the community was as inactive when the current lede was forced through as it is now, I see no reason why I should not edit the lede. Why be so defensive about Stalin? Is there any way, for example, that other editors or perhaps the administration could be pinged to solve this matter? Galehautt (talk) 10:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Take a look at the talk page archives, quite clearly this was not as a result of the community being "inactive". If you decide again to restore your changes, this will be considered disruptive editing. Mellk (talk) 10:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Disruption is not my wish, correction is. It is sad though how active you guys are at blocking this edit and aren't so active at discussing it. That is disruptive in its own way. Galehautt (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
No, at the moment, "us guys" aren't so active at discussing something that has been argued here since at least 2004, and the consensus has been to not do what you are suggesting. Unless you have new arguments or something else has changed, it's just a rehash of an old discussion, which shows no sign of a changed consensus. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 14:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
I should ping all of the administration then. And have a vote. I wonder how Jimbo sees it, too. The broad societal consensus is different, no matter whether you're on the right or the left. I would suggest you read a book or two by Anne Applebaum because you're in the wrong. We here on Wikipedia do not support genocidal tyrants here. We here on Wikipedia love democracy and rule of law here. Galehautt (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
The question of whether Stalin committed genocide is debated. Apollo1917 (talk) 09:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
The question whether Holodomor was a fully orchestrated genocide of Ukrainians is debated, not whether Stalin was genocidal (see: deportations of Baltic peoples, Russification/Sovietization etc.) or whether the Holodomor happened. Galehautt (talk) 09:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
You wrote, in WP:WIKIVOICE, that the Holodomor and other events were genocides. This is called a POV edit. Overall, your changes do not follow what the body says. Where does it say he is co-responsible? See MOS:LEAD. Mellk (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I see where the contention is now. I will fix this. Galehautt (talk) 09:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
See WP:BRD. Mellk (talk) 09:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
You are still disruptively editing. Mellk (talk) 09:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
I fixed the edit according to your comment. Is there anything that is still contested? I mean it's no surprise there's no discussion when I'm introducing an edit and you guys revert it and can't even point to what's contested in my edit. A bit kafkaesque Galehautt (talk) 09:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
You are edit warring at this point and have already violated WP:3RR. You need to self-revert and get consensus on the talk page, not continually make changes to the article. Mellk (talk) 10:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
You are edit-warring. I still don't know what's contested. Galehautt (talk) 10:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
I would suggest to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on rather than continuing to rant. Mellk (talk) 09:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
That's a humorous essay and you seem to have run out of arguments to clutch it. Galehautt (talk) 09:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
From the first paragraph: "Initially governing the country as part of a collective leadership, he consolidated power to become a dictator"--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
So he was a dictator! Galehautt (talk) 14:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Should I RfC? Galehautt (talk) 08:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
I have edited slightly my proposal. I shall implement this improved edit now and see what you guys think Galehautt (talk) 09:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
No, you need to get consensus on the talk page. You do not restore the same contested edit with slight changes to the wording. This is still a POV edit. Mellk (talk) 09:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
What is contested precisely? Galehautt (talk) 09:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
See above. Mellk (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
I see nothing. If you have no argument, why chip in? Galehautt (talk) 09:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
As another voice to indicate that you lack consensus for your desired change. We don't need to repeat all the arguments that have made for this for twenty years; "I agree with the existing consensus" suffices. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 19:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
There is no proof that there is an existing consensus. It's just you and the other guy. You're both just mere users, too, not admins. You're nobodies. Before 2022, this page could've attracted mostly the attention of commies. We do not like authoritarians here on Wikipedia. I for example am a friend of one Anne Applebaum and I know what the consensus is. If you can't even point to a single thing that you contend with, you should just get out of my way. Galehautt (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Um, I've been an admin here for almost 20 years, but that's pretty much irrelevant to this discussion; admins don't decide content, the WP:CONSENSUS of the Wikipedia community does. I'm not going to argue your points with you; I don't have to. It's quite clear from this history of this article and the history of this talk page that WP:CONSENSUS is to omit the term "dictator" from the first sentence of the article. Here is the result of a search of the talk page archives for the word "dictator". --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 00:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Times change, so do articles. Discussions that were relevant to the shape of the article 10 years ago may not be relevant now. For example, the lede already in the first paragraph (though not in the first sentence, sadly) mentions that he was a dictator. That may not have been there 10 years ago. So in the current situation, I don't see why he shouldn't be described as a dictator. This is not my personal remark either, I'm merely trying to follow the standard set in other articles, which I think is far more important than any state of discussion pertaining to this sole article 10 years ago. And the standard set in other articles is such that people like Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot etc. are invariably titled "dictator" so I do not know why Stalin's article should be different. Galehautt (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Secondly, the "dictator" thing is just one of two points I bring up. Galehautt (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Support changing the lede in line with other 20th century dictators. This goes against the standard set by the article of every other tyrant which highlights their actions in the lede, not their cultivated appearance. DarmaniLink (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I also support Galehautt (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
You were recently blocked for personal attacks and edit warring, if you continue with this then it will likely lead to a longer block (though at this point I think an indefinite block is best). Mellk (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
This is also a personal attack and I see you have not learned from the previous block. Mellk (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
2 supports. Do you oppose, as a single person? Might want to reconsider who is edit warring. Galehautt (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
I am a person, not an account. I will not waver. You will not win. Sorry. You will either be blocked or not but you won't win. That's all. You can't block truth. Galehautt (talk) 20:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
No, but we can block you-the-person for personal attacks as I just did. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 20:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
I support this proposition. Malecide (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Could this be written better?

However, Russian historian Anton Antonov-Ovseenko wrote that Stalin was physically abusive to his first wife Kato in Baku with “his boots that Koba knocked his pregnant wife, Keto, around”.

Jack Upland (talk) 03:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The linked Google books preview is truncated, but apparently the source says, "In Baku in 1908, it was with his boots that Koba [ Stalin ] knocked his pregnant wife, Keto, around." Probably best to paraphrase that instead of trying to fit the quote into a sentence, or just take out the quote: "... wrote that Stalin was physically abusive to his first wife Keto." seems adequate. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 03:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Going ahead with this. Shoe-horning the boots angle in seems awkward. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Keto or Kato?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
The source says Keto – likely just a transliteration issue. I changed it to wrote that Stalin was physically abusive to her in Baku. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
She would have been known as Kato, a common Georgian diminutive of her full name, Ekaterine. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2023

Stalin was a dictator of Soviet union 2600:1700:5CF0:7850:609C:E2F0:32BA:80A1 (talk) 03:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 03:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_Stalin/Archive_23&oldid=1185796118"