Archives:
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
I have never like that picture of Stalin at the top. It's too perfect. It's too much like a Soviet propaganda painting drawn to overglorify Stalin as some god. I could understand if Stalin really did look like that but he didn't. Stalin was never in that good of physical shape or that clean shaven. In fact his face was filled with freckles. The point is, we should try to find the best, clearest, REAL photo of a particular person possible. Good examples would be the Winston Churchill page.-- Secret Agent Man 21:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
I uploaded this image here, I thought it was pretty good, and especially so because he's facing to the left. Good enough to replace the portrait at the top? Everyking 07:09, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
I oppose. This is an official parade portrait, used here for official purposes, in the infobox. You may put real-life photos in the artcle body, but what's the purpose of putting ugly scanned low-quality photos on top? I say the same POV only in the opposite direction. Unless a good quality photo provided, the replacement is a no go.
By the way this version of the portrait is digitally mastered. That's why he Stalin looks so shiny. I'd suggest to use the very first uploaded version of the image.
As for "clean shaven", this is a very unwise remark. Did you see him much in person? And I don't see any freckles at Everyking's image either; disqualified? :-)
And if one really wants to be nasty, they may easily disqualify Churchill's photo as well, as well as Adolf Hitler's, Patrice Lumumba, Mikkalai's, and so on... Mikkalai 00:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
How do we know Stalin hated being forced to learn Russian at School? Is there a source, because his later life doesn't confirm it. Or is there only evidence that they all hated it. Also we do not know whether he thought education was his only route out in life. The truth is we have no idea what he may have thought as a child about his life. Again we do not know if he studied his fellow students. Do we have sources from classmates to prove the rest of this paragraph. Again we do not know that Stalin knew no-one would challenge him. This is misty rhetoric. Certainly later on he showed a paranoid perception that people would indeed challenge him, which is why he killed so many party members. Again we do not know that he tried to do the best in everything he did. I have taken out obvious speculation. -- SqueakBox 02:05, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC) We don't know his father beat him and his mother "for no apparent reason. There has been so much speculative material here about his early years. We don't need to speculate or even wonder about his state of mind before his ride to power but it didn't make any difference.-- SqueakBox 18:03, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC) Excellent edit, Squeakbox. When I first saw the article, it said "for no reason." Well, there has to be a reason, even if it is not obvious to a rational person. I changed it to "no apparent reason." Your edit makes it even better, removing all speculation. Wikislm 19:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Can we be certain his second wife committed suicide. There are rumours he killed her and the whole area is surrounded by mystery, as whatever happened was covered up to protect stalin's reputation (which does not mean he did anything bad. I have added the word maybe commited suicide which actually fits in better with the rest of the sentence. SqueakBox 15:06, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
I am pretty sure the early life is taken from some Stalinist propaganda, some memories of a classmate that could in no way be considered to reflect an accurate view of his childhood. The whole piece feels like a Stalin propaganda piece. I will wade through the archives, but if I cannot find a source for it there I will delete great portions of this sub-section. What is said is not credible, and does not concur with other and possibly more reliable pre-revolution accounts of Stalin. Before I edited the worstt out it was full of speculation and POV. -- SqueakBox 02:07, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
After some thought I have to agree that the following phrase:
requires substantiation: why this rumor is important, as well as how it was discussed in serious research (like, e.g., Ossetian hypothesis). My initial insistence of its inclusion had the goal of its debunking, but I realize now that to debunk something, it must be sugnificantly notable, i.e., a standard "notability" criterion of encyclopedia. Mikkalai 17:33, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I question if Stalin is still embalmed, as when Stalin was first embalmed he was placed next to Lenin. Then during Krushev's de-Stalinization period he had Stalin taken out of the Lenin mausoleum and burried then his grave was covered with cement so as to prevent him "from rising again" -- Bongoman 10:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There is an ongoing debate in the Hungarian Wikipedia about the death toll numbers. On our 20th century page there is a section on the most deadly events of the 20th century. The current version of the text says:
Some editors find this number highly exagerated (the original text simply said "20 million or more dead"). The proponents of the higher numbers cite this quote in their support:
From the book: Lenin's Tomb : The Last Days of the Soviet Empire by DAVID REMNICK (p. 129).
My question is. Are the numbers cited above (40-60 million dead) reasonable or do these numbers include Gulag prisoners who survived? I know that it is difficult to estimate the death toll, but what are the most authorative sources on this subject? Can you help me find a reasonable range for estimation and the best sources to support it?
I appreciate your help. nyenyec ☎ 00:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think there something wrong with the infobox (the top one with the picture) and the succession boxes at the bottom. First the infobox says his term of office was from 1922-1953 (I assume we are talking about the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, here, so I added that in). But if we are talking about the office of General Secretary, how can we say Lenin was the successor, as Stalin was the first General Secretary? Also, I'm not as sure about this, but I believe all Soviet leaders following Stalin were known as "First Secretaries", so Malenkov doesn't technically work as a successor either, I don't think. Also, the successor box on the bottom for General Secretary is definitely wrong, as Stalin was the first and Lenin never held that position, he was the Chairman, and indeed granted Stalin his position. Didn't want to make changes without consensus. -- Dmcdevit 01:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What about people's opinion of Stalin in modern Russia? It could be quite interesting.
removed:
What the heck these "certain segments" are? If bureaucracy is in mind, then this is of no special note: at all times in every state a bureaucrat lives better than a peasant. Apart of these (with a special subclass of apparatchiks), there were no benefitted segments. Mikkalai 22:52, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Minor quibble, but shouldn't the article at least mention, and possibly elaborate on Stalin's decision to stay in Moscow as German forces approached in December of 1941? As I understand it, practically every government official evacuated, but Stalin was adamant in his decision to remain. Seems a significant enough event to include here. SS451 03:23, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
I removed the following addition by an anon, about deportations of nationalities
I have a very vague memories on the issue. If this took place, then it must be covered in Population transfer in the Soviet Union in the first place. There certainly were deportations during the annexation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, but these were of class character, rather than national.
I will try to dig something tonight. Mikkalai 21:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Trey, AFAIK you are an experienced wikipedia editor. You must already know that headfirst editing of an intro in controversial articles, ike this one, leads to edit wars 100%. Are you seeking one? Why don't we discuss important additions at the talk page first? mikka (t) 20:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
" Collectivization had met widespread resistance, resulting in a bitter struggle of many peasants against the authorities and millions of deaths."
I'm not even sure where to start with this. Widespread resistance? Many peasants? Resistance from kulaks, maybe. They were a very small minority however. Not much resistance from batraks and bednyaks, who benefited from collectivization and were the vast majority.
Then there is the conditional "resulting" with it's dubious causality. The sentence more than implies that the "bitter struggle of many peasants against the authorities" which caused "millions of deaths" was due to the "authorities" shooting millions of peasants in the head or something. One must go further down in the article to see that what is said to be a famine is actually what killed them. Whether or not there was a famine, or whether millions died, the causal connection is stated as a fact, not a theory. Actually, later in the article it is more qualified than in the heading - "many historians agree" that "collectivisation was largely responsible".
Finally there's the "millions of deaths" due to a supposed famine (a famine not mentioned in this article, "collectivization" is the killer). This "famine" in which "millions died" was somehow missed by the New York Times, which reported at the time that reports that there was a famine in which millions were dying were false. Ruy Lopez 06:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:Smells and tastes like an apology. agree with J. Parker Stone. Mike
can we get a more real one? it looks like a propaganda portrait. J. Parker Stone 09:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
the Ukrainian disaster and the enormity of the purges' and collectivization's impact are quite relevant. as for totalitarianism, we can discuss that as well, but I definitely object to the fact that (last I checked) it is not mentioned once in the article. J. Parker Stone 6 July 2005 00:47 (UTC) I agree- the information about the deaths of political opponents should be included in the introduction (why was it removed?), as should the reference to totalitarianism. Joe 7 July 2005 01:39 (UTC)
From the "Doctor's Plot" section of the article:
"The Doctors Plot followed on the heels of the 1952 show trials of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee, which resulted in twelve of the thirteen defendants being executed,[249] and (emphasis added) the Night of the Murdered Poets, where thirteen prominent Jewish writers, poets, actors and other intellectuals were executed on Stalin's orders.[250]"
Aren't these events one and the same? Unless my history is a little fuzzy, I don't believe there were two trials which resulted in the execution of Jewish intellectuals in the same year (1952). Although the Black Book of Communism does note that ten "engineer saboteurs" from the Stalin automobile factory, all Jewish, were executed on the same night. (p. 248)-- C.J. Griffin ( talk) 14:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
... and Volga Germans were allowed to return en masse to their homelands.
From what I've read, most of the (descendents of) the Volga Germans have emigrated to the West; a few thousand settled in the Kaliningrad Oblast.
Sca ( talk) 20:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Birthday 1879 should also be where 1878 is, both birthdays are valid! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gohomego ( talk • contribs) 01:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I added a little bit more detailed explanation for the triple talks failure and removed the mentioning of secret negotiations. Since Watson directly states a reverse, it is better to live it beyond the scope.
Below is a direct quote from Watson's article:
"The USSR, which approached the negotiations with caution because of the traditional hostility of the Western powers and its fear of 'capitalist encirclement', had little faith either that war could be avoided or in the Polish army. It wanted a guaranteed commitment of military support in a war in which the USSR would play an aggressive role in a two-pronged attack on Germany: from France and the USSR. These contrasting attitudes partly explain why the USSR has often been charged with playing a double game in 1939: carrying on open negotiations for a pact of mutual assistance with Britain and France whilst secretly engaging in parallel discussions with Germany for an agreement aimed against the Western democracies."
Molotov's Apprenticeship in Foreign Policy: The Triple Alliance Negotiations in 1939
Author(s): Derek Watson
Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Jun., 2000), pp. 695-722
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL:
Paul Siebert (
talk) 19:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC) (Ctrl-click)">
http://www.jstor.org/stable/153322--
Paul Siebert (
talk) 19:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
That edit is also highly misleading, especially given the complete events described in the Molotov-Ribbentrop article.
A change, complete with sources and actual description (by the way, including Watson) is forthcoming. Mosedschurte ( talk) 02:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 02:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
->You've got to be kidding, what source denies, as just one example, the August 3 conversations with Ribbentrop?
->In addition, and this is likely an English problem, you're completely misreading Watson. He explains in your quote above that the Soviet WERE conducting parallel negotiations, but just gives the reason why.
->I have no idea what "the science" is, and there is ZERO disagreement with the sources on what's in the article now. In fact, I made sure not to include any of the controversial points, except by the way the ones you keep demanding in, like the later discussions attempting to bring in Munich in 1938 and the like. Mosedschurte ( talk) 03:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
->Not only is this false, but I cited your source Watson in the article. In fact, I actually cited him more accurately than you did. Mosedschurte ( talk) 03:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
He's in there TWICE NOW, which you keep deleting while leaving the reasons blank:
On August 21, the Soviets ceased military talks with France and Britain over disagreement regarding Stalin's demand to move Red Army troops through Poland and Romania (which Poland and Romania opposed),(ref name="dwatson715")Derek Watson Molotov's Apprenticeship in Foreign Policy: The Triple Alliance Negotiations in 1939 Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Jun., 2000), page 715. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/153322(/ref)(ref name="roberts30"/) though the primary reason may have been the progress being made in the Soviet-German negotiations.(ref name="dwatson715")Derek Watson Molotov's Apprenticeship in Foreign Policy: The Triple Alliance Negotiations in 1939 Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Jun., 2000), page 715. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/153322)/ref)
If you delete the sources and facts one more time without explanation, I'm going to ANI and you'll probably get blocked on this article. Frankly, I should have done it weeks ago given all of the policy violations. Mosedschurte ( talk) 03:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
This is YOUR SOURCE -- the one you keep claiming must be cited -- Watson's quote:
"When this problem had been surmounted the negotiations stalled on the fundamental question of Soviet forces passing through Romanian and Polish territory in the event of war, to which the Polish government would not give agreement in advance. When it became clear that the British and French could not solve this problem, Voroshilov (note: the chief Soviet negotiator) proposed adjournment on the excuse that the absence of the senior Soviet personnel at the talks was interfering with the autumn manoeuvres of the Soviet forces. In fact it was because of the progress being made in the USSR–German negotiations: the talks with Britain and France were overtaken by the signing of the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact. (Derek Watson, p. 715)
This is the article quote now:
After disagreement regarding Stalin's demand to move Red Army troops through Poland and Romania (which Poland and Romania opposed),(Watson cite ->) [1] [2], on August 21, the Soviets proposed adjournment of military talks using the excuse that the absence of the senior Soviet personnel at the talks interfered with the autumn manoeuvres of the Soviet forces, though the primary reason was the progress being made in the Soviet-German negotiations.(Watson cite ->) [1]
Mosedschurte ( talk) 03:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
It was added back, in almost exactly the same words, with the cite.But since the political conversations had been suspended on August 2 and Molotov had made it clear that he would not assent to their being renewed until the military talks had made some progress (Shirer, p. 504)
Regards,-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 16:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Re: Watson directly stated that "These contrasting attitudes partly explain why the USSR has often been charged with playing a double game in 1939: carrying on open negotiations for a pact of mutual assistance with Britain and France whilst secretly engaging in parallel discussions with Germany for an agreement aimed against the Western democracies."
Re: "In other words, the USSR didn't carry secret negotiations in 1939, according to Watson."
->THAT's what you've been citing for the no secret negotiations point?!? Then I now have to delete it in all articles for which that point is cited now. You've completely misread the paragraph and Watson (again). And AGAIN, it's an intro section quote you've misread (which you earlier did with a Roberts article, as well).
->I'm not going to jump on a dishonesty angle because this may be an English language issue.
->Watson states the parallel negotiations did occur -- in fact Watson himself documents them late in his article -- but argues that they were considered "double dealing" by UK-France because of their "contrasting attitudes" to the talks.
->Watson argues that the Soviet delays were usually for their own interests (i.e., not for sabotaging UK-France talks) and that they felt that they likely couldn't get the military guarantees they wanted while, in contrast, the UK-France didn't feel the Soviets could participate in a long war. Here is the the quote with the first part of the paragraph not cut off:
From the beginning, the two sides approached the negotiations differently. The Western powers believed that war could still be avoided and, if it came, the USSR, much weakened by the purges, could only function as a supply base in a long war of attrition, not as a main military participant. The USSR, which approached the negotiations with caution because of the traditional hostility of the Western powers and its fear of ‘capitalist encirclement’, had little faith either that war could be avoided or in the Polish army. It wanted a guaranteed commitment of military support in a war in which the USSR would play an aggressive role in a two-pronged attack on Germany: from France and the USSR. These contrasting attitudes partly explainwhy the USSR has often been charged with playing a double game in 1939: carrying on open negotiations for a pact of mutual assistance with Britain and France whilst secretly engaging in parallel discussions with Germany for an agreement aimed against the Western democracies. Molotov has been accused both of artificially dragging out the talks with Britain and France by seizing on various inessential details to secure a successful outcome or better deal with Germany, and also of summarily breaking them off and concluding an alliance with Germany when on the verge of success with Britain and France. But the delays which Molotov caused were usually on issues essential to Soviet interests, and there appeared to be an impossible obstacle to the vital military convention with France and Britain when the agreement with Germany was signed." (Watson, p. 695 -- intro page)
You've destroyed your no parallel argument point by including Watson -- not that anyone supported your point anyway.
->And by the way, arguments like Watson's are one reason that the article doesn't contain allegations of sabotage and purposeful delay right now.
->I've not seen a single source state that Molotov didn't demand that their be progress in the military talks before the suspended political talks could restart.
All of the image px tags were deleted, with the MOS given as the reason, but the MOS doesn't say that the default must be used without exception, rather, it says that this is the "rule", but they can be adjusted with px tags:" * As a rule, images should not be forced to a fixed size (i.e., one that overrides the default). Where it is appropriate to force size, images should generally be no more than 550 pixels wide, so that they can be comfortably displayed on 800x600 monitors."
The MOS goes on to provide and inclusive list of examples where px thumb adjustment may be appropriate: "Examples where size-forcing may be appropriate include: Images with aspect ratios that are extreme or that otherwise distort or obscure the image, Detailed maps, diagrams, or charts, Images containing a lot of detail, if the detail is important to the article, Images in which a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image, Lead images, which should usually be no larger than 300 pixels."
Not only was adjustment proper for the thumbs with px tags, but many of them fit specifically into these examples, such as detailed maps (M-R Pact maps, Soviet advances on Eastern Front, Eastern bloc map), original documents images where detail is difficult to examine (Beria's letter, Stalin's resolution, the Politburo's decision, March 5 memo) and photos where the detail is important (Reichstag flag raising photo, Ribbentrop and Stalin signing pact).
Also, not only did none of them exceed 550px described in the MOS, but I think they all were 300px and under. Mosedschurte ( talk) 02:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The editor Viplovecomm just changed the lead image from this photo of the article subject, to this artists' rendition, created by himself.
The actual photo of the subject is preferable to an artists' rendition, though I must say, nice job if he actually did create that himself. Mosedschurte ( talk) 12:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
It is well known fact that denying Holocaust is crime in Germany and many other countries. In general, most countries scrutinize even a slightest attempt of trying to distort views about Holocaust. Just check out video interview with Bishop Williamson given to Swedish TV where he claims that only 200-300 thousands of Jews were killed and none of them in gas chambers. If this kind of topic can be a reason for dispute in Wikipedia then it should be closed down immediately. Wikipedia doesn't exist so that various sickos can change historic facts but to allow us to get objective, balanced and most accurate view of history and other subjects. I guess that we can then expect pedophiles, bank robbers and cannibals to come here and dispute carious topics as well.
Valeofruin that disputes facts about Stalin purges and Gulags openly admits that he is Holocaust denier as well and that he would gladly dispute Holocaust as well on Wiki pages. His claims that only 400,000 people died in Gulags is very similar to the numbers Bishop Williamson gave about Holocaust. The exact number of death is always hard to determine but there are good statistical methods used like lower number of males, city population and others that can accurately indicate number of people who perished. I'm not sure who Valeofruin is but only two options remain. He is either a wacko or he is being paid by Russian KGB government that openly glorifies Stalin. Web site he quoted is financed and run by undercover KGB(FSB) agents. Ravenlord, February 12, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravenlord ( talk • contribs) 11:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
That section states the Bolsheviks won that war in the late 1919. That is completely wrong by any historic books and textbooks. Officially the war ended in 1922, but there was still fighting going on in the Russian Far East. That is what the Soviet historical textbooks say. For some reason the war with the Ukraine is being perceived as the Civil war in Soviet times and it seems that the same trend exist today as well. That is also wrong. Ukraine was a recognized state by the Soviet Russia as well as by the other numerous countries. That was a straight aggresion against the Ukrainian republic, following an unbelievable slaughtering of population in Ukraine by bolsheviks (Kyiv and Podillia still remembered). In 1920 Ukraine united with Poland to stop the bolshevik bandits. The Soviet textbooks state that it was an intervention of the "White" Polish burgouis, relating it to the Russian white movement which is way off.
Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 17:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Article discussion only please, not discussion on the subject. This applies to a few discussions you two have commented on, so could you please keep on subject for the sake of others and the capacity of wikipedia to handle this chat. Thanks Protectthehuman ( talk) 16:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Still a monster article over Wikipedia guidelines. Of course, it's going to be huge given the 29 year rule of the Soviet Union at the very center of world history during the time.
There were some huge sections for which no sub-articles existed, such as Stalin before the Revolution, Stalin in the Revolution and early wars and Stalin's rise to power, so the prior text (unedited) is all there. They were actually so long, that they're pretty nice-sized articles now. Now, I (and others) can add to them without worrying about ballooning the size of the Stalin article. Mosedschurte ( talk) 04:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I hate shifting things into sub-articles because people editing the short summary in the main article without checking, letting alone working, on the material in the sub-article. Was the old way really so difficult for a reader to deal with? Kurzon ( talk) 23:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
At 72k readable prose and 11,500 words. There was long material regarding birth year controversy, etc. pretty much word-for-word repeated in Stalin before the Revolution. Also, the long transliterations descriptions of Stalin's name were repeated literally within an inch of itself in his info box.
i think it's good that the article is being resized but all those references to newly created articles (Stalin Before the Revolution, Stalin after...) makes very hard to translate to other langauges....i hope we can find a means to make these articles as cohesive as possible —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Seektrue (
talk •
contribs) 20:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The article's sections on Stalin after he attained total power deal too much with the general history of the USSR. A lot of sections are basically long sections of Soviet policy with "oh yeah, Stalin approved this" tacked on to them. Kurzon ( talk) 16:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
An attempt was made to copy and paste the text of Stalin before the Revolution, Stalin in the Revolution and early wars and Stalin's rise to power into this article. This grossly inflated the article size to 93kb readable prose and 15,109 words -- over double the median of the general standard that: "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose. If an article is significantly longer than that, it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries."
As directed by Wikipedia policy, this article summarizes those much more extensive long articles on various subjects, and on other such subjects. Even so, it is still (at this moment) 70kb of readable prose and around 11,200 words. Mosedschurte ( talk) 07:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Should we really be using CelebHeights as a source for Stalin's height in the "Cult of personality" section? If we're going to talk about "photographic evidence," someone needs to find a serious academic source for it. I don't see how CelebHeights even remotely passes the threshold for any of the standards set out by WP:RS. -- 98.232.98.144 ( talk) 04:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Under the heading "Religious Beliefs and Policies", the word "atheist" is misspelled as "athetist".
Read the title. ...Ω... ..¿TooT?.. ..¡StatS!.. 02:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
"After the capture of Berlin, Soviet troops reportedly raped from tens of thousands to two million women,[159] and 50,000 during and after the occupation of Budapest.[160][161] In former Axis countries, such as Germany, Romania and Hungary, Red Army officers generally viewed cities, villages and farms as being open to pillaging and looting."
They did same thing in Poland. My grandma told me that she had to hide all girls what were at home because Russians raped girls and women no matter of what age, they've been seen raping girls as young as 5 and as old as 80. Same thing with looting, they steal my grandma's cows, car and her jewelry.
-- DumnyPolak ( talk) 03:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I hope that in my absolute state of procrastination I am just overlooking something here BUT, how can Stalin be "ejected from the Politburo in November 1929. Stalin took great advantage of the ban on factionalism. By 1928 (the first year of the Five-Year Plans) Stalin was supreme among the leadership. and the following year Trotsky was exiled because of his opposition."
that makes no sense... Or am I somehow getting this wrong.
I hope I am. ````````````` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.215.205 ( talk) 07:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
“ | One hundred and twelve million U. S. inhabitants acknowledge the executive shepherdage of Calvin Coolidge, refuse to "recognize" the 139 million Soviet Russians over whom Joseph Stalin has reared himself a despot. M. Stalin ("Mr. Steel") exerts, simply as Secretary of the Communist Party, a political "boss power" prodigious and all pervasive. A cobbler's son whose actual name and age are doubtful, "Mr. Steel," was born in the remote Transcaucasian land of Vras-tan, Gruzia or Georgia. Amid the purging flames of revolution, the great Dictator Lenin tested and tempered the Georgian's metal, gave him the prophetic name of Stalin, installed him in the office which he has made the focus of all Russia, the Secretariat of the Communist Party. Last week M. Stalin ordered dropped from the Cabinet of Premier Rykoff—of which he, himself, is not a member—his onetime "Left Hand Man," Foreign and Home Trade Commissar (Minister) Leo Kamenev. Into the vacant Ministry stepped with effrontery and assurance one Mikoyan, like M. Stalin a Georgian, unlike M. Stalin, a mere pliant boy. As everyone knows, Gregory Zinoviev, the onetime "Right Hand Man" of M. Stalin, was expelled during the summer from the potent Communist Political Bureau. M. Stalin, astute, inflexible, omnipotent, has chosen to dictate alone. | ” |
“ | Joseph Stalin now rules as the undisputed dictator of Soviet Russia. During the past twelve-month he has demonstrated his control of the Communist Party and the Government by reducing to political vassalage or inconsequence no less than six of Lenin's most potent disciples: Trotsky, Zinoviev, Radek, Sokolnikov, Lashe-vich and Kamenev. | ” |
“ | Joseph Stalin dictates at Moscow, having overthrown Leon Trotzky and many another. Recently M. Trotzky and other anti-Stalinites, notably MM. Zinoviev and Kamenev, have been rumored to be gathering strength for a war of propaganda against the man of steel. Last week M. Stalin, no office holder but the despotic "boss" of the Communist party, rapped out three orders. Leon Trotzky and his malcontents were commanded to cease their opposition to the dictator's will. For an hour they temporized, then found courage for battle ebbing. | ” |
“ | Pavel Ephimovich Dybenko, young and colorful Communist, emerged into the news again for an instant last week when Dictator Stalin of Soviet Russia appointed him Chief of the Red Army Supply Service. | ” |
There was a bit of a problem with his birthdate: instead of December 18 1878, it should be December 18 1879. MagnetJ18 ( talk) 19:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
No where does the article mention stalins love for the the working classes, and their love for stalin. See the Talk sections above for extensive discussions of length issues.
Two attempts have been made to recopy the text of these articles into this article today. Please stop this, at it violates WP:Article size, inflating the article far beyond the 6-10,000 word targets. The general standard is: "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose. If an article is significantly longer than that, it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries." Mosedschurte ( talk) 19:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
If anything, the articles needs more cutting down, so I agree with Mosedschurte. It's just a common sense. And not only by separating into sub-articles, but also reducing the amount of general history. Some places simply read as History of Russia (except instead of "Russia" you see "Stalin"). Not all that happened in Russia is attributable to Stalin personally. Renata ( talk) 02:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The part I stuck in was what the article originally contained before Mosedschurte moved it into subarticles, so in a sense I was reverting the section back to its old state.
I would like to state that this article should focus on Stalin personally. Right now this article contains to much general history of Russia during the Stalin era. If we want to trim down the article, I suggest we begin there. We should move those sections into subarticles and keep the actual biographical info within the main article. Kurzon ( talk) 10:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I can't imagine a more WP:Fringe position. Roberts certainly doesn't state anything like this, and in fact, himself even quotes the famous August 3, 1939 statement " "there was no problem between the Baltic and the Black Sea that could not be solved between the two of us." (page 32)
Here are just a few of examples:
It's pretty unreal that someone would claim that these didn't occur. Mosedschurte ( talk) 20:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)
You didn't address my point. The major points are the following:
1. Starting from mid-April, 1939, Britain and then the USSR proposed to discuss a possibility of taking mutual obligations in case if aggressive activity of Germany will expand.
2. The sources disagree upon real Stalin's intentions during that period, but it is clear that no solid documentary evidences exists of Soviet-German rapprochement until the end of July. Roberts (the source you cite, page 32, directly states:"Until (early August) Stalin had not given Ribbentrop any encouragement"), therefore, the triple alliance political negotiations had started, reached their high point and stalled before any Soviet-German negotiations or consultations had started.
3. Since the achievement of the political agreement was a conditio sine qua non, the Anglo-Franco-Soviet military negotiations were aimed just to fill a pause in the (suspended) political talks.
Therefore, the fact that some (less important) part of the triple talks took place concurrently with the secret Soviet-German talks during a very short (a couple weeks) period is not sufficient for making the statement you did. If "this article doesn't even go into the details", then the events must be described in such a way: triple talks first, Molotov-Ribbentrop second. The details should be disclosed in the more specialized articles.
One more thing, also very important. You accused me in doing wrong, and even false citations. The personal attack is a violation of the policy. I am absolutely tolerant to such attacks and even insults, provided that they rest on the solid ground. However, I still cannot understand which facts did I interpreted incorrectly, and you provided no explanations for that. Please, explain that, or take your words back.--
Paul Siebert (
talk) 16:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I changed the text to the following:
After a failed attempt to sign an anti-German political alliance with France and Britain [2] [3] [4] Stalin accepted a Hitler's proposal of the political deal [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] and after brief secret negotiation between the Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov and German foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop, [12] on August 23, 1939, the Soviet Union entered into a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany.
That is correct, because: 1. Political triple negotiation effectively failed by mid-August (Roberts) 2. Molotov and Ribbentrop met in mid-August only. 3. If you want to mention military talks feel free to do that, but I think they belong to the daughter articles.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 18:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Archives:
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
I have never like that picture of Stalin at the top. It's too perfect. It's too much like a Soviet propaganda painting drawn to overglorify Stalin as some god. I could understand if Stalin really did look like that but he didn't. Stalin was never in that good of physical shape or that clean shaven. In fact his face was filled with freckles. The point is, we should try to find the best, clearest, REAL photo of a particular person possible. Good examples would be the Winston Churchill page.-- Secret Agent Man 21:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
I uploaded this image here, I thought it was pretty good, and especially so because he's facing to the left. Good enough to replace the portrait at the top? Everyking 07:09, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
I oppose. This is an official parade portrait, used here for official purposes, in the infobox. You may put real-life photos in the artcle body, but what's the purpose of putting ugly scanned low-quality photos on top? I say the same POV only in the opposite direction. Unless a good quality photo provided, the replacement is a no go.
By the way this version of the portrait is digitally mastered. That's why he Stalin looks so shiny. I'd suggest to use the very first uploaded version of the image.
As for "clean shaven", this is a very unwise remark. Did you see him much in person? And I don't see any freckles at Everyking's image either; disqualified? :-)
And if one really wants to be nasty, they may easily disqualify Churchill's photo as well, as well as Adolf Hitler's, Patrice Lumumba, Mikkalai's, and so on... Mikkalai 00:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
How do we know Stalin hated being forced to learn Russian at School? Is there a source, because his later life doesn't confirm it. Or is there only evidence that they all hated it. Also we do not know whether he thought education was his only route out in life. The truth is we have no idea what he may have thought as a child about his life. Again we do not know if he studied his fellow students. Do we have sources from classmates to prove the rest of this paragraph. Again we do not know that Stalin knew no-one would challenge him. This is misty rhetoric. Certainly later on he showed a paranoid perception that people would indeed challenge him, which is why he killed so many party members. Again we do not know that he tried to do the best in everything he did. I have taken out obvious speculation. -- SqueakBox 02:05, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC) We don't know his father beat him and his mother "for no apparent reason. There has been so much speculative material here about his early years. We don't need to speculate or even wonder about his state of mind before his ride to power but it didn't make any difference.-- SqueakBox 18:03, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC) Excellent edit, Squeakbox. When I first saw the article, it said "for no reason." Well, there has to be a reason, even if it is not obvious to a rational person. I changed it to "no apparent reason." Your edit makes it even better, removing all speculation. Wikislm 19:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Can we be certain his second wife committed suicide. There are rumours he killed her and the whole area is surrounded by mystery, as whatever happened was covered up to protect stalin's reputation (which does not mean he did anything bad. I have added the word maybe commited suicide which actually fits in better with the rest of the sentence. SqueakBox 15:06, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
I am pretty sure the early life is taken from some Stalinist propaganda, some memories of a classmate that could in no way be considered to reflect an accurate view of his childhood. The whole piece feels like a Stalin propaganda piece. I will wade through the archives, but if I cannot find a source for it there I will delete great portions of this sub-section. What is said is not credible, and does not concur with other and possibly more reliable pre-revolution accounts of Stalin. Before I edited the worstt out it was full of speculation and POV. -- SqueakBox 02:07, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
After some thought I have to agree that the following phrase:
requires substantiation: why this rumor is important, as well as how it was discussed in serious research (like, e.g., Ossetian hypothesis). My initial insistence of its inclusion had the goal of its debunking, but I realize now that to debunk something, it must be sugnificantly notable, i.e., a standard "notability" criterion of encyclopedia. Mikkalai 17:33, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I question if Stalin is still embalmed, as when Stalin was first embalmed he was placed next to Lenin. Then during Krushev's de-Stalinization period he had Stalin taken out of the Lenin mausoleum and burried then his grave was covered with cement so as to prevent him "from rising again" -- Bongoman 10:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There is an ongoing debate in the Hungarian Wikipedia about the death toll numbers. On our 20th century page there is a section on the most deadly events of the 20th century. The current version of the text says:
Some editors find this number highly exagerated (the original text simply said "20 million or more dead"). The proponents of the higher numbers cite this quote in their support:
From the book: Lenin's Tomb : The Last Days of the Soviet Empire by DAVID REMNICK (p. 129).
My question is. Are the numbers cited above (40-60 million dead) reasonable or do these numbers include Gulag prisoners who survived? I know that it is difficult to estimate the death toll, but what are the most authorative sources on this subject? Can you help me find a reasonable range for estimation and the best sources to support it?
I appreciate your help. nyenyec ☎ 00:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think there something wrong with the infobox (the top one with the picture) and the succession boxes at the bottom. First the infobox says his term of office was from 1922-1953 (I assume we are talking about the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, here, so I added that in). But if we are talking about the office of General Secretary, how can we say Lenin was the successor, as Stalin was the first General Secretary? Also, I'm not as sure about this, but I believe all Soviet leaders following Stalin were known as "First Secretaries", so Malenkov doesn't technically work as a successor either, I don't think. Also, the successor box on the bottom for General Secretary is definitely wrong, as Stalin was the first and Lenin never held that position, he was the Chairman, and indeed granted Stalin his position. Didn't want to make changes without consensus. -- Dmcdevit 01:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What about people's opinion of Stalin in modern Russia? It could be quite interesting.
removed:
What the heck these "certain segments" are? If bureaucracy is in mind, then this is of no special note: at all times in every state a bureaucrat lives better than a peasant. Apart of these (with a special subclass of apparatchiks), there were no benefitted segments. Mikkalai 22:52, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Minor quibble, but shouldn't the article at least mention, and possibly elaborate on Stalin's decision to stay in Moscow as German forces approached in December of 1941? As I understand it, practically every government official evacuated, but Stalin was adamant in his decision to remain. Seems a significant enough event to include here. SS451 03:23, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
I removed the following addition by an anon, about deportations of nationalities
I have a very vague memories on the issue. If this took place, then it must be covered in Population transfer in the Soviet Union in the first place. There certainly were deportations during the annexation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, but these were of class character, rather than national.
I will try to dig something tonight. Mikkalai 21:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Trey, AFAIK you are an experienced wikipedia editor. You must already know that headfirst editing of an intro in controversial articles, ike this one, leads to edit wars 100%. Are you seeking one? Why don't we discuss important additions at the talk page first? mikka (t) 20:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
" Collectivization had met widespread resistance, resulting in a bitter struggle of many peasants against the authorities and millions of deaths."
I'm not even sure where to start with this. Widespread resistance? Many peasants? Resistance from kulaks, maybe. They were a very small minority however. Not much resistance from batraks and bednyaks, who benefited from collectivization and were the vast majority.
Then there is the conditional "resulting" with it's dubious causality. The sentence more than implies that the "bitter struggle of many peasants against the authorities" which caused "millions of deaths" was due to the "authorities" shooting millions of peasants in the head or something. One must go further down in the article to see that what is said to be a famine is actually what killed them. Whether or not there was a famine, or whether millions died, the causal connection is stated as a fact, not a theory. Actually, later in the article it is more qualified than in the heading - "many historians agree" that "collectivisation was largely responsible".
Finally there's the "millions of deaths" due to a supposed famine (a famine not mentioned in this article, "collectivization" is the killer). This "famine" in which "millions died" was somehow missed by the New York Times, which reported at the time that reports that there was a famine in which millions were dying were false. Ruy Lopez 06:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:Smells and tastes like an apology. agree with J. Parker Stone. Mike
can we get a more real one? it looks like a propaganda portrait. J. Parker Stone 09:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
the Ukrainian disaster and the enormity of the purges' and collectivization's impact are quite relevant. as for totalitarianism, we can discuss that as well, but I definitely object to the fact that (last I checked) it is not mentioned once in the article. J. Parker Stone 6 July 2005 00:47 (UTC) I agree- the information about the deaths of political opponents should be included in the introduction (why was it removed?), as should the reference to totalitarianism. Joe 7 July 2005 01:39 (UTC)
From the "Doctor's Plot" section of the article:
"The Doctors Plot followed on the heels of the 1952 show trials of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee, which resulted in twelve of the thirteen defendants being executed,[249] and (emphasis added) the Night of the Murdered Poets, where thirteen prominent Jewish writers, poets, actors and other intellectuals were executed on Stalin's orders.[250]"
Aren't these events one and the same? Unless my history is a little fuzzy, I don't believe there were two trials which resulted in the execution of Jewish intellectuals in the same year (1952). Although the Black Book of Communism does note that ten "engineer saboteurs" from the Stalin automobile factory, all Jewish, were executed on the same night. (p. 248)-- C.J. Griffin ( talk) 14:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
... and Volga Germans were allowed to return en masse to their homelands.
From what I've read, most of the (descendents of) the Volga Germans have emigrated to the West; a few thousand settled in the Kaliningrad Oblast.
Sca ( talk) 20:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Birthday 1879 should also be where 1878 is, both birthdays are valid! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gohomego ( talk • contribs) 01:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I added a little bit more detailed explanation for the triple talks failure and removed the mentioning of secret negotiations. Since Watson directly states a reverse, it is better to live it beyond the scope.
Below is a direct quote from Watson's article:
"The USSR, which approached the negotiations with caution because of the traditional hostility of the Western powers and its fear of 'capitalist encirclement', had little faith either that war could be avoided or in the Polish army. It wanted a guaranteed commitment of military support in a war in which the USSR would play an aggressive role in a two-pronged attack on Germany: from France and the USSR. These contrasting attitudes partly explain why the USSR has often been charged with playing a double game in 1939: carrying on open negotiations for a pact of mutual assistance with Britain and France whilst secretly engaging in parallel discussions with Germany for an agreement aimed against the Western democracies."
Molotov's Apprenticeship in Foreign Policy: The Triple Alliance Negotiations in 1939
Author(s): Derek Watson
Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Jun., 2000), pp. 695-722
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL:
Paul Siebert (
talk) 19:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC) (Ctrl-click)">
http://www.jstor.org/stable/153322--
Paul Siebert (
talk) 19:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
That edit is also highly misleading, especially given the complete events described in the Molotov-Ribbentrop article.
A change, complete with sources and actual description (by the way, including Watson) is forthcoming. Mosedschurte ( talk) 02:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 02:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
->You've got to be kidding, what source denies, as just one example, the August 3 conversations with Ribbentrop?
->In addition, and this is likely an English problem, you're completely misreading Watson. He explains in your quote above that the Soviet WERE conducting parallel negotiations, but just gives the reason why.
->I have no idea what "the science" is, and there is ZERO disagreement with the sources on what's in the article now. In fact, I made sure not to include any of the controversial points, except by the way the ones you keep demanding in, like the later discussions attempting to bring in Munich in 1938 and the like. Mosedschurte ( talk) 03:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
->Not only is this false, but I cited your source Watson in the article. In fact, I actually cited him more accurately than you did. Mosedschurte ( talk) 03:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
He's in there TWICE NOW, which you keep deleting while leaving the reasons blank:
On August 21, the Soviets ceased military talks with France and Britain over disagreement regarding Stalin's demand to move Red Army troops through Poland and Romania (which Poland and Romania opposed),(ref name="dwatson715")Derek Watson Molotov's Apprenticeship in Foreign Policy: The Triple Alliance Negotiations in 1939 Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Jun., 2000), page 715. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/153322(/ref)(ref name="roberts30"/) though the primary reason may have been the progress being made in the Soviet-German negotiations.(ref name="dwatson715")Derek Watson Molotov's Apprenticeship in Foreign Policy: The Triple Alliance Negotiations in 1939 Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Jun., 2000), page 715. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/153322)/ref)
If you delete the sources and facts one more time without explanation, I'm going to ANI and you'll probably get blocked on this article. Frankly, I should have done it weeks ago given all of the policy violations. Mosedschurte ( talk) 03:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
This is YOUR SOURCE -- the one you keep claiming must be cited -- Watson's quote:
"When this problem had been surmounted the negotiations stalled on the fundamental question of Soviet forces passing through Romanian and Polish territory in the event of war, to which the Polish government would not give agreement in advance. When it became clear that the British and French could not solve this problem, Voroshilov (note: the chief Soviet negotiator) proposed adjournment on the excuse that the absence of the senior Soviet personnel at the talks was interfering with the autumn manoeuvres of the Soviet forces. In fact it was because of the progress being made in the USSR–German negotiations: the talks with Britain and France were overtaken by the signing of the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact. (Derek Watson, p. 715)
This is the article quote now:
After disagreement regarding Stalin's demand to move Red Army troops through Poland and Romania (which Poland and Romania opposed),(Watson cite ->) [1] [2], on August 21, the Soviets proposed adjournment of military talks using the excuse that the absence of the senior Soviet personnel at the talks interfered with the autumn manoeuvres of the Soviet forces, though the primary reason was the progress being made in the Soviet-German negotiations.(Watson cite ->) [1]
Mosedschurte ( talk) 03:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
It was added back, in almost exactly the same words, with the cite.But since the political conversations had been suspended on August 2 and Molotov had made it clear that he would not assent to their being renewed until the military talks had made some progress (Shirer, p. 504)
Regards,-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 16:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Re: Watson directly stated that "These contrasting attitudes partly explain why the USSR has often been charged with playing a double game in 1939: carrying on open negotiations for a pact of mutual assistance with Britain and France whilst secretly engaging in parallel discussions with Germany for an agreement aimed against the Western democracies."
Re: "In other words, the USSR didn't carry secret negotiations in 1939, according to Watson."
->THAT's what you've been citing for the no secret negotiations point?!? Then I now have to delete it in all articles for which that point is cited now. You've completely misread the paragraph and Watson (again). And AGAIN, it's an intro section quote you've misread (which you earlier did with a Roberts article, as well).
->I'm not going to jump on a dishonesty angle because this may be an English language issue.
->Watson states the parallel negotiations did occur -- in fact Watson himself documents them late in his article -- but argues that they were considered "double dealing" by UK-France because of their "contrasting attitudes" to the talks.
->Watson argues that the Soviet delays were usually for their own interests (i.e., not for sabotaging UK-France talks) and that they felt that they likely couldn't get the military guarantees they wanted while, in contrast, the UK-France didn't feel the Soviets could participate in a long war. Here is the the quote with the first part of the paragraph not cut off:
From the beginning, the two sides approached the negotiations differently. The Western powers believed that war could still be avoided and, if it came, the USSR, much weakened by the purges, could only function as a supply base in a long war of attrition, not as a main military participant. The USSR, which approached the negotiations with caution because of the traditional hostility of the Western powers and its fear of ‘capitalist encirclement’, had little faith either that war could be avoided or in the Polish army. It wanted a guaranteed commitment of military support in a war in which the USSR would play an aggressive role in a two-pronged attack on Germany: from France and the USSR. These contrasting attitudes partly explainwhy the USSR has often been charged with playing a double game in 1939: carrying on open negotiations for a pact of mutual assistance with Britain and France whilst secretly engaging in parallel discussions with Germany for an agreement aimed against the Western democracies. Molotov has been accused both of artificially dragging out the talks with Britain and France by seizing on various inessential details to secure a successful outcome or better deal with Germany, and also of summarily breaking them off and concluding an alliance with Germany when on the verge of success with Britain and France. But the delays which Molotov caused were usually on issues essential to Soviet interests, and there appeared to be an impossible obstacle to the vital military convention with France and Britain when the agreement with Germany was signed." (Watson, p. 695 -- intro page)
You've destroyed your no parallel argument point by including Watson -- not that anyone supported your point anyway.
->And by the way, arguments like Watson's are one reason that the article doesn't contain allegations of sabotage and purposeful delay right now.
->I've not seen a single source state that Molotov didn't demand that their be progress in the military talks before the suspended political talks could restart.
All of the image px tags were deleted, with the MOS given as the reason, but the MOS doesn't say that the default must be used without exception, rather, it says that this is the "rule", but they can be adjusted with px tags:" * As a rule, images should not be forced to a fixed size (i.e., one that overrides the default). Where it is appropriate to force size, images should generally be no more than 550 pixels wide, so that they can be comfortably displayed on 800x600 monitors."
The MOS goes on to provide and inclusive list of examples where px thumb adjustment may be appropriate: "Examples where size-forcing may be appropriate include: Images with aspect ratios that are extreme or that otherwise distort or obscure the image, Detailed maps, diagrams, or charts, Images containing a lot of detail, if the detail is important to the article, Images in which a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image, Lead images, which should usually be no larger than 300 pixels."
Not only was adjustment proper for the thumbs with px tags, but many of them fit specifically into these examples, such as detailed maps (M-R Pact maps, Soviet advances on Eastern Front, Eastern bloc map), original documents images where detail is difficult to examine (Beria's letter, Stalin's resolution, the Politburo's decision, March 5 memo) and photos where the detail is important (Reichstag flag raising photo, Ribbentrop and Stalin signing pact).
Also, not only did none of them exceed 550px described in the MOS, but I think they all were 300px and under. Mosedschurte ( talk) 02:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The editor Viplovecomm just changed the lead image from this photo of the article subject, to this artists' rendition, created by himself.
The actual photo of the subject is preferable to an artists' rendition, though I must say, nice job if he actually did create that himself. Mosedschurte ( talk) 12:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
It is well known fact that denying Holocaust is crime in Germany and many other countries. In general, most countries scrutinize even a slightest attempt of trying to distort views about Holocaust. Just check out video interview with Bishop Williamson given to Swedish TV where he claims that only 200-300 thousands of Jews were killed and none of them in gas chambers. If this kind of topic can be a reason for dispute in Wikipedia then it should be closed down immediately. Wikipedia doesn't exist so that various sickos can change historic facts but to allow us to get objective, balanced and most accurate view of history and other subjects. I guess that we can then expect pedophiles, bank robbers and cannibals to come here and dispute carious topics as well.
Valeofruin that disputes facts about Stalin purges and Gulags openly admits that he is Holocaust denier as well and that he would gladly dispute Holocaust as well on Wiki pages. His claims that only 400,000 people died in Gulags is very similar to the numbers Bishop Williamson gave about Holocaust. The exact number of death is always hard to determine but there are good statistical methods used like lower number of males, city population and others that can accurately indicate number of people who perished. I'm not sure who Valeofruin is but only two options remain. He is either a wacko or he is being paid by Russian KGB government that openly glorifies Stalin. Web site he quoted is financed and run by undercover KGB(FSB) agents. Ravenlord, February 12, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravenlord ( talk • contribs) 11:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
That section states the Bolsheviks won that war in the late 1919. That is completely wrong by any historic books and textbooks. Officially the war ended in 1922, but there was still fighting going on in the Russian Far East. That is what the Soviet historical textbooks say. For some reason the war with the Ukraine is being perceived as the Civil war in Soviet times and it seems that the same trend exist today as well. That is also wrong. Ukraine was a recognized state by the Soviet Russia as well as by the other numerous countries. That was a straight aggresion against the Ukrainian republic, following an unbelievable slaughtering of population in Ukraine by bolsheviks (Kyiv and Podillia still remembered). In 1920 Ukraine united with Poland to stop the bolshevik bandits. The Soviet textbooks state that it was an intervention of the "White" Polish burgouis, relating it to the Russian white movement which is way off.
Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 17:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Article discussion only please, not discussion on the subject. This applies to a few discussions you two have commented on, so could you please keep on subject for the sake of others and the capacity of wikipedia to handle this chat. Thanks Protectthehuman ( talk) 16:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Still a monster article over Wikipedia guidelines. Of course, it's going to be huge given the 29 year rule of the Soviet Union at the very center of world history during the time.
There were some huge sections for which no sub-articles existed, such as Stalin before the Revolution, Stalin in the Revolution and early wars and Stalin's rise to power, so the prior text (unedited) is all there. They were actually so long, that they're pretty nice-sized articles now. Now, I (and others) can add to them without worrying about ballooning the size of the Stalin article. Mosedschurte ( talk) 04:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I hate shifting things into sub-articles because people editing the short summary in the main article without checking, letting alone working, on the material in the sub-article. Was the old way really so difficult for a reader to deal with? Kurzon ( talk) 23:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
At 72k readable prose and 11,500 words. There was long material regarding birth year controversy, etc. pretty much word-for-word repeated in Stalin before the Revolution. Also, the long transliterations descriptions of Stalin's name were repeated literally within an inch of itself in his info box.
i think it's good that the article is being resized but all those references to newly created articles (Stalin Before the Revolution, Stalin after...) makes very hard to translate to other langauges....i hope we can find a means to make these articles as cohesive as possible —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Seektrue (
talk •
contribs) 20:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The article's sections on Stalin after he attained total power deal too much with the general history of the USSR. A lot of sections are basically long sections of Soviet policy with "oh yeah, Stalin approved this" tacked on to them. Kurzon ( talk) 16:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
An attempt was made to copy and paste the text of Stalin before the Revolution, Stalin in the Revolution and early wars and Stalin's rise to power into this article. This grossly inflated the article size to 93kb readable prose and 15,109 words -- over double the median of the general standard that: "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose. If an article is significantly longer than that, it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries."
As directed by Wikipedia policy, this article summarizes those much more extensive long articles on various subjects, and on other such subjects. Even so, it is still (at this moment) 70kb of readable prose and around 11,200 words. Mosedschurte ( talk) 07:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Should we really be using CelebHeights as a source for Stalin's height in the "Cult of personality" section? If we're going to talk about "photographic evidence," someone needs to find a serious academic source for it. I don't see how CelebHeights even remotely passes the threshold for any of the standards set out by WP:RS. -- 98.232.98.144 ( talk) 04:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Under the heading "Religious Beliefs and Policies", the word "atheist" is misspelled as "athetist".
Read the title. ...Ω... ..¿TooT?.. ..¡StatS!.. 02:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
"After the capture of Berlin, Soviet troops reportedly raped from tens of thousands to two million women,[159] and 50,000 during and after the occupation of Budapest.[160][161] In former Axis countries, such as Germany, Romania and Hungary, Red Army officers generally viewed cities, villages and farms as being open to pillaging and looting."
They did same thing in Poland. My grandma told me that she had to hide all girls what were at home because Russians raped girls and women no matter of what age, they've been seen raping girls as young as 5 and as old as 80. Same thing with looting, they steal my grandma's cows, car and her jewelry.
-- DumnyPolak ( talk) 03:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I hope that in my absolute state of procrastination I am just overlooking something here BUT, how can Stalin be "ejected from the Politburo in November 1929. Stalin took great advantage of the ban on factionalism. By 1928 (the first year of the Five-Year Plans) Stalin was supreme among the leadership. and the following year Trotsky was exiled because of his opposition."
that makes no sense... Or am I somehow getting this wrong.
I hope I am. ````````````` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.215.205 ( talk) 07:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
“ | One hundred and twelve million U. S. inhabitants acknowledge the executive shepherdage of Calvin Coolidge, refuse to "recognize" the 139 million Soviet Russians over whom Joseph Stalin has reared himself a despot. M. Stalin ("Mr. Steel") exerts, simply as Secretary of the Communist Party, a political "boss power" prodigious and all pervasive. A cobbler's son whose actual name and age are doubtful, "Mr. Steel," was born in the remote Transcaucasian land of Vras-tan, Gruzia or Georgia. Amid the purging flames of revolution, the great Dictator Lenin tested and tempered the Georgian's metal, gave him the prophetic name of Stalin, installed him in the office which he has made the focus of all Russia, the Secretariat of the Communist Party. Last week M. Stalin ordered dropped from the Cabinet of Premier Rykoff—of which he, himself, is not a member—his onetime "Left Hand Man," Foreign and Home Trade Commissar (Minister) Leo Kamenev. Into the vacant Ministry stepped with effrontery and assurance one Mikoyan, like M. Stalin a Georgian, unlike M. Stalin, a mere pliant boy. As everyone knows, Gregory Zinoviev, the onetime "Right Hand Man" of M. Stalin, was expelled during the summer from the potent Communist Political Bureau. M. Stalin, astute, inflexible, omnipotent, has chosen to dictate alone. | ” |
“ | Joseph Stalin now rules as the undisputed dictator of Soviet Russia. During the past twelve-month he has demonstrated his control of the Communist Party and the Government by reducing to political vassalage or inconsequence no less than six of Lenin's most potent disciples: Trotsky, Zinoviev, Radek, Sokolnikov, Lashe-vich and Kamenev. | ” |
“ | Joseph Stalin dictates at Moscow, having overthrown Leon Trotzky and many another. Recently M. Trotzky and other anti-Stalinites, notably MM. Zinoviev and Kamenev, have been rumored to be gathering strength for a war of propaganda against the man of steel. Last week M. Stalin, no office holder but the despotic "boss" of the Communist party, rapped out three orders. Leon Trotzky and his malcontents were commanded to cease their opposition to the dictator's will. For an hour they temporized, then found courage for battle ebbing. | ” |
“ | Pavel Ephimovich Dybenko, young and colorful Communist, emerged into the news again for an instant last week when Dictator Stalin of Soviet Russia appointed him Chief of the Red Army Supply Service. | ” |
There was a bit of a problem with his birthdate: instead of December 18 1878, it should be December 18 1879. MagnetJ18 ( talk) 19:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
No where does the article mention stalins love for the the working classes, and their love for stalin. See the Talk sections above for extensive discussions of length issues.
Two attempts have been made to recopy the text of these articles into this article today. Please stop this, at it violates WP:Article size, inflating the article far beyond the 6-10,000 word targets. The general standard is: "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose. If an article is significantly longer than that, it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries." Mosedschurte ( talk) 19:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
If anything, the articles needs more cutting down, so I agree with Mosedschurte. It's just a common sense. And not only by separating into sub-articles, but also reducing the amount of general history. Some places simply read as History of Russia (except instead of "Russia" you see "Stalin"). Not all that happened in Russia is attributable to Stalin personally. Renata ( talk) 02:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The part I stuck in was what the article originally contained before Mosedschurte moved it into subarticles, so in a sense I was reverting the section back to its old state.
I would like to state that this article should focus on Stalin personally. Right now this article contains to much general history of Russia during the Stalin era. If we want to trim down the article, I suggest we begin there. We should move those sections into subarticles and keep the actual biographical info within the main article. Kurzon ( talk) 10:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I can't imagine a more WP:Fringe position. Roberts certainly doesn't state anything like this, and in fact, himself even quotes the famous August 3, 1939 statement " "there was no problem between the Baltic and the Black Sea that could not be solved between the two of us." (page 32)
Here are just a few of examples:
It's pretty unreal that someone would claim that these didn't occur. Mosedschurte ( talk) 20:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)
You didn't address my point. The major points are the following:
1. Starting from mid-April, 1939, Britain and then the USSR proposed to discuss a possibility of taking mutual obligations in case if aggressive activity of Germany will expand.
2. The sources disagree upon real Stalin's intentions during that period, but it is clear that no solid documentary evidences exists of Soviet-German rapprochement until the end of July. Roberts (the source you cite, page 32, directly states:"Until (early August) Stalin had not given Ribbentrop any encouragement"), therefore, the triple alliance political negotiations had started, reached their high point and stalled before any Soviet-German negotiations or consultations had started.
3. Since the achievement of the political agreement was a conditio sine qua non, the Anglo-Franco-Soviet military negotiations were aimed just to fill a pause in the (suspended) political talks.
Therefore, the fact that some (less important) part of the triple talks took place concurrently with the secret Soviet-German talks during a very short (a couple weeks) period is not sufficient for making the statement you did. If "this article doesn't even go into the details", then the events must be described in such a way: triple talks first, Molotov-Ribbentrop second. The details should be disclosed in the more specialized articles.
One more thing, also very important. You accused me in doing wrong, and even false citations. The personal attack is a violation of the policy. I am absolutely tolerant to such attacks and even insults, provided that they rest on the solid ground. However, I still cannot understand which facts did I interpreted incorrectly, and you provided no explanations for that. Please, explain that, or take your words back.--
Paul Siebert (
talk) 16:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I changed the text to the following:
After a failed attempt to sign an anti-German political alliance with France and Britain [2] [3] [4] Stalin accepted a Hitler's proposal of the political deal [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] and after brief secret negotiation between the Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov and German foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop, [12] on August 23, 1939, the Soviet Union entered into a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany.
That is correct, because: 1. Political triple negotiation effectively failed by mid-August (Roberts) 2. Molotov and Ribbentrop met in mid-August only. 3. If you want to mention military talks feel free to do that, but I think they belong to the daughter articles.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 18:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)