Talk:Joseph Stalin/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives:

Main Talk Page   Thru Apr 2003   Thru Jul 2003   Dec 2003 to Nov 2004   Nov 2004 to Jan 2005   Feb 2005 to Jul 2005   Jul 2005 to Aug 2005   Sep 2005 to Dec 2005   Dec 2005 to Apr 2006   May 2006 to Jul 2006   Aug 2006 to Oct 2006   Oct 2006 to Dec 2006   Oct 2006 to Dec 2006   Dec 2006   Dec 2006 to June 2007  


 
Archive 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.


Contents

I don't know about you fellows but...

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 agree, I'd much prefer a real photo as well. Everyking 21:30, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Also agreed. Most soviet photos before 1973 don't have a copyright, so the hardest part will actually be finding one that wasn't touched up by his propaganda people. --tomf688(talk) 21:52, May 1, 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)

That looks better, but maybe it could be cropped a bit? Sholtar 23:48, May 10, 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)

School life

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)

More

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)

Propaganda

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)

I actually think that much of it could be seen as the work of someone with a certain (negative) view of Stalin's political career, trying to ascribe personality attributes to that and then projecting it back into his childhood for the sake of crafting a good biography with a central theme. But either way it's the sort of material that definitely needs thorough sourcing. I would even be in favor of removing all the questionable stuff for the time being, since this is such a prominent article and so it's better not to take chances. Everyking 01:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ancestry

After some thought I have to agree that the following phrase:

He was also rumored to have Jewish ancestry. Among suggested origins of the rumor is the episode with Papismedov related to Stalin's childhood.

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)

Death

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)

Death toll numbers and sources

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:

  • "Joseph Stalin's rule (1924-1953) - 40-60 million (but at least 20) million dead."

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:

  • "According to Roy Medvedev, Stalin's victims numbered forty million. Solzhenitsyn says the number is far greater-perhaps sixty million. The debate continues even now."

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)

Most mainstream western historians give a figure of 10-20 million; that is itself probably a considerable overestimate. Everyking 00:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Info box inaccuracies

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)

The "secretary" position was that of the top boss of the Soviet Communist Party. There is no reason to play technicalities about a particular "office" with a specific title. The issue is pretty confusing and there is no reason to put these intricacies in an infobox. At the same time, I agree that the formal details about party leadership must be addressed more carefully in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union article. Mikkalai 23:05, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
It's just that I assumed, with such specific info there, dealing with de facto leadership is tricky. Perhaps if the infobox said it was only leader, that would help. But that's not the common convention. For George Washington, to use an example of a first officeholder, we don't say preceded by George III, or whomever, just because that is the leader. Well... on second thought that's not the best example, because it's a different country. But what I'm trying to say there's got to be a better way to do it without implying that Stalin and his predecessor and his successor all held the same title. --Dmcdevit 23:46, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Modern opinion

What about people's opinion of Stalin in modern Russia? It could be quite interesting.

Certain segments of the population

removed:

, and by providing certain segments of the population benefits so as to win their support or co-opt them into the regime.

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)

Moscow

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)

Deportation of Romanians

I removed the following addition by an anon, about deportations of nationalities

Romanians (from Moldova),

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 Stone

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)

i just find it a little offensive that apparently we can't reference the enormity of his repression in the intro. "severe repression" just doesn't cut it for a regime that is regarded in the Western world (and many other countries as well) as one of the most extensively constructed totalitarian networks. and i have not seen 172 effectively contest the characterization of Stalinism as totalitarian aside from listing a few historians who go along with his position, which is by no means the definitive one. J. Parker Stone 21:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Reading the "totalitarianism" definition: attempts to control nearly every aspect of personal, economic, and political life, I canot but agree that this is a very weasely definition. Clearly, it is impossible to control "every" aspect of something. So the word "nearly" is thrown in; which really does not change much, but gives an illusion of objectivity. Further, the word "control" itself is bad choice. "Control" in what sense? U.S. law (i.e. U.S. state) "controls" every aspect of everything. That's why american lawyers prosper.
... I think I am abandoning this topic. The "tot" article is full of bullshit and logical fallacies, starting from circular logic thru the whole set of faulty generalizations and all the way towards to creating a straw man each time a politician needs one.
It is especially amusing how the hair was being split totalitarian vs. authoritarian. For some magic reason this split perfectly matched U.S. political and economical intersets. It looks like magic effectiveness of mathematics, where the same formula describes both radioactive decay and breeding of rabbits. Only poli sci is not math. It is rather a proof of the agenda under these definitions.
But I don't care about this any more. I've got the idea that wikipedia sucks in political articles, for a very simple reason: these articles describe not facts, but ideas, however there are virtually no neutral people on political issues. mikka (t) 22:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
it's sorta hard to be neutral on a subject like this. J. Parker Stone 22:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
i thought Mikkalai made a good consensus until Ruy came in and mucked it up. J. Parker Stone 04:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
i recognize that 172 contends that there are some Sovietologists who oppose the label "totalitarian" (he mentioned a few of them) but surely there's more that do think it applies? and the view is quite common in the Western world and probably elsewhere. i'm not saying make this article Western-centric and discount the aforementioned Sovietologists' views, but Stalinism = totalitarianism is something that has been accepted as a fact for a long time in several countries -- why else would "Stalinist" typically be used as an insult, on par with "Nazi"? and of course we have Orwell's famous 1984... J. Parker Stone 28 June 2005 08:20 (UTC)

collectivization

"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)

this doesn't even merit a response. J. Parker Stone 07:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:Smells and tastes like an apology. agree with J. Parker Stone. Mike

Picture

can we get a more real one? it looks like a propaganda portrait. J. Parker Stone 09:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

recent edits

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)