Talk:Joseph Stalin/Archive 13

Dictator
If you say Stalin is a dictator, then why not to say George W. Bush is war criminal?--Heimstern Läufer 15:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this is a reasonable solution. I think some of the editors have lost track of the fact Wikipedia doesn't need to determine which view is correct.  It merely needs to state that multiple views exist, or to couch it in Nixer's terms:  both the bourgeois and proletariat view should be mentioned (and cited).  Don't mention the term in the intro, then later in the article cite a reasonable source that describes him as a dictator (or that he wielded dictatorial powers).  Then its a simple matter of maintaining NPOV by saying that other historians argued that he was not a dictator--and cite a reputable source that claims he was not a dictator. --C33 17:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't insist on placing it in the intro either. It must be covered somewhere but not necessarily there. However, the arguments made by Nixer have to be rejected utterly. Str1977 (smile back) 17:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There was no law establishing absolutist rule for Stalin. He was just one of dozens of leaders of the Communist Party in the Politbureau. Such flagrant POV slander are not permitted in an encyclopedia:

''First let it be noted that, unlike Mussolini, Hitler and other modern dictators, Stalin is not invested by law with any authority over his fellow-citizens, and not even over the members of the Party to which he belongs. He has not even the extensive power which the Congress of the United States has temporarily conferred upon President Roosevelt, or that which the American Constitution entrusts for four years to every successive president. So far as grade or dignity is concerned, Stalin is in no sense the highest official in the USSR, or even in the Communist Party. He is not, and has never been, President of the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee of the All-Union Congress of Soviets-a place long held by Sverdlov and now by Kalinin, who is commonly treated as the President of the USSR.''

http://www.mltranslations.org/Russia/webb1.htm

You are all missing the point! Whether or not he was a dictator is not what really matters here! What matters is the fact that because he was never formally given the "title" of dictator giving him such a title is giving a trait he was never actually given, which is, whether you like it or not, providing POV information. Stalin may have been a dictator, and it may be true that 99.9% of the world's population including the majority of former Soviet Citizens think and believe he might be a dictator...but providing him with that title is being POV...it is not an absolute truth! (Like Felipe Calderon being the president of Mexico or Angela Merkel being Chancellor of Germany) it is a trait. It is like saying that George W. Bush is am imperialist or a conqueror a war criminal, a murderer or an aggressor...the facts are that he is an conqueror and an imperialist, but because he has not been awarded such a title formally, it would be POV to write "George W. Bush, president of the US and conqueror or invader of Iraq", even though it might be true because I am giving him a trait based on judgment, not on accuracy or solid facts...what is a dictator? Where do we define dictator? Where does a dictator begin or end? What are the limits? There is nothing in the world, no paper or anything that specifies this, so there is not way we can award him such a title in an accurate encyclopedia, even though in the end he might very well be a dictator...understand? Understand?! We are not debating his evilness or how democratic he was! We are debating the fact that the man has been called something he was never formally turned into and solely based on judgment. It is like saying (in another context) that a pornographic actress is a pervert of that David Lynch might be deranged because of his films or that Nicholas Cage is a bad actor or that James Joyce is a great writer...they are not traits that have been formally given (even though they might be true) to these people and should therefore not be placed on their page, in the initial part. Maybe in the later part of the article there could be a section talking about how good some people consider this writer (or how Stalin is considered by many to be a dictator)...Please, this is the last time I am going to try to convince you of this...If you don't understand...you are mentally retarded and I will be forced to create an editing war and change Dictator every chance I get in this encyclopedia...I am only sticking to wikipedian policies and doing what I should be doing...you are the ones that are wrong! Kiske 06:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion on the the matter, which is, in fact, irrelevant. What does matter is that reliable sources have different interpretations whether or not he was a dictator, and all of them should be presented to maintain NPOV. --C33 19:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The bottom is that nobody on the anti-dictator side here has presented ANY quotes from reliable historians that argue against calling Stalin a dictator. All the prominent historians I've read call him such (and I'd be willing to present the quotes), so that's the consensus view. If you want to dethrone the consensus view, policy demands that you actually back up your changes with evidence. - Merzbow 19:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I could care less what the right wing bias might say about stalin, I can present millions of quotes from before the fall of the eastern block that do not refer to stalin as a dictator, I can find quotes on anything!, there are quotes on everything, but that doesn't mean that they are right! And to C33, my opinion is not irrelevant, if you fascist bias simply blinds your thoughts on a clear and simple issue, that is your problem... It doesn't matter if every person in the world calls Stalin a dictator, because it implies a certain qualification to his reign we cannot, if we choose to follow the NPOV say he was a dictator. The articles on Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro do not say they are dictators, so we shouldn't either. This is my last word on the matter, this has previously been discussed and we reached an agreement... Stalin being labeled as a dictator in this article will not stand as long as I live!... If you fail to understand the points, that is your problem, but what I explained above and you refused to accept is very clear, very simple... you are all simply too biased to understand it! Kiske 19:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If this revert war goes on much longer, I'm going to request full protection for this page until disputes are over. Kiske: statements like "Stalin being labeled as a dictator in this article will not stand as long as I live!" are going to get you nowhere. If you're unwilling to compromise, especially given that there are many reliable sources that have a different opinion than yours, then there's nothing we can do for you. You also need to stop assuming bad faith for those who oppose you. Heimstern Läufer 20:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with C33's proposal. I even think that the opposite view is not necessary (athough would be useful). We can say that such and such historians think Stalin was dictator, but not in the intro. This will be neutral I think. We of course can also note that he was never called dictator in the USSR before the perestroika, even by Khrushchev. My Lessier Encyclopedia of 1960 says much about how wrong was Stalin, how much damage made cult of personality, but never calls him dictator. It says that his merits were recognized by Soviet government, he was awarded decorations, orders etc which made him to think much of himself.--Nixer 20:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is my last word on the matter, this has previously been discussed and we reached an agreement...Kiske your lieing is pathetic, there has been no clear agreement about calling Stalin dictator or not in this discussion page, there have been only stalemates but no agreement.--Staberinde 20:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Staberinde.... never insult me again first of all. I do apologize, you are right, there was no clear agreement... but that doesn't mean that the article should remain as labeling the man as a dictator. I am not going to compromise if the counter argument, the argument that I stand for is also exposed!... calling stalin a dictator is not objective, if you want me to compromise, we should then write something like this: "Stalin was the de facto leader and in right wing, capitalist view, dictator of the USSR. It should also be noted that he is not globally considered to be a dictator and the notion of him being a dictator in the Soviet Union only emerged when Mikhail Gorbachev came to power; but there are still many people that do not consider him a dictator." If something like this is not done, then the article will remain biased, and I will not have that... why don't you fight for the Saddam Hussein article to say he was also a dictator? There is nothing wrong with not saying that he was a dictator, this is not after all, a formal trait, but something based on western perspectives and nothing more... Kiske 21:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We should indeed try to reflect multiple points of view: The western view of him as a dictator is one of them. If there are other substantial points of view that say he was not (and I believe there are), we must include them as well. All of this is too much for the introduction of the article, which is why I suggest moving the "dictator" issue out of the intro. Meanwhile, as the revert warring just keeps going, I have requested full protection for this article. Let's work on a compromise, please. Heimstern Läufer 21:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree Heimstern, I like your way of thinking, and I do apologize, but I am frustrated by the fact that no one understands my points, they are simply to biased to even consider Stalin not being a dictator, or at least not mentioning it. And I am willing to work on a compromise for this article, something that will satisfy us all...and there are many different views on stalin, the two major ones are yours and mine... 1.- He was a dictator. 2.- He wasn't... but again, whether he was a dictator or not doesn't really matter, what matters is that calling him a dictator is biased because it is not something that is universally aknowledged or a trait that is objective... it is something based on judgement, just as if I were to say on Miguel de Cervantes Article that the Quixote is an excellent book... it is an excellent book, but saying that is giving a trait it doesn't really have formally. Understand? Kiske 21:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You're not going to have any valid points until you present data to support your view. It's as simple as that. Once again, where are your quotes from professors who argue that Stalin is not a dictator? In English, please, so we can verify them. - Merzbow 21:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And to show my good faith, if you can produce at least one such quote, then I'll support keeping that term out of the intro. - Merzbow 22:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Merzbow, what are you saying? you think you are doing me a favor? It is not up to you what happens to the article... who made you judge? Good faith?! What are you talking about? Since when does good faith have anything to do with this article... nothing! I do have many sources that don't exactley negate him being a dictator but simply portray him as leader of the soviet union. And why do you need them by a professor? Why would that be more reliable than one by a historian who is not a professor? I don't have any in English, I only have them in German, Russian and Spanish, which come from Cuba, the GDR and the USSR, and they are all from before 1980. Would a translation be sufficient? Kiske 22:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So you can only quote people living under pre-1980 Communist dictatorships as sources for the claim that their leader was not a dictator? You can't be serious. - Merzbow 23:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I put an RFC for this article up at WP:RFC/HIST. We need a wider consensus on this issue one way or another or the revert wars will continue forever. - Merzbow 23:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The USSR was not pro-Stalinist after the death of Stalin, so the Soviet point of view of this period may be considered more or less neutral. And of course there is not any scientific work that explicitely state that Stalin was not dictator (just as there is no work that states Jeorge W. Bush is not a monkey). This question was simply out of discussion. As I already pointed out, the idea of personal ddictatorshp to exist ever in any country is incompatible with Marxism. And he was never called dictator before the perestroika.--Nixer 09:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Whether or not dictatorship is theoretically incompatible with Marxism isn't relevant. Almost all modern-day communists I've met tell me that Stalin wasn't a true Marxist anyways. Whether or not Marxism/communism is even possible to implement as envisioned by its proponents I'll leave for another forum. - Merzbow 01:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read the discussion above. I already said that Mrxists do not view anybody as dictator, even Hitler. Personal dictatorship is impossible in Marxism and so no person in the world is dictator. It may be dictatorship of a class, but not of a person.--Nixer 18:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

responding to RFC
Stalin is widely portrayed in popular accounts in the west as a dictator(Britannica,MSN Encarta,Columbia Encyclopedia,PBS,BBC,CNN). if he is similarly dealt with by professional historians, then it shld be easy to substantiate with a similar list.

assuming that this is done, it is upto those who think that he shld not be referred to as a dictator to compile similar lists to demonstrate that that view is held by significant minority (or more). if this can't be done, then WP can retain the "dictator" tag. if it can be done, then the dictator tag is qualified as controversial.

WP is not the place for original research, and much of the discussion (eg. disc. regarding what are necessary and sufficient conditions for dictatorship, comparisons to other dictators), i think, is attempting to synthesize published arguments to advance the position that he is or is not a D., such original determinations, of course, cannot be used in writing WP articles. Doldrums 11:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Kiske, this is ridiculous. Its not some kind of western right-wing capitalist view that Stalin is dictator. Cold war is over! World situation has radically changed! Current world view is that what is relevant to article. You can't use cold war time sources to describe how Stalin is viewed in Eastern-Europe at the moment same way as you cant use Nazi-Germany sources to describe how Hitler is viewed in modern Germany.
 * why don't you fight for the Saddam Hussein article to say he was also a dictator?, blah blah, why dont you fight at Mussolini's page to remove dictator from introduction?--Staberinde 12:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Staberinde. What would Kiske think of the wording: "Many historians describe him as a dictator, but die-hard Stalinists and apologists for his regime reject this label"? Str1977 (smile back) 16:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * One question. How the result of the Cold War is relevant to wether Stalin dictator or not? Cold War ended much after his death. Or it is "Wow, we winned so we right!"?--Nixer 18:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * One difference is that now those who dare to criticze Stalin are not murdered.Ultramarine 19:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * How this is relevant to the end of the Cold War which happened 40 years after the death of Stalin?--Nixer 16:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you have any current reliable sources stating that Stalin was not a dictator? Not counting personal webpages and microscopic Stalinist parties, but souces like respected scholars? Ultramarine 17:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning the BBC is laughable considering how ridiculous of a propaganda outlet it is for western imperialism. It'd be no different than citing Radio Moscow in a biography about Churchill or Truman. Various entries in Russia's prominent Hronos encyclopedia lack the term "dictator":

From the end of the 1930s he became the Russian statesman and military leader of the Russian people during Great Domestic war.

Stalin (1878-1953), politician, Hero of Socialist Work (1939), Hero of Soviet Union (1945), Marshal of Soviet Union (1943), Generalissimo of Soviet Union (1945).

http://www.hrono.ru/biograf/stalin.html


 * and here's a start on the list of works by professional historians that also refer to Stalin as a dictator, all previewable on Google book search -
 * Joseph Stalin, By Robert D. Warth (professor emeritus U. Kentucky)
 * Stalin: an unknown portrait, By Miklós Kun (Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest)
 * Stalin: A New History edited By Sarah Davies, James R. Harris, see chapter Stalin as dictator, by Oleg V. Khlevniuk (State Archive of the Russian Federation, Moscow)
 * Life and Death Under Stalin: Kalinin Province, 1945–1953 By Kees Boterbloem (Nipissing University, Ontario, Canada)
 * The Stalin Years: The Soviet Union 1929-1953 By Evan Mawdsley ( University of Glasgow)
 * Doldrums 20:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And super-historian Alan Bullock's work, "Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives" (already quoted in the article), also explicitly refers to him as a dictator. - Merzbow


 * Stalin is considered a dictator by modern historians. Of course this view is biased, but, as this is the most widely accepted view, it must be included and supported in the article.--RedMC 05:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nobody says it should not be included. But as it is biased, we shell attribute the POV to the souced to maintain neutrality in Wikipedia.--Nixer 19:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sources have been given above.Ultramarine 19:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The likes of Merzbow and Ultramarine are right-wing propagandists who have an agenda to push. This is exposed by their use of the laughably partisan "Black Book of Communism". The various sources used by Hronos proves that Stalin was not a dictator. http://www.hrono.ru/biograf/stalin.html

Scholarly sources by professional historians that do not call Stalin a dictator include works by E.H Carr, R.W Davies, and Stephen Wheatcroft.

Additionally, on Proquest Database, there are 4876 results for "Stalin Soviet Leader". For "Stalin Soviet Dictator" there are only 3260 results by comparison. The characterization of Stalin as a dictator is false for the reason that no law gave him supreme authority and the fact that he was prime minister from 1941-53.
 * Again, Wikipedia NPOV states that all views should be presented. It is not the place to state to determine which scholarly view is the correct one. Convince all scholars that you are right. Then we can exclude the views you do not like. Lets have a look at this Google scholar serach: . Here are academic work with titles like "Stalin as Leader, 1937-1953. From Dictator to Despot", "Proletarian Dictator in a Peasant Land: Stalin as Ruler", "Dictators and Disciples. From Caesar to Stalin", Ultramarine 20:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, a quote from you favorite scholars Wheatcroft and Davies: "Stalin was a dictator, and bore more responsibility for the famine than any other individual" Ultramarine 20:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

What the fuck are you talking about? This is a page for disputes in regard to facts and perspective. You blatantly contradict yourself with your reiteration of Wikipedia's policies even though you completely violate them with your vandalism at the "Holodomor" page and your violation of NPOV policy with the vandalism of smearing Stalin as a dictator. The propaganda outlets your ilk incessantly cites contains the following:''' Rumours are circulatng in Moscow that Joseph Stalin, the long-time leader of the Soviet Union, is near death. It said the Soviet leader, who came to power in 1928, had suffered a cerebral haemorrhage on Wednesday night.'''

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/5/newsid_2710000/2710127.stm
 * See my earlier sources above, including your own favorite scholars. Regarding BBC: One of the most powerful and murderous dictators in history, Stalin was the supreme ruler of the Soviet Union for a quarter of a century.'Ultramarine 21:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Two things occur to me. First, the argument over whether and where Stalin is called a "dictator" seems overblown. Secondly, there should be no arugment over whether Stalin was indeed an autocrat and despot. Using or not using the word dictator just should not be such a big deal. That's my 2 cents. Wbroun 02:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment -- A dictator is an autocratic ruler with ultimate authority over all branches of government. History records that Stalin answered to no one, not the Communist Party, not the Supreme Soviet, not the Politburo. No one successfully called him to account during his lifetime, because they couldn't. The issue of Stalin's place in the Soviet constitution is something else entirely; he was, de facto, a dictator who exercised absolute power over the Soviet Union (to a degree that no one before him or after did). It seems fairly obvious to call him a dictator using that definition. Haikupoet 01:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion
I think for something to appear at top of the article it should at least be discussed in the article itself? So I suggest those who want to call him a dictator first make a new section that provides arguments (and counter-arguments) that he was a dictator. You can call it "Life under Stalin", "Stalin's rule", or "Evaluation". Once that section is complete we can all look at both sides of the issue and determine if the evidence is strong enough to warrant calling him a dictator in the first paragraph of the article. Any takers? --Taxico 14:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that would be a great idea, but first, we need some solid sources from those who argue against the term "dictator". Doldrums's comment is right on: we have sources for him being considered a dictator. Now we need sources for the other side if we're going to have a section that discusses the disagreements over whether or not he was a dictator. And sources from communist countries pre-1980 aren't really going to work, I think. We need something to demonstrate that scholars still hold this point of view, even after the fall of these regimes. Heimstern Läufer 20:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * How the fall of the communism is relevant to whether Stallin was a dictator?--Nixer 19:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sources from a time when you were imprisoned if you criticzed the state are not reliable sources.Ultramarine 19:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want Wikipedia reflecting only your view, than you can of course reject all Soviet souces.--Nixer 17:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I want Wikipedia to use reliable sources. Praise for Stalin from a time and place when writing otherwise meant imprisonment or worse are not reliable soruces.Ultramarine 17:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This is absolute nonsense. If Wikipedia is afraid to call a dictator like Stalin a dictator, then it's worthless as an encyclopedia. Vidor 11:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Since it was asked that "we need something to demonstrate that scholars still hold this point of view, even after the fall of these regimes" I can refer to a book: "50 years without Stalin. The heritage of stalinism and its influence on the history of the latter half of the XX century. Materials of the "round table" Marth 4, 2003. Moscow". Published by the Institute of Russian History by the Russian Academy of Sciences. 2005, 184 pages (In Russian).
 * A Russian historian, doctor of history science, Yuri Zhukov (he was mentioned here on this talkpage already) who specializes in the Soviet power system of the Stalin's time said on this conference:
 * "Stalin had no absolute power: he couldn't step neither over the Politburo nor over the Central Cometee..." (i.e. he couldn't ignore them and do as his pleases -- Nekto)
 * "I was studying for 10 years all documents that are available today and some ones that are still inaccessible (here he means some archive materials that were closed again -- Nekto) and I didn't find out that Stalin had an absolute power. Didn't find out. If you will find those documents then I will put up my hands and concede in the argument. At once! And in that case I will abandon my view".Nekto 12:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

There are few, if any sources in English, that might explicitly state that Stalin wasn't a dictator, I own many sources that speak of him as "leader of the soviet union" which would not place him as a dictator but would not argue that he was not one. It is the same as if we needed a source to claim that George Bush is not a monkey, so you can't expect us to provide you with sources in English, from current times which it is explicitly said that Stalin is not a dictator. There was a citation in russian above which in fact described Stalin as a leader and not as a dictator, so please as a matter a fact consider this source, do not dismiss it because it is in Russian. The bottom line is that we need to reach an agreement right away or we are going to be battling this for ever. Ultramarine, get your facts strait, you were not sent to prison if you critized the state after the death of Stalin... it wasn't that severe... I know because I was born and raised in the GDR, and believe me that many people criticized the country and not all of them were in prision... if that were true, everyone in Eastern Europe would have been in prison, so get your facts strait... besides, same thing happens in the US today doesn't it? If you critize the country about the invasion of iraq or publicly demonstrate against Bush you are sent to prison... So let's say that I write an article saying that Bush is a dictator... because peopole are imprisoned in the US for criticizing the state then no sources from the US about Bush not being a dictator as completely unreliable, so in fact good luck proving he isn't a dictator! That's what we are faced with!... Where in wikipedia does it say that sources prior to the fall of the USSR are not reliable? You claim you need sources, well I have more than enough sources, but you people discredit them. Oh and Vidor, the only thing that is worthless around here is the comment you just provided! Kiske 04:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that we need sources explicitely stating something. There are numerous sources that call Stalin a dictator - which sources state that he is not a dictator. Note that leader and dictator are not mutually exclusive (if you don't believe this, try Hitler). I gues there are no sources stating that Bush is not a monkey, but a) which sources (serious not fun websites) claim that he is, and b) human and monkey are mutually exclusive, hence because we know Bush to be human we know that he's not a monkey. Str1977 (smile back) 13:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There's really nothing more to discuss until the anti-dictator side steps up to provide their sources (with translation). - Merzbow 05:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

While I translate the needed sources, here I have sources that say Stalin wasn't a dictator. http://www.mltranslations.org/Russia/webb1.htm - An article logicaly explaining why Stalin wasn't a dictator. Kiske 06:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyone can write anything on a webpage. Please give a reliable source, like a published scholarly book or article or at least the official view of a prominent organization. See also Wikipedia:NPOV


 * "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well."Ultramarine 06:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

In that case... my own sources from the GDR and the USSR, which are scholarly books. But I must translate because apparently, the people judging this are unable to read any language apart from english.Kiske 07:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I can read German if that's necessary. But I still don't think anyone's going to be convinced by sources from the DDR. You say they are not likely to biased, but not many westerners are likely to believe that (unless perhaps you can show that the scholarly community still regards these works as reliable). Heimstern Läufer 07:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Remember the SED part anthem: "aus Leninischem Geist wächst von Stalin geschweißt die Partei, die Partei, die Partei". The difference between GDR and USSR is only a linguistical one, apart from the USSR becoming more reformist under Gorbachev, while Honnecker's GDR remained as it had always been. Str1977 (smile back) 13:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this issue needs to be clarified at higher level: can Wikipedia use sources from the USSR or represet only "winner's" side.--Nixer 17:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The question is: Are sources from a time when critique could get the author killed or imprisoned reliable sources? Ultramarine 17:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Are those sources reliable in which anybody can publish any lies and will not get punished for it?--Nixer 17:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That is not how peer-review and academic publishing works. Please read those articles.Ultramarine 17:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Is Britannica reliable source which claims that Stalin was paranoid? And souces in the USSR also were peer-reviewed.--Nixer 17:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * See Reliable sources. Britannica is not as reliable as peer-reviewed papers or academic books. Again, sources from a time when critique could get the author killed or imprisoned are not reliable sources.Ultramarine 17:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine... have you ever lived in a system other than a capitalist one? Have you ever spoken to people who have lived in a system other than a capitalist one? You are grossly exaggerating everything... people were and are not killed if you critized the government, as I said before, if that were true, everyone in the GDR would have been imprisoned or killed, so please start making those remarks, because they are simply untrue... second your crusade for capitalism and democracy is fair, I respect it, but you can't prevent us from exposing a significant view that opposes your own "democratic ones"... there is a significant amount of people in the world who do not believe Stalin to be a dictator, a significant amount!... you know that, we all know that, the right wing censors in this webpage simply choose to ignore that and demand citations with very specific limitations when there is no need. And please Ultramarine, just stop writing about how people "were killed" if they spoke out against the government because it is a lie. Kiske 20:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not allow personal opinions or personal experiences (anyone can claim anything) as sources. Please read Verifiability. All claims should be verifiable using reliable sources. If you have reliable sources, I will consider them. Now regarding GDR and the stasi, from a review of the book Stasi The Untold Story of the East German Secret Police [www.nytimes.com/books/first/k/koehler-stasi.html]:
 * "To ensure that the people would become and remain submissive, East German communist leaders saturated their realm with more spies than had any other totalitarian government in recent history. The Soviet Union's KGB employed about 480,000 full-time agents to oversee a nation of 280 million, which means there was one agent per 5,830 citizens. Using Wiesenthal's figures for the Nazi Gestapo, there was one officer for 2,000 people. The ratio for the Stasi was one secret policeman per 166 East Germans. When the regular informers are added, these ratios become much higher: In the Stasi's case, there would have been at least one spy watching every 66 citizens! When one adds in the estimated numbers of part-time snoops, the result is nothing short of monstrous: one informer per 6.5 citizens. It would not have been unreasonable to assume that at least one Stasi informer was present in any party of ten or twelve dinner guests."
 * "Like a giant octopus, the Stasi's tentacles probed every aspect of life. Full-time officers were posted to all major industrial plants. Without exception, one tenant in every apartment building was designated as a watchdog reporting to an area representative of the Volkspolizei (Vopo), the People's Police. In turn, the police officer was the Stasi's man. If a relative or friend came to stay overnight, it was reported. Schools, universities, and hospitals were infiltrated from top to bottom. German academe was shocked to learn that Heinrich Fink, professor of theology and vice chancellor at East Berlin's Humboldt University, had been a Stasi informer since 1968. After Fink's Stasi connections came to light, he was summarily fired. Doctors, lawyers, journalists, writers, actors, and sports figures were co-opted by Stasi officers, as were waiters and hotel personnel. Tapping about 100,000 telephone lines in West Germany and West Berlin around the clock was the job of 2,000 officers."
 * " Between 1963 and 1989, West Germany paid DM5 billion (nearly US$3 billion) to the communist regime for the release of 34,000 political prisoners."
 * "Sauer said he believed the final figure of all political prosecutions would be somewhere around 300,000. In every case, the Stasi was involved either in the initial arrest or in pretrial interrogations during which "confessions" were usually extracted by physical or psychological torture, particularly between the mid-1940s and the mid-1960s." In reporting about one executioner who shot more than twenty persons to death, the Berlin newspaper Bildzeitung said that a total of 170 civilians had been executed in East Germany. However, Franco Werkenthin, the Berlin official investigating DDR crimes, said he had documented at least three hundred executions. He declined to say how many were for political offenses, because he had not yet submitted his report to parliament. "But it was substantial," he told me. The true number of executions may never be known because no complete record of death sentences meted out by civil courts could be found. Other death sentences were handed down by military courts, and many records of those are also missing. In addition, German historian Günther Buch believes that about two hundred members of the Stasi itself were executed for various crimes, including attempts to escape to the West."
 * "Engaging in "propaganda hostile to the state" was another punishable offense. In one such case, a young man was arrested and prosecuted for saying that it was not necessary to station tanks at the border and for referring to border fortifications as "nonsense." During his trial, he "admitted" to owning a television set on which he watched West German programs and later told friends what he saw. One of those "friends" had denounced him to the Stasi. The judge considered the accused's actions especially egregious and sentenced him to a year and a half at hard labor."
 * "A nineteen-year-old who had placed a sign in an apartment window reading "When justice is turned into injustice, resistance becomes an obligation!" was rewarded with twenty-two months in the penitentiary."
 * "The East German party chiefs were not content to rely only on the Stasi's millions of informers to ferret out antistate sentiments. Leaving nothing to chance, they created a law that made the failure to denounce fellow citizens a crime punishable by up to five years' imprisonment. One man was sentenced to twenty-three months for failing to report that a friend of his was preparing to escape to the West."Ultramarine 20:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I never said that the punishments for speaking against the government didn't exist, they did exist, but it's not anything like you implied in previous comments and it is not as severe as this right wing article suggests it was. It was present yes, but it wasn't as bad as you are informing people that it was. You are grossly exagerating everything. And in regards to the US; same case, does the patriot act ring a bell? And besides, we are not discussing this issue, which is again, just like the Stalin issue, completely out of your understanding... you can't judge a country's system and way of life if you have never lived through it or conducted proper reasearch that might indicate that... besides, stop answering me with quotes and aswer like a real person... besides, the book you have quoted smells like right-wing propaganda to me and it is not really a reliable source because it is trying to condemn the system, provide me with something objective... it is not sticking with a NPOV, please 1 informant per 6.6 citizens? Are you out of your mind? I though you were smarter than a person who buys that sort of information... it is not the 1984 universe, so please stop speaking about things that lie above your own knowledge, you have no idea what you are talking about... no matte how many books you have read you will never have an idea of what it was like because you never lived there, like I did; But again these are not the points we are discussing. And why are you bringing my country into this? What does it have to do with the discussion? Besides, stop bringing that point up, its not really a valid one... so just please stop!
 * The text above, published by an academic publisher, supports my statements. Agian, Wikipedia does not allow personal opinions or personal experiences (anyone can claim anything) as sources. Please read Verifiability and Reliable sources. All claims should be verifiable using reliable sources. If you present reliable sources, I will consider them. Ultramarine 22:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The text above is full of lies and nonsense... what are you talking about? This text supports nothing! Give me the author's name I will have to check this because it is a tremendous lie and supports nothing. It claims that a young manAnd what about the young man was punished for watching WEst German shows in his television... EVERYONE IN EAST GERMANY, or almost everyone watched west German Television, that is why, when television was implemented in the GDR the system that was installed was one which was purposely made compataible with the one in West Germany and not with the ones in the Eastern Block... people in the government where aware of this... The article is complete propagandistic nonsense...and it supports absolutely nothing, it is worthless... The process of collecting the data you need is underway, I am translating what is needed for you to verify it. Kiske 23:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is link to the book on Amazon: . Please, your personal opinions are not relevant in Wikipedia. This is not a discussion board. If you have anythog sourced, state it, otherwise your claims are uninteresting.Ultramarine 23:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The claim that someone who criticized the USSR was killed comes across as absurd considering that the likes of Solzhenitsyn were actually had their life saved through vital medical treatment.

"To ensure that the people would become and remain submissive, East German communist leaders saturated their realm with more spies than had any other totalitarian government in recent history.

First off, East Germany was not totalitarian. It had numerous political parties. This book has therefore lost its credibility.

In 1920s America, thousands of so-called "radicals" were forceably deported to Russia due to the demagogic anti-communist atmosphere of the time.

As usual, Ultramarine has not idea what he's talking about and resorts to arbitrary rules of what constitutes a reliable source whenever his bullshit is called out. The way he cites "Black Book of Communism" is so typical of people of his outlook.
 * Please sign your comments. I am getting tired of unsourced personal opinions and personal attacks.Ultramarine 21:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If this is you again, Jacob Peters, I'd suggest stopping the attacks right now. One more attack and I will bring you and your sockpuppetry up again on AN/I (and I'm pretty sure a community ban will be the outcome). - Merzbow 22:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine, here is the citation for the fact that GDR authoritie decided to install a television system that could be compatible with west Germany, to prove that the statement in the book you provided is erroneous. Because I doubt that you read German I could only provide the citation in the Wikipedia Article Broadcasting In Germany, and the citation is as follows: Broadcast system "When television broadcasting started, the GDR chose to use the Western European B/G transmission system rather than the Eastern European D/K system, in order to keep transmissions compatible with West Germany." Therefore, the fact that someone was condemned before a judge because he was watching West German television is wrong, it simply didn't happen because it was something that was done by the government on purpose. The person who wrote the previous statement is right, there were numerous political parties in East Germany, but they only had control in the parliament... but he is right it wasn't as totalitarian as the book has put it. Here is the quote again from the wikipedia article on the politics of East Germany:

"The other political parties ran under the joint slate of the National Front, controlled by the SED, for elections to the Volkskammer, the East German Parliament. (Elections took place, but were effectively controlled by the SED/state hierarchy, as for example Hans Modrow has noted.) In West Germany, the Communist Party was banned.

Christlich-Demokratische Union Deutschlands (Christian Democratic Union of Germany, CDU), merged with the West-German CDU after reunification Demokratische Bauernpartei Deutschlands (Democratic Farmers' Party of Germany, DBD), merged with the West-German CDU after reunification Liberal-Demokratische Partei Deutschlands (Liberal Democratic Party of Germany, LDPD), merged with the West-German FDP after reunification Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands (National Democratic Party of Germany, NDPD), merged with the West-German FDP after reunification The Volkskammer also included representatives from the mass organisations like the Free German Youth (Freie Deutsche Jugend or FDJ), or the Free German Trade Union Federation. In an attempt to include women in the political life in East Germany, there was even a Democratic Women's Federation of Germany with seats in the Volkskammer.

Non-parliamentary mass organisations which nevertheless played a key role in East German society included the German Gymnastics and Sports Association (Deutscher Turn- und Sportbund or DTSB) and People's Solidarity (Volkssolidarität, an organisation for the elderly). Another society of note (and very popular during the late 1980s) was the Society for German-Soviet Friendship.

On March 18, 1990 the first and only free elections in the history of the GDR were held, producing a government whose major mandate was to negotiate an end to itself and its state."

Here it is Ultramarine, and seriously, you can't quote the black book of communism as a reliable source because it is not objective, and from what we just saw, the book you also brought up isn't either. Kiske 22:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You are doing borderline original research here. If are criticzing an academic book, you should at least preferable use another scholarly source. But I have never stated, and not my quotes either, that there was only one party or that it was impossible to recieve Western TV. Here are some statements from another soruce:
 * ''East Germany follows the pattern of the Hungarian, Czechoslovak, and Polish "multiparty" systems in permitting the existence of small parties that accept the leadership of the ruling communist party and are its allies in the construction of socialism. In all cases, the parties merely exist to further the goals of the ruling Marxist-Leninist party and have no opportunity for genuine independent political action. In East Germany, this system is known as the Alliance Policy (Bündnispolitik), and the four parties subordinate to the SED are known as "alliance parties." These are the Christian Democratic Union (Christlich-Demokratische Union--CDU), the Liberal Democratic Party of Germany (Liberal-Demokratische Partei Deutschlands--LDPD), the Democratic Peasants' Party of Germany (Demokratische Bauernpartei Deutschlands--DBD), and the National Democratic Party of Germany (National-Demokratische Partei Deutschlands--NDPD) (see Council of Ministers, this ch.; fig. 10.). In 1982 the small parties registered the following memberships: the CDU--125,000; the LDPD--82,000; the DBD-- 103,000; and the NDPD--91,000. In contrast to the one-party system in the Soviet Union, these smaller parties assist the SED in reaching certain key sectors of the community, such as the intelligentsia, businessmen, and manufacturers who are not members of the SED. Their chief function is securing the support of these groups for the aims of the party and the state and integrating into the socialist system citizens who are critical of the SED or who, because of their social and/or political background, cannot secure or achieve membership in the SED. Although represented in the People's Chamber, the alliance parties do not compete with SED delegates for seats or power.
 * ''The authorities restrict the influx of Western publications, which are available only to government, party, economic, and educational institutions. Publications from Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union are freely permitted but rarely purchased. The electronic media are a different matter. Largely because of the central location of West Berlin transmitters, West German radio and television are received in East Germany, except for the southern mountain regions. Intershops carry decoder attachments required for clear reception of color broadcasts. As a practical matter, it is not possible to prohibit viewing of Western television, not the least because it is a prime source of news and entertainment for the government elite, who are also avid viewers of internationally syndicated United States programs, which are shown with German-language dubbing by West Berlin stations.Television thus promotes awareness of the higher standard of living in West Germany and provides divergent perspectives on world events. Public surveys have shown that East Germans are considerably more familiar with West German politicians than their own leaders. Since the mid-1970s, Western television has become an increasingly important source of news about political and economic conditions in East Germany itself. In late 1971, when Western television journalists were first regularly permitted in East Germany, they gained quick recognition. Some were even approached on the street by East German citizens and asked to do reports on specific issues. The penetration of Western media places a special burden on SED officials. Both the domestic electronic and the printed media continue to practice censorship. Certain kinds of economic, social, and military data are not disseminated, and no statements directly critical of either East German or Soviet leaders are permitted.Ultramarine 22:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I truly understand your points and for once we are agreeing... I know that the quotes are provided are not entirely scholar or anything close to it, but all the sources I have on the issue are written in German and I am not going to translate them because it will take a lot of time... but once again, this issue is something different... I do not want to disagree anymore. But while I am chosing the adequate sources and before I begin translating I have to ask you if you will in fact take the sources from the DDR, Cuba and the USSR seriously, because if you won't I don't want to spend time translating if it is in vain. Kiske 05:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Tell us who the sources are and what books/journals they published in first before doing the translations. That will determine if what they say is notable enough to be translated at all. - Merzbow 07:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Kiske, if you want to can post them in German. I can read them and comment on them, so that you will not toil needlessly. Str1977 (smile back) 00:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Here I have the first source. It is a biography of Stalin I purchased in Cuba. It was published in 1973 in Moscow in the foreign language editions, which was destined to be brought to countries were Spanish was spoken. The book was coordinated by the Department of Foreign Languages of the Soviet government and was prepared by the Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute in Moscow. The book itself never mentions Stalin as a dictator but instead calls him a leader. The first Chapter is called: "The Birth of a Leader". The chapter which expolores him as a person is titled "The Nature of the Leader" and it never labels him as a dictator. The 6th paragraph reads "Stalin turned 50 on December 21 of that glorious year(1929). And he gave himself the best present he could: The Power to serve the people... despite his achievement, success and ability to expand his deeds, he lived in a very simple way..." This is the first source, it doesn't refer to Stalin as a dictator but as a leader, a leader who served the Soviet people. This is one of the views allowed. The second source I will provide is the introduction of a book written by Stalin himself, the biographic introduction (only section of the book not written by Stalin). The title of the book is "Questions of Leninism" and it was published in the USSR in 1941 in Spanish again in the department of foreign languages and the translation is done "according with the las (11th) soviet edition, published by the state's Publisher of Political Literature in 1939." The introduction of the book says: "Joseph (Jose) Vissarionovich Stalin Dzhugashvili, the great leader of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was born on December 21, 1878..." This is the second source that proves there are sides that do not call him a dictator. I am still searching for more, but this is a beginning. Kiske 18:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A propaganda book published by the Soviet Government is not a reliable source. And neither is a book published in 1941 by the Soviet State's political department. - Merzbow 19:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is it unreliable? Because you say that it is? You asked me to provide quotes from books and I did... all my sources are like this, you wanted me to provide information books proclaiming that there is a different point of view in regards to Stalin, I have proved to you that this book exists. Why isn't a book published in 1941 unreliable? Because it is published by a nation that doesn't exist. I have provided reliable truth that a new view exists, and given that I have provided this it is your obligation to present both points of view, because the do exist. Kiske 22:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's been said a million times... sources from 25+ years ago from Soviet or Soviet puppet state government sources do not satisfy the minimal standars put forth in WP:RS and WP:V. Here are quotes from those guidelines and policies that establish standards that your sources come nowhere near meeting:


 * "Has the material been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals."
 * "Items that are recommended in scholarly bibliographies are preferred."
 * "Recognition by other reliable sources — A source may be considered more reliable if another source which is generally considered reliable cites or recommends it."
 * "Historical or out of date sources may be used to demonstrate evolution of the subject but should be treated with caution where used to illustrate the subject."
 * "Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim... Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them."
 * "Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be provided whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources (assuming equal quality and reliability)".


 * And it's not just me who's saying this. We had many people come in from the RFC and the consensus was clearly to keep 'dictator', or to include a pro/con discussion of the merits of 'dictator' only on the condition reliable sources could be found for the con side of the argument. And as of yet, there are no such sources. Whereby we have about half-a-dozen quotes from major, modern historical works on Stalin that reference him as a dictator, clearly establishing a scholarly consensus.


 * If you still don't agree, and I don't suspect you will, then I think it's time to take this article to mediation, in lieu of getting into another edit war. That's the next step before ArbCom, which I really hope this doesn't come to (since it's an enormous time sink). - Merzbow 22:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand you point very well and very clearly. You are right, these sources are out dated, but they can be used to represent the fact that at one point, Stalin was not globally considered to be a dictator and that it is only since the collapse of the Eastern Block that he has been labelled as such by everyone, but that there are many sources before the fall that depict him as a leader. If we do that, I will agree with everything. We can say that Stalin was a dictator, but that in past times he was not considered one. that way we ahere to Wikipedia policies and the sources I provided can be used, as wikipedia says, to provide information on the evolution of the topic. Kiske 00:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The sources you've put forth are Soviet state publications with no academic credentials, so if you want to source them in the article, it should be with something like "Officially, the Soviet State and some of its allies prior to the fall of the USSR painted Stalin not as a dictator, but as a great leader." You could put this in a section titled "Views of Stalin over time", along with other views. But since this is a non-academic view clearly against scholarly consensus, I still see no reason not to label Stalin a dictator in the intro. - Merzbow 01:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You are right Merzbow I'll use my own sources and create a new section in the article titled Views of Stalin over time, in which I will explain that before the fall the Eastern Block and other communist nations didn't portray Stalin as a dictator, but as a leader that served the people. In regards to the dictator label, I konw you have proven to me that a significant majority considers him to be a dictator, but don't you believe that saying it in the introduction turns it into an absolute truth? But nevertheless I agree with you and I will begin to work on that new section Stalin over time... I compromise... but still take the question I posed in the previous sentence seriously, because that is the impression I receive from the introduction of an article. Kiske 18:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This sounds very reasonable to me. Also, although it appears that most historians view Stalin as a dictator, I don't have a problem with keeping it out of the introduction and dealing with that term (and the opposing views) later in the article.  I think the introduction should be as concise as possible.  The sticky details are best addressed at length in the main article. --C33 19:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The introduction is already concise, and this isn't a 'sticky detail', but probably the most important fact about Stalin we need to impart to readers who may go no farther than the introduction. We can add the qualification "(according to modern historians)", with footnotes, to the "de facto leader and dictator" sentence, but that's a far as I'm willing to go. Kiske's sources can be discussed in this new section as agreed above. - Merzbow 19:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. With that in mind, I would be in favor of at least mentioning that he used his control of the communist party is the vehicle for his dictatorial power.  Something along the lines of "according to modern historians, Stalin's control of the communist party made him the de facto leader and dictator of the USSR."  What do you think? --C33 19:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine to me. - Merzbow 23:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me as well, there is just one little detail. If the intro reads defacto leader and dictator then we get into trouble. If it is going to say dictator then it should only say dictator, not de facto leader and dictator, because this gives a great importance to the fact that he is a dictator, which is something we are not really willing to discuss to openly. If we say that we are giving a trait to his reign, so we should just stick to he was the dictator of the soviet Union. And afterwards I will write the section of Stalin's views over time, in which I will discuss the different perspectives surrounding Stalin through time. But again, if we say de facto leader and dictator then it implies that him being a dictator is a universal truth, and we all know that it is not a universal truth. But I still don't understand Merzbow, why do you not compromise and let the introduction say he was the "de facto leader" instead of adding the dictator clause in the introduction; when it will be something that will be discuss further in the article with something like "Views of Stalin". But again, I am opposed that Stalin be called both a de facto leader and dictator, one or the other, not both.

Kiske 00:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with removing the 'de facto leader' part. It's redundant anyways, if someone is a dictator then they are by definition a leader. I'll ask for page unprotection. - Merzbow 01:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me, let's do it. I will get working on the Stalin views over time and will be adding it very soon. I'm very glad we have at last reached a compromise that satisfies everyone. - Kiske 08:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK I've modified the intro. Feel free to add your section whenever you're ready. - Merzbow 23:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Everything discussed by the POV motivated pro-dictator side is a fallacy. Very few if any sources have actually thoroughly analyzed whether Stalin was a dictator or not. A higher number of sources on the likes of Jstor, Proquest, and other scholarly collections yield higher results for Stalin as a leader than as a dictator. Virtually all Russian sources such as Hronos refer to Stalin as "state and party leader". Scholars J.Arch Getty, Robert Thurston debunk the myth of Stalin as an omnipotent figure with complete control over the country by demonstrating the activities of regional party officials responsible for much of the violence in 1937-38. There was no natural position of Party ruler or leader in the manner of ‘Duce’ or ‘Führer’, and technically the Supreme Soviet was the legitimate supreme authority. Khlevniuk argues that Stalin’s ‘power’ in such a structure should be understood in terms of ‘oligarchism’, in which Stalin had a ‘decisive’ interventional role.

Furthermore, until the Great Purges, no single figure was, by himself, more powerful than the others combined. Stalin still relied on the consent of other Politburo members. Stalin’s contribution to the Party’s ‘collective rule’ system ‘inevitably reproduced oligarchic structures of power.’ Indeed, the Politburo itself, drowning in its own attempts to micromanage the Soviet state, constantly engaged in ad hoc ‘hypercentralisation’ with little institutional strategy. With no other paradigm to work within, Stalin replicated this system when reacting to the various policy and political conflicts played out on the Politburo. With the lack of a consensus, you cannot go ahead with putting whatever you like in the introduction.

Dictator vs. Despot
While I'm no expert, I do believe there is a formal definition of dictator rooted in the latin notion of a magistrate formally invested with the powers of a tyrant. If Stalin was never legally conferred these powers, then he may in fact not have been a dictator. However, I believe there is more than enough evidence from the historical record to regard him as a despot - i.e. a ruler exercising absolute power. Is the term despot or despotic ruler more acceptable? Ronnotel 18:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting suggestion, but according to the dictionaries I've checked there is no modern-day requirement that the word 'dictator' refer to an absolute ruler with powers specifically conferred to him. Also, in common usage, it seems like the word 'dictator' seems far more prevalent in application to modern-day rulers - 'despot' is used almost exclusively to refer to ancient rulers. - Merzbow 23:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

According to that definition there would have been no dictator for 2050 years, since Caesar's death. Clearly, this is ridiculous. Str1977 (smile back) 18:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, I already mentioned earler that Stalin was one of revolutionary leaders and Wikipedia does not generally blame revolutionary leaders as dictators. Compare for example Lenin, Kerensky or Oliver Cromwell (who had a special paragraph in the constitution preserving supreme power for him for all his life). I think all the article should be consistent. I tried to mark Cromwell as dictator but was reverted for "POV". I think there exist sources that claim he was a dictator but you hardly find one that say he wasnt.--Nixer 23:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not knowing a huge amount about Cromwell, I'd have to agree he seemed like a dictator to me. I'll take a look at that article and will re-add it if necessary. - Merzbow 23:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Cromwell, An insperational leader which made many changes to England
 * So we are back again, with Nixer shouting Cromwell. If the Cromwell page is wrong, that's another issue. Secondly, why should there be an exception for leaders of so-called revolutions? Do they get immunity? Thirdly, why are you talking about "blame"? It is a description and not a blame. And again, why should revolutionary leaders be immune from blame (if it were blame)? Str1977 (smile back) 23:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking at the Cromwell page, I see this in the intro: "Cromwell is a very controversial figure in English history—a regicidal dictator to some historians (such as David Hume and Christopher Hill) and a hero of liberty to others (such as Thomas Carlyle and Samuel Rawson Gardiner.)" So there are reliable sources on both sides of the issue. This is unlike the case with Stalin - the anti-dictator side still has produced nothing. - Merzbow 00:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Cannot dictator be at the same time hero of liberty? Do the authors who say Cromwell was hero really argue that he was not dictator? I think there are many authors for whom Stalin is also a hero. And as I already said Marxism cannot agree Stalin to be dictator because of theoretical issues. For example, Soviet Encyclopedia defines dictatorship as unlimited by law power of a class over other classes.--Nixer 00:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, Soviet sources are not reliable sources since critics were imprisoned and killed.Ultramarine 17:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course they are reliable... you cannot discard a source solely because of its origins! So let me understand you points, nothing that comes from a Soviet source is reliable right? You are wrong! And I told you before, the book you used before regarding the imprisonment is grossly exaggerating! Nixer is right, and he is exercising the use of the encyclopedia to demonstrate that Marxist couldn't conceive a dictatorship because of ideological differences, and to illustrate this example he used a marxist source which supports a view that is entertained by marxism. Don't be such a radical! Soviet sources may disagree with your views but it doesn't mean that everything they say is false... and again, last time, people were not killed if they spoke against the state! IF that were true everyone in the eastern block would have been in prison or dead. Apart from that I already provided the sources which do not claim Stalin as a dictator, you can check them in the other section of the talk page... enough said, they are Soviet Sources, but they finally proclaim a view you saw as an impossibility and prove that there are sources who don't see Stalin as a dictator. Besides, the sources you use are entirely biased, unobjective and therefore, as a consequence, completely unreliable! You are telling me the black book of communism is objective and reliable?! Of course not! It is as if you were to use an anti-Nazist book to explain Naxism in an objective manner! wrong. Kiske 22:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia follows the views of the current research. Soviet sources are not accepted in academica as reliable since critics could be killed or imprisoned. Lots of people in the were in fact murdered or were imprisoned. You have not presented any academic sources who support your position. On the ohter hand, the Black Book of Communism was written be six leading scholars, several who were former Communists, and is the US published by Harvard University Press.Ultramarine 19:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine has made yet another baseless statement in regard to people being killed for differing views. At the same time, has cited the widely discredited "Black Book of Communism" which uses a wide variety of obsolete and unverifiable sources. In East Germany, except for the aftermath of the June 1953 revolt, capital punishment was largely avoided. 

Alright, look, we can't let an extremely vocal minority mess up this article. According to WP:FRINGE, we should certainly mention what Soviet sources say about the subject, but mainstream history considers Stalin a dictator. TomTheHand 16:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That is just your opinion. Google book search has 1348 results for "Stalin Soviet leader" but only 773 for "Stalin Soviet Dictator". People have still yet to put forth an adequate response to the fact that Stalin was the prime minister from 1941-53.
 * "Stalin Soviet Leader" gives 7 results in Google book search.


 * Lets have a look at this Google scholar serach which is more relevant: . Here are academic work with titles like "Stalin as Leader, 1937-1953. From Dictator to Despot", "Proletarian Dictator in a Peasant Land: Stalin as Ruler", and "Dictators and Disciples. From Caesar to Stalin".Ultramarine 19:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, Ultramarine, you are wrong... I have provided sources that support my claims, but of course, your ideals seem not to accept anything that opposes them, so I will not waist my time explaining them to you. "Lots of people were murdered and imprisoned?" Okay I understand, if that makes you feel like you've won the battle well, then I have nothing to say except for the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about and that the views of the world from behind a bullet proof glass are not really real! The idea you have of what it's like livingin a communist nation is completely distorted, but that can be understood, given that you are living in the most imperialist nation on Earth! Kiske 23:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What source claiming that Stalin was not a dictator? Ultramarine 05:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I already reached an agreement with Merzbow, but the sources I mentioned and quote that support my arguments you can find in the "suggestions" section. The sources proclaim Stalin, not as a dictator, but as a leader who served the people. Regardless of what they say, I have compromised, the introduction to the article will say dictator, but there will be another section which will read "Views of Stalin over time", which I am in the process of creating, in which the different perspectives will be exposed and explained. Kiske 10:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The Oxford English dictionary I have in front of me uses just 2 words to describe Stalin, "Russian dictator". If we were to condense this article to 2 words, well they would be it. Of course a minority of people disagree with that and some are published so the article at some point should recognise the minority view that there is a little controversy over the issue but the article should reflect the mainstream view from the outset. Lets be realistic though, many books are written specifically to be controversial. If I were to write an historic work I'd much more likely be published with a title like "Hitler: Just misunderstood", "Gengis Khan the family man" or "Einstein was a thicky" than with something mainstream hence today we see these intentionally controversial books everwhere,incuding ones that try and Stalin was a nice guy really. --LiamE 15:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That issue has already been worked out and we are in the process of placing it in the article. Nevertheless, your oxford history is completely erroneous just because it says that Stalin was Russian. Stalin wasn't Russian, he was born in Georgia and died in 1953, 38 years before the fall of the of the USSR, which would mean he was a soviet citizen... Oxford should say Soviet Dictator... Oxford is generalizing and using Russian and Soviet as the same words,which of course they are not... your dictionary is completely erroneous and it is away from sources such as those that we should avoid. Kiske 20:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't be so quick. The definition of "Russian" is "adjective Of Russia or more widely the former USSR. noun Native or inhabitant of Russia or the former USSR..." So yes, calling him Russian is perfectly correct. If you have a problem with that take it up with Oxford, but I doubt you'd get anywhere. --LiamE 23:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)