Talk:Joseph Stalin/Archive 17

Possible Error
One of the sentences from the Death section states: The embalming of the Soviet founder in Lenin's Mausoleum was performed over the objection of Lenin's widow, Nadezhda Krupskaya.

This would probably not be possible, did Nadezhda, Krupskaya not die in 1939 about 14 years before Stalin did? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadezhda_Krupskaya

KS 09/25/09


 * If you read that sentence carefully, it is clearly about the embalming of Lenin, "Soviet founder". Could be true, could be wrong, it is unsourced, but nothing to do with Stalin. The confusion was helped by the fact that both had a wife called Nadezhda. Deleted. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 12:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Rosa Kaganovich
"Stalin may have married a third wife, Rosa Kaganovich, the sister of Lazar Kaganovich". Googling for info about this, I was astonished to see that 90% of the sites mentioning this little tidbit are antisemitic. There are a few problems with this assertion:

1) first, the question of how she was related to Lazar Kaganovich. I trust the source used for this sentence says "sister" and most of the antisemitic sites do indeed call her the sister of Lazar, but more reputable sources make her the wife, the daughter (, book review of Krasnaya Pautina) or rather a cousin of his elder brother "Moises".

2) according to this Stalin's daughter wrote in one of her books that she was astonished to read that people in the West had been connecting both her father and herself to the Kaganovich family.

If we return to Khronos (or khrono.ru), all we have on this "affair" is Beria's son claiming that Roza and Stalin never married but did have a son together, called Yuri. And the affair took place during his marriage to Nadezhda. According to Kolesnik, Хроника жизни семьи Сталина. Kharkov, 1990), the rumours about Stalin being actually married to a Kaganovich were started by the Nazis, to imply Stalin was part of a Zionist plot ("Тем не менее, с целью компрометации Сталина в начале войны, немцы сбрасывали на позиции советских войск сотни тысяч листовок, в которых утверждали, что советский Верховный Главнокомандующий является агентом международного сионизма, и в качестве доказательства приводили его родство с Кагановичем."). Hm, that explains what Google now finds about this.

I do not know whether the accusation that the rumours were started by the nazis in this way (throwing 100.000s of leaflets over Soviet lines) is notable enough, but considering what RS write about this so-called third marriage, and considering Stalin's daughter's comments, I think the sentence we now have should be replaced by "Sergo Beria claimed in his biography of his father Lavrenty, that Stalin also had a son, Yuri, as a result of an extra-marital affair with Roza Kaganovich, a relative of Lazar Kaganovich." I do not know whether the following sentence about Russian TV is referenced from the earlier source, but I suppose it can stay for the moment. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 11:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit request
G. M. Malenkov never was the General Secretary, because the post was not filled after Stalin's death. It was not explicitly abolished, but was never mentioned in any published decisions by the new leadership of the Party. Several months later N. S. Khrushchev was appointed First Secretary. Many years later the post of General Secretary was restored and assumed by L. I. Brezhnev. I suggest replacing the name of Malenkov by Position not filled Shmerlson (talk) 10:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve the accuracy of this article. Factual changes like this require some verifiable reliable source to support the change. The articles for Malenkov and Khrushcev refer to them as General Secretary. Can you provide some sources to support changing that? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Need edit frase J.Stalin about his son! Becase in russian it: "Я не меняю солдата на генерала!"(I'm do not exchange a simple soldier for a general!) and never his can't say: "Освободите всех военнопленных и моего сына за одного генерала, или пусть он разделит судьбу всех"! Sense of Stalin's words other! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.102.235.162 (talk) 07:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Stalin was born on December 21st, 1879. Not on December 18th, 1878. Please see cited article. "Joseph Stalin." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 15 Nov. 2009 <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/562617/Joseph-Stalin. Thank you. Arnemetia21 (talk) 03:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

"the Molotov"
In the section named "Implementing the division of Eastern Europe and other invasions" there is a sentence that reads: "(...) Germany presented the Molotov with a proposed written agreement for Axis entry".

Can somebody please remove the "the" in front of Molotov? Viv3210 (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Stalin was born on the 21st December and not on the 18th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.106.86 (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting data at Wikipedia re. 1934 Party Congress
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Kirov#References_in_popular_culture 1934 party congress, where... Stalin received 292 negative votes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin At the 1934 Party Congress... Stalin received 1,108 negative votes. Mrhuevo (talk) 14:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting data at Wikipedia re. 1934 Party Congress
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Kirov#References_in_popular_culture 1934 party congress, where... Stalin received 292 negative votes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin At the 1934 Party Congress... Stalin received 1,108 negative votes. Mrhuevo (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The uncle joe disambiguation link is a redirect.
it redirects here. fix is needed. that is all.

72.93.92.226 (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Seconded. 24.66.190.107 (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Stalin was born on December 21, 1879, NOT December 18, 1878. I have a coin celebrating his 70th birthday, released in 1949, with his birthdate inscribed on the coin as December 21. Any other credible biography on Stalin will confirm this change.

Possible Pedophile?
Recent new information regarding his affair with a 13yo girl is surely of significance and be mentioned in the Personal section. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-454291/Stalin-lover-aged-13.html#ixzz0YlgFHRSd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alamek (talk • contribs) 13:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Birth date error
Joseph Stalin was born on December 21, 1879, NOT December 18, 1878. I have a coin celebrating his 70th birthday, released in 1949, with his birthdate inscribed on the coin as December 21. There are many other credible sources online and in libraries that confirm this as his birthdate.


 * Please see this for the reason.--  fetch  comms  ☛ 04:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If he was born on December 18, the intro paragraph is wrong. It says December 21. 151.203.246.40 (talk) 14:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Wrong height
Correct height is 174 cm. See photo: 

There is phrase in the first line under the photo: "рост. 1 метръ 74 сант." This means "height 1 m 74 cm". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.252.249.2 (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Lotrus (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC) At this video you can see that Stalins's height equal with Churchill's (170 cm). It can't be 160 cm. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybnzMnFEWJY

Famine death toll
In the article in the Famine section there is a citation needed tag for the death toll; however, on this page it states that the death toll was circa 11 Million. In addition, it has a source. Perhaps we should change the current sourceless statement on the article to the statement on the page linked above?--Martin (talk) 04:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure it would be correct. Instead of citing a web site that presents scholars' numbers it would be better to quote these scholars directly. In addition, your proposal is a little bit tricky: "circa 11 million" is the number obtained by Conquest, whose estimations are among highest ones (I talk about serious scientists of course, not about writers of Rummel's kind). Other scholars (Maksudov, Mace, Osokin, Wheatcroft) give lower numbers. In addition, the section is absolutely confusing: unprepared reader will not understand nothing. In addition, I do not understand why Holodomor is placed into a separate section (e.g., as a result, a reader will add five to ten famine victims with 4 to 5 Holodomor victims). Holodomor and other famines should be merged and the section should be rewritten.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

2 Signatures

 * http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/Joseph_Stalin_Signature.svg/180px-Joseph_Stalin_Signature.svg.png
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stalin_Signature.svg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.195.215.130 (talk) 13:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

US propaganda
This article is written by US/Western propagandists, Stalin lead a poor country to became a world super power,the contribution of USSR in the field of Space,technology,agriculture revoution etc were great.comparing stalin with Hitler is not justificing, US leaders killed more people than any other, the first Atom bombs,chemical bombas (agent orange) etc are used by US killed millions.Iraq,Afgan,Viatanam,Korea, Latin America millions lost their life because of american polices. Stalin was a true leader, who single handly defeated the Nazis,The Red armies strugle,sacrifices and victory is everlasting.unlike other he sacrificed his on son,never bowed his head.though some of his actions canont to be justificed.Italic text''== Err Hang on... ==

Dstalin was a sexy man i want to tap that nata from the Russian archives prove that anti-communists like Robert Conquest, Charles Maier and Alexander Solzhenitsyn hugely inflated figures for deaths and deportations in the Soviet Union in the 1930s.

As Professor Richard Overy, Professor of History at King's College London, writes, "For years the figures circulating in the West for Soviet repression were greatly inflated. ... The archive shows a very different picture." (The Dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia, Allen Lane, 2004, page 194.) The archive shows that the total executed between 1930 and 1953 was 776,074. (The figure published in 1990 was 786,098.) The number of those sentenced to prison in those years was 3.85 million. Gabor Rittersporn agreed that Alexander Solzhenitsyn's figures for deportations during the 1930s in the Soviet Union were 'grossly exaggerated'

Most writers on the subject have relied not on the archives, but on Robert Conquest's estimates. But Richard Evans, Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University, has explained how Conquest reached his figures: "Robert Conquest's The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror Famine (New York, 1986) argues that the 'dekulakization' of the early 1930s led to the deaths of 6,500,000 people. But this estimate is arrived at by extremely dubious methods, ranging from reliance on hearsay evidence through double counting to the consistent employment of the highest possible figures in estimates made by other historians." The true figure for the 1930s is about 300,000 deaths.

Professor R. W. Davies wrote, "The archival data are entirely incompatible with such very high figures, which continue to be cited as firm fact in both the Russian and the Western media." (Soviet history in the Yeltsin era, Macmillan, 1997, page 172.)

The American historian Charles Maier stated that Stalin was responsible for more deaths than Hitler. But Evans observed that Maier could only reach this conclusion by accepting "Conquest's implausible and inflated estimates without question, while omitting deaths caused by Nazi aggression in the East (which also, apart from military and exterminatory action, led to famines and deportations). The number of deaths caused by Nazism's eastward drive may itself have been as many as 20 million." (Richard Evans, In Hitler's shadow, Tauris, 1989, page 170.) In fact, to reach his judgement of comparative responsibility, Maier simply omitted all the 50 million people killed in the world war that Hitler started. Signed - stevenjp -Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenjp (talk • contribs) 15:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth does wikipedia insist on the sacred 'non pov' approach for people like Stalin? The sad dedication to 'pillars of wikpedia' which is now a cult for some complete losers, means that it is now against 'policy' to critisise mass murderers- great job guys

Depends on how you choose to view Stalin. You can believe that Stalin was simply the only one in power and he was a sadistic lunatic who enjoyed murdering people for no reason OR you can believe that USSR was in a period of turmoil, those individuals were threats and they were executed in order to keep the country in balance.

Oh what bollocks. 300,000, 6,500,000 - does it matter? Whatever the figure, it's stupid and never ever conscionable. Never. Stalinist apologists are the worst there is. Lots of people died, you dweebs! Does it matter how? No!17:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious how you think the Great Purge was targeted, seeing as how they weren't really random murders...

Unfortunately it becomes clear that the NPOV tag will never be removed, a census will never be met, as the pro-NPOV and the "Death to Trotsky!" types will never agree to let the others article go unchallenged.

Perhaps the proper way to solve this would be to have a fair wikiveteren rewrite the article, after reading the pro-Stalinist material, doing things like rewording such words as 'Dictator', and using the NPOV tactic of writing as the enemy, then of course closing this article once and for all.

I mean would it really be so difficult to replace a word like dictator with:

head of state -noun the person who holds the highest position in a national government: a meeting of heads of state.

??? This article wouldnt be so controversial if you would just do some writing as the enemy, and some really simple re-wording/phrasing. Valeofruin (talk) 07:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Why would we want to replace the word 'dictator'? That is exactly what he was- I agree that we should present the facts and let them do the talking, but if we follow this absurd nopv idea as gospel then the article would not imply that stalinist atrocities were in any way wrong. It has to be made clear that Stalin, and his actions, are today condemned as brutal and opressive. PS Maybe you would like to change the page on genocide as it seems to be a bit to 'anti', im sure your keen to get a neutral non condeming tone (heavy sarcasm). -Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.153.207 (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "It has to be made clear that Stalin, and his actions, are today in the Western countries condemned as brutal and opressive by the liberals." - No, there are plenty of people who disagree with this, and acknowledge Stalin as one of the greatest persons within the communist movement.90.221.232.154 (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't comrade Stalin taught by Jesuit priests? -Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.10.198 (talk) 09:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, so because some group of ill informed, nostalgic, old communist hard liners liked the days of state controlled murder and supression that makes it ok. Those who see Stalin as "a God" aspire to achive his level of bloody control over there own countries. There are plenty of people who agree with the sentiment of the Horst Wessel song in the world, but that does not mean that wikipedia should give equel treatment to such views. -Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.153.207 (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Well Hitler did what was necessary for his country. Most people who become dictators and brutally crush a portion of their country do it for "stabilization". How many people would do it to purposely destabilize the country they rule? But to be so dizzyingly relativistic to make out like he was simply doing what was necessary instead of being a brutal racketeer, a Statist Thug, is to warp reality. So summary executions, gulags, forced famine, brutal suppression of freedom are all a-ok as long as stability is preserved, and your place on top of the heap. Got it. Every tin horn dictator, right and left, has just gotten free license. I would dearly love to see such support over on the Hitler entry. We can all get misty eyed over his appointment by Providence to lead his people. I can agree that elements of the West perhaps have demonized Stalin out of proportion. But one just needs to stick to the dark, thuglike behavior of his rule. It doesn't do us favors to knee-jerk demonize the likes of Hitler and Mao and Stalin. But it stands that they are all brutal mafioso racketeers and purges and massacres are merely sound political tools for such folk. When we excuse any of them we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes. If we don't identify them as human in origin, and sadistic brutes refined from the human population, and instead as some supernatural beasts having dropped from the sky, we are bound to have more such figures in our future.--12.28.101.34 (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's make every person in the world who has committed mass genocide to look like "evil dictators." Truman needlessly bombed two Japanese cities, that had no military importance, killing hundreds of thousands. Bush Sr.'s Iraqi war caused hundreds of losses in soldiers and innocent deaths, and a person like you has probably killed hundreds of innocent children working in sweatshops to produce the very pants you wear. Bastard. (Gotta be civil.) "Hitler did what was necessary for his country." Oh really? I wasn't aware of that. Please show me a few sources that explain exactly why Hitler's actions were all justifiable for the survival of his "empire." Anyways, this debate will always be ongoing, no matter what we NPOVers try to do. By the way, define "bitchlike." ...Ω...  ..¿TooT?....¡StatS!.. 03:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Really, I think the easiest way to handle the neutrality dispute is to more clearly draw attention to the positive aspects of Stalin's rule and his legacy. The intro focuses entirely on the mass executions, purges, and famines (which all require attention) but does not mention the increased gender equality, the rise in literacy and education, or the universalized health care that greatly improved the health and life expectancy of the Russians. Yeah, all of that information IS in the article, but it is tucked away in the back away from all of the emphasis on Stalin's "evil". Value judgments needed to be entirely held aside by the editors because the majority view of the West is not the majority view of the world. ---kinginyellow---

Willski72 (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Current Photograph
I have a few reservations about the lablel under the photo "Stalin photographed ca. 1942"...this isn't Stalin photographed, it's a photograph that has been heavily touched to hide his poke marks It would be better to find an unedited photograph Seektrue (talk) 03:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Not neutral
This article is too anticommunist and "anti-Stalin," I think we need a more neutral point of view. -Preceding unsigned comment added by Kubanik (talk • contribs) 12:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I believe a "Neutrality is disputed" banner is heavily warranted by this article sheer bias against Stalin.Metallurgist (talk) 02:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Neutrality dispute is purely POV, is it disputed that Stalin ordered atrocities such as Katyn? Its like saying that theres bias against Hitler or Mao. Bugguyak (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to defend the actions of any of those men, but isn't the fact that they were tyrants makes it actually more likely that there will be bias in what should be a factual article? 129.241.138.157 (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

religious talk is POV, your statement about satan does not belong here.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 02:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course it POV thats the point of the above discussion, but I removed it and replaced it with a similar analogous personality. Bugguyak (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

i have not even stated whether i support the PROC or ROC yet you jump to conclusions. comparing satan to a human being is totally wrong, considering the fact that we do not know satan's personality, whether he is evil, or just the absence of good, just as darkness is the abcense of light, and coldness the absence of heat.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

hitler was a christian, and stalin studying to become a priest, i think they learned alot of mass murder and genocide from the bible, as it says god supported the mass murder of innocents, and entire races in the old testament......ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

- Hitler was NOT a Christian; he banned Christianty and persecuted the Church. Kentish 28 Oct 08 -Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.26.241.6 (talk) 07:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

--What planet are you on? Hitler banned the church? There's way too much "original research" there -- even for a talk page. 32.178.42.70 (talk) 09:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

and it is also clear that the killings, mass murder, and genocide that stalin, hitler, and god ordered in the old testament of the bible, were deliberate and intentional, while all deaths resulting from mao were a result of failed economic policy.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This article, like most on controversial issues in Wikipedia, is somewhat of a disgrace. Rather than exhibiting a NPOV, it exhibits a POV which oscillates, often sentence by sentence between pro and anti-Stalinist sentiments. For an example of what an encyclopedic entry on Stalin should look like, read the entry in Britannica (or, if you lack access to that, you can search Google for an Encarta entry on Stalin). In the future, I will be avoiding reading Wikipedia articles on dictators (especially those whom ruled countries which still look up to such people: you don't see "controversial" tags on the Wikipedia entry on Hitler, for instance). BFBbrown (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

OK guys, apparently its too difficult for some people to recognize a NEUTRAL article,so for this reason ive taken the liberty of rewording the entire first section, and posting a draft here: http://pastebin.ca/1213777

I can cite relatively biased sources to show the opinions of "supporters of stalin", for those that will call that point out, but i dont think its nessecary considering people have already psoted them on this talk page.

Really its not that hard to make an article unbiased, you can still mention all the points AGANST stalin that you want, all we ask is that you take into consideration the other side of the story, and at least allow some degree of credibility to the Stalinist support. The article mentions extremely biased facts and figures, and uses incriminating words like "Regime" or "Dictator", and gives opinions of 1 specific group of "historians", without even mentioning, yet alone lending a degree of credibility to another more, "Stalin Friendly" camp.

Just re word the article a bit, water down some of the anti stalin opinions, and stop setting figures such as "millions dead" in stone, when they cant be proven, and anyone who tries can be rebutted with equally sufficient evidence.

Im not asking you make a hero of stalin, or even attempt to remove his "villian" status, just tone down the stalin hate just mabe 1 or 2 notches, and leave some food for thought.Valeofruin (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If anything, this article has a pro-Stalin bias. Compare with Hitler where the number of deaths he was responsible for is stated clearly in the lead (whereas here it's buried deep in the text). Being 'neutral' does not mean ignoring facts which some find uncomfortable or giving equal weight to fringe views. The controversy on the death toll you refer to is one between killing 10 million or 20 million people. Either way the phrase "millions dead" is still appropriate. Similarly the words "regime" and "dictator" are accurate descriptions, accepted by all but a minority of scholars. Seriously, there is a "Hitler Friendly" camp out there but that does not mean that the Wiki article on Hitler needs to present their "side" of the story. The same applies here.radek (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Now correct me if im wrong, but last i checked neutrality did in fact require one to take into account all sides of the story.

Suggesting that somehow ignoring the arguements presented by one party is neutrality is simply ignorant. No offense, but mabe you could use a dose of neutrality yourself.

Also the arguement isnt between 10 and 20 million, the arguement is that you cant prove that millions died under Stalin, noone can. The maximum number of deaths possible is disputed between 10 and 20 million perhaps, but the dispute here, make no mistake is whether or not Stalin even killed half a million, or if he even killed anyone at all!

In addition Regime, and Dictator are accepted by all but a minority of scholars, this is true, however the majority of scholars all stand on the same side of this issue, they always have and always will, the other side so happends to be the minority, its not as though theres been any compromise between parties to draw this conclusion. And to put your suspiscion to rest, i would present the same case if the Hitler article came into question.

The reality is the Wiki community picked 1 side of this issue to stand on, the side of the majority, and COMPLETELY shut out the voice of the minority. Thats not neutrality, its just wrong. Valeofruin (talk) 03:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that Stalin was and remains the biggest mass murderer of the 20th Century. That marks him out as one of the most evil characters in history. And thats being neutral. Kentish 28 Oct 08 -Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.26.241.6 (talk) 07:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you look through the Hopelessly POV section you will find the evidences that contradict to your statement.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No Stalin was a good guy- I used to muck out his dacha and he was very nice to old ladies and hamsters and rarely killed anyone at all, unless they happened to look at him in a funny way. I think wikipedia needs definitely in order to maintain credibility to give ample space to the views of complete crackpots who view Dzugashvili as benign Uncle Joe. -Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.55.50 (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Haha! At last someone with sense. And he was also gay!!!


 * I do not think he was gay, he had a wife and kids. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.51.147.97 (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What does Hitler have to do with Stalin?

The only similarity is that they were both dictators and they were mass murderers. I think that NPOV should be maintained but it should not be taken to such extremes that atrocities like mass murder should not be recognized. Stalin did kill people, and it is a fact. And if you refuse to believe that, that is fine, but still, Wikipedia must state facts like Stalin being the mass murderer of the 20th century.--Martin (talk) 01:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Just curious why data from the Soviet archives is so highly praised? Considering there was an active propaganda war during the Cold War era, would a country accurately and aggressively collect data to incriminate itself as a mass murdering regime? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.31.42 (talk) 11:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

belachelijk
Den joseph was ne kerel die kei lang leefde —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.154.22 (talk) 12:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit request
"lead by United States" in the heading should be "led by the United States" 93.139.76.230 (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Done Welcome and thanks. Celestra (talk) 05:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request
Re: "During Stalin's rule the following ethnic groups were deported completely or partially: Ukrainians, Poles, Koreans, Volga Germans, Crimean Tatars, Kalmyks, Chechens, Ingush, Balkars, Karachays, Meskhetian Turks, Finns, Bulgarians, Greeks, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, and Jews."

Romanians should be added to the list.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer_in_the_Soviet_Union

Ethnic cleansing[4] The partial removal of potentially trouble-making ethnic groups was a technique used consistently by Joseph Stalin during his career: Poles (1939-1941 and 1944-1945), Romanians (1941 and 1944-1953), Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians (1941 and 1945-1949), Volga Germans (1941-1945), Finnish people in Karelia (1940-1941, 1944), Crimean Tatars, Crimean Greeks, Kalmyks, Balkars, Karachays, Meskhetian Turks, Karapapak/Terekeme Turks, Far East Koreans (1937), Chechens and Ingushs (1944).

Giubica (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Names in infobox
Are all of the variations of his name really necessary for the head of the infobox? Please share thoughts here. Connormah (talk &#124; contribs) 04:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

ms.berry
this page is boring very do something better now okay thanx please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.6.129 (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

 * Any idea on the exact pronunciation of "Stalin" in Georgian &/or Russian? In brief, is it closer to /stælin/ or /stɑlin/? --Mahmudmasri (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * /stɑlin/. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Lemond23, 16 April 2010
Following the death of Vladimir Lenin in January of 1924 a special election was held via direct vote from the citizens of the USSR to elect the newly created position of General Secretary. Josef Stalin won the election gaining over 50% of the popular vote. Leon Trotsky, who also ran in the election of 1924 voluntarily left the USSR after his campaign was unsuccessful. POOP

Lemond23 (talk) 05:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Assuming the name Stalin
An explanation when and why Joseph Jughashvili assumed the name Stalin and what it does mean (is it "steal"?) is greatly appreciated. Quarconi (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Stalin is a pseudonym.In 1912 Dzhugashvili changed his name to Stalin.Stalin - from word "steel"(in Russian: Сталин - от слова сталь,стальной).Sentinel R (talk) 13:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Great purge info
In this article it says, 'Stalin received 1,108 negative votes' (second paragraph under Purges), while in Great Purge it says, 'Stalin received 292 negative votes' (second paragraph under Background). Which is correct? Tyrannophobe (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.35.171.18, 20 May 2010
Copy editing of the second paragraph as follows:

Stalin further enhanced the New Economic Policy of the Lenin era. His Five-Year Plans brought an era of rapid industrialization of the Soviet Union. Stalin launched a policy of Dekulakization, he thought that Kulaks or the middle class peasants were a threat to Collectivization. Initially, Kolkhoz, or collective farms, did not prove very efficient, and contributed to the Soviet famine of 1932–1933. Stalin tried to cope with the emergency by sending grain to Soviet Ukraine, but by then the famine had already taken many lives.

71.35.171.18 (talk) 03:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks for your efforts. That was a rather badly written paragraph. {&#123; Sonia &#124;talk&#124;simple}&#125; 06:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 76.22.25.102, 29 May 2010
Copy editing as follows:

The first sentence of "Death and aftermath" doesn't appear to belong in that section. It appears to belong in the "The "Doctors' plot"" section immediately above it.

76.22.25.102 (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I want to make a few remarks concerning the following paragraph of the article : Role during the Russian Revolution of 1917 [After returning to Saint Petersburg from exile, Stalin began a revolution by ousting Vyacheslav Molotov and Alexander Shlyapnikov as editors of Pravda. He then took a position in favor of supporting Alexander Kerensky's provisional government. However, after Lenin prevailed at the April 1917 Party conference, Stalin and Pravda supported overthrowing the provisional government. At this conference, Stalin was elected to the Bolshevik Central Committee. After Lenin participated in an attempted revolution, Stalin helped Lenin evade capture and, to avoid a bloodbath, ordered the besieged Bolsheviks to surrender.] 1) Concerning the second phrase of the beginning. a) I copy from the article of Wikipedia “History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union” : “On March 12 [O.S. February 27] 1917, the liberal members of the Fourth State Duma, as the result of a backstairs agreement with the Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik leaders, set up a Provisional Committee of the State Duma, headed by Rodzyanko, the President of the Duma, a landlord and a monarchist. And a few days later, the Provisional Committee of the State Duma and the Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik leaders of the Executive Committee of the Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies, acting secretly from the Bolsheviks, came to an agreement to form a new provisional government of Russia, headed by Prince Lvov. The Provisional Government included Milyukov, the head of the Constitutional-Democrats, Guchkov, the head of the Octobrists and the Socialist-Revolutionary Kerensky amongst others. The Bolsheviks condemned the new provisional government as 'imperialist'.” I think that if one condemns a government as “imperialist”, it is difficult to say that one supports it and, consequently, the assertion that Stalin “took a position in favour of supporting Alexander Kerensky’s provisional government” is not correct. Not correct is also the expression “Alexander Kerensky’s government”. The meaning of this expression is that A.K. was the prime minister o this government. But, A.K. became prime minister of the Provisional Government in late July 1917. b) Stalin himself writes about the political situation : “What, then, is the solution? The solution is to bring pressure on the Provisional Government to make it declare its consent to start peace negotiations immediately. The workers, soldiers and peasants must arrange meetings and demonstrations and demand that the Provisional Government shall come out openly and publicly in an effort to induce all the belligerent powers to start peace negotiations immediately, on the basis of recognition of the right of nations to self-determination…. … only then will it be capable of developing into a mighty political campaign which will unmask the imperialists and disclose the actual motives for the present war. (Stalin, “The war”, 16/3/1917) and “That is not the case in our country. Our Provisional Government arose not on the barricades, but near the barricades. That is why it is not revolutionary. (Stalin, “Conditions for the victory of the Russian Revolution”, 18/3/1917)”. If one proposes to “bring pressure” on a government in order to “make it declare its consent to start peace negotiations immediately”, on a government that one names “imperialist” and organizes demonstrations of the workers the soldiers and the peasants to that purpose, one can hardly be accused of being “in favour of supporting” this government.

2) About the phrase of the article : “However, after Lenin prevailed at the April 1917 Party conference, Stalin and Pravda supported overthrowing the provisional government.” That is not accurate. Lenin, which “prevailed” at the April Conference was not at all of the opinion of the “overthrowing” the Provisional Government. I copy from the famous “April Theses” (Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 24) : “3) No support for the Provisional Government; the utter falsity of all its promises should be made clear, particularly of those relating to the renunciation of annexations. Exposure in place of the impermissible, illusion-breeding “demand” that this government, a government of capitalists, should cease to be an imperialist government…. 4) Recognition of the fact that in most of the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies our Party is in a minority… As long as we are in the minority we carry on the work of criticising and exposing errors and at the same time we preach the necessity of transferring the entire state power to the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies, so that the people may overcome their mistakes by experience.”  I think it is clear : “no support”, but, also, not “overthrowing”, but “criticising and exposing errors” and preaching the necessity of transferring the entire state power to the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies”, that is, persuade the majority of this necessity. Now, one can say that the article describes Stalin’s and Pravda’s attidude and not the one of Lenin’s. But, supposing that Stalin “was in favor of supporting provisional government” and the most radical one, Lenin, at last, “prevailed”, it is evident that Stalin and Pravda could not have an attitude that would be more radical than Lenin’s. To support my opinion, I copy from the Volume 3 of Stalin’s Internet Library : “We are told that the Provisional Government must be supported, that such support is essential. But judge for yourselves: can we, in a period of revolution, support a government which has been hindering the revolution from its very inception?” (“The provisional goverment”, 18/3/1917) and “We are in favour of transferring all power to the revolutionary workers, soldiers and peasants.” (Stalin, Pravda, 21, 24, 26/5/1917).

I did not find a single line of Stalin’s writings supporting the overthrowing of the provisional government. So, I would please the author of the article to present the source of his phrase “Stalin and Pravda supported overthrowing the provisional government.”. 3) About the phrase “After Lenin participated in an attempted revolution”. This phrase must be related to the political crisis of July 1917 and the demonstrations that the provisional government characterized as an armed isurrection of the bolsheviks and an attempt to seize power. I copy from “Lenin, Collected Works, vol.25” : “To refute the lies and slander, we only have to refer again to Listok “Pravdy” of July 6, and to call the reader’s attention especially to the article printed below which gives documentary evidence that on July 2 the Bolsheviks campaigned against the demonstration (as admitted by the Socialist-Revolutionaries’ paper). The article indicates that on July 3 the popular mood exploded into action and the demonstration started against our advice. It shows that on July 4, in a leaflet (reprinted by the Socialist-Revolutionary paper Dyelo Naroda), we called for a peaceful and organised demonstration, that on the night of July 4 we passed a decision to call off the demonstration. Slanderers, continue your slander! You can never refute these facts and their decisive significance in every connection!... The third crisis broke out spontaneously on July 3 despite the Bolsheviks’ efforts on July 2 to check it. Reaching its  climax on July 4, it led to a furious outburst of counter-revolution on July 5 and 6” (“Three crises”, 7/7/1917). In the Vol. 26, in the “Letter to comrades”, also, Lenin writes : “Things are not as they were before April 20-21, June 9, July 3, for then it was a matter of spontaneous excitement which we, as a party, either failed to comprehend (April 20) or held back and shaped into a peaceful demonstration (June 9 and July 3), for we knew very well at that time that the Soviets were not yet ours, that the peasants still trusted the Lieberdan-Chernov and not the Bolshevik course (uprising), that consequently we could not have the majority of the people behind us, and that consequently the uprising would be premature.” It is obvious that Lenin did not participated in no “attempted revolution”, or in “armed insurrection”, but in a demonstration trying to give to it a peaceful character and to hinder it from becoming an insurrection.

4) As for the phrase “(Stalin), to avoid a bloodbath, ordered the besieged Bolsheviks to surrender” it is so false that I wonder to what documents can the author of the article refer to establish its truth! Stalin, the same as Lenin writes in his article “Close the ranks!” (July 15, 1917) : “Neither the Bolsheviks nor any other party called for the demonstration of July 3. More than that, as late as July 3, the Bolshevik Party, the most influential in Petrograd, called upon the workers and soldiers to refrain. But when the movement broke out in spite of this, our Party, considering it had no right to wash its hands of the matter, did all it possibly could to lend the movement a peaceful and organized character”. So, it was not necessary to make efforts to “avoid a bloodbath”. P.S. I apologize for my poor English. Panos193 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC).

Date of Birth
According to the link I posted below, Stalin's birthday was on the 6th of December 1878.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvqNztRYpRc&feature=related

(His DOB is mentioned around the 7 minute mark) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Someguy1228 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Presumably the 6th December quoted is with reference to the old Gregorian calendar which was 13 days behind the modern Julian calendar that replaced it in 1918. The 12 day difference between 6th and 18th December 1878 is because 1900 was a leap year for the Gregorian calendar but not for the Julian calendar.  Recent Runes (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Role during the Russian Revolution of 1917
I see that the quoted passages from the works of Lenin and Stalin are not been refuted. So, may I consider that the afore-mentioned first paragraph of the entity "Role during the Russian Revolution of 1917" can be edited with the purpose to be more close to the truth? Panos193 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.83.235.222 (talk) 09:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Oplap, 7 July 2010
editsemiprotected

For the subject heading "Death and Aftermath": it is believed that Stalin was murdered by Khrushchev and his group of supporters, who also murdered Beria later. This is supported by Yuriy Zhukov (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%96%D1%83%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%AE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87) who is a doctor of historical sciences, senior researcher at the Institute of Russian History in his work "A Different Stalin. Political reforms in the USSR in 1933-1937 years" (ISBN 5-9560-0147-X). This is also supported by Yuriy Mukhin who is a well-known publicist in his book "The Murder of Stalin and Beria" (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A3%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE_%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%B8_%D0%91%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F) (ISBN 5-89747-040-5).

Since Khrushchev's quote is present in the "Death" section, the information above must be present also. Many people still believe that Stalin's death was in the first and best interest of Nikita Khrushchev, and this point of view should be reflected. Thank you.

Oplap (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you have any reliable sources that we'd be able to check? I'm not going to insert this without seeing the sources. I'll leave the request open for another editor to consider. Spigot  Map  18:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 18:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.232.183.227, 10 July 2010
In the section regarding i poitively agree Stalin and religion toward the end of the article, it is mentioned that, in 1943, in an effort to bolster patriotism, Stalin invited three Metropolitans to the Kremlin etc. etc. In fact, Metropolitan Alexei was elected Patriarch. You might check all of your dates with the religious leaders involved. Also, there is no substantive proof that religious leaders were somehow recruited by the KGB, in all cases.

98.232.183.227 (talk) 06:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  AJ Cham  07:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from F902, 10 July 2010
In the article for Joseph Stalin, under the "Hypotheses, rumors and misconceptions about Stalin," it is written "The phrase "death of one man is a tragedy, death of a million is a statistic", sometimes attributed to Stalin,[286] was made by the German writer and pacifist Erich Maria Remarque." First of all, this has no attribution. Second of all, Truman by David Mccollough, published in 1993, says on page 510 of the Google book, (http://books.google.com/books?id=8fp1A2s6aQwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=truman+by+david+mccullough&source=bl&ots=6ceIfmbB5e&sig=MvDECxtptoppJsOl4Y4lUWOXKn0&hl=en&ei=WJo4TNWhJsKqlAfhi8nVBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=tragedy&f=false) that Stalin made this comment to Churchill in Teheran, which is most likely referring to the Teheran Conference of 1943. "Churchill had been arguing that a premature opening of a second front in France would result in an unjustified loss of tens of thousands of Allied soldiers. Stalin responded, 'When one man dies, it is a tragedy. When thousands die, it's statistics.'"

Although this may not be considered completely trustworthy because of the late publishing date, I believe it is worth mentioning in the Stalin article.

F902 (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". When you are ready, re-tag the this section with   Davtra   (talk) 05:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Scientific research of numbers of victims based on the open archives
Many researchers and other have speculated about the number of victims at the Stalin era. After opening the archives the data has been collected and published in for example American Historical Review. For instance an article in October 1993 by J. A. Getty et al. summarize the total number of executed victims between 1921-1953 to 799.455 persons (Ref: http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/GTY-Penal_System.pdf ). Speculations about numbers near 20 millions of dead people is for instance commented by "The bases for these assesments are unclear in most cases and seem to have come from guesses, rumors or extrapolations from isolated local observations. As the table shows, the documentable numbers of victims are much smaller". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.174.102 (talk) 08:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Nationality
The consensus is that Stalin was not an ethnic Ossetian; although there are rumours that he was of 1/4 or 1/8 Ossetian descent, these are unconfirmed. Even if these rumours are true, his ancestry was primarily Georgian and he always described himself as such. So could somebody please remove the description of his nationality as "Ossetian" in the infobox. --Static Sleepstorm (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Somebody repeatedly putting Ossetian into the nationality box. It is certainly incorrect, ethnicity (lets alone nationality tat is even more complicated thing) is a self-describe thing. Stalin certainly considered himself Georgian, any mentioning of a possibility of partially Ossetian origin of him were seeing as a grave offense during his rule. Now we see some references that he might have some percentage of Ossetian blood. Still he certainly was a self-described Georgian, a person with Georgian as a mother tongue, with Georgian culture, membership in Georgian political organizations, etc. He certainly was a Georgian although possibly with some Ossetian roots Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am aware that he considered himself a Georgian. But his father, the Ossetian, as it says in the links. As a compromise offer to indicate nationality - "Georgian, with some Ossetian roots" (without possible).Sentinel R (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

In later years he was refering to himself as "Russian" simply —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.64.234.250 (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Just commenting: Stalin didn't identify as Georgian. By nation, he was "Soviet", a nation which no longer exists. He didn't even identify as Georgian ethnically (he knew perhaps it was a fact, but was embarrassed if anything about that and disliked the nation of his heritage). Maybe he did when he was young. But he rejected membership in the Georgian nation, and often referred to Georgia contemptuously (I believe in King's History of the Caucasus there are a few examples, I remember one where he apparently reversed Lenin's policy of gradually implementing collectivization in the Caucasus, and stated taht for their own good, the Georgians would have to be bent against their will and whipped and bloody, something like that). He also didn't attend his mother's funeral- no matter how bad she was to him, that taboo would ensure he would be outcast in Georgian society (according to Charles King at least). His view of Ossetes wasn't much better either- although he gave them more time to collectivize, he also seems to have believed that they didn't exist as a distinct nation, rather he said they were a primitive "people" (yet at the same time, he didn't have the same hatred of Ossetes that he did of Georgia). He seems to have wanted to be Russian, if anything. He changed his name to a Russian one, and gave his children all Russian names (and very specifically Russian ones too- no Georgian can ever be named "Svetlana", seriously). If anything, by his own personal preference, he was Russian, even if he wasn't born that way, he voluntarily abandoned all things Georgian and made efforts to assimilate. --Yalens (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 76.22.25.102, 29 May 2010
Copy editing as follows:

"At the end of January 1953 Stalin's personal physician Miron Vovsi (cousin of Solomon Mikhoels who was assassinated in 1948 at the orders of Stalin)[229] was arrested within the frame of the so-named Doctors' Plot." This, the first sentence of "Death and aftermath", is misplaced. It appears to belong in the "The "Doctors' plot"" section immediately above it.

My apologies for repeating this request substantially unchanged, but it was never acted on or replied to. I believe it's quite likely that it falsely appeared that it had been, due to the fact that a wall of unrelated text was added directly underneath it the next day in the same section. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Please check that I inserted the sentence in the correct place (diff). Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 00:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. (^_^) It's perfect. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Main photo ? (+ Poll)
I believe that the second image below (B) is more fitting for the main photo of the article, and more closely resembles an official portrait like you would see with other historical leaders on their articles. However, User:Kurzon has continually reverted to the first image (A) stating "great close-up image that shows the details of his face". Thus, rather than continually edit-war back and forth, I wanted to open up the issue for other editors to see if we can reach a WP:Consensus on which image should be utilized ...

(A)  or   (B)

 Please indicate as a reply which image you prefer , and any accompanying rationale? Thanks   Red thoreau  -- (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

- -    Red thoreau  -- (talk) 04:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * B, at the expense of Wp:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, notice the main images used for the articles on other contemporary World War II figures such as Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito.
 * It's a tough call, and my choice is A, because he seems natural there (not looking in the camera, face relaxed). In B he is obviously posing for the shot (though it is not that visible). Granted, B shows a hand gesture and a uniform with only one medal, but this was a rare official meeting. If there is an evidence that the gesture and that uniform (I mean that uniform, not just uniform) were very characteristic of him then I might change sides. (BTW, the Hirohito's shot is very poor for a frontpage - focuses on details, not on person) Materialscientist (talk) 06:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw the reverts on my watchlist, and I have to say that the reason why B bugs me is that it is poorly focused. By comparison A is better; if the focus in B were good I would have no idea which way to go. sonia  ♫  06:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of the official portraits of Lenin are either paintings or airbrushed. This is a very realistic photo.Kurzon (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer image A, and I'm sure if we had a similar one of Mussolini it would replace the one that's been used right now. Närking (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

External Link "Another View of Stalin"
The current link to the article "Another View of Stalin" is a dead link as indicated. A search of the hosting website finds this results page: http://www.plp.org/display/Search?searchQuery=another+view+of+stalin&moduleId=5206563

I suggest replacing the dead link with that link. While the page is a search results page, the original article now seems to be split into 3 separate PDF files. Also, that site demonstrated a tendency to orphan links, so a search result page may be more stable. For what it's worth, these are the 3 PDF links:
 * http://www.plp.org/books/book1.pdf
 * http://www.plp.org/books/book2.pdf
 * http://www.plp.org/books/book3.pdf

Rendallren (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Stalin is a criminal
On January 13, 2010 Stalin along with the other members of the Bolshevik regime was finally recognized as the political criminal. That fact was finalized by the Courts of Appeals in Kiev. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you will take into account the fact that there was no defense, the decision is not legal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.238.237 (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Revisiting Main Photo - Version 2.0
I have uploaded a new image. Please indicate below which image you believe is more fitting for the main photo of the article.

(A)  or   (B)

 Please indicate as a reply which image you prefer , and any accompanying rationale? Thanks   Red thoreau  -- (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * (B) - I believe it is more fitting for the main photo of the article, and more closely resembles an official portrait like you would see with other historical leaders on their articles.   Red thoreau  -- (talk) 03:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Except there is no way he can have post-1943 insignia in 1930. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.139.195.92 (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * IP 79, what part of his insignia is "post-1943" (and what are you basing this assertion on)? Life Magazine gives the date as January 1, 1930 - although I can't vouch for certainty - since I wasn't there ;o).   Red thoreau  -- (talk) 03:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, this new photo looks airbrushed. Look at Stalin's cheeks: they have erased his smallpox scars. I prefer the most realistic photo possible.Kurzon (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Kurzon, a few issues. (1) Are we operating under the assumption that political figures in their official portraits don't get air brushing, because nearly all of them do. (2) "Realistic" is an interesting choice of word. I wonder if we could get away with using those "unflattering non-makeup tabloid photos" for most famous individuals as their info box image? (3) Are you sure that in this case you don't prefer the most unflattering picture available? Many people rightfully revile Stalin, but that doesn't mean that we should try and find the most close up, small pox scarred photo of him as an older man for his official first photo (having a photo of his small pox scars in the article itself however would be worthy of inclusion). (4) Stalin usually appeared in a military uniform and hat, so why would we depict him here dressed as a civilian?   Red thoreau  -- (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * + Kurzon, + what is the date of the photo you prefer? On its description page it lacks nearly any details about even when it was from, and thus has no caption in the info box. I guess you could use the caption ~ "the ugliest known close-up photo of an old wrinkly Joseph Stalin, look at how hideous this guy looked!".   Red thoreau  -- (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * http://www.life.com/image/50475159
 * This is my favorite image of Stalin. Too bad it's copyrighted.  Perhaps OTRS could negotiate its release under CCA?Kurzon (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request by Justus Maximus, 5 October 2010
Death and aftermath:

(1) On Stalin being afraid of Beria: ”Stalin was ‘afraid of Beria’, thought Khrushchev, ‘and would have been glad to get rid of him but didn’t know how to do it.’ Stalin himself confirmed this, sensing that Beria was winning support…”. Simon Sebag Montefiore, Stalin, 2003, p. 548. Cf. Nikita Khrushchev, Khrushchev remembers, 1971, pp. 250, 311.

(2) On Beria spitting at Stalin: Simon Sebag Montefiore, Stalin, 2003, p. 571. Justus Maximus (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 90.200.143.6, 5 October 2010
Please change Joseph Stalin to Josef Stalin; The wikipedia spelling is incorrect.

90.200.143.6 (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This has been discussed several times in the talk pages (see the archives) and has been agreed on Joseph. Thanks, Stickee (talk)  22:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Wordage
How come this atricle uses the words communism and socialism when by definition, communism means no government and socialism means government control for the best of everyone. Just because he calls himself these words means that is what he is? --24.94.251.190 (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request by Justus Maximus, 16 October 2010
I request the following changes to be made in the section Death and aftermath:

(1) On Stalin being afraid of Beria:

”Stalin was ‘afraid of Beria’, thought Khrushchev, ‘and would have been glad to get rid of him but didn’t know how to do it.’ Stalin himself confirmed this, sensing that Beria was winning support…”. Simon Sebag Montefiore, Stalin, 2003, p. 548. Cf. Nikita Khrushchev, Khrushchev remembers, 1971, pp. 250, 311.

(2) On Beria spitting at Stalin:

Simon Sebag Montefiore, Stalin, 2003, p. 571. Justus Maximus (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: You appear to have been here long enough to be autoconfirmed and able to edit this article. Celestra (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok then. I've included the missing references. Justus Maximus (talk) 13:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request: a factual error about invasions
"Soviet invasion of Poland, Finland, the Baltics"

Which isn't true: He tried to invade Finland but failed. Managed to grab about 100 kilometers of land from south-eastern Finland (Karelia) but that was all. Very different from that what happened to Baltics and Poland. Sloppy writing, I'd say, any history book would have told that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.248.253.138 (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 97.117.38.34, 9 December 2010
Joseph Stalin was Born on December 21st 1879 not on December 18, 1878 that is posted on here, so if you could please change this so that it will be correct, if you would like proof of his correct birth date, here are a few sites that prove this: 1. www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSstalin.htm. 2. www.pbs.org/redfiles/bios/all_bio_joseph_stalin.htm. 3. www.bbc.co.uk/history/.../stalin_joseph.shtm. 97.117.38.34 (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read note No.2 in the article. It says that 21 Dec is what he wanted to be his birthday, not what it actually was. Materialscientist (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Typo: "that result in" [should be "that resulted in"]
...a large raid on a bank shipment in the crowded Yeveran Square that result in the deaths of 40 people
 * Fixed. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Typo under the heading "Questionable tactics"
It reads "After taking around 300,000 Polish prisoners in 1939 and early 1940,[177][178][178][179][180] 25,700 Polish POWs were executed on 5 March 1940, pursuant to a note from to Stalin from Lavrenty Beria"

Should read: "After taking around 300,000 Polish prisoners in 1939 and early 1940,[177][178][178][179][180] 25,700 Polish POWs were executed on 5 March 1940, pursuant to a note to Stalin from Lavrenty Beria" [the word "from" should be deleted.] Diesot (talk) 13:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Corrected. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Birth date
Is the confused birth date quite simply the result of Stalin wanting to portray himself as a) a year younger than he actually was, and b) born auspiciously on the winter solstice, when he wasn't, and is this clear evidence of his own part in his own personality cult? And are simple, original observations of this kind to be dismissed (as they have been before on Wikipedia) as 'original research?'--86.31.105.33 (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's OR. Unless you can find a valid source that definitively states the reason for changing the date, it's pure speculation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, but it's still an unusual anomaly which perhaps deserves mention(?).--86.31.105.33 (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Article length
Sure there is a lot of information about stalin, but isn't it inefficient to try to cram it all into one article. WP:SIZE has some guidelines on article length. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Dzhh.

 * A frightened Lozgachev asked Stalin what happened to him, but all he could get out of the Generalissimo was unintelligible responses that sounded like "Dzhh."

This is from the article, and I don't get it. Is it really encyclopedic to include what sounds people make when they're dying, especially in this manner? 89.27.21.40 (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the text does not look very respectable to Stalin. Still I see a few reasons to keep it. Firstly, there are plenty of urban legends regarding the 5 March events. A first hand account by Lozgachev is useful. Secondly, somehow ironically the death of Stalin was caused by the paranoid security: despite having hundreds of people in the house he was left without any medical attention as the people were affraid to interfere. Thirdly, the last words of the dictator are somehow notable (and there are subjects of urban legends as well). Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Who cares if it's "respectable to Stalin" or not?

Wikipedia does not require respect either for mass murderers or dictators. Articles must be written according to Wikipedia policy, not out of "respect" for mass-killers of innocent people.

Telemachus.forward (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yerevan Square
There is a broken link referring to Yerevan Square, now known as Freedom Square. Article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Square,_Tbilisi talk 22:00, 15 February 2011
 * Yerevan Square redirect works fine, there was a typo in the text. Fixed Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Name translations ?
User:Kurzon has reverted my removal 3 times now, and so I wanted to provide him a place to provide his rationale (and for other editors to chime in with their views) for why it is essential to include Stalin's name in 5 different translations. Currently, above his main photo it states:

Now, I am have not seen any Wiki based precedence for this sort of practice, and I believe that it does not enhance the article, but rather might confuse a potential reader. Kurzon, why do you believe we should include 5 translations, and why these? No word yet on Stalin's name in Sanskrit or Egyptian Hieroglyphics. Red thoreau -- (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A comment: what is written above is 3 different names of that person, in three languages (English, Russian and Georgian) and the last two have their English transliterations. This information is important, but I don't know where it suits best in the article. His original name იოსებ ბესარიონის ძე ჯუღაშვილი is in Georgian, which conventionally should be included, with its English transliteration (as few people can read Georgian). Иосиф Виссарионович Сталин is another name, which he chose for most of his life. It is again transliterated because not everyone reads Cyrillic. Joseph Stalin is how he is called in the English texts. (but is not his name, actually) Materialscientist (talk) 04:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I find its better to put these non-Latin names in the infobox, because jamming them into the paragraphs makes it difficult to read and maintain the main text.Kurzon (talk) 08:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems to be quite inconsistent with other articles, where names in original languages are provided in the article itself not in infobox, and without transliterations. Furthermore there is no link or other info about what languages are those 5 mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.130.15 (talk) 23:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for my English. May be it's better make the beginning like in russian versions: "Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin (real surname - Jughashvili, in russian - Иосиф Виссарионович Сталин (Джугашвили), 18 December 1878[2] – 5 March 1953). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.16.215.122 (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, the correct english spelling of stalin's first name is Josef, not Joseph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeyman479 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Any politician who uses an alias has got to be a bit dodgy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.75.103 (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Both versions, Josef and Joseph Stalin, are used in English: e.g. R. J Crampton's (1994)book "Eastern Europe in the Twentieth Century - And After" uses "Josef", whereas "Joseph" can be found from the Eric Hobsbawm's ((1995) "The Age of Extremes - 1914-1991". Perhaps someone with more knowledge of romanization of Russian or transcription and transliteration could help; in general, what is the standard for wikipedia when translating names? Nam31ess (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The only criterion is dominant usage in English-speaking literature. Some utterly ridiculous transliterations are kept on wikipedia only for this reason. Materialscientist (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * well, that's an interesting criterion - Joseph is probably correct then, ... [] Nam31ess (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Coming to this thread a few months late, I have to say that I laughed heartily at the original post. I'm a bit dumbfounded as to why anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the man who was Stalin would ever legitimately question the inclusion of his names in Georgian and Russian. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Falsified photo (should be replaced by original)
The photo showing Stalin, Lenin and Kalinin is truncated and moreover several people where deleted (see discussion here: ).

It should be removed or replaced by original one (see for instance the modification done here: ). --Porkipic (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it your contention that the picture is intentionally deceptive? Maybe the cropped photo was simply to focus on these three guys? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The photo was not only cropped but two heads have been deleted (one replaced by the documents of Lenin, the second by Stalin's channel). And the clothes of people behind have been deleted too. (The best quality (but copyrighted) original picture is here: and a comparison pointing some of the deletions is here:  ). The picture, deliberately, looks as if the three guys were posing to have a photo of them three, as if they were specially close, in order to suggest (without stating it explicitely) that Stalin was the heir chosen by Lenin (or at least the natural heir). But I challenge anybody to find such a photo in reality (not cropped and with nobody deleted). Maybe one would argue that it is only my opinion that the photo has been deliberately falsified. But since the original one is available on wikipedia's common, why should we keep this at least controversial and misleading one ? By the way, significantly this picture has been imported in wikipedia from a russian neo-stalinist website. --Porkipic (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest to use this wikipedia commons' picture with the following legend: "Stalin among other participants to the 8th Congress of the Russian Communist Party, 1919."--Porkipic (talk) 11:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. I retained the part of the caption that lists the 3 guys in the middle. Is there a source of the names of all the mugs in the photo? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * These names are listed in wikipedia commons' description of the photo, but I don't know the original source for this list. Personally I would not have added the other names (but it's up to you), for the following reason : on this picture are 20 participants out of the 403 delegates at the congress (including 301 with vote rights) according to wikipedia's article (I did not check). Who are those 20 ? The guys being here at that moment by chance ? Or do they represent anything ? I don't know... But on the photo, only 2 members (Lenine and Stalin) out of 8 of the Political Buro of the Party at that time are present. So the 20 guys here are not the 20 "VIPs" at that time. Is it by chance or is it meaningful that Lenin and Kalinin are on this particular photo ? I don't know. Is the presence of Kalinin more worthy to mention than the one of Joffe, Ryazanov or Badaev, for instance ? The names of all the guys are on the commons' description if needed. Lenin can be recognized anyway. This is a article on Stalin and I (we ?) have no idea if the presence of Lenin (and Kalinin) on this particular photo is significant or not.--Porkipic (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Psycopath (Sociopath)
The fact that Stalin was a sociopath incapable of feeling compassion for others should be the basis of a section in the article. There are numerous quotes from him commenting on his lack of any feeling for others taken years before he ever rose to power. The fact that he was a sociopath (also referred to as 'psychopath') is the single most important fact about his life, and about his history as a leader. It is not periphrial, it is not anecdotal, it is central to his story.

24.8.177.59 (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Stalin was absolutely normal psychologically. Nobody has ever proved otherwise, and we have nothing serious on this ridiculous POV but speculations or quotes from personal enemies of Stalin, like Khruschev. Grey Hood   Talk  22:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Historical figures who knew Stalin have described him fairly uniformly as domineering, Machiavellian, devious, manipulative, vindictive, and paranoid, a picture which is fairly consistent across the field of reminiscences. However, whether any of these traits rose to the level of any psychiatric disorder is almost certainly not an answerable question now, and in any case those in a position to describe him generally had strong motives to revile him and/or distance themselves from him. It's going too far to say that he was a sociopath, and it's also going too far to declare that he was 'absolutely normal psychologically' (whatever that phrase may mean).  What we do know is that he was human, and any of the traits I mentioned may well have been either appropriate responses to, or preconditions for prevailing in, the particular environment of the upper echelons of the CPSU in the early part of its history.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.107.160.80 (talk) 03:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, sociopathy is totally not the same thing as psychopathy MemoryLapse (talk) 04:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyone with training in psychology who reads about his childhood, adolescence and early adulthood will see all the signs. Young Joseph Stalin was witnessed saying on many occasions that he "had almost no feelings at all for any other human being", and often admitted that he was obsessed with power. Having little, even no, feelings for other people is a major indicator of clinical sociopathy.

Yes he was a sociopath. And sociopaths should be more widely understood and discussed, because they are so terribly dangerous when they move into politics or other positions of power.

Refusing to look at, identify, or recognize sociopaths is one of the main things that allows them to gain positions of power and wreak destruction on innocents for years on end.

Telemachus.forward (talk) 01:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please stop this debate of Stalin's psychology. Provide reliable sources or take the debate to a blog. BashBrannigan (talk) 04:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Sociopathy and Psychopathy are, for the most part, the same thing. It's media that has morphed both words from their original meanings, and have associated them with serial killers. Both words imply someone who does not feel compassion towards other human beings. Sociopathy is not a realm of absolutes. It's not "is he, or is he not?", rather it's "of what degree?". Debating whether Stalin was a sociopath or not is nearly pointless. There are no reliable sources to prove whether he was or wasn't. That being said, he very likely was a sociopath. Sociopaths are a lot more common than a lot of people may think, and may account for up to 2% of the total population. A vast number of past leaders have various degrees of sociopathy. Being a sociopath makes it much easier to obtain power, so it's only natural.--DeaTh-ShiNoBi (talk) 08:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 80.2.53.78, 7 April 2011
Just before the reference to note [158], replace 'tabled' by 'opposed' or similar: in English English, unlike Anerican English, 'tabled' means 'put forward for discussion'.

HuPi (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Done Good call! I didn't know that! &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 23:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't know either, and believe "tabled" was just a wrong verb there no matter what spelling was used. Materialscientist (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Georgian not Russian
Should it not be added he was a Georgian-born? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeordieWikiEditor (talk • contribs) 21:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It already says that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't at the start it doesn't say he was Georgian-born just later further down he was born in Georgia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeordieWikiEditor (talk • contribs) 01:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why does it matter? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Many people consider him Russian when he was not Russian nationality or ethnically and it is on the other key historical figures like Hitler and Napoleon nationality wise both Austrian-born Corsican-born therefore it should be added on here to Stalins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeordieWikiEditor (talk • contribs) 15:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The article makes it clear that he's not Russian. Meanwhile, are you trying to claim him for Georgia more prominently? I wouldn't think you'd want to brag about that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Why not? I'm not Georgian myself but I think it should be at the top he's Georgian-born because why should somebody have to read the whole article to find out he's not Russian when going by nationality people know straight away Hitler or Napoleon was not German or French but Austrian and Corsican, but Hitler was German by ethnicity, Naploleon was Italian by ethnicity and Corsica came under French control a year before he was born so he would have been French-Corsican and if you google Stalin he is considered "The greatest Russian of all time" putting Georgian-born and Wiki coming up on first page of google search can make people clear he's not Russian without reading the whole article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeordieWikiEditor (talk • contribs) 20:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not? Well, if I were a Georgian, I wouldn't be all that eager to claim and embrace one of the world's most notorious mass-murderers. But at this point the biography experts need to step in, as I'm not sure what the policy is, if any. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7802485.stm Totally wrong, adding it would make people know he isn't Russian without the b.s of reading the whole article. It is on other historical leaders wo why not Stalin? Add Georgian-born — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeordieWikiEditor (talk • contribs) 23:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There are at least 13 direct and indirect mentions of his Georgian roots (including references to his name in Georgian, as well as mentioning his ethnicity in the box, birthplace etc...). Why are you so desperate to emphasize it?--Yalens (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

All other major historical figures do, so why not?--GeordieWikiEditor (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Goldman8073, 22 April 2011
edit semi-protected I believe there is an error in this when it states that Kruschev succeeded Stalin. I think Malenkov succeeded Stalin for 2 years then it was Kruschev. Goldman8073 (talk) 09:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * After Stalin's death, Malennkov became Premier of the Soviet Union (for 2 years) and Khrushev became General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which was a superior position, I believe. Materialscientist (talk) 10:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Wrong birth name?
According to here and here Stalin was born Joseph Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili, not Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili (what it says in the article). Am I missing something here? &emsp;← 19:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Two of his childern are last named Dzhugashvili as well.(the other two are named after their mothers)meitme (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Birthdate
According a BBC biography online his birthday is December 18, 1879, not December 18, 1878
 * See note 1 in the article. Materialscientist (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

libel info of Stalin being a "heavy drinker".
That's a myth created during Cold War as an tool to demean Stalin's image. Note Stalin's workability was tremendous, even at age 62 he bore the main grunt of anti-nazi war; Stalin's erudicion surpassed that of Roosevelt and Churchill, he used to read about 500 pages as a daily norm, learnt a few foreign langusges and left a rich heritage in the filed of political science. No heavy drinker would have been capable of doing that. There is numerous positive memoirs of Stalin by western politicians and other influential people that come to stark contradiction to the above-mentioned image " of a heavy drinker". Not to say that this " heavy drinker" managed to live as long as age 74 through a VERY tough life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.148.5.4 (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. Of course Stalin wasn't an alcoholic of any sort. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

To me it appears completelly biased. 'Heavy drinkerer' I say about someone, who can't resist the temptation of being drunk and always carries the bottle of wine with him, not someone who will drink the glass of wine when he/she goes to bed or will be in a state of middle to high drunkness during the party. If the others is true then most of the high school students are in fact alcoholics..188.230.132.58 (talk) 14:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Why no Cyrillic?
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it standard to give a person's name in the language/alphabet they would've used if it differs from the standard English version? Why isn't that done here? 23:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.98.178 (talk)
 * Take a look at the information box on the right. I see both Russian and Georgian. Graham Colm (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

D'oh. OK, I just for some reason thought it was standard to put it in the main body of the text, right after the first mention of their name. But I guess that would be redundant if it's already there. 14:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.98.178 (talk)

Caption for the second image
I believe the caption for the second image has a typo, "Young Stalin, circa 1894, age 16, and Ioseb in his mid-twenties, c. 1902." Should the word "Ioseb" be changed to "later"? 70.99.188.70 (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)Steve, 7/19/2011

No, because "Ioseb" is the transliteration of his Georgian first name. --Spiff666 (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Stalin's organ
Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: The so-called Stalin's organ, Kaćuša, were in World War II against Nazi-fascism more effectively than the Vatican organ, and all the prayers.85.114.62.130 (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine. Do you have any source?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ Hey it's me I am dynamite 17:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It is my conclusion. Giancarlo Kravar.93.137.39.81 (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Introduction needlessly discusses (praises) Trotsky
Why does the introduction to this page discuss and praise Trotsky so much? For someone who is extremely familiar with this subject, it is a little irritating to see Wikipedia degraded like this. Earlier versions of this page had a better introduction. I feel the introduction really cannot argue to be an unbiased presentation of fact, but has been hijacked by people with an agenda. I acknowledge Stalin was not the nicest of people (partly the reason for my fascination with him and also probably equally relevant to why he was so effective), but Wikipedia should refrain from such embarrassingly one-sided presentation of what *actually* is relevant. Whether some people view Trotsky as the wronged saviour of the perfect system (which I dispute), this page should present what actually was the case. If you praise Trotsky to such an extent, then why not praise Kamanev, Zinoviev and Bukharin. In reality, when viewing this subject from a dispassionate perspective, Trotsky should only qualify for the briefest (I would argue verging on none) mention in the introduction. I'm not going to propose an edit, but I hope those with an understanding of this subject can see fit to present this subject in a more accurate light. So many pages from 20th century history link to this page. To have such significant mention of Trotsky in the introduction is simply not justified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethnk (talk • contribs) 23:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

re lead + mention of birthplace
Another user, User:GeordieWikiEditor, is insisting on including "Georgian-born" at the beginning of the lead. This article has an unusually long lead, but then there's a lot to say about this person. There's a lot of info here for the reader to process and I don't think "Georgian-born" is a key point (I also surmise that User:GeordieWikiEditor may be Georgian and there is special pleading going on here.)

Looking at other foreign-born leaders, Napoleon's article mentions his birthplace only in the second paragraph, Alexander Hamilton's only in the fourth paragraph, but Hitler's is right up front. So I don't know. I haven't reverted this a second time, but I'm opposed to it, although it's not a key matter either way. At any rate, I think that User:GeordieWikiEditor should make his case here (I have invited him to do so), and failing that I think that reverting would be in order. Herostratus (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. The addition to the lead sentence needs a explanation. meitme (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, some people don't know this fact at all, although it appears to be quite important for the understanding of the Bolshevik revolution. Many prominent Bolsheviks in fact belonged to ethnical minorities, which were discrimintated against in the Russian Empire, such as Georgians, Armenians, Poles and Jews. Another thing is, Stalin's accent was quite accute and clearly identified him as a non-native Russian speaker.

On an unrelated note, Lenin died of a stroke, not a heart attack. Can somebody with an account correct that? 83.149.3.175 (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I remember "Georgian-born" used to be there before. I am Georgian and I have a "special pleading" about that:)) The facts are: he was born and raised up in Georgia. Unfortunately, we can not change those facts. I would be very pleased if you can somehow hide this even on whole page. He was a devil and devils do not need a special birth place. Let he be soviet, Russian or whatever but not a Georgian! :) --Fotoni (talk) 10:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a tendency to blame Stalin on the Georgians and Khruschev on the Ukrainians, that is:
 * don't blame the Russians for the Soviet legacy, also stated as (more vitriolic, and my sincere apologies in advance)
 * F**K the post-Soviet anti-Russian nationalist Georgians and Ukrainians, they gave us Stalin and Khruschev.
 * If Stalin's place of birth is not culturally material, then, frankly, it doesn't belong in the lead. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Stalin height
The article appears to be biased and incorrect in several ways for instance for Stalin height it states: While photographs and portraits portray Stalin as physically massive and majestic (he had several painters shot who did not depict him "right"),[287] he was only five feet four inches high (160 cm).[287] (President Harry S. Truman, who stood only five feet nine inches himself, described Stalin as "a little squirt".[288]"

About his height, which the article describe as 160cm is just incorrect. Several pages and historical record give his height at 173&175cm, other give him just 168cm, but is probably more than both. For instance I myself am 180cm, I was one of the shortest in school and am still shorter than most of the peoples.. I don't know where you found that his height was just 160cm...

When looking for Stalin photographs, appears nor short nor high and that includes the photos in Jalta conference and others. When looking for Lenin Stalin photos, Lenin looked considerable shorter than Stalin and Lenin was considerable shorter than anyone around him stooding just 5'5.

About the Harry S. Truman remarks, please don't jump right into conclusion that this remarks were anything about the Stalin height, the word 'little' could describe a lot of things here. 188.230.132.58 (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've heard this picture states Stalin's height, though not knowing the language I can't really verify it myself.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stalin%27s_Mug_Shot.jpg 88.112.213.244 (talk) 10:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It says 1 m 74 cm. Materialscientist (talk) 11:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So, 5 feet, 8&frac12; inches. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Stalin's birthday debate
Hello I took many classes on Stalin and we talked about his birthday dispute. On Stalin's School Leaving Certificate it says he was born on Dec. 6, 1878. People think that stalin changed his birthday to another date to make himself younger, to the peoples eyes at least. I will put some links that talk about this dispute. I'm not saying to change his birth day but to put in that theres a dispute over it. On an A&E TV show called Hitler and Stalin the roots of evil they mention this dispute, you could look it up on youtube but you'll have to watch the whole thing because I don't know when they say it but I do know they say it because I've watched it before.

Links

 * http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2004/07/googling_for_pr.html


 * http://state.rin.ru/cgi-bin/persona_e.pl?id=4140&id_subcat=6&r=8


 * http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Stalin,_Joseph


 * http://www.hubertlerch.com/modules/Stalin_Childhood_and_Youth.html


 * http://books.google.com/books?id=3KTO9ZEsAP8C&pg=PT11&lpg=PT11&dq=stalin's+School+Leaving+Certificate&source=bl&ots=Zczl8ELJMF&sig=zHzthEIL2qqo91GwHjXtDIQ9w-E&hl=en&ei=0s9PTvbbJNK80AGj0fnoBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=stalin's%20School%20Leaving%20Certificate&f=false (Page 12)

Note: Stalin changed his name and birthday many times when he got taken in by the Czar's army. --Frankonno (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There is also the likelihood that Stalin made the change to obfuscate his temporary association with the Okhrana. Some would say speculation on both counts. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Name
His correct name is Joseph Vissarionovich Djugashvili as it was his official name on his sovyet identification papers and at the tiflis school seminary where he graduated from and at the gori municipality where he was born. so i dnt understand why people put his nickname stalin for the title of the article. It should be Joseph Djugashvili, this is the correct one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehrnia (talk • contribs) 14:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * NO. The common name in English (let alone world-wide) is STALIN. Wiki policy dictates the use of that name. HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Association with the purges and holodomor
While Stalin may have had more political power after 1939 due to the cult of personality, he had no more power than a nowadays president before 1938. The Ferbuary-March Plenum of CC CPSU in 1937 led to the creation of Troikas that had legal authority to convict without a trial. Three members of Troika would judge an individual based on gathered testimonies, no lawyer would be present. This may be called "repression" under certain circumstances, which is debatable, but that's not the point.

The majority of CC CPSU voted for this and they had more political power than Stalin. So how come it only says that Stalin executed, persecuted, etc... And the sources are books written during Cold War era, on grants from USA. Or the sources are from "unstable" writes who name their books like "Lenin, Stalin, Hitler", placing Lenin, who, even according to wikipedia, was one of the greatest minds of the 20th century, placing him on the same line with Hitler. Many people hate communism, fine. But citing those authors is giving their biased POWs. I can't go and read every book that is cited to debunk it, and even if I did, my edits would be canceled later.

Same thing about the Holodomor part of the article. Only the theory that it was man made is talked about. Not a single word of a huge drought. The theory that it wasn't at all man made isn't even discussed there, it's just said that it exists.

The article about Stalin is very biased.

1- So what are we going to do about that? All articles say that Stalin orchestrated the Great Purge, when it was actually the "parliament". 2- How did wikipedia come to this, that this widespread historical misconception has lodged itself into so many articles?

BesterRus (talk) 11:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should support the point of view expressed by the majority of reliable sources. But if this point of view is outdated or inaccurate in some parts, it could and should be fixed. If some decisions were taken by CPSU rather than by Stalin, the relevant places of the article should be corrected. The significant points of view found in modern publications and public polls also could be inserted into the article, alongside the already presented viewpoints. As for the Holodomor, there is a current discussion about it here: Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor. You may take part in that discussion if you like. And of course, if you have some concrete proposals to change the text of the Stalin article, and new sources to add, please feel free to suggest them on the talk page or just edit the article per WP:BOLD. Grey Hood   Talk  14:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

To "The majority of CC CPSU voted for this and they had more political power than Stalin.", this contention regarding power is utterly false. Stalin rose to power via his controlling role as general secretary, an office which he transformed into party leader. By 1929 he had already outmanoeuvered the opposition, at which point the (purged) CPSU began its decline in relevance to the point of becoming superfluous. Indeed, Stalin had little use for either the Central Committee or Politburo. The CPSU only recovered after Stalin's death, under Khruschev, who de-Stalinized "Stalin's" accomplishments into the "Party's" accomplishments. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is abundant historical evidence that Stalin personally ordered the Purges and the confiscation of grain (which was one of Holodomor reasons). This is written in almost any modern book on the subject. Biophys (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Strangely, there are hardly any publicized historical documents which directly support what is written in so many modern books about Stalin. There is no document where it is written "I, tovarisch Stalin, order the Great Purge". The historical documents support only the facts that most important decisions were taken either in group by the party or by top party/government officials, or there were specific orders by NKVD chiefs and specific lower rank officials.  Grey Hood   Talk  19:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm obliged to observe that your theory of Stalin-disassociativity (i.e., a clueless pawn held responsible for the dastardly actions of all those surrounding him) sounds more like a historical assessment of the G.W. Bush administration. The point has been made in a number of reliable sources regarding Stalin's thoroughness in destroying records having to do with himself. So, your "strangely" is my "not surprisingly." And your "group decisions" are my "sycophants hoping to live to see another day." P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nor do I agree with your endorsement of "bold" edits to Stalin's biography. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do not ascribe me any theories I haven't written about, especially the theories marginalized to an absurd point. No one argues that Stalin was most important and powerful figure in the USSR at least since the late 1920s, but the fact that he had to continue removing his opponents for many years, as well as the fact that he was the General Secretary of the party obliged to heed to its decisions and mood (even though he was in the best position to manipulate the party), both tell that presenting the party as a horde of clueless pawns/sycophants is hardly any better than presenting Stalin a pawn (I hope you are not a supporter of these marginal absurd views). As for the destroying records, Khruschev did practice that. Grey Hood   Talk  20:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Some historians, like Zhukov, believe that this very diminishing of the party role and the wish of Stalin to completely deprive the party from the executive government functions resulted in the 1930s plots against Stalin and finally in the Great Purge. Grey Hood   Talk  20:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I was surprised that the section on famine overlooked Tauger's work on famine http://history.wvu.edu/faculty_staff/current_faculty/dr_mark_tauger/soviet_articles Keith-264 (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @keith-264, there's extensive talk history discussion regarding Tauger at the Holodomor article. @Greyhood, Zhukov's interpretations of history are outside historical consensus. Are you suggesting the plots were real and the purges justified? P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Culture "Although he was Georgian by birth, Stalin became a Russian nationalist" better put?
Wouldn't "Despite the fact Stalin wasn't Russian by birth, he later became a Russian nationalist" come across as more effective and better way of putting it? People can see he was Georgian at the top anyways.--Wonderman91 (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The contraction does not belong. Stalin's Georgian birth can be re-emphasized here in this statement. However, it serves the reader better if we describe what Russians felt about having a Georgian-born man as leader. Binksternet (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't like the "Despite the fact..." construction. How do we know this is true. Note that Hitler wasn't German, Napoleon wasn't French, Hamilton wasn't American, Alexander wasn't Greek, etc., so it's possible that coming from the periphery of a large polity can make one more nationalist, so "Because of the fact..." is possibly true instead. References couldn't much help because this is probably not provable/disprovable so I'd be inclined that we not opine on it. (Also, agree that contractions should be used sparingly.) "Although he was Georgian..." is better, but still implies a normally negative correlation, although less strongly. "Although he was Georgian..." is acceptable I suppose and it should probably be left like that. Herostratus (talk) 04:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'd prefer the first sentence be simpler yet, like, "Although Georgian by birth, Stalin became...". I don't believe dropping the ancestry is wise, as a reader may not have read the earlier text. &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 04:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Well Hitler was a German ethnically, he was born Austrian by nationality but they are ethnic Germans, Napoleon was French, Corsica became part of France just before he was born.

Why not put "Despite the fact Stalin was Georgian by birth, he later became a Russian nationalist?"--Wonderman91 (talk) 10:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes and Stalin was born in the Russian Empire so he was as Russian as Napoleon, who was born Napoleone di Buonaparte, was French. The point is, how do you know that it is despite the fact that he was Georgian that he became a Russian nationalist? The point of the examples is that perhaps there are factors at work here -- insecurity leading one to overcompensate for for one's origins, for instance -- such that people born on the borderlands of empires are not less likely but more likely to identify with that empire. I don't know if that's true, but by saying "despite" we are saying that it's not. "Although" also says this, sort of, but less strongly. Why not just leave it as it is ("Although he was Georgian by birth, Stalin became a Russian nationalist"? It seems to be OK as it is, in my opinion. Herostratus (talk) 12:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

From what I have read, Stalin was not a Russian "nationalist". He was more an Impearialist. There was little Russianess in him. Bandurist (talk) 12:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly my point where was he a Russian nationalist later on in life? Show me evidence or there is no reason to put it.

Being born in the Russian Empire doesn't make you Russian, Corsica had became French territory.--Wonderman91 (talk) 13:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The first bit changing to "Although Stalin was Georgian by birth" is better than "Although he was Georgian by birth" imo, anyhow where is the evidence he became a Russian nationalist...I don't see any references.--Wonderman91 (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * How could he be a Russian nationalist, if he repressed everything Russian, destroyed the priceless monuments of Russian culture, killed brilliant Russian artists, painters, writers, banned old Russian books, selling Russian cultural heritage abroad, erased Russian religion. But when he made ​​a few pro-Russian remarks during the war he suddenly became a "russian nationalist". Here we have a level of hypocrisy reached by western historiography.217.23.69.206 (talk) 12:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Batyushka
Remove this noncende at last. Nobody in their mind called him so. Tsars were named so in Middle Ages, but by the early 20th century, this word was used agaist them as a mockery. Read Dostoevsky, Crime and Punishment, where old money-lender calls Raskolnikov so in crony manner. In English, a similar example is "Bro" for Brother. To call Stalin so its like calling Obama Little Nigger or something like this. Stalin was called "Father of nations"( otets narodov) but not creppy "batyuska".217.23.69.206 (talk) 11:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Whither withered hand?
In the section Personal life | Appearance "After a carriage accident in his youth, his left arm was shortened and stiffened at the elbow, while his right hand was thinner than his left and frequently hidden." ...attributed to Stalin's Secret War by Nikolai Tolstoy. However, this is curious, one would expect the withered hand on the arm that had been injured and shortened (his left arm), not the hand on the healthy (right) arm.

Then I found that a plaster death mask was taken shortly after Stalin's death and that his hands were also cast. Later, in 1990, bronze casts were taken from the death plaster casts to produce a bronze of his face and of both his hands. This clearly shows a normal left hand and a withered left hand (as would seem a more logical outcome from a trauma to the left arm).

Perhaps someone could find a copy of the book Stalin's Secret War and verify if Tolstoy did, in fact, write that Stalin's right hand was withered ... or his left. If Tolstoy wrote that Stalin's left hand was withered, then clearly there is an error in the text and it should be amended to indicate a withered left hand. If Tolstoy wrote that it was Tolstoy's right hand that was withered when the physical evidence shows a withered left hand, then this discrepancy should be identified. Enquire (talk) 09:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

"Soviet famine in Russia"?
Right at the top of the article it says "catastrophic Soviet famine of 1932–1933, one of the last major famines in Russia." This is very inaccurate. The famine was not just in Russia. You need to add Ukraine or leave it as just Soviet, otherwise it is misleading to a casual reader who only glances at main points of the article and thinks there was only a famine in Russia. Mykyta (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Right. Fixed it, by removing the entire second clause (there was famine in Khazakstan etc. also, and this lede is horrendously too long.) BTW you would have been welcome to fix it yourself if so inclined. Herostratus (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Source of 'gardener of human happiness' in 4.2 Cult of personality
According to http://www.cyberussr.com/rus/st-flat.html :

The following are from "Sem'ya i Shkola" ("Family and School"), Dec 1949, pp. 1-5. "Sem'ya i Shkola" is a publication of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the RSFSR.:

velikij sadovnik chelovecheskogo s-chast'ya; 	great gardener of human happiness; — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.71.190.61 (talk) 08:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Inventions Attributed to Soviets
"Various foreign scientific discoveries and inventions (such as the Wright Brothers' airplane) were attributed to Russians in post-war Soviet propaganda. Examples include the boiler, reclaimed by father and son Cherepanovs; the electric light, by Yablochkov and Lodygin; the radio, by Popov; and the airplane, by Mozhaysky."

So many things wrong here: no source given, original research, and that's not even going in to the details about the inventions themselves. For example, Lodygin's light-bulb was created 7 years prior to Edison's; Yablochkov's were illuminating Paris a year before Edison's "invention". Popov's radio demonstration predates Marconi's patent by a year.

All countries try to promote their citizens as the inventors of something, even if they have a slightest claim to it. Mentioning such things in an article about Stalin or even Stalin's Soviet Union is nonsense, as the same can be attributed to any country. In two of the examples I mentioned, it can actually be argued that American, Italian and British propaganda claimed discoveries that were foreign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.216.177 (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

"Joseph"?
That's an English name, isn't it?... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.138.252 (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, he was actually from Suffolk on his mother's side.. -- Director  ( talk )  12:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Joseph (Yosef) is a semitic name. It's very common name among jews and arabs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.176.100.251 (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I recently took a course on the development of the Soviet Economy and in that course our Professor insisted that the correct spelling is "Josef". I'm actually surprised that wikipedia is spelling in "Joseph", since "Josef" seems to be what is used in the academic literature. I wouldn't be surprised if the use of "Joseph" is a subtle neocon ploy to prevent people from reading his works. 61.177.127.118 (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You can search Google books for "Joseph Stalin" and then "Josef Stalin" and see for yourself. Direct experiment is always better than theoretical speculations :-). Materialscientist (talk) 03:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Assessments of Stalin's character
Surprising that the article barely mentions this important topic. Perhaps some expert could contribute something that brings together the varied assessments of both Soviets and Westerners, particularly his contemporaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimwight (talk • contribs) 09:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

typo
There is typo on the page, but I was not allowed to edit it "commamd" -> "command". Could you give me access or correct it yourself? Polarnicrvcek (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Corrected, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

In the marriages and family section, Stalin's dacha was in Novy Afon, Abkhazia, not Novy Alon. If somebody could fix that...
 * Fixed, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Revolutions started by French Cheese? I think not.
At the start of this article on Stalin it says that the 1917 revolution in Russia was started by the Czar being pelted by French Cheese by revolutionaries. I am not an authority on this subject but this does not seem credible at all and there is no citation. I request that someone with a background on this either make a citation to back this up or that this be edited out.

Sanclementebob (talk) 04:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Try refreshing your cache/screen. Materialscientist (talk) 05:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Expansion to the Israel and North Korea Sections
I did research on Stalin's relationship with Israel and integrated the already present information into my writing. I think it should be updated to be this as it provides more detail:

Stalin's interest in Israel arose for both political and strategic reasons after the conclusion of World War II. During World War II Stalin hoped to expand Soviet influence in the Middle East through the Turkish provinces by using Northern Iran. But by 1946 it became apparent that the United States and Britain had made expansion of influence through these means infeasible. Britain and the U.S made this impossible through colonialism and alliances respectively. This caused Stalin to realize that expanding Soviet influence in the Middle East required weakening the British empire in the Middle East. Therefore Stalin began to look to Israel as a way to destabilize British control over the Middle East. Stalin declared the United Nations to be the only institution able to decide the 1946 Israel crisis. He did this because he hoped to gain UN support in the Middle East, and if Israel was a UN issue and not solely Britain's problem, it secured Soviet opinion in the matter. Stalin also sanctioned the emigration of thousands of Soviet Jews to Western Germany and Austria to gain Israeli and Jewish support. Eventually Britain agreed to take the Palestine issue to the UN as concern grew about Britain's deteriorating relationship with the Truman administration. Stalin quickly took advantage of this opportunity by deciding to favor Israel. By coercing the Eastern European nations, Stalin successfully influenced the vote to end the British mandate in Palestine. The end of the mandate allowed for the partition of Palestine between Arabs and Jews. Israel became a state on May 15th, 1948 and Stalin quickly became the first to offer it recognition. Israel showed their gratitude as they sent their first ambassador, Golda Meir, to the USSR that year. Stalin provided even more support by giving Israel more manpower by encouraging Jewish emigration from Eastern Europe to Israel. Stalin also gave Israel war materials through Czechoslovakia. Ultimately Stalin found his endeavor in Israel successful since its rise accelerated the collapse of British influence in the Middle East. Unfortunately for Israel, the honeymoon with Stalin lasted only so long. Despite Stalin's initial support for Israel, it deteriorated as it became apparent that Israel refused to side with either the East or the West, a policy Israel called i-hazdahut. Israel found a neutral policy necessary since its support came from “faraway” nations but found opposition from the nations that surrounded it. Since Israel found itself in conflict with its neighbors, it looked to both Stalin and the West for arms to better its defenses. Israel also took responsibility for the welfare of Jews everywhere and hoped to encourage immigration by remaining neutral. The make-up of Israel also influenced their neutral tactics as they had citizens who sided with both East and West. The split in its population was partially due to Stalin as he supported the emigration of Soviet Jews to Israel. The first Israeli Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, personally favored the West. But Ben-Gurion kept his personal beliefs hidden as he felt that support from both East and West were essential for Israel's survival against what he called a vast Arabian world. Stalin's support for Israel began to end in 1948 with his paranoia of Jewish conspiracy and the return of anti-semitism. Israel's condition only worsened in 1949 as Stalin became critical of their non-alignment and the United States became suspicious of Soviet-Israeli relations. The Korean War created an opportunity for Israel to side itself with the West and end any positive relations with Stalin. Israel chose the West over Stalin for various reasons, one being Stalin's support of an aggressive North Korea which concerned Israelis. Israelis opposed the aggressive North Koreans because the US and South Koreans fought under the banner of the UN to restore peace. Israel also decided to align itself with the West since the immigration from Eastern Europe ended. Additionally Israel desired the support of US Jews and hoped for reparations from the German Republic, which was only possible with United States' support<.ref>Shlaim, “Israel Between East and West, 1948-56,” 659-661. In the end Stalin moved his support from Israel to that of the Arab nations of the Middle East. Although the friendship between Israel and Stalin was short, it was a special period which allowed Israel to become a state with the support of the USSR.

Then for the North Korea section I added more details about what happened before the Korean War. Including information about how Stalin's cultural reforms affected North Korea and then Stalin's interest in North Korea in general which looks like this:

Soviet influence in North Korean culture In Korea, culture played a large role in the Soviet occupation policy similar to the role culture had in Eastern Europe and Germany. The role of culture was signified by the economic quotas set in North Korea, which were similar to those of the Soviet Union. The postwar period was dominated in the USSR by “Zhdanovism” where Stalin's cultural tsar, Andrei Zhdanov, controlled the cultural sphere. Although North Korean intellectuals enjoyed freedom momentarily, it was quickly ended as “Zhdanovism” spread to North Korea. The Soviet cultural presence in North Korea was promoted by Soviet dance, theatre, music, art, literature, and film. Stalin and North Korea agreed upon this cultural exchange, resulting in Korean art, literature, and dance troupes being brought to the Soviet Union. North Korea also took Russian as its official second language and discontinued English as a requirement for attendance to Kim Il Sung University. The core institution for cultural exchange between the USSR and North Korea at the time was the Korean-Soviet Cultural Society. Stalin's influence in North Korean culture was popular because he encouraged Korean expression more than the West did in South Korea. Yet Stalin did desire more Soviet influence in North Korean education as he chose to replace current textbooks with translations of Soviet books. He also started a program which brought Korean students to the Soviet Union to study for five years. Stalin found importance in spreading Soviet culture throughout North Korea since he believed that it was the best way to politically socialize North Korea. Stalin's active effort to share culture with North Koreans was inspired by the belief that Soviet culture resulted in the popularization of socialism. Stalin's Interest in Korea and the War Stalin's interests in North Korea were just a component of his interests in Eastern Asia as a whole. China and Japan both heavily influenced how Stalin chose to deal with North Korea. Initially Stalin was interested in maintaining the postwar peace between the USSR and US in Eastern Asia. Most specifically, Stalin was not opposed to the United States' influence in South Korea while the Soviets occupied North Korea. But as Stalin's views of China and Japan changed, his policies in Korea also began to shift. Initially Stalin relied on the success of the Communist Party of Japan (CPJ) to successfully create a communist state. Despite the CPJ's initial popularity, the United States quickly intervened by ending its occupation policy and looking towards democratizing and revitalizing Japan's economy. The United States promoted Japanese purges of the CPJ which took out some of its most important leaders such as Nozaka Sanzo, Tokuda Kyuichi, and Ito Ritsu. These changes allowed the Japanese to directly confront the CPJ and labor unions. Meanwhile in China, Mao's communist revolution proved successful in 1949. Kim Il used the growing Sino-Soviet rivalry, which threatened the Soviet role as the leader in communism. Ultimately, the pressures provided by Japan and China resulted in Stalin's approval of a North Korean invasion of South Korea.

This would also add two sub headings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obieswim31 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistent birth name transliteration
The opening paragraph uses the Russian transliteration of Stalin's birth name, (Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili,) while the early life section uses the Georgian one (Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili). They both are said to be his birth name, and aren't very clear that they're transliterations of the same name. Possibly mention that the first one is Russian? SomeGuyNamedDavid (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Stalin may have actually been half-Ossetian. This is mentioned in several biographies. Even if it´s a rumor, the possibility remains, because at many places in Georgia Ossetians and Georgians live intermingled. So I don´t understand why this couldn´t be mentioned. And to say that it would have been punnishable to say this during his regime; is wiki following Stalinist lawbooks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.10.6.55 (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Need specific sources. Actually, such speculation, however well founded, is irrelevant nonsense. Unless such a matter formed his character or influenced his behavior it doesn't belong in the article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The Russian form of the name appears to be the Eastern Slavic patronymic form, and when this is used, there is a note at the start of the article that this naming convention is being used. But what about the Georgian form I am seeing just above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Stalin's cult of personality
Hi. I started a new page on Stalin's cult of personality which adds to and better integrates the information from the cult of personality section in this article. However, because I'm a new user, I'm not auto-confirmed, and I can't edit the Stalin page to make adjustments to the cult of personality section and/or link to this new page, as Stalin's a semi-protected article. Any help would be much appreciated... Goodnightdearest (talk) 23:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Early Life
The Ketevan Geladze article provides interesting insights into Stalin's beatings as a child. But were are not here or in the Early Childhood section. Maybe they are not reliable/true, in which case the Ketevan Geladze article needs revision, else they should be elaborated here. I added a one sentence reference. Tuntable (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Was the Second East Turkestan Republic secular or Muslim?
This article says that the Second East Turkestan Republic had Islam as it's state religion, yet the article for the Second East Turkestan Republic says it was a Secular republic. Well which was it? 70.187.179.139 (talk) 08:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Stalin's death
I reworked this section, taking account of the excellent artilce in Surgical Neurology International. The separate "Later Reseach" section had become clumbsy. Tuntable (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Stalin Violent Early Life
Added back violent upbringing. This is is important to understanding Stalin. More so than minor accidents etc. Yes it is also in Early Life, so is all of this summary section. Tuntable (talk) 01:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Also there is the issue with references in sections that summarize other articles, such as Stalin's early life. My feeling is that references should be in the main, fuller article, nothing should be in the summary that is not in the main, and that the main article should thus be the implicit reference for the summary. Tuntable (talk) 00:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

If a statement is made in an article, there should be a reference in the article. It is not sufficient to have a reference in some other Wikipedia article. Ground Zero | t 05:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Please review Verifiability. it does not say anywhere that you can get away without providing a reference if there is a reference in a branch article. The statement is made in Joseph Stalin, so a reference is required in Joseph Stalin. Ground Zero | t 14:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Nationality
Why is it written that Stalin was Soviet? Soviet is not nationality, Stalin was ethnic Georgian. Dear Russians history cant be rewrited Stalin was Georgian and u cant change it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.73.210.231 (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Typo
i don't have permission to edit this typo:

"Stalin and his regime have been condemned on numerous occasions, the most significant being the in 1956, when Stalin's successor Nikita Khrushchev denounced his legacy and initiated a process of de-Stalinization."

thanks!

Raslafor (talk) 04:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Glorification
I am talking about section 9.4 Habits.

"He could play billiards so well he did not seem to aim at the ball." seems like glorifying propaganda to me, apart from that an unaimed shot can't be accurate. I suggest instead a simple statement with proof about that he liked billiard. (Provided this is important enough.)

"He could read 500 pages a day and had a library of 20,000 volumes." At this point what lacks is a pointer that discloses that he actually was an eager reader, or this sentence is again: senseless boasting.

"He loved hunting and fishing all his life." This is romanticization. I suggest this sentence to be rewritten in a more objective manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.226.48.217 (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

"Romantization"? Pathetic. I guess "objective" means adding into every line about how he ate babies and tortured innocent people personally.

Stalin's voracious book-reading is well-testified by all who know him. His adopted son says he read constantly in his free time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.167.108.53 (talk) 06:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Dictator of Soviet Union
Wasn't Joseph Stalin Dictator of the Soviet Union? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Montefiore describes Stalin as an Al Capone
Simon Sebag Montefiore, Young Stalin, Publisher: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2007  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.18.28 (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Montefiore
Read this:    Simon Sebag Montefiore, Young Stalin, Publisher: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2007  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.11.218 (talk) 07:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Stalin's death mask
This is the Stalin's death mask from Gori museum
 * Dummy edit for archiving. --jpgordon:==( o ) 01:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Please stop copying other articles into this article
In later years he was refering to himself as "Russian" simply. Several subarticles were made last month to cut down the length of this article, such as:
 * Stalin before the Revolution
 * Stalin in the Revolution and early wars
 * Stalin's rise to power
 * Dummy edit for archiving. --jpgordon:==( o ) 01:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Wermacht
Correct spelling is Wehrmacht, as per the WP entry.
 * Dummy edit for archiving. --jpgordon:==( o ) 01:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Height
A lot of space has been devoted to Stalin's height. He seems to have been 5 foot and 2 inches tall. He was also web-toed. But on his foto in file "Stalin's Mug Shot.jpg" we can see note in russian (first line under image): heght 1 meter 74 centimetre...
 * Dummy edit for archiving. --jpgordon:==( o ) 01:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Stalin's superpowers
'He could play billiards so well he did not seem to aim at the ball...He could read 500 pages a day and had a library of 20,000 volumes' - somewhat implausible.
 * Dummy edit for archiving. --jpgordon:==( o ) 01:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Not Joseph but Josif
Someone should make the correction to the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.225.80.33 (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not an error. Such variation occurs in Russian History. For instance, the pairs Yezhov/Ezhov, Yagoda/Iagoda, Trotsky/Trotski Dared111 (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

"Homosexual" speculation
Isn't this, "a unique psychological analysis", rather precisely the definition of fringe speculation? (Not to mention being in the wrong place.) --jpgordon:==( o ) 04:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fringe seems to mean a theory that departs from the prevalent scientific point of view. But I don't see that as the case here. The author's study was originally published in the Journal of Psychohistory in 1988. This is referred to in Joseph Stalin: An Annotated Bibliography of English-Language Periodical Literature to 2005. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting you are not accurately reflecting a source. I'm suggesting that (a) it's totally in the wrong place in the article (psychohistorical speculation perhaps might go under the "Hypotheses" section); (b) since this is being presented as scientific, or at least clinical/academic evaluation, what do Professor Rancour-Laferrière's peers have to say about his research in this matter? Is it accepted? Is it considered serious scholarship? Psychohistory is a pretty controversial field, at best. Regarding the Journal of Psychohistory, our psychohistory article has this to say: For examples of the more frivolous and distasteful sort of psychohistory, see The Journal of Psychohistory.. --jpgordon:==( o ) 07:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree and then some. I did some homework on this, and in running down the names La Ferriere, De Mause, and the Journal of Psychohistory, all I find is a self-linking collection of no doubt very nice people engaged in something which is neither authoritative nor notable.  I feel that justification is not required for deleting this whole topic, as it is of such a speculative nature (it is a speculated conclusion based upon speculated evidence (nobody interviewed or "lay analyzed" Stalin for this), in a field which one may politely describe as highly speculative) that the burden to maintain inclusion rests with the editor wishing to include it.  Just the same, I won't fly off and delete it.  Not yet anyway.  I'm not calling anybody any names, just casting dire aspersions on the source material.  After all, a point mooted without evidence may be dismissed in the same fashion. Haakondahl (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be removed. It firstly serves no purpose, even to one has studied Stalin. Secondly, it is misleading - Stalin did not fancy Hitler. In light of that, it is unsupported and more radical than otherwise. Thirdly, the ignorance of the psychoanalyst is shown. Much of the Purging was ordered by Yagoda, who has been quoted in Orlando Figes's The Whisperers: Private Life in Stalin's Russia as having more people imprisoned to save his own hide. I'm going to remove it and make a note of this discussion in the revision history. If it is to be put back in, at least mention some of the criticisms Dared111 (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Native language
Which was Joseph's native language? Was it Russian or Georgian? If it was Georgian, the introduction should be changed. Aaker (talk) 11:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Answer: Stalin spoke all his life Russian with strong accent which later became a theme for a numerous jokes and parodies.In some sense Russian can`t be his native language because who speaks its own language with an accent?Western mass media always prefer to refer to Stalin as to a ``Russian`` because during Cold war they try to extrapolate hate on ``the Russians``. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.22.65.89 (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The Anon is, of course, incorrect - the democracies of the world decried communism and the USSR's government; they did not espouse any hatred towards the Russian people. And the question has not truly been answered yet via Reliable Sources. . . HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Stalin was Georgian, he was born and rised in Georgia. he's native language was Georgian, but as all of soviet peoples he knew Russian too. But he was Georgian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.73.210.231 (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, genetically he was not a Georgian, but an Ossetian (trough his father). Not only is his original surname of Ossetian origin, but his Y-DNA haplogroup is G2a1(a), which is typical for Ossetians: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_G-M201_(Y-DNA) A Dog&#39;s Heart (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

As someone who has seen at least 0 James Bond movies, I am amazed that HammerFilmFan doesn't realize that there was any hostility between the American (or Western) and Russian people during the Cold War era. I suppose it's good that the world has begun to forget, though... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.12.7.133 (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course there was, but you speak as if this was the great majority of the people of both countries, which is patently false. The fear came from ideology, not racial lines.  And it was the two respective governments far more than the common man involved here.  You'd be hard-pressed to find a western political leader in the era of the Cold War condemning the Russian people ...HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

the Kirov affair
"After the assassination of Kirov, which may have been orchestrated by Stalin..." - MAY have been? The murder of Kirov on Stalin's orders is a documented fact - what RS is actually hazy on this issue?? HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Another Typo or/and spelling inconsistency
"Beria and Kruschev were in a position...

Kruschev => Khrushchev
 * Dummy edit for archiving. --jpgordon:==( o ) 01:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Another typo
Engraged->enraged

DuoDex (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 08:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Another typo
In the "Early Life" section, the link to the 1905 Russian Revolution is linked as "1905 Russian Revolutionand" where the word"and" should not be part of the link.

Misrepresentation of Source

 * "Accordingly, if famine victims are included, a minimum of around 10 million deaths—6 million from famine and 4 million from other causes—are attributable to the regime."

I have no problem with this sentence, but the source cited--Rosefielde's "Documented Homicides and Excess Deaths"--doesn't support it. Rosefielde's demographic analysis (based on formerly suppressed census figures) suggests that at least 5.2 million, more probably 9.7 million, and perhaps as many as 15.5 million individuals were killed by Stalin from 1927-38. Rosefielde's minimum estimate for Stalin's entire reign is higher than 10 million, and the precise breakdown given above is not mentioned in his article. So, the source is fine and perhaps should be kept, but a different source should be used for the minimum estimate of 6 million famine-dead and 4 million dead from other causes.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Lead section
To put it bluntly, the lead is too long. I'm removing segments that I deem unnecessary to mention when summarizing the article. The following pieces of text have be cut:


 * "...after Stalin's attempts to establish an Anglo-Franco-Soviet Alliance failed, ..." &mdash; It warrants mentioning elsewhere in the article, but not in the lead.


 * "...and allowed the USSR to regain some of its lost territories." (previously ended the first sentence of the second paragraph) &mdash; In a sense true, but I think it is sufficient to say that their influence was divided in Eastern Europe.


 * "...opening the largest and bloodiest theatre of war in recorded history." &mdash; Obviously a very important point to mention for World War II, but is it important to mention in the lead?


 * "...victory in..." (from the sentence "after [victory in] the decisive battles of Moscow and Stalingrad") &mdash; In the context of that segment, victory can be assumed.


 * "...which Stalin attended..." (referring to the Potsdam and Yalta conferences) &mdash; That can also be assumed.


 * "...of the Soviet Union." (Stalin's fears of "another invasion) &mdash; As above, easily assumed.


 * "...with his rule serving as a model for their newly formed respective governments." &mdash; As with many others, an important point, but I don't think it's lead-worthy.


 * "The distinctive architectural style used at the time has been termed "Stalinist architecture"." &mdash; Important, but not enough for the lead.

If anyone disagrees, please say so and we'll figure out some sort of compromise. Kurtis (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Nationality
Nationality	Russian

People, there's no controversy abt Stalin's nationality. And if there were - look at his name "Dzhugashili". There is some debate on what "dzhuga" means, yet "shvili" means "son", "son of" from Gerogian. Half Georgia is carrying "shvili" in their last names, including their current president.

Stalin was a Gerogian. It's a wonder that people not knowing abc get to edit the article without citing any sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.107.8.106 (talk) 10:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Did he ever spoke Georgian when in power? Or only Russian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.184.183.22 (talk) 10:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Death
Stalin supposedly died while listening to Mozart's Piano Concerto 23 (sometimes "on the radio", sometimes "a record of"; usually "Maria Yudina playing").

A) is that true or apocryphal? B) not even a MENTION here?! 209.172.25.54 (talk) 08:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

the views about Stalin from Brezhnev\Gorbachev\Putin\Zyuganov
the views about Stalin from Brezhnev\Gorbachev\Putin\Zyuganov

After Khrushchev's fall from power,Stain got some praises by Leonid Brezhnev. In May 1965, Leonid Brezhnev publicly praised Stalin as a war leader. And in September, the secret police arrested the writers Andrei Sinyavsky and Yuli Daniel for "the crime" of publishing their novels abroad under pseudonyms. Suddenly, hundreds of leading Soviet intellectuals, writers,artists, and scientists began to send petitions to the party leadership with appeals to free the arrested writers and to stop the backslide to neo-Stalinism. A new movement was born, which demanded public trials and constitutional rights."Dissidents," as the members of this movement came to be called, began to appeal to the world via the foreign media.The Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in August 1968 substantiated the fears of the Soviet anti-Stalinist intelligentsia that the post-Khrushchev leadership might take the country in a neo-Stalinist direction. The crushing of the Prague Spring and its "socialism with a human face" dashed the hopes ofmany educated Soviet patriots that the existing system could be reformed. This produced a remarkable rise of antigovernment sentiment, even among some who were establish in the Soviet elites. Brezhnev praised Joseph Stalin's reign, but refrained from the brutality that Stalin was known for.Brezhnev admissioned "Stalin's serious mistakes about the Cult of personality to himself in his old ages". People's Republic of China (under Mao Zedong) and Albania (under Enver Hoxha) still condemned Brezhnev as Khrushchev as a revisionist,until Deng Xiaoping and Ramiz Alia wield power in the 1980s.

On November 2, 1987,Mikhail Gorbachev said that Stalin knowingly committed "real crimes" against the Soviet people."The guilt of Stalin and his immediate entourage . . . of wholesale repressive measures and acts of lawlessness is enormous and unforgivable," he told an audience of 6,000 Communist Party officials, foreign leaders and veterans of the Bolshevik Revolution. "This is a lesson for all generations."Former leaders Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev also came in for stern criticism in Gorbachev's three-hour speech at the Kremlin Palace of Congresses. It was the opening event of the Communist Party's week-long celebration of the 70th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution.A "truthful analysis" of history, Gorbachev said, was essential to the success of perestroika, his attempt to radically restructure Soviet society.

On 03 December 2009,Vladimir Putin says Stalin's legacy can't be judged in black and white.He said "In my view, you can't give an overall assessment to Joseph Stalin. It's clear that from 1924 to 1953, the country led by Stalin changed fundamentally.We remember perfectly well the problems, particularly in the last period, with agriculture - queues for food and such like. The things that happened in this sphere did nothing good for rural communities. But industrialization certainly did take place.We won the Great Patriotic War (WWII's Eastern Front). And whatever anyone may say, victory was achieved. Even when we consider the losses, no one now can throw stones at those who planned and led this victory.If the war had been lost, we can't even imagine the consequences.Certainly, in this period we encountered not only a cult of personality, but a massive crime against our own people. This is also a fact. And we must not forget this. There was repression. This is a fact. Millions of our citizens suffered from this. And this way of running a state, to achieve a result, is not acceptable. It is impossible."

A commentator,Roger Boyes,said Putin is no Stalin but a latter-day Brezhnev.

Some People think Putin's policy is close to the Soviet Union's.How ever,Gennady Zyuganov, the leader of the Communist Party of Russian Federation,although he is a harsh critic of Putin ,but his recipes for Russia’s future are true to his Soviet roots. He is on record as hoping to renationalise all major industries and he believes the USSR was “the most humane state in human history”. In November 2001,In an open letter to Vladimir Putin ahead of the summit between the USA president (George W. Bush) and Russian president (Vladimir Putin) in the United States, Zyuganov said that Russia was betraying its national interests."It is blindly following US policy which has been characterized recently by open aggression" .Zyuganov criticized Putin for his decision last month to close a Cuban listening post that eavesdropped on US communications and a key naval base in Vietnam, as well as Russian support for Washington using basesin former Soviet Uzbekistan and Tajikistan for its Afghan strikes."Russia's national state and national interests may be betrayed" at the upcoming summit between Putin and US President George W. Bush, Zyuganov warned. On November 29, 2008, Gennady Zyuganov, in his speech before the 13th Party Congress made these remarks about the state that Russia under Putin was in: "Objectively, Russia’s position remains complicated, not to say dismal. The population is dying out. Thanks to the “heroic efforts” of the Yeltsinites the country has lost 5 out of the 22 million square kilometers of its historical territory. Russia has lost half of its production capacity and has yet to reach the 1990 level of output. Our country is facing three mortal angers: de-industrialization, de-population and mental debilitation. The ruling group has neither notable successes to boast of, nor a clear plan of action. All its activities are geared to a single goal: to stay in power at all costs. Until recently it has been able to keep in power due to the “windfall” high world prices for energy. Its social support rests on the notorious “vertical power structure” which is another way of saying intimidation and blackmail of the broad social strata and the handouts that power chips off the oil and gas pie and throws out to the population in crumbs, especially on the eve of elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nvrenguannanren (talk • contribs) 06:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

1950
It has been suggested that Stalin's interest in linguistics in 1950 was hypocritical. With his background in the polyglot Caucasus area, he might have been genuinely interested in the subject. With a nuclear war in view, Kremlinologists were dismayed to find that they had to study linguistics, as well as nuclear physics, the Georgian language etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.215.180 (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Biased about Stalin's height
My English is no good, but I cite: "While photographs and portraits portray Stalin as physically massive and majestic (he had several painters shot who did not depict him "right"), he was only five feet four inches tall (160 cm)." Well, according to his mug shot in russian (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Stalin%27s_Mug_Shot.jpg) he was 174 cm. He was perhaps taller in his youth, but him being just 160 cm in his prime is not possible. Also Hitler was about 174 cm (average) and Stalin was said to be appr. the same height by those who met them both. So better change. This "shortness-propaganda" is just stupid, him being of average height doesn't make him less a killer, or you think so? --Objectus (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

+ Stalin's clinical record, aged 46: "Height 171, Weight 70 kg" + Information card from the files of the Tsarist secret police in Baku (1910) "Height 1 metres 69 centimetres..."

These are the reliable (primary, not secondary) sources about his height.

Conclusion: He must have been around 170 cm (=5 feet 7,5 inches?)--Objectus (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Your English sounds great to my ears, Objectus. Thanks for improving wikipedia.  Can you give us more details about where these primary sources are, exactly?  Library?  Museum?  Here is what we think we know:


 * Can somebody with access to the 1981 book please verify whether it says 160cm (aka 5'3"), or alternatively whether it says 5'4" (aka 163cm)? The only cited info wikipedia has *is* cited incorrectly!  Which is pretty sad.  We also have some uncited info, which claims the statues were approximately six feet... does anybody have cites that say exactly how tall some *particular* statues were, preferably from a museum?  There is uncited info in the article now which says Stalin was 5'5" or 5'6" aka 165-to-168cm.  Anybody have a cite?  Objectus has info that Stalin was actually either 5'7" or 5'8", including a photo already on commons, can somebody verify the cyrillic says what Objectus thinks it says?
 * Also, can somebody tell us whether or not the Russians used their own special definition for "inch" and "foot", or for "meter", back when some of these measurements were recorded... I seem to recall that Napoleon was actually not especially short, but that the French-inch was defined differently from the British-inch. Thanks.
 * Note that I do *not* suggest we remove the 1981 cite from the article... wikipedia should *reflect* what the reliable sources say, even when the sources lie, because the fact that sources are wrong is still sometimes a useful historical fact... but if we have another source, such as the primary-source-mugshot-photo Objectus pointed out, that shows the 1981 info was likely propaganda, we should definitely not make wikipedia a party to the propaganda, but should describe the conflicting data our different sources give us, neutrally.
 * Along those lines, would be interesting to know how tall the life-size statues of Stalin were, exactly. List_of_statues_of_Stalin The cites in the main Stalin article mention a six-meter bronze statue in Tblisi, and a three-meter one recently erected-then-exploded in the Ukraine.  There are plenty of statues of Stalin *with* Lenin, so we can prolly use WP:CALC to determine how tall those particular Stalin statues depicted him.  Of course, we'd need to know how tall Lenin was... and that factoid isn't in the Lenin article.  Sigh.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Stalin's fourth child
Why isn't the fourth child of Stalin, Konstantin Kuzakov, mentioned? 82.181.233.232 (talk) 02:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)--82.181.233.232 (talk) 02:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's included by reference; he and Stalin never spoke to each other, from what I can understand. See the main article on 'early life' which is linked at the top of that sub-section in this main article. Early_life_of_Joseph_Stalin  There is also a small article on Konstatin Kuzakov themselves.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2067392/Stalins-daughter--famously-denounced-reign-terror--dies-Wisconsin-aged-85.html Stalin's other children: "--- Konstantin Kuzakov, born in 1911, was Stalin's illegitimate second child, whose mother was Stalin's landlady while he was in exile. In 1932, the Soviet secret police forced him to sign a statement promising he would not reveal Stalin was his father.

He was later a colonel in WWII. After he was accused of being a spy, he was dismissed from the Communist party. He died in 1996." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.233.232 (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Possible Jewish wife and daughter
There is evidence according to a letter that came to light a few years ago that he had a Jewish wife and a daughter, despite being an anti-Semite, is this not worth mentioning in his private life?

Check these two links out:, surely this should be worth mentioning considering Stalin's views on Jews and his anti-Semitism.--Windows66 (talk) 13:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Bad link?
The link labeled "Pogroms" in the intro leads to a site that Chrome warns contains malware. Can someone find a better citation for this? -Miskaton (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2014
Change the spelling of Joseph Stalin to the correct spelling, Josef Stalin

204.154.122.163 (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

❌ The English Wikipedia's policy, see WP:COMMONNAME, is to use the common name "determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources" "as such names will be the most recognizable" Although Google matches do not prove anything there are 8.1M for Joseph and 1.2M for Josef so that is the prevalent use - you could equally argue the "correct" spelling is Iosif - but we won't use that either. Arjayay (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Lenin's testament
Lenin's testament was shown to the 13th Congress, and stopped by the Triumvirate from affecting, most importantly, Stalin as General Secretary. This was in 1924, not 1923. References from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin's_Testament — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.185.238.74 (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well the Testament was intended for the 12th Congress (1923) but was only read to a select group of the deputies of the 13th Congress (1924). I attempted to clear the things by adding an info in parenthesis. Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

popular culture
Joseph Stalin is the subject of upbeat jazz tribute Curl the Mo',Uncle Joe (National Film & Sound Archive, Australia) a 1944 Foxtrot composed by Jack Lumsdaine (1879-1948) and Jack Hatch. A performance by George Trevare and his orchestra can be heard on-line The song includes the line "'Aussies and Yanks know you're a great chap - while you're smashing the Hun they're busy thrashing the Japs". Sheet music featuring poster cover art at http://nla.gov.au/nla.mus-vn105681 Tradimus (talk) 13:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Gulag paintings of Nikolai Getman
Perhaps someone can look into this? , The paintings are by former prisoner Nikolai Getman.

Some images were placed on Commons by User:Mike18xx who posted the following quote from his email: ''You do have our permission. Just be sure to mention Jamestown as a source in the Wikipedia listing, and reference us with a web link to the paintings in your posting. Use this email as our special authorization. Thanks, Glen Howard, President, Jamestown Foundation, 6/14/2006.''. In 2008, a deletion discussion. -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have found some interesting information on the Internet:


 * "... Before his death in 2004, the artist sought ways to transport his Gulag paintings to the West, fearing they would be destroyed once they were out of his safekeeping... "


 * "... The paintings, a gift to the Heritage Foundation from the Jamestown Foundation..."


 * Unfortunately large numbers of images were removed from Wikipedia. -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Jo-who?
Why do we spell Stalin's first name with a 'ph'? I don't speak Russian (or Georgian), but it seems to me Josef would be more accurate. Sca (talk) 01:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In Georgian he's Ioseb or Soso but in Russian Iosef which is in English Joseph. Jaqeli (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * A minor issue to be sure, but in Ио́сиф isn't the letter ф equivalent to 'f' in Engish? Judging from Stalin entries on various Wikis, Germanic and West Slavic languages use 'f' to represent ф. But, whatever.... Sca (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * PS: Reuters spells it Josef. Sca (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

-When dealing with non-Roman alphabets, there is no 'correct' way of spelling anyword. Therefore Joseph, or Josef, or Iosef are all equally valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.48.89 (talk) 03:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2014
"While initial talk existed of a race to Berlin by the Allies" The ref link to "Race to Berlin" article is out of context here and refers to an entirely different race, coincidentally of the same name, between two Soviet Marshals.

67.208.179.138 (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I have dewikified that text. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 23:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

500 pages a day
The article states, that he "could read 500 pages a day". Such a claim is rather preposterous. The source given is "Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar" by Montefiore, (2004). He is a journalist, not a historian. I suggest removing it, unless a more reliable source is provided. --Kreuzkümmel (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, sounds like originally sourced from propaganda. Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Or perhaps just a tweaking of words, the source says: "Ever since the seminary in the 1890s, he had read voraciously, claiming a rate of five hundred pages daily".

So its not saying he did read 500 pages per day but rather he claimed he did.--Windows66 (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Montefiore is a journalist. He is also a PhD, historian, and an award-winning author of histories. Specifically "Court of the Red Tsar" won one such award. It is also published by a mainstream publisher (Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group). This is an acknowledged RS. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Ossetian?
An editor is wanting to include the article in the category Category:Georgian people of Ossetian descent and is insisting. My understanding is that Stalin being an Ossetian was something that was bandied about and alluded to but never established. This article mentions nothing about it, and Early life of Joseph Stalin speaks only of the theory that he's Ossetian. Before including this article in that category, I'd like to see some refs or other indication that it's fairly definately established, and the editor or other editors are invited to make their case here. Absent that I'd not think the article ought to be so categorized. Herostratus (talk) 06:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

"Genocide: 60 millions slaughtered under Stalin's reign personally by Stalin"
I am highly skeptical about this estimated figure for several reasons.

1. The magnitude

60 millions,


 * Is the population of United Kingdom.
 * Is the tragedy of WWII - expressed in numbers.
 * Is ~40% of the USSR(1926) - murdered within three decades.

2. Demographics

|1 It's idiot-safe obvious that there is no indication whatsoever for this huge of claim. It's kind of brain disease and against all odds to claim that the maximal annual growth of population (2-3 millions) could outnumber the 60 millions allegedly murdered. Not to mention that 27 millions were killed from the utmost barbarian tyranny and aggression of fascist armies and that the population did actually double!

3. Organization

A state, no matter how totalitarian their power is, CAN'T execute THE ONE BIGGEST mass murder of human mankind without leaving traces and mass graves. Imagine you would execute a half of your family. Wouldn't there be a collective awareness of every 2nd or 3rd person missing? Where are the historical records and diaries which prove that Stalin's human farmlands annilated one out of three? That's exactly what we talk about.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:1500:1014:CCD:651C:B084:9EA2 (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

4. Conclusion

The "60 millions" lie is definitely a fairy tale's number and should be removed from this article.

That's some ingenious original research, comrade. 24.107.183.172 (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The number of Stalin's victims is unquestionably in dispute. Historians are emphatically not in general agreement about the correct number. Generally, there seems to be two schools of thought: the Big Numbers school and the Small Numbers school. The 60 million quoted in the article is clearly in the Big Numbers school but some historians, like the just-deceased RJ Rummel, cite even higher numbers: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM. But Rummel includes deaths from 1917-1989 not just those occurring during Stalin's time, although Lenin was only in charge for the first few of those years and the death toll eased off enormously after Stalin's death. The Small Numbers school favours a substantially lower death toll. I don't have my books at hand but I think Timothy Snyder's Bloodlands cites a number like 14 million or maybe 8 million. Robert Conquest also favours a smallish number but I don't remember what it is. Of course, there are also a few diehards who insist that Stalin didn't have ANYONE killed; at worst, a few provincial officials killed a few local people in a fit of Bolshevik over-enthusiasm with the campaign to stamp out class traitors. We might call this the school of Very Small Numbers but I think it lacks any real credibility.

An honest article would indicate the number of Stalin's victims was disputed and talk about the different schools and possibly try to assess the credibility of the numbers from the point of view of the methodologies used to acquire the numbers. Or at least report on how historians are trying to assess the credibility of the various numbers. Leaving the number "60 millions" intact without qualifying it is as I've said is roughly as dishonest as insisting Stalin killed no one.

It just makes no sense whatsoever. Scratch that.

184.175.48.100 (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It is also widely believed that the Red Terror was begun by Stalin
The quoted source is a review of a book describing the period 1926-1941 and the Red Terror was applied 1918-1922. What is the sentence about?Xx236 (talk) 06:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)