Talk:Neo-Stalinism/Archive 1

Modern Estonian usage
Here is a link in Finnish, that list Finns that Estonians, or at least one Estonian, consideres "Neo-Stalinist": "Neuvostonostalgiaa Suomessa" (Soviet nostalgy in Finland), Mediakatsaukset, (media review), published by the Finnish embassy in Tallinn on 26 June 2008. The original source of the views is Iivi Anna Masso. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

In response to your thought that the idea of neo-Stalinism is a modern Estonian construct, I took the liberty to review a few modern Estonian sources discussing and advancing the peculiar notion that neo-Stalinism exists. Here's an incomplete list:
 * Post-communist Transition: Political Tendencies in Hungary, by the modern Estonian author Bozóki András. Printed in 1990 in East European Politics & Societies, volume 4, issue 2, pages 211–230.  I need not mention that the journal is known for its heavy Estonian bias.
 * Khruschev's Economic Neo-Stalinism, by the modern Estonian author Lazar Volin. Printed in 1955 in the American Slavic and East European Review, a journal known for advancing Estonian ideas from half a century in the future.
 * The Neo-Stalinist State: Class, Ethnicity and Consensus in Soviet Society, a book by an infamous Estonian historian Victor Zaslavsky. Printed in 1994 by M. E. Sharpe, a publishing company that publishes nothing at all but books about Estonia.
 * Exit: Towards Post-Stalinism by Pavel Câmpeanu. This Estonian author is trying to hide his ethnicity by adding a funny diacritic, but I don't think he's able to deceive a person with eye for detail, such as yourself.  Naturally, this book, too, was published by the above-mentioned M. E. Sharpe.
 * review of Armageddon Averted: The Soviet Collapse, 1970–2000, Russia and the Ides of the West, and Epokha Yeltsina: Ocherki politicheskoi istorii by a noted Estonian author Ilya Vinkovetsky. Printed in 2005 in Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, volume 6, issue 1, pages 241–252.
 * Kuroda's Thought on Revolution: A Consideration of Neo-Stalinism and the Vanguard Organization, by 黒田寛一. This author is not only a well-known Estonian nationalist, he even went so far as to print his book in New Estonia, a small archipelago on the Western coast of the Pacific Ocean -- just like most other colonial territories.

Yep, nothing but Estonian sources at all. And they're all modern, too. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 11:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Neo-Stalinism and English meanings
Can somebody please provide a source – and I would strongly prefer if it were an English-language one for using Neo-Stalinism as "historical revisionism in favor of Stalinism"? In the political world, it's a sectarian insult among communists that's used against traditionally-implemented forms of Communism, even used against Khrushchevites by the Trotskyist tendency.

Because this article seriously resembles original research, and the question of just what neo-Stalinism is has a lot of bearing on the content of this article.

Respectfully, 166.217.128.203 (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this term is not well defined. At least I have no sources in mind from Political science that they use it. Neo-stalinism is used mainly as an insult by Trotskysts or followers of the New Left against followers of Brezhnev. Even Gorbachev could have been characterised as neostalinist. Usually, the term doesn't apply for Maoists of pro-Albanians. I think it more applies to currents that rejected Stalinism in 50s and 60s and now revise their positions in more pro-Stalinist. Some people from the exUSSR use it to characterise Putin as well. We really have to dig it up more by giving sources. The definition right now seems more like an Original research. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Some sources

 * "The neo-Stalinist system, writes Pavlova, has "a modern facade, has been cleansed of Communist ideology, but has the same old essence. Stalin was more of a Russian nationalist and imperialist - that is why he, rather than Lenin, is so popular in Russia today. His rule was a culmination of Russia's state power, which became an inspiration for today's conservative patriots." The new Stalins must be kept in check By Alex Goldfarb.


 * "The Federal Security Service (FSB) is working with Russian historians trained in Soviet times to rehabilitate the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" - see ,


 * Flirting with Stalin


 * Rehabilitation of Stalinism in Russia according to Yuri Afanasiev -


 * 


 * Some Russian sources:  Biophys (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The trouble as I see it, Biophys, is that none of these actually provide a definition for neo-Stalinism. Here it is not defined in a political sense, but rather used as a pejorative catch-used in different senses. It exists, but so do Neo-Reaganism and Neo-Clintonism; they have been used in various political senses, perhaps even defined (as I've seen at least one academic paper mentioning them), but there is no consensus on their use in general. I am all for the article since it describes this term, but I think that the lack of a definitive definition seriously hampers what can be done with it. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC) (the IP editor)
 * P.S.: I'm pretty tired right now, but having looked over your Russian links, the term "neo-Stalinism" doesn't seem to occur in any of them (they seem to merely note more positive views of Stalin in the educational system, which is historical revisionism indeed, but where is this defined as "neo-Stalinism"?). Could you pinpoint where it's used? PasswordUsername (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * These refs are mostly about the alleged restoration of the "Neo-Stalinism" (whatever it is) in modern Russia. They do not provide an explicit definition of the term. One should look at the refs to see if they fit the subject of this article. Some of them are precisely on the subject, others perhaps not.Biophys (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure they can be interpreted to portray a swing in favor of "neo-Stalinism" – but only subjectively, that is, if we have already defined revised pro-Stalin historical analyses as constituting neo-Stalinism; I didn't notice the term even used, much less defined in those links. Although if you can point out its use, we could certainly add it as one sense of "neo-Stalinism" to this article. PasswordUsername (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, a lot of judgments in politics and social sciences are highly subjective. We must only provide a clear attribution. This is all. Remember, "verifiability, not truth".Biophys (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Verifiability, not truth" does not mean that we can pass off articles that do not use the term "neo-Stalinism" as references for giving a definition of it in the first sentence of the lede. PasswordUsername (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Definition of the term
I am not sure that definition was correct. See here for example.Biophys (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, that would be one usage. Although if your disagreement refers to the first definition in the article, that's the part that I have the gravest reservations about it. I've seen it used in various political senses, but never defined (or used) as "historical revisionism in favor of Stalin." PasswordUsername (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's take a look to Revisionism (Marxism). "The word revisionism is used to refer to various ideas, principles and theories that are based on a significant revision of fundamental Marxist premises. I don't know any ideological or political current that uses the term "revisionism" for Neo-Stalinism. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's actually supposed to be "historical revisionism" in that sentence. I mistyped, sorry. But I have seen no evidence of it even being used in this sense, let alone defined as such by an encyclopedia, a dictionary, or a non-partisan organization. (And for that matter, not even a partisan one.) Why is this the primary meaning we are given? PasswordUsername (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If someone can provide a better definition, please write it down here.Biophys (talk) 00:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Biophys, I suggest we just say that it's an ambiguous term used in different senses by groups with different agendas, and simply chronice the various ways it is used. I have yet to see any evidence for its use as pro-Stalin historical revisionism, though. PasswordUsername (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I included a more clear definition per sources. Some sources indeed describe this as a "historical revisionism", but one should explain what this "revisionism" means.Biophys (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Great job of all of you. I think here the term "revisionism" is given in is general way and not with the Marxism meaning. We have to be careful which link to add to the word revisionism then. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the refs -- TIME ((1) and the World Socialist Website (2) don't actually use the term, so we can't use them as sources for defining it. The Jamestown article you added is a dead link (it actually links to something else --(3)). So we're back with Clark, but she's just one writer. Others -- for example, the Trotskyists -- have something completely different in mind when using the label. PasswordUsername (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "'used in various senses"" is not definition of a term. Please provide some definition per sources. I fixed link. The term was used in a definite sense in cited sources (it had precisely the meaning I included). Link to Jamestown foundation was corrected. Biophys (talk) 01:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. "used in various senses" is even worse than just not being a definition; it's an impressive-sounding phrase signifying nothing.  A thought-terminating cliché, if you will.  Most definitely not something that fits into an encyclopædia. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 21:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It (the locution "used in various senses") oddly seems to encyclopedically fit into these ones, though. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Biophys, look at the links. I have reverted thrice, so you obviously have the upper hand by going back now to your own version, which does not define neo-Stalinism in three out of four refs. Clark gives some definition of neo-Stalinism (at least, she uses the word to give her sense of it). The other links do not. How can you use them as references for the definition? The Jonestown link still doesn't work: it now links to a blank page with the words "no news_id given

Email this article to a friend" -PasswordUsername (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have alternative definitions of the term per sources, you are welcome to include them. All sources I have seen (currently in the article) use it in the same sense as Clark.Biophys (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I will include the others. PasswordUsername (talk) 01:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Great. But unfortunately your citation does not really defines the meaning of the term.Biophys (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Petty. I said Draper "referred" to neo-Stalinism as, which contributes to the article, so I'm not sure why you're highlighting the semantics here. I'm not the one adding fake references purporting to define the concept. (What was the point of deleting my edit to put in place yours? Because it's better to define "Stalinism" as fascism than anti-socialism from your point of view, when Draper subscribes to both?) PasswordUsername (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * this edit looks like a WP:Copyvio to me. Besides, such extensive citation of a single source does not make the article better. I think this belongs to Planned economy. Biophys (talk) 03:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Did I cite too much? PasswordUsername (talk) 03:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, we suppose only to briefly summarize main idea of the source. But its OK to keep your text in footnote is someone wants to look at the details.Biophys (talk) 03:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm sure just citing a series of eight bullet points (about 2-3 paragraphs) qualifies as fair use. There are no specific guidelines as far as I know – Wikipedia says that how much is quoted is based on the proportion of the excerpted material to the original work. What leads you to believe that it is okay to put into the references section what cannot be put into the main body of the article? PasswordUsername (talk) 03:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is huge and not informative text that would make this article unreadable. We must be concise per WP:MOS.Biophys (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Zyuganov
"'In 2005, Communist politician Gennady Zyuganov said that Russia 'should once again render honor to Stalin for his role in building socialism and saving human civilization from the Nazi plague.'[18]"

Is this supposed to be evidence of Zyuganov's neo-Stalinism? So, is he neo-Stalinist for expressing a positive view of some of Stalin's historical role? Stalin's role in building socialism might be "socialism in one country" or it might be the industrialization of the Five-Year Plan, and gratitude for beating the Nazis seems kind of decent. PasswordUsername (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The sentence has to be removed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Why? Indeed, he expressed a positive view of some of Stalin's historical role, which was interpreted as a glorification of Stalin (Neo-Stalinism) in cited source. How about someone expressing a positive view of some of Hitler's historical role? Same thing.Biophys (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What about Western glorification of Stalin's historical role during World War II? PasswordUsername (talk) 02:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If such things have been described as "Neo-Stalinism", they belong here.Biophys (talk) 03:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, they have not, and this might have something to do with the adequacy of the criterion. What, in practice, constitutes the difference between "praise" and "glorification" in regard to someone like Stalin? PasswordUsername (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No difference. You can call this either way.Biophys (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, then the definition has problems. There was a poll in Russia last year I think and Stalin was among the 3 or 4 most important figures. Does that mean that 40% (I don't know the exact number is just an example) of Russian are Neo-Stalinists? -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That was indeed described in many sources as rise of Stalinism and Stalinist attitudes in Russia. As about "neo", this is less frequently used.Biophys (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you really think that any praise for Stalin's actions makes one a "neo-Stalinist," is my Jewish grandmother a Stalinist for praising Stalin for defeating Nazi Germany or crediting the industrialization policy for that defeat? Because this seems like your accusation against Zyuganov. PasswordUsername (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The Soviet Union lost around 25 million soldiers and civilians in the Second World War. The question follows, did the casualty rate have to be so high? Or were so many lives lost due to Stalin's mismanagement of the armed forces? We can thank the people for defeating Hitler, but condemn Stalin for inviting disaster with his murderous repressions and pact with Hitler. Martintg (talk) 00:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. But is praising something Stalin did well a sure indicator that one is a "neo-Stalinist"? A whole lot of people who have praised things like the Soviet Union's first 5-Year-Plan, say, have criticized Stalin on various grounds, such as the bloodletting and terror during the Great Purges. What's the criterion, exactly? PasswordUsername (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Current lede
The first sentence, currently, reads "Neo-Stalinism is a term that describes rehabilitation and glorification of Joseph Stalin, restoration of Stalinist policies, or a moderated Stalinist state, "without political reprisals but with persecution and total control.' [1][2]"

The last part is the definition by Katherine Clark. What exactly does it mean to have a politics "without political reprisals but with persecution"? PasswordUsername (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I fixed this a little.Biophys (talk) 02:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah. Those quotation marks kind of fooled me – it wasn't even from her. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was from another source.Biophys (talk) 03:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Which source was it that read "without political reprisals but with persecution and total control"? PasswordUsername (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * that one.Biophys (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Gorby's just brilliant. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Current Lede II
Biophys, I'm glad we got rid of the necessarily self-contradictory above one-liner from Gorbachev, but I'm not too happy with the current lede: "'Neo-Stalinism is a term that describes rehabilitation and glorification of Joseph Stalin, restoration of Stalinist policies, or a moderated Stalinist state, without large-scale repressions but with persecution of political opponents and total control of all political activities in the country [1][2]'" The first ref, of course, is the old Gorby link; the second one is Clark, but she doesn't write about glorification; in fact, the context to which you linked is actually:"Since the mid-sixties, the advocates of destalinization have encountered strong opposition. Some authors have broken the taboo of the Khrushchev years and have praised the Stalin era and its leaders. This tendency, the so-called neo-Stalinism, must not be confused with Stalinism itself. The neo-Stalinists look to the Stalin era as a time of unity, strong rule, and national honor, but they do not necessarily want a return to the Stalinism of large scale terror and the purges.2" Which is pretty different from the definition that it's supposed to be the citation for.

What really doesn't sit right, though, is that you've essentially taken two separate explanations of the term: Gorbachev's ("Stalinism without political reprisals but with persecution and total control") and Clark's ("...they do not necessarily want a return to the Stalinism of large scale terror and the purges"). If they are used in two different ways, so we cannot just sum these together into "without large-scale repressions but with persecution of political opponents and total control of all political activities in the country" – this is WP:SYNTH. Note that it is the combination you have created here, rather than the statements themselves that I find fault with. It is perfectly legitimate, I think, to present these views, but not by taking bits and pieces of one view and adding it onto another in the exact same sentence. At any rate, I think we could use something better than Gorby's quip in the lede itself, because "without political reprisals but with persecution" truly smacks of self-contradiction. PasswordUsername (talk) 10:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Post Soviet Russia
All of the material in this section:

''As of 2008, nearly half of Russians view Stalin positively, and many support restoration of his monuments dismantled in the past. In 2005, Communist politician Gennady Zyuganov said that Russia "should once again render honor to Stalin for his role in building socialism and saving human civilization from the Nazi plague."

In 2009, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev announced plans to criminalize criticism of Stalin's actions before, during and after World War II. In May 2009, Medvedev described the Soviet Union under Stalin as "our country."''

is sourced and notable. How is it SYNTH? It just records what the sources state.radek (talk) 10:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that we have either a synthesis or a coatrack. The sources do not call these things neo-Stalinist, and we don't have anything that states that praising any element of the Stalinperiod = neo-Stalinism. (Provide sources if you can support that view.) The new Russian law prohibits criticism of the WWII victory, not anything Stalin did (you might note that Solzhenitsyn and Putin were pretty tight as far as much of their politics, the latter going as far as paying a nice birthday visit to the latter.) The BBC source, incidentally is not available – your link is dead. PasswordUsername (talk) 10:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * First, because a link is dead does not mean that the source has ceased to exist.radek (talk) 10:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could find it! And second? PasswordUsername (talk) 10:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Second, the sources don't have to use the term "neo-Stalinism" for the material to be acceptable in the article text - just the subject matter has to be related, which it clearly is. Otherwise you'd cut out 90% of text from 90% of Wiki articles. So the fact that the sources don't use the term is not sufficient to claim SYNTH. In fact, the statements merely describe what is in the sources.radek (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

In particular the article defines: Neo-Stalinism is a term that describes rehabilitation and glorification of Joseph Stalin, restoration of Stalinist policies, or a moderated Stalinist state - obviously "restoration of his monuments dismantled in the past" fits that def. As does saying that "Russia "should once again render honor to Stalin". And same for describing "the Soviet Union under Stalin as "our country."" - I'm more sympathetic to the fact that the law doesn't criminalize all of Stalin's actions (btw, BBC link works just fine for me); for that, if true, a better, more precise source should be found.radek (talk) 10:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you missed the above discussion. First, note that the article's definition is a synthesis that never found its consensus. Second, note that the first source (presumed origin for the first part of the definition) doesn't explicitly say this (and its place relies on WP:OR). Hence, I'm afraid we need to rely on policies for WP:SYNTH. Nearly every Russian celebrates WWII victory and acknowledges the country's successful industrialization as a key factor of it without any nostalgia for Stalin or anything such. PasswordUsername (talk) 10:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course if the presumption was that celebrating WWII victory is equal to rehabilitation and glorification of Joseph Stalin, you'd be right. But that's not what the sources are saying, and neither is anyone saying that here or in the article. The sources are directly describing the rehabilitation and glorification of Joseph Stalin (as I indicated above). So no SYNTH or OR - and the article is what it is. Get consensus for changing the definition in the lead first, then you can argue that this is synth or or.radek (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please quote where any source actually describes rehabilitation of Stalin as the definition of neo-Stalinism. That was the problem back in May, still not resolved. PasswordUsername (talk) 11:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources don't have to do that since this very article states that the rehabilitation of Stalin is an instance of neo-Stalinism.radek (talk) 11:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the basis for you asserting that? PasswordUsername (talk) 11:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh... common sense? We have an article that says it is about something. We have sources which talk about this something. Somehow you're saying that because you don't agree with what the something that the article is about is, including these sources constitutes SYNTH. But as long as the article says that it is about something, then examples of this something being included is just ... writing the article.radek (talk) 11:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As you can see from the article, the term is used as a pejorative in various senses. I have yet to see a source that gives a definition for neo-Stalinism as rehabilitation of Stalin, so I see putting in post-Soviet Russia into the mix as coatracking POV, unless we have a reliable source explicitly describing it as such. You can, of course, help by finding such. The definition part is still problematic, since we dont't have a source describing neo-Stalinism as rehabilitation of Stalin, and I'm afraid we should stick to sources that directly label phenomenon x neo-Stalinist to avoid the coatracking charge. Common senses are quite diverse things within the realm on political subjects. PasswordUsername (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I really don't know how to state this any more clearly. The article says that neo-Stalinism is X, Y and Z. We have sources talking about X, Y and Z. You're objecting to this article stating that neo-Stalinism is X, Y and Z. Fine. But as long it says so the sources should be included and there's nothing SYNTH about it. If you want to change X, Y and Z (provided you have sources) then let's talk about that - but until then the material should go back in.radek (talk) 10:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Deletions of these materials continue . Perhaps we need to include more supporting refs:, .Biophys (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Gorby
In regard to "Gorbachev's domestic policies were described as neo-Stalinist by some Western sources." And whether or not these kinds of policies preceded Glasnost - Glasnost is second half of the 80's.

"How Russia became a market economy" by Aslund - it's here : "For example, in 1985 and 1986 the most conspicuous economic measures were neo-Stalinist policies against alcohol and so-called unearned income" - so 1) not all of Gorby's policies are referred to as neo-Stalinist, just two, 2) The time period, 1985 and 1986, is right before Glasnost - in fact the purpose of the passage is to contrast the lack of reforms and some neo-Stalinist policies before 1986 and after. So based on this particular source it's pretty clear that "pre-Glasnost" belongs in there.radek (talk) 10:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. And the other sources label other policies neo-Stalinist. The NR material, for one, does not get specific at all. PasswordUsername (talk) 10:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hold on. Going through each one. The NR source does specifically state that one dude called Gorby "neo-Stalinist" however unfashionable that is (my emphasis) - so very clearly the article states that this is an exception to the rule, supporting the use of "some" rather than "various" if not "a".radek (talk) 10:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC) PasswordUsername (talk) 10:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Heritage source - again, written in 1985 so pre-Glasnost.radek (talk) 10:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Want an LA Times source? . And this one also notes that Gorbachev the dismissal of Gorby throughout the late '80s as a neo-Stalinist in Gucci garb – "Political Psychology, Politicized Psychology", p. 517: PasswordUsername (talk) 10:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Uhh... that's an "Armenian leader" calling Gorby a neo-Stalnist. Not a "Western source".radek (talk) 10:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The pdf also only refers to "one influential conservative" describing Gorby as such. Again, what you have here is the evidence that SOME people made those kind of statements, usually pre-Glasnost.radek (talk) 11:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ugh, the Armenian leader was quoted in the headline of the LA Times piece in 1990. To get at specifics here, the second source states that "many went on record in the late 1980s to dismiss the significance of the movement toward freedom of expression and democracy in the East Bloc (in the alliterative phrase of one influential conservative, Gorbachev was a 'neo-Stalinist in Gucci garb')." But do you want to see more? As a special bonus, don't forget well-respected antiwar activist and libertarian Justin Raimondo, referring to Gorbachevite "soft Stalinism" in this piece from 2003: . PasswordUsername (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Right, so we have a Western source REPORTING on how a non-Western source DESCRIBED Gorby. But that's different than a Western source DESCRIBING Gorby as such. Talk about SYNTH (actually OR in this case).radek (talk) 11:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So, the LA times didn't write of the Armenian guest's reaction to Gorbachev as a neo-Stalinist? And the other sources are not enough for you? PasswordUsername (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between "reporting" what someone says and "describing" something directly, no? If I say "The Times of India states that PasswordUsername is a Wikipedia editor" that doesn't mean that I believe that you are in fact a Wikipedia editor (though I could) - only that I am aware that others thinks so.radek (talk) 11:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Re Raimondo - so we have more right wing sources. How about stating that "Some right wing Western sources described Gorbachev as a neo-Stalinist, particularly during the pre-Glasnost period" - this accurately reflects what the sources actually say, and that way we don't do any SYNTH or OR.radek (talk) 11:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Because Tismaneanu is certainly not right-wing – in fact, he was dead left until post-1989 and is labeled a Marxist on Wikipedia. Raimondo isn't a traditional conservative, for that matter, either: he's an openly-gay anti-war libertarian. Nor is the LA Times, which made a headline of the Armenian's characterization of Gorby as neo-Stalinist, for that matter, considered "right-wing" by anyone I know. Nor do I have any evidence that the cited book in the article is "right-wing." If you don't trust the right-wingers, though – why did that never come into the equation at the Soviet-run peace movements in the West article? You don't have to answer. PasswordUsername (talk) 11:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, we can drop the "right wing" part, though Tismaneanu is clearly an exception, as the article in fact states. The LA Times is obviously not describing Gorby as neo-Stalinist. The key is that while there are SOME sources which describe him as such, there aren't that many. Gorby=neo-Stalinist was not a very popular meme during the Glasnost period.radek (talk) 11:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And how's your take on this LA article? "Administration Condemns Gorbachev's Call for Legislature to Suspend Press Law - Freedom: The Senate urges Bush to consider cutting off aid to Soviet Union because of the Lithuania assault. Scholars warn of Stalinist tactics". PasswordUsername (talk) 11:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean the one where Bob Dole calls unknown and unnamed Kremlin apparat neo-Stalinist? Not the same thing as calling Gorby that, sorry.radek (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article reads:
 * "'The strong criticism by the White House, the State Department and Capitol Hill came amid warnings by noted scholars that the Kremlin appears to be turning the clock back to methods of repression used by dictator Josef Stalin and his hard-line successors...'"
 * As far as what Dole said:
 * "'We will not tolerate unknown and unnamed Kremlin apparat (organizations) implementing a neo-Stalinist crackdown in the Baltics while we practice business as usual with Gorbachev in Moscow,' Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) said.
 * "'Our fundamental commitment is not to Gorbachev--but to his reformist policies and if he turns his back on those policies--the deal is off,' Dole added,'"
 * while
 * "'Gorbachev's unexpected proposal to suspend the 7-month-old Soviet press freedom law to achieve more 'objectivity' drew fire from White House Press Secretary Marlin Fitzwater. (Liberal Soviet lawmakers in the legislature denounced Gorbachev's move and forced the proposal into a parliamentary commission for study.) 'It is not a good sign that he (Gorbachev) is looking to subdue or muzzle the press as a way of getting 'objectivity,'' Fitzwater said of the Soviet leader who won praise for his original program of glasnost, or openness.'"
 * You seem to have a problem with the sources, no matter how many of them honestly describe Gorbachev for the neo-Stalinist that he actually was. But I thought the right context came from the headline of the article: "Administration Condemns Gorbachev's Call for Legislature to Suspend Press Law - Freedom: The Senate urges Bush to consider cutting off aid to Soviet Union because of the Lithuania assault. Scholars warn of Stalinist tactics." Sure seems like the LA Times is making the connection between Gorbachev and a neo-Stalinist turn in his country's domestic politics to me. Do you even see that the sources do not agree with you? PasswordUsername (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with misrepresenting SOME sources as "many" or "various" sources. So again where does Dole call Gorby neo-Stalinist? And where are these scholars? In engaging in SYNTH and OR here. Note that I am not objecting to saying that SOME sources said this - just to giving the impression that this was a widespread view of Gorby at the time. Which it wasn't.radek (talk) 10:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody is saying "many" here. Various is more appropriate, since labels of Gorbachev as a neo-Stalinist come from leftists, rightists, and libertarians. Note that "some" is a classic example of a "weasel" word.
 * Here, by the way, is Andy Blunden, founder and executive secretary of the Marxists Internet Archive, writing in 1993 that "Gorbachev, who led the drive to foster capitalist economic relations in the USSR was a Stalinist." PasswordUsername (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And this one's obviously NOT a reliable source.radek (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So opinions from right-wingers are too right-wing, opinions from leftists are too fringe, and opinions from Marxists are unreliable. You seem unsatisfied in each case. Incidentally, Roy Medvedev is a Marxist, and you put him (and Gorbachev) in the lede. I really am wondering! PasswordUsername (talk) 08:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The basic problem is that the current wording is giving the false impression that Gorbachev was WIDELY regarded as neo-Stalinist whereas if anything the opposite is true. As I've stated on several occasions now, I got no problem with stating that there were SOME Western sources (and let's keep it to Western sources in the refs, not Armenian politicians) that said that. Otherwise we'll need to include the many, many, many sources which called Gorbachev reformist, liberal, etc to ensure NPOV balance.radek (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes you think Brezhnev or anyone else was widely described as a neo-Stalinist? We are not statisticians: if one wants to be specific, we can give who said what and when in relation to whom. This is the proper way of clearing up vagueness per Wikipedia protocol. Again, however, a non-descriptive ambiguity like "some" is clearly to be avoided as a weasel word. PasswordUsername (talk) 07:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about statistics but the simple fact that Gorbachev was known for, if anything, re-starting the process of deStalinization and reform rather than being a "neo-Stalinist" even if a source here or there made that statement at some point in reference to some period of his being in power. For example (entire chapter on Gorbachev and deStalinization), or here [http://books.google.com/books?id=lrzmQGOURqIC&pg=PA229&dq=Gorbachev+destalinization&lr=&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=de-Stalinization&f=false (Gorbachev embracing de-Stalinization), or here ("Gorbachev's de-Stalinization campaign). Basically you've managed to dig up enough sources to show that there were indeed people in the West who charged Gorby with being a neo-Stalinist (and that before his reforms or when he had second thoughts later) - but as written the text gives a mistaken impression that this was a widespread view. It wasn't. The opposite was the widespread view and this needs to be incorporated for balance if this "Gorby was a neo-Stalinist" stuff remains.radek (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Reichman
Can we get the full quote for where Reichman is specifically talking about neo-Stalinism? The passage that was included was him all talking about Stalinism with an addition appendaged outside the quotes to the effect that the same applied to neo-Stalinism. Can someone please provide the relevent portions from pages 59-89 (and can we a bit more specific on the page numbers? Quoting 30 pages for a short passage is like not quoting any pages at all).radek (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll check the source. PasswordUsername (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't bother, I've checked the source already. See my comment below in the "lede" section. V ЄСRUМВА  ♪  15:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

lede
Uhh... why exactly is it that Reichman (who thinks the label "Stalinism" is vacuous) is to be in the lede, as the person who gets to define what neo-Stalinism is (even though we don't even know for a fact that he wrote about neo-Stalinism as opposed to plain ol' Stalinism!) but other scholars are delegated to the history section? Medvedev's is way way better known than Reichman, has his own Wiki article and his work has the advantage of actually being on the subject of this article, rather than a related one.radek (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

And of course Gorbachev's more notable then either. I did accidentally lead the Clark source in there but I otherwise attributed and clean up the Gorby quote. If you want to quote him directly: "neo-Stalinism - Stalinism without political reprisals but with persecution and total control." in order to avoid SYNTH, that's fine, but he should definetly be in the lede (as should Medvedev).radek (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Reichman's treatise on the term/concept "Stalinism" in no place uses words which connote "vacuous" et al.. I have the entire article and PasswordUsername's content created based on that article is, except for the bit in quotes, a complete and utter misrepresentation of and insult to Reichman's scholarship. In particular, except for the one footnote with reference to Cohen, Reichman does not discuss "neo-Stalinism" at all, making PasswordUsername's purporting that Reichman criticises both terms as "vacuous" a sorry morrass of POV synthesis. I've corrected the content in question and removed the clarification tag. V ЄСRUМВА  ♪  15:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "'Stalinism' describes here a movement, there an economic, political, or social system, elsewhere a type of political practice or belief-system....' He references historian Stephen Cohen's work reassessing Soviet history after Stalin as a "continuing tension between anti-Stalinist reformism and neo-Stalinist conservatism," observing that such a characterization requires a 'coherent' definition of Stalinism — whose essential features Cohen leaves undefined." This isn't vacuous? Thanks for getting the full paragraph, I last saw the source in May, but the characterization that this is a critique of a term's loss of concrete content is spot on. PasswordUsername (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You are clutching at straws. Reichman mentions neo-Stalinism exactly once in a footnote, noting that Cohen defines conservative neo-Stalinism in the context of/in opposition to reformist anti-Stalinism but does not dig deeper. Reichman's comments are an expression of his disappointment in Cohen's writing, that Cohen—who is more than qualified to do so—did not explore further. Reichman's comments are not about the terms "(anti-)Stalinism" and "neo-Stalinism". Reichman's entire monograph is about the richness in variation of the term "Stalinism" and about its use and evolution over time both during and after Stalin, with particular insight into the times and the personalities involved. Vacuous and muddled? Sorry, that's 180 degrees from what Reichman has written. V ЄСRUМВА  ♪  20:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Furman
He tells: FURMAN: "Yes. It leads to a state of neo-Brezhnevism, or even of neo-Stalinism. Except, this neo-Stalinism, unlike its original, won't have any strategic or ideological aspirations. Such a non-ideological Stalinism seeks control for the sake of control, not for the sake of world revolution. It rather seeks retaining control over its own country, than global domination.". So, this is precisely on the subject. Why delete? What does this comment mean: "it is not neo-stalinism - it is editors own misguided POV and we don't edit on our own POVs."?Biophys (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, this is a good article about the Resuming Stalin's personality cult in Russia. It tells: "Сталинский ренессанс в России происходит в самых что ни на есть современных декорациях. Сталину и его подручным и не снились возможности телевидения и Интернета, они и представить не могли, насколько можно дезориентировать общество посредством пиар-технологий. И не надо никакого железного занавеса, да и без массовых репрессий можно обойтись - достаточно точечных убийств."Biophys (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This Weekly Standard article describing British Human Rights Group's problems with Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili's neo-Stalinist bluster is a good one. PasswordUsername (talk) 09:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, here is a very good article where Daniel Larison writes about the old cult of personality directed towards Stalin and the collective post-Soviet amnesia about Soviet government crimes under Saakashvili. PasswordUsername (talk) 09:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

tags
Can we have an explanation for why POV and SYNTH tags are in this article? I mean, other then users inserting them on the basis of IDON'TLIKE IT? I don't see any synth in the relevant section, and all the information is reliably sourced so it's not POV.radek (talk) 11:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I explained why I added the tag in my edit summary. It appears that people are just piling in a bunch of information that they consider to be "neo-stalinism" even though the articles in most cases do not make such a connection or mention neo-stalinism at all. So what gives you the editor the right to make that classification? It's a violation of both WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.LokiiT (talk) 11:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, each section is clearly on the topic of neo-Stalinism. Can you point out how it doesn't relate? Also can you articulate what exactly is POV in the article? The tag has been there for more than three months, yet I don't see a single explanation for it on this talk page - the only one had to do with the definition and Gorby and it seems these two issues have been put to rest. The SYNTH and the POV tags are not to be used as stand in for a "I just don't like it" tag (which, for obvious reasons, doesn't exist). Finally, don't make false accusations about revert warring against other users. Thanks.radek (talk) 11:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * None of those incidences explicitly mention neo-stalinism in the sources given. That means you're simply using a definition made by whoever you feel like, and applying these incidences to that definition, despite the fact that there are many differing and unclear definitions, and it's simply a matter of opinion. That's what original synthesis is. Anything in that section where the source doesn't explicitly mention neo-stalinism should be removed. LokiiT (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, no, that's not how it works. The article is about a particular phenomenon, and the definition of this phenomenon is given in the lede. The article text gives explanations or instances of this phenomenon. It does not have to use the words "neo-stalinism" precisely, as long as it's obvious that the phenomenon that the sources describe clearly fall into the definition given by the article. Otherwise any article anywhere could be tagged with the SYNTH tag for the flimsiest of reasons (which is pretty much the definition of the IDON'TLIKEIT objection). What you have to show (and yes, you do have to make that effort) is that somehow the article text takes information from disparate sources and tries to fuse them into one. If the text is presented in different parts - with no explicit connection being made between the different parts, then it cannot be synth. I'd be happy to ask for a Third Opinion on this.radek (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand how wikipedia works. In order for something to be labeled as neo-stalinism, it must be mentioned in the source per wiki policy. WP:SOURCES says "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made". WP:OR says "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."What this means is that if you're claiming something about a history book is neo-stalinism (which is implied by its inclusion in the article), that claim must be mentioned in the source. There are no two ways about it. Anything else is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. It doesn't matter if you think it falls under one of the many definitions in this article, that's unpublished analysis. There is no authority on what can be defined as neo-stalinism. You are certainly not an authority. If something is to be labeled "neo-stalinism", it must be said so in the article, and the claim must be attributed. As for a third opinion, that would be of no use because you're already outnumbered 3 to 1.LokiiT (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I know quite well how Wikipedia works, thank you very much (and please keep opinions of that sort to yourself). As the guideline you quote yourself states it is NOT the case that "it must be mentioned in the source" but rather that it must be "directly related". And the material is very obviously directly related. And btw, what's up with removing text from the article and claiming that it is not in the source, when it very clearly is? That's just plain disruptive.radek (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your analysis of what these articles are implying or leading to is original research. Thank you for proving my point. Regarding your most recent revert, that sentence is not supported by the BBC article, and the other reference is improper. Please fix it so that one can click a link and be directed to the cited article, per WP:SOURCE, otherwise I will remove it again. Also see Referencing for beginners if you need help with that. Also I must add that your constant reverting before discussing things is very disruptive and unhelpful. LokiiT (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I added undue as well. The phrase "n May 2009, President Dmitry Medvedev described the Soviet Union during the war as "our country" and set up the Historical Truth Commission to counter anti-Soviet criticism" is true but, along with other phases, gives the impression that the all Russia follows a "neo-stalinist" policy. The articles tries to lead to certain conclusions. Remember, that Putin some days ago gave some statements about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the things are not so black & white. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * How in the world does the phrase give the impression that all Russia follows a "neo-stalinist" policy? Does it say anything about all Russia or all Russians? No. And what exactly is undue in this regard? How is this objection even related to the article text? This is more IDON'TLIKE IT.radek (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * First a phrase of Russia's Prime Minister, then the use of the term "Russian neo-Stalinism", I think this leads us somewhere. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are two unrelated paragraphs, which is why the text is in ... two different paragraphs.radek (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * More specifically there is nothing in the article text which links or "synthesizes" the two paragraphs. They are two different instances of the phenomenon, as reported in the sources.radek (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We can't let that stand without a good discussion of neo-Stalinism by Saakashvili. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what point you are trying to make here.radek (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Gulag Archipelago becomes mandatory reading for Russian students
'Gulag' book, once banned, is now required reading

So can this fit anywhere into the post-Soviet Russia section, or does it not fit into the controlling editor's agenda of trying to make Russia appear as if it's trying to indoctrinate people to believe Stalin was all good? LokiiT (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion
I am not sure what was the reason for this deletion: . The segment describes an official position of Russian state toward Stalinism. Why delete? Biophys (talk) 01:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It implies that the official position is sympathetic to Stalinist policies (ie. Neo-Stalinism), when the actual controversy is the history of their victory and liberation of Europe despite Stalin. Didn't you hear Putin's speech in Poland a few days ago where he described Stalin's Totalitarianism as "crippling the destiny of Russia"? Why not include that then? LokiiT (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Loki, why are you removing this section ? It's pertinent to the topic. Also, are you accusing Vecrumba of being somebody's sock puppet? If so, then please file the relevant report. If not, then don't make such accusations as they amount to a personal attack.radek (talk) 02:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How can you ask a question that I answered only minutes ago in my reply above? And I wrote on your talk page why I made that accusation. Also I couldn't help but notice your deceiving revert summary. You didn't just reinsert that section, you reverted the changes which attributed an opinion to the person who made the statement. Now it's back to using someone's opinion as a fact, which is quite misleading and against wiki policy. LokiiT (talk) 02:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The statement is sourced to a reliable source. If you have problems with it, at least try to revert it separately (after justifying the reversion) rather than combining it with a major removal of info. Likewise, the section you are removing is cited to reliable sources. You have failed to explain why it should be removed.radek (talk) 02:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I explained clearly why it should be removed. Read what I wrote straight above in response to BIophys (why do I have to repeat this?), read my edit summaries, and read the discussion from a few days ago. Further, no one said anything about the source. Why do you always bring that up when its entirely irrelevant? I could find a reliable source that says grass is green, but I'm not going to add it to the article because it has nothing to do with neo-Stalinism. LokiiT (talk) 02:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

undue
Can someone explain why the tag has been placed there?radek (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

School education
The section as it's going is propaganda. There are tons of history text-books, and teachers are free to chose what to use. This isn't ever mentioned. ellol (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes but there are books which are pushed by the government. It's not propaganda, it's well sourced.radek (talk) 08:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No. The official policy is that teachers are free in their choice. Prove it wrong. ellol (talk) 12:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You listen only to Russian liberals, and do not listen to Russian patriots. That results in the skewed image that is the classic Goebbels propaganda, because it's the semi-truth that's worse than the outright lie. ellol (talk) 12:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)]


 * Ellol: Are they or are they not text books which are used for educating children? If they are (and they are, as you yourself indicate teachers may choose them for courses of instruction) the section stays. V ЄСRUМВА  ♪  19:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No one suggested to remove the section altogether, and no one attempted to do so. Note that since he started this topic, he made some improvements to that section himself. What might motivate you to to fabricate a dispute? LokiiT (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What about the phrase: "no matter that he executed millions of Soviet citizens"? The number of people directly executed by Stalin is disputed, with Soviet records suggesting that he signed the death warrants of between 700,000 and 900,000. This phrase suggests that Stalin having killed million is an undisputed fact. Also, surely it is not accurate to suggest that teachers in Russia acknowledge that he killed millions, but think think that it doesn't matter, as this phrase suggests? Mahrooq (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Russian Patriots and Nationalists cant be Communists really, Communism is a decidedly a-national and internationalistic Ideology. The USSR was a multi-ethnic state by the way.--Belial Chons (talk) 14:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant
What in the world does this section "Troubles of cultural development in 1990s" have to do with the subject of the article? Why is this even in there?radek (talk) 08:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It is the general history background that is absolutely necessary to understand the possible threats of neo-Stalinism in Russia. The current problems (as this section shows perfectly) arises not from the excessive strength, but excessive weakness of social institutions.
 * People who view Stalin positively do that not because they like Stalin's repressions or other crimes, but because they feel despair looking on the wreck inflicted on the social institutions. What they actually want are not repressions, but order.
 * The information I inserted is not a blah-blah-blah of an expert who didn't ever visit the country, but an excerpt from one of the most authoritative history university courses in Russia, prepared by two Russian Doctors of History. ellol (talk) 12:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

And is section "Svolovhi film controversy" relevant? The article mentions that after the controversy arose both the writer and the director confessed the plot was mere fiction (previouusly claiming the contrary) - so criticism of this film is just seeking historical truth, not whitewashing Stalin.Satiksme (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the section is irrelevant, and "Svolovhi" are irrelevant too. Biophys (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

'Neo-Stalinism in the West'
I have removed this section of this article, as it was very poorly referenced - just two links to use of the word 'neo-Stalinist' in British politics, when it was clearly being used as a hyperbolic pejorative term rather than a serious description. (As a matter of fact, there is a genuine neo-Stalinist group in the United Kingdom - the Stalin Society - but they're so insignificant they're probably not worth mentioning.) Robofish (talk) 15:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This whole article is a meaningless piece of crap. That's not due to the selection of the material included -- but the very idea of the article is wrong. Stalin is dead. There's no such thing as Neo-Stalinism.
 * This is a perfectly sourced piece of meaningless crap, to sum it up.
 * ellol (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Propaganda has its purpose in the world, and wikipedia is arguably taking over TV as the best platform for it. Meaningless from an educational viewpoint, sure, but wikipedia is as much about education as Pravda was about news. LokiiT (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree -- it's simply not possible to stand against users who want to make Wikipedia less an educational resource and more a political one. Any political point is a legitimate POV, and as such it's due to Wikipedia policies to include it. Yet, that makes Wiki meaningless as an educational resource.

E.g., this article is a collection of POVs. We should actually wait for like 300 years, and make it a good educational resource then.

ellol (talk) 13:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

There are Neo-Stalinists in the Western world, in the German Party The Left there are Neo-Stalinists. Its the same with Maoists who you can find outside of China too.--Belial Chons (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

2 definitions
The alleged 2 definition given by gorbachov and medvedev do not contradict each but rather describe more or less the same thing in different words and maybe augment each other a bit. In that sense they form one defintion and not two.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Albania under Enver Hoxha
Albania under Enver Hoxha was classified as Neo-Stalinist too.--Belial Chons (talk) 14:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The Articel is Russocentric
Neo-Stalinism is an ideology which exist everywhere not only in Russia.--141.19.228.15 (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Neo-Stalinism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110823155304/http://oldsearch.kremlin.ru/kremlin_en?text=stalin&isadv=0&type=1&numdoc=&how=rlv&np=&asc=&viddoc=full to http://oldsearch.kremlin.ru/kremlin_en?text=stalin&isadv=0&type=1&numdoc=&how=rlv&np=&asc=&viddoc=full

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neo-Stalinism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070314064406/http://library.thinkquest.org/C001155/documents/doc37.htm to http://library.thinkquest.org/C001155/documents/doc37.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Neo-Stalinism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511145805/http://www.newizv.ru/news/2008-03-05/85812/ to http://www.newizv.ru/news/2008-03-05/85812/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070416192616/http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2369713 to http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2369713
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070701022203/http://www.rferl.org/features/features_Article.aspx?m=12&y=2006&id=133FDD19-7078-4BE8-92C2-85C566275229 to http://www.rferl.org/features/features_Article.aspx?m=12&y=2006&id=133FDD19-7078-4BE8-92C2-85C566275229

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)