Talk:Joseph Stalin/Archive 8

message: I would like to know why the intro is vandalized so often and replaced by inaccurate, weak language. It has already been discussed at length in Talk:Joseph_Stalin/archive_7#Awful and the following sections, and if someone wants to change it they ought to have some pretty good reasons. -- Simonides 23:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalized passage 

message: Can someone clean up this long rant added to the "Rise to power" section? mikka (t) 19:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above, I pared down the essay/rant in the "Rise to Power" section (Mikka removed the same editor's "essay" about Collectivization, quite rightly, as it's well covered in the relevant article). I also said that it's debatable if it needs to be there at all, even in the "pared-down" version. I'm reluctant to remove someone's whole contribution, especially when they are a new editor, as I don't want to discourage new editors; but if the consensus feeling is that it should all go, then so be it. Incidentally, regarding "form", when I looked at the mark-up behind the "essay" it showed that the editor had separated it into paragraphs by indenting the separate paras, rather than leaving blank-lines, so it was just a case of a new-editor not being familiar with the correct way to format paragraphs, and ending up with one long para, hence looking like a "rant". Also, new editors tend not to be familiar with the idea of keeping to the salient points and wiki-linking to in-depth articles. Camillustalk|contribs 00:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rise to power" 

message: I have removed the paragraph below. I am not sure the pittsburghlive.com is the best authority on the Soviet Union and anyway this is a minor story in the whole science during the Stalin era period, that in turn is a side note in the biography of Joseph Stalin. I think the paragraph should go either into the Ilya Ivanov or Lysenkoism or Science and technology in the Soviet Union articles. I would also like to see a confirmation of the story in another publication (better with the references to the original sources) abakharev 21:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In the 1920s, Stalin reportedly ordered the Soviet Union's top animal-breeding scientist Ilya Ivanov to produce a half-human and hal-ape creature. He wanted a "new invincible human being with immense strength who was insensitive to pain and indifferent to the quality of the food he ate -- and with an underdeveloped brain."Stalin's Apes This attempt by Stalin to toy with eugenics proved unsuccessful, and Ivanov was banished to internal exile for five years.
This has already been discussed above; see #Truth is stranger than fiction. mikka (t) 01:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ilya Ivanov's half-human - half-monkey 

message: The revert comment says, "there are already sections dealing with the purges, deportations, collectivization/famine, etc. Please follow the established organization of the article". The problem is that the established organization does not reflect the importance of some established historical facts. Killings of millions of civilians is by many reputed acounts was one of the main results of Stalin's rule. It doesn't do justice to the killed to include their "little genocides" into sections named after the names given by Stalin state weasels. These names are misleading and do not reflect what has happened. "Collectivization" wasn't just about getting rid of private property. "Deportations" weren't just about travel. In included death by millions. Of old, young, men, women, children, rich and poor. Why should this article follow the Stalinist traditions?--Andrew Alexander 07:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's quite an exaggeration. The Stalinist tradition would be not to devote a word to subject matter such as the 1932-1933 famine caused by collectivization, the purges, deportations, etc. Yes, the titles of the section headings were not chosen to induce an emotional effect, which is the right approach for an encyclopedic entry with a matter-of-fact tone following Wikipedia's policy of NPOV. Futher, if you read beyond just the headings, you'll find the relevant information with great detail. 172 08:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but using Stalinist names instead of real names isn't neutral. To use those names would mean following the Soviet propaganda. Many events are in plain contradiction with the heading names. To say that the famine was the result of mostly Collectivization is misleading. It would be equivalent to describing the death of Jews in Nazi Germany under the heading "Elimination of Genetecally Inferior Species". To call the process of killing of 40% or more of some nation "Deportation" is equally misleading. The name assumes that Stalin wanted to deport someone and not kill 40% of them. But this is biased and wrong. Stalin knew what the result of his orders are going to be based on many previous experiences.--Andrew Alexander 08:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is using "Stalinist names" but rather the names that happen to be the most common English-language terms, such as collectivisation in the USSR and the Great Purges, though just about every nationality in the USSR had its own set of names in its own language for certain Stalinist atrocities. The headings in this article are in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions, which state that "article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." 172 08:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So following this convention the section "Genocides and Mass Killing of Civilian Population" must be left since it by far surpasses Collectivization in recognition by English speakers. The article doesn't follow the guideline. It follows the textbooks of the Soviet Union as far as the headings are concerned. But that isn't a guideline of Wikipedia. Not yet at least. So what's the reason that the mass slaughter of civilians is called some Soviet names? Besides the reason of assigning some noble causes to the mass killers. That's what Soviet textbooks tried to achieve.--Andrew Alexander 09:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not the established term, hence the fact that the subject matter is addressed in further detail in collectivisation in the USSR, as opposed to Genocides and Mass Killing of Civilian Population, 1932-1933. Further, nothing in this article can fairly be compared to Soviet textbooks. There is so much material in this article that would have been banned swiftly by Soviet censors had a similar article been published in the Soviet times, even well into the Gorbachev years. 172 09:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Section headings can be compared to Soviet textbooks. Please provide a valid argument why those headings have to be left instead of descriptions of genocides. Wikipedia has a clear policy to avoid weasel terms. "Collectivization" and "deportation" are clearly weasel terms for mass slaughters. At the very least many events deserve to be descripbed under separate headings. The problem of "neutrality" doesn't exist here since mass slaughter is a mass slaughter and any neutral human being will call it such. The problem of "common use" requires to use actual names instead of Soviet ones. So what policy of Wikipedia prevents proper heading names?--Andrew Alexander 20:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Start with the more particular entries and work your way up if you are trying to change the use of lanaguage on Wikipedia. If you think that "collectivization" is a "weasel term," go to the talk page of collectivisation in the USSR and propose a page move to (say) Mass slaughters called "collectivisation" in the USSR. For now the headings in the Stalin article conform to the article titles adopted in the titles of other Wikipedia articles. 172 21:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent revert of "Genocides and Mass Killings" 

message: By the way, while we are bickering here about details a handful of smartasses decided to delete the whole :category:Soviet repression structures and people  at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 15. I reverted this vandalism and ask you to help to refill it, since I don't remember all articles that belonged to this category. mikka (t) 08:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mindless deletion of category about soviet repressions 

message: I changed the picture with one more appropiate.  Bonaparte  talk 11:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: What is the connection between January 17, 1940 execution list of 346 and the Katyn massacre? From what I know, such tragic lists were compiled daily, but I think Katyn is a separate tragedy. Unless some proof is presented, the caption should be fixed. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 00:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "also led to the Katyn massacre"? 

message: The calculations of the 1926 and 1939 censuses by Barbara Anderson and Eric Silver during the 1980s in "Slavic Review" showed excess deaths amounting to between 3.2mn - 5.5mn. If there was a 1937 census that was allegedly destroyed, then how and why would a forged 1939 census still show population defecits?
This person must be mad, human lives mean nothing , a mere 5.5 million dead.  This communist fanatic should be forced to read out the names of just 5.5 million of Stalin's victims. --Berndd11222 20:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bogus 1937 Census reference 

message: Will you ever find wrong dates of birth and death... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.99.0.198 (talk • contribs) .
:Not true, it was present in Encyclopedia Britanica.Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia--Matt 09:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only on Pathetic Wikipedia 

message: After WW2 Harry Truman stood up to Stalin and saved the people of western Europe from Soviet enslavement. The editors at Wikipedia say my language is not “NPOV”  but I think the younger generation today is not aware of the reality that existed in Europe in 1947.  The nations of Europe were devastated by the war , people were unemployed and hungry. The US however had a strong economy and a great President Harry Truman who gave the west the leadership to stop Stalin from overrunning western Europe. The US created the Marshall Plan and gave NATO a nuclear deterrent to counter the Red Army. American planes airlifted the needed supplies to Berlin. American B-29s with Atomic weapons were in Europe on alert in 1948.  The people of Paris were spared the terror of the NKVD that the people of Prague had to endure.  This is the NPOV of my generation.--Berndd11222 15:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral POV- Get real 

message: A.	The USSR in the Stalin era criminalized gay sex see Socialism and sexual orientation
B.	Abortion was made a crime in the USSR in 1936 under Stalin see the History of abortion
C.	That Politburo was an all male club with sessions held in a  smoke filled room , Joe  liked to puff on his pipe when he decided the fate of the toiling masses.--Berndd11222 18:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The USSR under Stalin was not a politically correct country. 

message: The intro contains gross inaccuracies regarding the victioms. At the same time, sourced material is constantly removed by POV-pushiers. Added temaplate. Ultramarine 08:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please elaborate. You cannot add such a template without getting more specific. --Irpen 08:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You insist on extremely low numbers for the victims in the intro without giving souces. At the same time you have removed the sourced material regarding this . Gross violation of NPOV and factual accuracy. Ultramarine 08:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: " He was directly responsible for starting and enforcing waves of executions, which killed hundreds of thousands, and deportations to labor camps and labor colonies where approximately one million died from 1934-1954.". Compare the sourced material!!! Ultramarine 08:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual inaccuracies 

message: :I restored the pre-User:Zvesda@netscape.net version of the intro, which was the last fairly stable version. (Zvesda is the source for much of the content called into question.) I agree that by citing the numbers of deaths resulting from specific aspects of his rule, such as deaths in labor colonies following the Great Purges, rather than the estimates citing vastly higher death tolls focusing on a larger range of historical factors and a longer timeframe (i.e. the numbers that include the famine), we may generate unwarranted confusion. 172 21:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph I insert (and find myself having repeatedly to re-insert) that is as NPOV as can possibly be managed, reads thus:
Because Stalin's era fostered a strong cult of personality, a concentration of political power, and the view of some that he executed his policies without any consideration for their human toll, these factors and others have led to a near-global characerization of him as a dictator. A few scholars say he was directly responsible for starting and enforcing numerous waves of executions, killing hundreds of thousands, and deportations to labor camps and labor colonies where approximately one million died from 1934-1954. Stalin's defenders usually counter that the millions attributed to Stalin's policies actually died as a result of a combination of famine and war.
However, many anti-Stalinists (presumably Trotskyists, anarchists and capitalists foremost) insist on removing this comparatively neutral paragraph and re-replacing it with stuff definitively characterizing Stalin as a dictator and a mass murderer. Despite what many around the world, and in the United States especially, want to believe, it is by NO MEANS universally conceded that Stalin was a dictator, a mass murderer, or both. In a recent poll, FIFTY PERCENT of Russians view Stalin favorably; take that for what you will, but it's still the case. Around the world, Maoists still exist, and if you remember, Mao supported Stalin, at the very least insofar as he denounced Khruschev rather fiercely as a revisionist after the Secret Speech. So between the Russians, the anti-revisionists, the Maoists, and the people that know and accept the pro-Stalin version of the history of the Soviet Union, that's more people than just a few. It's certainly more than to call this stuff "gulag revisionism" or whatever it is they call it. Do the opinions and perspectives of Maoists, anti-revisionists, and half the Russian population simply not matter??? Is that what's being said by the repeated removal of the NPOV Stalin paragraph?? If not, just leave it! 71.255.205.175 00:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 71.255.205.175, you removed the following sentence from the intro: Stalin's cult of personality, his extreme concentration of power and the means of its execution characterized his rule. He was directly and indirectly responsible, via his policies, for tens of millions of deaths and unjust deportations to labour camps in the Soviet Union. This sentence is indisputable because it is taking into account 'indirect responsibility.' Though some historians disagree that the Ukrainian famine was genocide, no historian denies that Stalin was not at least 'indirectly responsible' for a famine killing millions in Ukraine alone between 1932-34. For a quick survey on the subject of Stalin's 'death toll' I recommend Michael Ellman "Soviet Repression Statistics: Some Comments" Europe-Asia Studies Vol. 54, No. 7 (Nov., 2002), pp. 1151-1172, if anyone here has access to academic journals at a university library. 172 03:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 172, you're obviously reading things into that NPOV passage I wrote that simpy are not there. (I've restored the passage, though I expect it'll be deleted once again.) The passage does not counter, or attempt to counter, the "indisputable ... indirect responsibility" of Stalin in famine. But the point defenders of Stalin usually try to make is that to hold a leader "indirectly responsible" for things is akin to holding Abraham Lincoln responsible for all the deaths of the American Civil War, for example, or for that matter, holding Lenin responsible for all the deaths of the Russian Civil War, which most reasonable people do not do, not even capitalists. Therefore, the relatively NPOV statement I've inserted is vastly superior to yours, given that not only does it not dispute the mistakes of Stalin as regards unnecessary killings, but it also even gives more to the anti-Stalin side than I personally believe should be in there. 71.246.67.218 16:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Your statement is pure rhetoric meant to influence people into a certain POV. The 'absurdity and immensity' of the Stalinist terror are comprehensively documented aspects of the times, they refer to concrete events such as the complete fabrications of evidence, the various totally baseless charges, the arrests and prosecution of former stooges, vigilantes, prosecutors, etc etc etc, and the involvement of at least over half the adult population, and they are words repeatedly used by respectable scholars. Nothing could be more encyclopaedic than trying to condense the recorded and concrete experience of millions, and there is nothing moralistic about it. As for the policies, they were only succesful if ever at great cost. It's absolutely unencyclopaedic to launch into long explications of Soviet industry without any mention of the context. The latter is called propaganda. There was a great disparity between Soviet records and so-called achievements and what the Soviets went through; polemics occur when you ignore the latter and glorify the former, as most of this article does. -- Simonides 13:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not interested in rants. I agree with your POV. Still, word choice like "absurdity" is inappropriate in encyclopedias. If you are not interested in critical feedback about your writing, don't edit Wikipedia. I'm logging off now, certain that other users will be giving you the same advise in working on style issues. 172 13:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The choice of the word 'absurdity' isn't inappropriate when it does, in fact, refer to what most normal people in normal circumstances would call absurdity, and not to one person's opinion. Let's quote the NPOV page: " a neutral description of the facts, including the fact that various points of view exist, rather than a single, objective point of view ". Without quoting numbers, which would make no sense here, or making the intro much longer than it is, there is no objective way of talking about immensity and absurdity in reference to Stalinist totalitarianism except by using those words; there aren't 'various points of view' on the subject either, because most almost anyone who knows about the nature of accusations, persecution and trials would agree they were absurd. -- Simonides 13:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the concept of absurd as applied to Stalin but "policies without consideration for their human toll. He commenced and encouraged a bureaucratic network of terror, characterized by its immensity and absurdity" is what is called "turgid" language and has no place here. Fred Bauder 14:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please go on and suggest an alternative that mentions everything I do in fewer words. -- Simonides 14:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: Nikodemos, why did remove the sourced material regarding the fabricated economic growth? The sources clearly states that much of figures given were fabricated. Ultramarine 08:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article itself gives no figures, and other sources (e.g. Ofer, Gur. Soviet Economic Growth: 1928-1985, RAND/UCLA Center for the Study of Soviet International Behavior) confirm that there was significant economic growth in the Soviet Union during the Stalin era. Your own source , says on the first page of the introduction: "Despite the obvious and ultimately fatal shortcomings of the Soviet system of central planning, the Soviet growth model nevertheless achieved impressive rates of economic growth and promoted the rapid industrialization of the USSR, particularly in the decades from the 1930s to the 1960s." -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 08:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is disputing that there were economic growth, especially after Stalin. But the source you give shows the fabrication. Look at table 1. and compare the official Soviet (13.9%) with later estimates (2.9% or 5.8%). Ultramarine 08:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: And from my other source "Official Soviet estimates proclaimed high annual growth rates, exceeding 10 percent in the 1950’s, and remaining above 3.5 percent through 1985. In fact, these figures are believed to be largely fabrications.11 In the late 1980’s, Soviet economists Khanin and Selyunin re-estimated growth rates, and found them much lower. Their work suggests that overall growth averaged at most perhaps 3.5 percent.12 They also detected a sharp decline in growth rates beginning in about 1960, falling below 1 percent after 1975. It is likely that the Soviet economy was actually shrinking in the last years of the union; one estimate for Russia gives a growth rate of minus 4 percent for 1990.13" Ultramarine 08:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *sigh* Once again, you try to make a valid point, but then you formulate it in such a POV manner within the article itself that significant discussion is required in order to NPOV it. A NPOV way to make your point would have been: "While there is general agreement among historians that the Soviet Union achieved high levels of economic growth under Stalin, the precise rate of this growth is disputed. Official Soviet estimates placed it at 13.9%, but later Western estimates gave lower figures of 5.8% and even 2.9%." I'll add that text in. Wouldn't it have been so much easier if you wrote it that way from the start? -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 09:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nixer, why did you delete the corrections? They are all supported by the references. Ultramarine 09:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic growth 

message: Has anyone even read through this section? The beginning is just a hodge-podge; the assassination of Kirov is mentioned nowhere, and it was THE turning point for Stalin's consolidation of power and the commencement of the Purges! Would appreciate a clean-up or some suggestions. -- Simonides 12:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point Fred Bauder 23:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Purges 

message: I have listed this page at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/History_and_geography due to the large mix of pro-Stalin editors working on this article. -- Simonides 12:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. No established editor here is "pro-Stalin." Actual pro-Stalin editors tend to get marginalized and reverted quickly. Frankly, such a listing will look like an act of trolling. Your "anti-Stalin" edits get reveted because your writing style is horrible in an encyclopedia, not because any of us are "pro-Stalin." 172 12:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gee, I didn't think some of the 'established editors' here would consider it a personal attack to be called pro-Stalin! As Andrew Alexander and some other frustrated editors have pointed out, the slant of this article is not very different from official Soviet histories published well into the perestroika era and continuing into marginal circles later; the repeated emphasis on the glories of Soviet achievement with the token para or two on vague Stalinist 'crimes', with no clear explication of their exact nature or extent, runs along the same lines. If you don't consider yourself a pro-Stalinist, well and good, and I don't meant to simplify this debate as a matter of taking sides - however, whether out of ignorance, prejudice, or unintentional error, the article frequently glosses over context and goes for the Party line. -- Simonides 13:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, this article is much more critical of Stalin than the articles in Encarta or Brittanica, as another editor has pointed out already. Now, I will no longer reply to you if you are just going to make broad brush accusations. Deal with the other editors now. I'm logging off. 172 13:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment 

message: On the Wikipedia page on Adolf Hitler there is a section more or less devoted to how he has become "synonymous with 'evil'" in Western minds, and how he has become a reviled figure in history. All quite true, but why is there no similar section for Stalin? The deaths directly attributable to Stalin and his policies are monstrously high, higher than Hitler's, and though this is touched upon in the article it is not given anywhere near the attention or the directness that have been given to Hitler's genocides. The argument that such attention would be NPOV falls down, since if that were so, much of the article on Hitler needs to be toned down. Stalin was one of the most ruthless and evil men who ever lived, when will this article reflect that?
:Hitler lost a major war; killed himself; his supporters were outlawed; he killed Jews, who are very vocal. Stalin won a major war; died in bed; his supporters numbered in the tens of millions; he killed folks most people have never heard of. Stalin and his supporters and those of the Soviet Union were able to conduct a public relations campaign of denial and apology that continues to this day. Mostly its a case of shoveling shit against the tide. Fred Bauder 15:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think the comparison should be between Lenin and Hitler. Many people have heard of Stalin, and even communist supporters often try to blame every evil in every Communist states on him. In contrast, the atrocities done by Lenin is much less known and many communist supporters honestly thinks that he was creating the communist paradise, before his death and Stalin's regime. Ultramarine 15:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double Standards, Stalin & Hitler 

message: This article is pisspoor.  it is a disgrace to wikipedia.  The most prolific murderer in history comes over as a thinker and a just ruler.  The tone of this article is beyond belief.  It is an apologia for Stalin not an article.  
This article should be scraped and rewritten by some uninvolved people to give a decent base.  There is about as mush reference to his brutal crimes (which are amazingly presented as being disputed and controversial and then couched in layers am ambiguity and then hidden at the bottom in a sub-sub-heading) as there is about him twice being Time man of the year.  
Who the hell is responsible for this Eric Hobsbawm or something?  Ridiculous.  This was the most negative statement I could find:  "While Stalin's social and economic policies laid the foundations for the USSR's emergence as a superpower, the harshness in which he conducted Soviet affairs was subsequently repudiated by his successors "  Wow. "Stalin's social policies" - oh, like the death quotas?  BLOODY HELL!! 
Fix this article.  And to the people responsible for maintaining it in this shape, I say to you this: you are moral vacuums and slaves to ideology.  Get some perspective by reading the article on the evil one Richard Perle, and then reread this article.  Who seems more evil?  Is this right? jucifer 15:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with everything.Ultramarine 16:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of whether I agree with any of this: WP:NPA. You've reduced what credibility your statement might otherwise had with the name calling. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: It's irritating to come across all this genteel preaching against incivility when some much more important issue is at hand, and curiously it always happens on an article where people are out of their depth. It's like with all the Iraq War debates - almost inevitably the supporter of war and violence will bow out because s/he feels the other is not being 'polite', whereas his or her own politeness apparently compensates for their bloodlust and is a sign of their being right! The analogy with this article being that all the reactionaries want their views up front no matter what, whereas the facts must take a backbench because the people bringing it forward aren't being "respectful" enough of the "seniority". There is something wrong with this article. The problem is more than the sum of its parts - ie it's not so much this or that fact being out of place, but the attitude of the predominant posters here. Many of the same points are being discussed at Talk:Adolf Hitler, the editors here might be able to take a cue or two from the debates there. -- Simonides 04:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civility 

message: Simonides said:
 Nixer, why not take your incomprehensible edit to the Talk page and clarify what you want to say
What edit? I only corrected predecessor and successor of Stalin.--Nixer 13:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was under the impresion you removed the note about Kirov and re-inserted the incomprehensible bit about fears of Nazi elements propelling the purges. I still haven't cleared up the section by the way, but of course everyone else ought to work on it too. -- Simonides 12:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simonides 

message: 60 million deaths in 150-million country? This is delirium. In WWII there about 26 million killed - and nearly every family had a person who dead on the war. I know NOBODY who had a relative who was shot or died in prison.--Nixer 13:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read about anecdotal evidence. The most quoted figure is 20 million deaths.Ultramarine 13:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, including criminals, war-time crimes (deserters etc), all deths in prisons and camps (including natural) and famine that allegedly inspired by Stalin.--Nixer 13:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is your opinion. However, Wikipedia is not the place for homegrown opinons. Please give sources showing that my soruces are false. Please also read about Wikipedia:Cite sources. Ultramarine 13:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not false, but include things such as famine, giving all responsibility to Stalin. Also they postulate that all criminals in the USSR were victims of Stalin.--Nixer 14:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, probably some criminals. But not even nations with death penalty kills millions. Regarding the Holodomor, read that article. Ultramarine 14:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These numbers include not only shot, but also dead in camps and prisons. Famines of such scale were regular in Tsarist Russia. The famine of 1930s was the last famine in that sequence.--Nixer 14:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The worst famine of lates Tsarist Russia caused 375,000 to 400,000 deaths in 1892.  Compare to the 5-10 million killed in the Holodomor. Ultramarine 14:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 60 million may be an inflated figure, but the general consensus on 20 million is often held to be as accurate as one will ever get. You're talking as if the population figures are static - the 20 million died over a period of more than 20 years. -- Simonides 12:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delirium 

message: The tone of the article, especially the bits on the whole colectivization policy of Stalin appear to be written by some Communist sympathizer sitting comfortably in a chair made by the beautiful efficiency of the free market, not someone who had relatives experience the degradations that come when private land is beaten out of them and then left fallow because a centrally planned economy is a great and horrible joke. This article needs serious and unbaised revision by someone will admit to the fact that many more people died under "strict but just" Joe Steel than under any other dictator in human history (in absolute numbers) except maybe Mao.
:This comment is written by someone smoking pot. The "Collectivization" section is nowhere near to praise of Stalin. And death toll is pretty impressive, too. mikka (t) 20:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold, don't just blow whistle. mikka (t) 20:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This isn't too bad 

message: It seems that the two photographs differ not only in Yezhov presence. For example, the distance to the tower in the far is different.--Nixer 18:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo with Yezhov 

message: As I already said there were regular famines with millions dead in tsarist era. Why do you not call them "deliberate"? There was famine in 1920s which you also cannot say as to be Stalin's deed. In 1930s there was epidemy of malaria along with the famine. Some historians view it been hardened by local Ukrainian party authorities with their personal reasons.--Nixer 21:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The question regarding whether other famines were deliberate are irrelevant for whether the Holodmor was deliberate. I suggest that you read the Holdomor article and join the lively discussions there.Ultramarine 21:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please dont send me to another article. I know this is a contraveral topic. But now we're discussing this article, not Holodomor.--Nixer 21:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Historians agree that is was deliberate. The Holodomor was caused by the seizure of the 1932 crop by the Soviet authorities. Take the food, people die. At the same time grain was exported.Ultramarine 21:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all historians agree. Furthermore, as I said, even of those who agree this was deliberately hardened, not all blame Stalin for it. By the way. You may be did not know, but grain production plan for 1932 was significantly shortened before the famine.--Nixer 22:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, discuss on the Holodmor article, not here. Please also use citations for any claims. Your own opinons do not count.Ultramarine 22:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Whether or not people blame Stalin seems rather irrelevant, as the edit you've been making to the article does not equivocate on that point. siafu 22:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  The fact is that there is no consensus that the act was deliberate. Some historians maintain that the famine was an unintentional consequence of collectivization, and that the associated resistance to it by the Ukrainian peasantry exacerbated an already-poor harvest. See, James Mace, "The Man-Made Famine of 1933 in Soviet Ukraine" in "Famine in Ukraine 1932-1933", p. 1-14, Edmonton 1986. So, we can not say its deliberate as matter of fact. All we can say is that it has been argued by some to be deliberate. Giovanni33 08:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying it was "argued by some" is a rather bad use of weasel words.  It might be better to say that it's contested by some historians, and cite Mace and Edmonton. siafu 17:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deliberate famine 

message: Twenty-three years of Holodomor? What years?--Nixer 12:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  lasting over a period of nearly twenty-three years. 

message: I have changed the reference to the Stalinist economic system as exploiting "almost free" labor to exploiting "unpaid" labor in the camps. The words "almost free" suggest privileges among slaves, and there was clearly no privilege in being an exploited worker in one of Stalin's camps where consigned persons were sweated for their labors on near-starvation rations in dangerous places.
The word "free" when applied to labor ordinarily applies to workers who have choices in jobs and have the right to seek higher wages and better conditions from their employers. Workers during the Stalinist era in the Soviet Union, especially in labor camps, had no freedom to choose employers; they were in fact prisoners under a harsh system of exploitation. They did not even get the right to a pittance in cash wages as do prisoners in some penal systems, pittances that might buy such luxuries as soft drinks or playing cards or be saved for necessities upon release from prison at the end of their terms.
To call the meager rations "pay" is to ignore that those rations usually proved insufficient for survival. Just as one would not consider the rough food, castoff clothes, or poor shelter of slaves in the (American) pre-Civil War South as "pay", one cannot consider such things "pay" in the deadlier environment of Soviet gulags of Soviet times. The slavemaster of the ante-bellum American South had an economic incentive to keep his slaves from starving and cold due to economic realities; the Stalinist system of gulags was intended, as was the nazi system of concentration camps, to exploit the labor of people that the political system intended to destroy.   
To call the Stalinist penal system "slavery" itself both eupemizes the condition and introduces the inflamatory word "slavery". "Unpaid" describes the economic reality and avoids the word "slave". Context already suggests that prisoners in the Stalinist gulag system had no choice in becoming victms of the system. --66.231.41.57 20:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language tweak 

message: Twenteenth century Atlas seems to be strictly POV. For example it states military losses of Germany as 3,5 vmillion, which is far from true. Losses among military pernsonnel of the USSR were about 11 million and German military losses were about 10 million, not 3,5 which is nonsence.--Nixer 12:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cite sources, as the Atlas does.Ultramarine 14:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 3,5 million losses of Wehrmacht is evident delirium. Nothing to discuss.--Nixer 15:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It gives many different sources that have given different estimates. 3.5 was the median from many different sources. Again, cite your own sources.Ultramarine 15:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is evident delirium. For example, V.F.Krivosheev:"So, non-returning human losses of Wehrmacht constitutes 11 million and 844 thousand (see the table). Non-returning human losses of Wehrmacht, Waffen-SS and other German forces in the Eastern front acting against USSR was 7,184.1 thousand. Losses of German allies constitutes 1 468 thousand."--Nixer 15:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is one source. The Atlas lists many and states that 3.5 is the median estimate. No inaccuracy.Ultramarine 15:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: And you should state the name of the book or give a link, otherwise one cannot identify the source.Ultramarine 15:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a scientific method as you can see. Most English-speaking works are the products of the Cold War. Besides, the authors of this atlas confuse non-returning losses with number of killed. They compare the non-returning losses of the USSR military with number of killed in German military. Here is the another source (Andrey Kolganov): "Thus military losses of German coalition in the East front is slightly smaller then those of the USSR: 8 649,3 thousand - Germany and its allies against 11 444,1 thousand - USSR). --Nixer 15:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an English-speaking encyclopedia and sources should primarily be in Enligsh in order to be verifiable.Ultramarine 16:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Please read the appropriate section in Wikipedia:Reliable sources.Ultramarine 16:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: In short, there should be a translation, even if only by a wikipedian in wikipedia, and of course full details like publishing year, title, author, and so on.Ultramarine 16:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is not a problem to find a users, who speaks Russian:. By the way here is another more source: . It says full non-returning losses of the Red Army and Red Fleet during 1941-1945 constitutes 11,273 thousand. All losses of German military (including mibilized from Austria) is 13,448 thousand. Losses of Germany and its allies in the Eastern front against USSR is 8.6 million.--Nixer 16:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you or someone else must do a translation of the text your use as a source. And of course provide full detail like date of publication, authors, title and so on.Ultramarine 16:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: "Readers may not be able to read source materials in other languages, and therefore require translations into English so that they can read them. Editors need this too, so they can check that the source has been used correctly." So Nixer needs to provide a translation. And of course state authors, year published, title, and so on clearly.Ultramarine 17:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twenteenth century Atlas 

message: "Rarely seeing his family and drinking heavily, Vissarion often beat his wife and small son." If he rarely saw them, how could he beat them often? Tex 20:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stalin's father 

message: I am just curious that where is this "fact" from?
:I couldn't find a single source claiming this, and it certainly was not true. So I removed the sententence. Finland had full independence (not "formal") and it wasn't economically dependant on a single country. It was pretty self-sufficient on basic products (ie food), in fact. Maybe other parts of that section should be revised as well. Like the strong communist influence on France, etc.--HJV 22:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Finland retained formal independence, but..." 

message: I've heard plenty of different estimations about his height ranging from 5'0" (150 cm) to an absolutely huge 6'6" (200 cm), yet I've never heard any actually confirmed information about this.
:I'd say around 170-180. Looking at photos, of for example him with Kirov and Kalinin, he's slightly taller than them. Also in group photos he seems to be of around average height or slightly above. He wasn't a midget, nor was he a giant. --HJV 22:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying he was average?--shtove 23:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Most sources say slightly below average - 5' 4" (163cm) to 5' 6". Tough to rely on photos because he often wore boots.DMorpheus 03:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How tall was Stalin? 

message: This sentence stopped me: Scholarly estimates of the death toll under Stalin's leadership vary widely, with the average numbers about 20 million  over a period of some twenty-three years.
I looked at the source page and at the bonafides of the blogger Matthew White  who says he has attended a couple of years of college and is a librarian. That would make him an exaggerator. Librarians have advanced degrees and special training. He is a library clerk. He uses the word hemoclysm in headlines. Too bad it is not in any dictionary. Another made-up word he features prominently is atrocitologist. I need not read his pages any further. He has a nice hobby compiling what he interprets of a grim topic. Who knows, who cares if he gets the data right? For Wikipedia to put forward an untrained person as a purveyor of "scholarly estimates" on statistical matters undermines credibility of this article.skywriter 05:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I quit reading article at the first paragraph 

message: Stalin's daughter only emigrated in 1967 AFTER her father's death in 1953. How she her disaffection for him have caused that emigration? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janrpeters (talk • contribs) 
:Yeah, looks questionable indeed. I've changed it now. Shanes 23:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error about Stalin's Daughter 

message: I found a section on the page saying:
"Provide sources supporting this theory then uncomment
There are a number of rumors about Stalin's ancestry, none of which are confirmed. One of the rumors is that he was the son of his godfather, a wealthy Georgian noble Egnatashvili, whose family were hereditary clerics. Several facts support this case: Stalin's mother worked for Egnatashvili; he attended seminary; it was a prestigious seminary, which was not possible for a child from a poor family; and he kept in contact with Egnatashvili throughout his life, including the war period. On the other hand, it would not have been unusual for a godfather to help his godson out."
I've got a source for this: Edvard Radzinski's biography of Stalin (titled "Stalin"). Radzinski does not say in his book that this is 100% true, but provides the theory there. These same pieces of evidence were given. Should it be added to the article now that there's a source? --HJV 23:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stalin's possible father 

message: The number of Soviet civilian deaths attributed to WWII is quite high. This number is also cited in various wikipedia articles. My question is, how many "Soviet civilian deaths in WWII" are due to the fighting, and how many are due to Stalin?  Drogo Underburrow 02:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet Civilian Casualties in WWII 

message: I changed this phrase:
Stalin's Order No. 227 of 27 July, 1942, illustrates the ruthlessness with which he sought to stiffen army resolve: all those who retreated or otherwise left their positions without orders to do so were to be summarily shot. 
to this
According to Stalin's Order No. 227 of 27 July, 1942, any commander or comissar of regiment, batallion or army, who allowed retreatment without permission from above was subject to military tribunal.
as it is more factually accurate. The order was not intended to presecute private soldiers, but only commanders who allow retreatment without permission. And they mostly were not shot but sent to penal batallions. More details see in Order № 227 article. Also POV phrasing removed.--Nixer 15:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order № 227 

message: Can anibody describe what is "death toll"? Is it not born children? Is it decrease in population? Is it too high war casualities? Could anibody describe?--Nixer 10:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People killed in Stalin's terror, Gulags, or man-made famine. Ultramarine 10:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those who killed - all without exception or excepitg criminals? --Nixer 10:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There were also some criminals killed in the Gulags. But no even nations that today have capital punishment kills millions. Ultramarine 10:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So we count all of them? There were only 600000 shot during Stalin's rule. And number of imprisoned was about the same as now.--Nixer 10:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many sources give much larger number. But you are right that most died in the Gulags or due to man-made famine. If you do not want the read the books, here is something on the internet. Ultramarine 10:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we estimate this mysterious number for any leader or only for Stalin? Can we estimate for example, death toll of Mikhail Gorbachev? Only count: Chernobyl, many wars begun (Karabakh, Abkhasia, Osetia, Transnistria), death rate skyrocketed, medicine destructed, illnesses spread, narcotics and crime spread, number of inprisoned growed above Stalin's times! And even some were shot! ;-)--Nixer 10:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These were not deliberate murders, like under Stalin's regime.Ultramarine 10:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you want to say Stalin killed 20 million? So death toll - is a number of killed? Lets name things with their proper names. Who is deliberate murderer? Is Nicholas II the Bloody murderer? Is Putin murderer? Is George W. Bush murderer? Can we estimate their death toll? Why Chernobyl is worser than famine? It was no doubt man made. Why Gorbachev's acceleration that led to Chernobyl is worser than Stalin's collectivization that led to famine? Is Chernobyl a genocide of Ukrainian people?--[[--Nixer 12:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't an article about Putin or Bush. Its an article about Stalin, and he is responsible for a lot more than 20 million deaths, and the article should quote the historians who say this. Drogo Underburrow 12:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death toll 

message: How many millions died under Stalin is greatly disputed. The 1926 census shows the population of the Soviet Union at 147 million and in 1937 another census found a population of between 162 and 163 million. This was 14 million less than the projected population value and was suppressed as a "wrecker's census" with the census takers severely punished.
This is completely untrue. According to the net increase (births minus deaths) of the 1926-1928 period, the USSR population would have risen to 168 million by 1937, not a bloated 176 million. This is a stark exaggeration. Source
Since "the margin of error" with regard to the number of Stalin's victims is virtually impossible to narrow down to a universally accepted figure, various historians have come up with extremely varying (15) estimates of the number of victims, from under 10 million to over 50 million deaths.
Mattthew White whose work is cited above is nobody important and his gathering of dubious sources including American imperialist Zbigniew Brzesinski is not worthy of consideration. If famine, executions, and the GULAG are taken into account, then Stalin killed about 3 million. All this data is gathered from Russian archives. The documents in concern are RGAE 1562/329/108, GARF 9401/1/4157, 201-205; and GARF 9414/1/1155, 2-3
Faminesource by Stephen Wheatcroft and R.W Davies:
Purge and GULAG sourceby J. Arch Getty:
None of the above consist of estimates. They are all recorded facts.
Zvesda
*How it is possible at all to estimate number of killed (if death toll is number of killed) from demographic statistics?--Nixer 07:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In Wikipedia, we are supposed to create articles that tell what the sides of an issue are, not what is true and false in controversial disputed issues. Therefore, space should be given in the article for the historians who say that Stalin is the greatest mass murderer in history; simply because we have to report that side of the issue.Drogo Underburrow 08:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: For example the Black Book of Communism uses archive data and shows 20 millions. Ultramarine 23:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I have read the book and agrees with it and its extensive sources. And J. Arch Getty notes that Alec Nove estmates 9,5 million deaths only in 30s. Ultramarine 23:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev, the person with the best access to archieves, estimated at least 30-35 million deaths in the Soviet Union. See his book A century of violence in Soviet Russia. Ultramarine 23:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Your opinion. I disagree. See also this, for another estimate with detailed sources:  Ultramarine 00:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, your opinion. As noted, both the Black Book of Communism and Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev uses archive material. And no one has had better access than Yakovlev, who had access also to the archives still denied other researchers, so his estimate is probably the best. Ultramarine 00:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yakovlev had political motives to eaggerate the numbers.--Nixer 07:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: And there are many sources which disagree, as noted previously. I agree with Drogo Underburrow. Ultramarine 01:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: See the references in for example the Black Book of Communism. Ultramarine 01:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Please read Wikipedia:NPOV. Wikipedia should not present a particular view advocated by some. Ultramarine 01:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note also that your table only mentions registered deaths. The authors estimate the true number to be about 6 million deaths, a number similar to the usual ones. Ultramarine 01:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Ultramarine 01:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sensational Death Toll 

message: In the death section the article states that Stalin was embalmed over the objection of his wife, but wasn’t she already dead?
“Stalin allowed a cult of personality to be created in the Soviet Union around both himself and Lenin. The embalming of the Soviet founder in Lenin's Mausoleum was performed over the objection of Lenin's widow, Nadezhda Krupskaya. Stalin became the focus of massive adoration and even worship.”
Thank you
rjkbytes@yahoo.com 216.141.228.112 17:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   ==Possible mistake in 8 Death ==. 

message: I put up the POV label today 
because the claims of tens of millions of deaths are unsupported by hard data. If the claimant can cite a study published in a peer-reviewed journal, then please give your source and your claims will be accepted as valid. Books and websites are not reliable sources of information, EVEN when an author claims to be a historian or is really a historian. You can publish any kind of nonsense in a book or on a website very easily and as someone who works in academia I can tell you that people with valid academic credentials, such as full professors, make questionable claims all the time, the problem is those questionable views most of the time cannot be published in a peer-reviewed journal, and until those claims survive the peer review process they should be ignored. 
For those who are not familiar with how peer review works: when someone wants to publish a study in an accredited journal, they submit their manuscript to the editorial board and the editorial board sends the manuscript for review to at least three other unrelated researchers in the field and all three reviewers have to agree with the methods and conclusions in the study. The reviewers usually request the authors to redo some studies or use a different method or modify conclusions and when all reviewers approve the text of the manuscript, then and only then it will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
On a different note, the other two encyclopedias, Britannica and Encarta, are more careful about the death toll from Stalin's rule. Encarta lists millions from famine and executions, Britannica lists millions from famine, millions from executions and "tens of millions of victims" which appears to be an allusion to those imprisoned by Stalin.
Don't get me wrong, I believe Stalin was a bad guy, yet exaggerations and fiction are unacceptable. How would you like it if somebody started claiming that Osama bin Laden killed 3 million Americans?  Bublick439 19:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer-reviewed publications vs. Books and websites 

message: To my opinion, some headings do not meet NPOV criteria. For instance, "Childhood and early adult crime" is quite far from neutrality. The section describes Stalins early revolutionary activity. Obviously, it was a crime according to Tzarist Russia laws. However, that was equally valid for other revolutionaries, e.g. George Washington.My conclusion is that the headings should be made more neutral. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Childhood and early adult crime? 

message: hi
If you click the israel tab in the grey box, it should say war material  not materiel
*War materiel is actually a professional legal term. Check the linked article `Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  grammatical error 

message: In the section of the article related to the beginning of the "Great Purge" and the possible beginning of this era in Stalin's fear of his possible rival, Kirov, there is a statement that at the 1934 Party Congress Stalin received 1,108 negative votes to 3 negative votes for Kirov. In a related article about the Great Purge, the figure for negative votes against Stalin is 292. While many of the issues regarding Stalin are matters of historical interpretation, this figure should be a matter of historical record and the incorrect article should be changed to reflect the accurate vote at the 34 Party Congress.
Also in the section titled "Religious beliefs and practices" there is a sentence which reads "On his orders many priests were brought back to the camps." Read in context, this sentence clearly means to say "On his orders many priests were brought back FROM the camps." The meanings are opposite and the preposition should be changed if I am correct in my contextual reading.
Rjciardo (talk) 07:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible factual errors 

message: In relation to the recent libel case launched in Russia relating to Stalin, the BBC has commented: "It is the latest bizarre twist in what many see as a Kremlin-backed campaign to rehabilitate Stalin's reputation" and goes on to say "The Kremlin has professed no opinion about the case. But in other ways Russia's leadership has been quietly moving to rehabilitate the great dictator, adds our correspondent.  Last month a brass plaque praising Stalin suddenly reappeared in a Moscow metro station.  And last year a history textbook for Russian schoolchildren was published which referred to Stalin as an "effective manager" who led Russia to victory in World War II - not, as has been widely claimed, a brutal dictator responsible for sending millions to their deaths."   I am not sufficiently expert on Stalin to comment, but does this merit comment under the section Views on Stalin in Russian Federation? --Legis (talk - contribs) 18:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  2009 rehabilitiation of Stalin's image