Talk:Political decoy

message: Stalin could NEVER have been impersonated!  Through being born within the borders of Russia, he was not ethnically Russian but Georgian.  (As languages they are completely unrelated.)  His original name was Iosif Dzjugasjvili.  A possible look-alike could not have had, or even ACQUIRED, the same language skills!  His family and close friends would NOT be fooled.  The description of “Rashid” is not credible.  The claimed physical resemblance is to close to be true.  Furthermore, if he died in 1991 at the age of 93 he would have been born in 1898.  That would in turn make him 20 YEARS YOUNGER than Stalin!  Obviously, the author does not know what he/she is writing about.
I am sceptic to all look-alike stories.  Unless the alleged look-alike’s name and life are known in ANY detail I assume that it is a rumour.  The stories are simply too many to all be true!
2006-11-13  Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
:: If you have a look at the introduction, you will see that documented allegations and unconfirmed cases of doubling (e.g., Stalin/Rashid) are identified  by putting the entry headings in quotes. In contradistinction to proven cases, which are not.
:: It is also worth reflecting that the use of make-up and plastic surgery are common in doubling.
:: There are other factors you might like to bear in mind, but one big one is this: if you (as a resident of the Stalin-era USSR) saw someone you believed to be Stalin, in an official appearance, but thought he looked slightly different from what you might expect, would you point and shout out "That man is an imposter!" ..? Would you ever breathe a word of doubt to anyone? Would you, in fact, rapidly convince yourself that nothing was ever the matter at all? Think carefully before you answer ..! :¬)
:: Garrick92 16:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Replaced entry on Julian/Joaquin Castro. Not sure who removed it or why. Garrick92 09:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also not sure why this article has been reclassified as "Article with unsourced statements", since whichever wikigenius did this has neglected to add the necessary 'citation needed' flags at the points which have offended his or her sensibilities. Could the someone in question oblige, or is this just one of those "conservatively playing the rules" tactics? Garrick92 14:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scepticality 

message: The section with the Rober A. Heilein novel "Double Star" appears two different times. I suggest they both be merged into one entry.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.45.69 (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Decoys In Fiction 

message: I edited the section under Uday, as it was nearly incomprhensible from all the grammar and spelling errors. There was 3 large paragraphs that were taken from the inside flap of Latif Yahia's book, and not really relevant to the article. What I deleted will be put up on his page, which I will create soon. Tydamann (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Uday Edit

message: There's a reference to "Hess (above)" but no Hess above.  Presumably somebody has deleted the Hess section.   I can't be bothered to investigate but maybe somebody else can.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.101.136 (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's Hess 

message: I realise that the story of the Bisley boy is highly implausible, but it's been widely repeated, and anyway it's quite a good story, so I suggest it merits inclusion somewhere on Wikipedia.  However it may not strictly speaking count as a political decoy, should it be turned into an independent article? PatGallacher (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Bisley boy