Talk:Joseph Stalin/Archive 3

message: Why is it I instead of J?
: Because the name is not English. "Iosif" is the way it should be written and pronounced if we are aiming to be accurate. Think about the Arabic name "Yusuf".
----
It would be nice to add the original Georgian version of his name in Roman and Georgian script.
:! At this rate, we'll need a separate 'Stalin's Name' section (which I'd advocate now, actually - the first sentence is dreadful and should be
:Josif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili, better known as Joseph Stalin, was the second leader of the Soviet Union.
:Morwen 23:32, Dec 23, 2003 (UTC)
I would not hold up this article for anything connected to spelling. The Soviet Union was a mixture of nationalities using different alphabets and transliterations. Even among Russians, for every Russian there are 1.7 opinions how to transliterate Russian.  200.87.6.6 16:24, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Josif vs Iosif 

message: The page should not have been moved without prior discussion. Joseph is many time more common than Josif: . I will move it back. --Jiang 01:09, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think I'm right in saying they're pronounced differently - Joseph has a hard "j" but as I recall, Josif or Iosif starts with more of a "y" sound. However, his name seems to have been anglicised to Joseph virtually from the start. -- ChrisO 11:15, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Josif v. Joseph 

message: 30 million is an estimate not many will agree upon. Probably not "widely regarded as a tyrant" either. He was, after all, Times man of the year twice. BL 05:01, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: TIME specifically says that it's Man of the Year designation is not intended as some honor or award. --Jiang 05:03, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Man of Year 

message: Highlighted words removed.
:Under his leadership, the country was transformed from a backward peasant society to an advanced industralised state and was victorious in World War II.  
to
:Under his leadership, the country was transformed from a peasant society to an industralised state and was victorious in World War II. However, this came 
The "advanced" is an easy one to go. It was advanced in a lopsided manner. Most of population barely felt this "advanceness". The word "backward" IMO is inapplicable. The country was crippled, destroyed, by revolution and civil war. You may call it "backward" if you like, but it is like calling a handicapped person "clumsy", if you get the idea. Mikkalai 04:51, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Mikkalai, good changes - didn't think about it, but the adjectives ("advanced" and "backwards") and the "but" load the whole sentence to make it seem as if Stalin's murders were justified. I only picked up on the but. Overall good job, though you might want to replace the hyperlink to shock brigades. godless 09:10, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  1-26-2004 

message: "In an attempt to overcome this resistance Stalin's regime used shock brigades to coerce reluctant peasants..."
The above sentence demonstrates the confusion in the usage of the term "shock brigade". In the context of Soviet Union the term "shock brigade" is used to translate the expression of Russian "udarnaja brigada". A  correct meaning of the term would be something like "team of energetic, intensive labor". 
It had nothing to do with coercion, or military conotation of the word "brigade". 
It is known that often collectivisation was perfomed forcibly, under threats, but I suggest not to use the buzzword "shock brigade" in this context, to avoid confusion with the workers' "shock brigade". Or may be there is another term for translation of "udarnaja brigada", "udarnik"?
At the same time, during collectivisation there were indeed special brigades for coersion of peasants. They were called "twenty-five-thounders", after Stalin's call to send 25,000 of industrial worker bolsheviks to "help" collectivisation. 
Mikkalai 15:55, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shock brigade 

message: I hope that no one I alarmed with my reversion of a good number of edits, as I open to discussing this. Anyway, the use of the bullets in an intro is an unorthodox way - to say the least - of introducing an encyclopedic entry on a historical figure. In its place, I restored the straightforward, conventional intro, which broadly introduces everything denoted in the bullets. The main body of the text clearly addresses all the points and hotly debated causality estimates. Although this article is going to attract a lot of passion and anger, we still need to stay focused on keeping this an orthodox encyclopedic entry. 172 14:46, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: IK I give up bullets. You hate Microsoft, aren't you :-)? Nevertheless your reversal killed two my proposals. 
*First, Stalin's dominance over the Eastern Europe is of importance and consequences for the whole world is not less than industrialization of Russia and hence deserves a word in the preamble.
*Second, a succinct list of what made a man memorable must be somewhere. It must be handy. A reader must not do an additional research to fish this out of  wordy and sometimes controversial articles. 
What is your say on this? Mikkalai 19:51, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all really hard to say. We're dealing with perhaps the most influential figure of the 20th century, so an attempt to weigh the significance of all the points that could go in the summary would be an extremely difficult process. Furthermore, it might open up a lot of controversy, given that we're already dealing with the most provocative article of all. I doubt that any summary could satisfy all interested users. Perhaps other users would be more enthusiastic about this idea. However, more attention and conflict than with which I'd personally be unable to deal. 172 20:12, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  What about removing this phrase altogether, since it may leave an impression that it covers all? Also, I don't see a problem of collecting the list I said as a conclusion of the article, provided it will be (a) list of facts, not opinions, (b) facts of general nature, rather than kind of "Stalin killed Bukharin" (c) laconically and unemotionally worded. I don't see a problem of relative importance of the items in the list. I've already seen such lists for in Wikipedia (Khrushchev, Tito, Churchill...). Mikkalai 21:00, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: The following guesswork removed from the article.
:, although an ambition to ethnically cleanse regions in a process known as "Russificiation" may have also been a factor. 
*First, If one looks at all resettled nations (listed in Population transfer) and the histories of the respective territories, with the exception of Latvia, there was no significant compensating movement of Russian population.
*Second, there is a confusion in terms. "Russification" primarily means suppression of national cultures in favor of "Great Russian" one, regardless where was this population, at home in Polesie swamps or resettled into Central Asia. 
*Third, the share of Russians in Gulag was "fair", to put it mildly, so one may very well speak about "derussification" of Russia. 
Mikkalai 23:42, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russification 

message: Robert turned out to be an attention-getting troll using anonymous proxies and mixed user accounts to try to incite fights, so after others had noticed that and blocked his proxy I undid what he'd done and merged in anything since he started which seemed to fit, reviewing every edit since he started. Mikkalai, I don't think I missed anything you did, please take care of anything I did miss. See here for details of what got Richard blocked by the IP he was using to hide, though the log Tim posted doesn't show the later developments in IRC. Jamesday 02:59, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undid Robert 

message: Guys, don't you think the intro gradually turns into an intro of the Soviet Union article. The article is about a person, hence the intro must be stated in terms of his personal achievements. The last sentence about the East Europe sucks most. Mikkalai 06:34, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, Mikkalai. I reverted to the last edits by VeryVerily. You might want to keep on eye on the intro right now. People love stopping by this article just to make POV additions to the intro, it seems. 172 06:47, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, it is kinda heavy. And still is. I just like the word "propelled". --Humus sapiens|Talk 06:51, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro revisited 

message: Rootless cosmopolitan contains a link to a Russian transliteration and a quote from an article that appeared in Pravda on January 28, 1949, entitled About one antipatriotic group of theater critics. You've got to be fluent in Stalin-period Sovietese. --Humus sapiens|Talk 03:17, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antisemitic campaign of 1948-1953 

message: Current text: The census of 1926 shows the population of Soviet Union of 147 million while the census of 1939 shows the population of 162 million. Can someone provide a reputable source for it? Here's the text I am proposing based on Koba the Dread by Martin Amis, 2002: 
: The 1926 population of Soviet Union according to the census of that year was 147 million. The result of 1937 census was 163 million, in conflict with Stalin's announcement that he expects the number to be 170 million. By his orders, the result was concealed, the census commission was purged for being a "nest of spies and saboteurs" and another census was carried out in 1939. The new number was 167 million, rounded up by Stalin to 170 million. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:28, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Census results 

message: I don't want to make an edit war over Viktor Suvorov, but I really don't believe he has a place in an article about Stalin.  As far as I can tell, all professional historians discount his theory.  The theory only seems to have a following amongst those interested in the propoganda possibilities.  Looking around on Google, I couldn't find a single counter-example.  Furthermore, when Gabriel Gorodetsky raised academic refutation that thoroughly discredited Icebreaker, Suvorov by calling him "the enemy of the Russian people" and saying "The honor of our Motherland is at stake... Gorodetsky's wild fabrications were fully supported by Russia's ideological machine. And Gorodetsky, throwing aside all restraint, continues to speak about our cowardice, cowardice, cowardice and about our gross unpreparedness."  Such rhetoric makes it appear to me that Suvorov is more a nationalistic pseudo-historian, and his unsupported speculations shouldn't be a part of the article.  (However, I haven't read the book, which is out-of-print in English, and which Amazon lists as selling for $250+).
Furthermore, while he gets publicity, I wouldn't at all call him a "publicist."
Will somebody please either modify/remove Suvorov from the entry, or put forward an argument why I shouldn't?  If I was talking about the history of France, I wouldn't use points taken from Holy Blood, Holy Grail.
=== Some comments ===
all professional historians discount his theory.
:This is not an argument or non-mentioning it, not to say that "all" is too bold a statement. They may discount it, but so far they cannot disprove it either. As of today "Icebreaker" had been foolowed by several other Suvorov's books. True, they contain a number of historical blunders, but they are also more documented than the first one and raise quite a few questions.
Such rhetoric makes it appear to me that Suvorov is more a nationalistic pseudo-historian, and his unsupported speculations shouldn't be a part of the article.
: The quote of "such rhetoric" is taken out of context. Of course, his books are far from being dry academic discourse (to put it mildly), but they are not "unsupported" either.
Furthermore, while he gets publicity, I wouldn't at all call him a "publicist."
: Agreed; in a sense that he is not a profesional publicist, but with these books he did act as such.
If I was talking about the history of France, I wouldn't use points taken from Holy Blood, Holy Grail.
: Suvorov's POV is mentioned only briefly; it is not stated as a fact; it is stated in a NPOV manner; and no points are taken from it. 
Concluding, that Stalin was ready to be an aggressor, Winter War shows it most definitely. Therefore Suvorov's "hypothesis" is worth mentioning. But let us not discuss its merits here:  Talk:Viktor Suvorov and Talk:Icebreaker (book) are at your service. Mikkalai 23:29, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting reference to Suvorov 

message: all professional historians discount his theory.
:This is not an argument or non-mentioning it, not to say that "all" is too bold a statement. They may discount it, but so far they cannot disprove it either. As of today "Icebreaker" had been foolowed by several other Suvorov's books. True, they contain a number of historical blunders, but they are also more documented than the first one and raise quite a few questions.
Such rhetoric makes it appear to me that Suvorov is more a nationalistic pseudo-historian, and his unsupported speculations shouldn't be a part of the article.
: The quote of "such rhetoric" is taken out of context. Of course, his books are far from being dry academic discourse (to put it mildly), but they are not "unsupported" either.
Furthermore, while he gets publicity, I wouldn't at all call him a "publicist."
: Agreed; in a sense that he is not a profesional publicist, but with these books he did act as such.
If I was talking about the history of France, I wouldn't use points taken from Holy Blood, Holy Grail.
: Suvorov's POV is mentioned only briefly; it is not stated as a fact; it is stated in a NPOV manner; and no points are taken from it. 
Concluding, that Stalin was ready to be an aggressor, Winter War shows it most definitely. Therefore Suvorov's "hypothesis" is worth mentioning. But let us not discuss its merits here:  Talk:Viktor Suvorov and Talk:Icebreaker (book) are at your service. Mikkalai 23:29, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some comments 

message: My point isn't that there's no possibility that he's speaking the truth.  Rather, it's that the Stalin article shouldn't bother to include a conspiracy theory that apparently no professional Historian takes seriously (counter-examples are welcome), and comes across as propoganda serving as history.  If there was a sub-section, "modern conspiracy theories about Stalin," Suvorov might deserve a place (or might not).  Or, if the section on Stalin & WWII was extremely lengthy, perhaps minor tangents could be indulged.  But with a mere four paragraphs about Stalin and WWII, why bother mentioning such minutia?
In an earlier edit, you removed references to Suvorov as an "amateur historian" and "largely discredited", when both statements are true.  I wonder if you're a fan of Suvorov, and want to give him more of a place than he deserves.
Thanks for the information about signing Discussion Pages: Jeff Rutsch 10:38, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: In Response

message: The only time I ever heard this quote was from the fictional Stalin figure at the beginning of the PC computer game 'Red Alert'. Is this a real quote? One Salient Oversight 05:51, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's a real commonly attributed quote. Probably he never actually said it, but it's famous enough that maybe it deserves a mention in the article anyway. Everyking 10:13, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I sort of agree, although "Let them eat cake" is considered a Famous non-quotation in regards to Marie Antoinette. If there is no problem, I will make a little addition to the quote to ensure that people understand that it is a famous non-quotation. One Salient Oversight 23:29, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This quote has been the subject of discussion and debate at the Famous non-quotation article. Please go to that disussion page to find out why I have modified this part of the article. One Salient Oversight 23:12, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Death of Millions is just a statistic" quote 

message: Officially, the period of Stalin's personal rule was known as the Cult of personality period. We need to work this language in, probably in the introduction, but also elsewhere in the article in an appropriate place and briefly explain what was involved. Fred Bauder 10:52, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
:"Officially" by whom? Shorne 11:28, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Not by Stalin's government. Shorne 15:22, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cult of personality 

message: I note a recent edit by Ruy Lopez removes mention of the Kirov assassination. There is some doubt about the truth of the theory as explained on page 180 of The Black Book of Communism, Werth cites L'assassinat de Kirilov. Destin d'un stalinien 1888-1934 (1995) by Alla Karilina which he says casts doubt on the reliablility of the theory, but it probably ought to be mentioned. Fred Bauder 16:03, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC). At least as an event which Stalin exploited. The same reasoning would also apply the Great Purge article. Fred Bauder 16:06, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
: The onus of the Great Purge is what the government did.  There is evidence lacking linking Stalin to Kirov's assassination as you said.  But even beyond this, it is only peripherally connected to the purge, which after all means expulsion from the CPSU, and the consequences of that. Ruy Lopez 17:40, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Kirov assassination 

message: Four paragraphs are given on the purges, but the given reasons for them are never given, and in fact are removed when given.  The US locked up its Japanese civilian population during World War II, and was under much less of a threat, I find it odd that the explanation for the motive of the purge was purged.  Also, it's clear that the Politburo reigned in Yezhov and thought he was being excessive, I don't see why this has been removed either. I am re-inserting both points. Ruy Lopez 22:51, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the motivations of the purge was the feel for needing a unified party in the face of a feared invasion by Nazi Germany. There was a feeling by the Politburo that the CPSU needed to be unified in case the USSR was invaded by Nazi Germany, this was one of the motivations for the purge of the party.
First of all, the two sentences are obviously redundant. Aside from that, there's the problem that many people don't believe this was a real motivation, and believe instead that it's merely a justification. And of course many people believe the purpose of the purges was simply to consolidate Stalin's power. I tried to write an inoffensive, neutral sentence including both points of view, and look where it gets me. Everyking 18:21, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Well, Stalin turned out to be right about the Nazi invasion, so you can hardly say that it was just a bogus excuse that he was making up. Your sentence said that some people believe that the sole motivation for the purge was to consolidate Stalin's power, which is just stupid. Consolidate his power to what end? Besides, you didn't give so much as a reference to this "belief", including reasons for dismissing Stalin's emphasis on the threat of a Nazi invasion. Far from being inoffensive or neutral, your change merely introduces a point of view where none is required. We might as well go to Arithmetic and write "Some people believe that 2 + 2 = 4. Others believe that 2 + 2 = 5." Shorne 19:23, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like you are going beyond simply including your minority viewpoint, which I am all in favor of, to imposing that viewpoint on the article. Obviously you think it was a motivation, and it may have been, but we are still required to include the viewpoint of mainstream Western historians that the purges were essentially all about consolidating Stalin's personal power, no matter how wrong you think that viewpoint is. Everyking 20:32, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I said there wasn't an issue of a viewpoint: it's a question of fact. Unless you can show reasonable grounds for dismissing Stalin's own statements (which turned out to be right, please note: the USSR lost well over 20 million people and about a third of its wealth to Hitler's invasion), there can be no place for your claim in this article. A vague reference to "mainstream Western historians" doesn't cut it. Shorne 02:57, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stalin and purges 

message: I don't know about the other items, but at least the airplane's invention is disputed.  
Many inventions and discoveries have happened earlier than 'conventional wisdom' indicates, by other people.  The quotes in "reclaimed"' should be reconsidered as should be the naming of creators in the list.
It's quite probable that most of those are not the work of russian people, but the binding of people and inventions should be more carefully done.
By the way, the airplane was not discovered since it didn't exist previously.  It was invented.
I'd make the statement read
: For instance, some inventions and scientific discoveries were reclaimed by ethnic Russian researchers. Examples include the boiler engine, reclaimed by father and son Cherepanovs;  the electric bulb, by Yablochkov and Lodygin;  the radio, by Popov; the airplane, by Mojaisky; etc.
It is unecessary to list the creator's names, since the reader can follow the links and that information adds nothing to Stalin's bio.
Ihsuss 02:53, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airplane and discoveries 

message: Ruy Lopez, I don't know what it will take to convince you that the information that BEING a kulak subjected a person to deportation, deserves mention in the article. They didn't have to do anything. All they needed was background as a kulak and they were designated an "enemy of the people". Furthermore they didn't have to kill poor peasants to be executed, expression of contempt for communism, "antisoviet agitation", was sufficient. Perhaps Article 58 did make these activities "unlawful" but your formulation results in conflation with Western notions of crime. Fred Bauder 10:57, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
:Wrong. Most of the kulaks were not relocated to distant parts of the country; they were moved to new land within their own administrative districts. Shorne 13:46, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would you care to provide supporting evidence for your statement? You seem to be making claims which contradict the commonly accepted point of view. --Gene s 14:32, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Out of some 10 million kulaks. Unless my knowledge of arithmetic is as deficient as your integrity, the majority were not "deported". Shorne 15:40, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: This is wrong. Those in the third category, which was the largest, were resettled locally. They didn't even lose all their property. Those in the second category were exiled to distant places; those in the first category (a limit of 63,000 was established) were executed or imprisoned, and their relatives were exiled. Indeed, the suggestion that "those who opposed the regime" and those who were "loyal to the regime" would be put into two categories but treated in the same way is rather hard to swallow in itself. (By the way, how did that sentence spread over pages 147 and 152?) Shorne 15:40, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: ...and this is false. There was no "third category" in NKVD books. There were two categories. The "third" was the rest, i.e., who wasn't noticed by NKVD. The black book lies here (if you are referring to it). And I've never heard of local resettlement, which is nonsense. Indeed, there were some voluntary resettlements, but they were in no way related to punishment.  Mikkalai 16:11, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liquidation of kulaks as a class 

message: "Secret Agent Man" replaced Stalin's portrait. I reverted it, he restored. Here is the discussion. 
You must understand the main picture for the acticle "Joseph Stalin" is NOT real. It is a propaganda PAINTING by Soviet artists. Despite how great the picture is, it is NOT a true picture of Stalin. I merely switch the propaganda painting with a REAL photo of him. This site must have a NPOV.
--Secret Agent Man 23:13, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Chicken pox? Are you sure? That's a disease that goes away after a week or two. (A hellish week or two, as I remember from childhood.) Shorne 05:47, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgive me my English. It was smallpox Mikkalai 07:12, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I have provided the Source for the Image:Stalin.jpg photograph.
--Secret Agent Man 20:48, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: My two cents aren't even worth a cent, but I think a photo is generally to be preferred to a portrait. The photo is also a bit more informative, because we see Stalin with his pipe writing at his desk, as opposed to just a glorified image of his face. So I'd say ideally use the picture at the top and the portrait further down in the article. Everyking 01:55, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, "his pipe" and "writing at his desk" are also elements of cliche and propaganda. Mikkalai 02:32, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, of course that's true, but they are still characteristic things associated with him, which is why I said the picture imparts a little more info than the portrait. Everyking 02:39, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Actually, it's worth noting that the portrait is also in another of the article's pictures, being raised into the air by the old woman protester. So perhaps it's redundant anyway. Everyking 01:57, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stalin's portrait 

message: to say they "uncovered" the deaths implies that they didn't already know about them, and it shouldn't say "unjust") 
:Yes the majority didn't. Purge was was 30 years ago. People knew peices. But the scale was unimaginable. And yes, they were unjust: justice was violated. Mikkalai 05:15, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: We shouldn't characterise them one way or the other. Saying "the purges were unjust" is just dumb: sure, there was unjustice in some cases, but not in every case. Shorne 05:55, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everyking's 

message: Ethnic cleansing/russification is speculation, removed:
:although an ambition to ethnically cleanse regions in a process known as "Russification" may have also been a factor.
There was no a special "russification" process in this particular case. (See Russification for details of the term). These deportations were a continuation of systematic persecution of nations perceived to be hostile, started during the Great Purge, see National operations o the NKVD. In fact, the effected nations listed in the article actually suffered in two waves:  during the purge an during the war. Mikkalai 20:05, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russification