Talk:On the Cult of Personality and Its Consequences

message: The subject is almost always referred to as the "secret speech". Per WP:COMMONNAME, shouldn't that be the article's title? Everyking (talk) 00:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been more than a year since I suggested this. Does anyone have any thoughts, for or against? Everyking (talk) 06:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we have an official name, and a reasonable one. The "common name" is a misconception, I am not sure Wikipedia must contribute to its propagation, common or not.  No wonder quite often is is called so in quotes, just like you did . So at best I could have agreed to Khrushchev's "secret speech", so that the word "secret" not to be taken it its face value. -M.Altenmann >t 06:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless, it's essentially always called the "secret speech". So, per WP:COMMONNAME, this seems pretty straightforward. Everyking (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless, it's essentially always called Khrushchev's secret speech, often in quotes, or variant thereof, as I checked in google books (where I found several more "secret speeches"). If you don't object, I would suggest to go ahead and move to the latter title, since the version with quotes, while IMO more correct, I fear will cause objections as ugly. -M.Altenmann >t 05:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be much better than the current title, although I think the best title would simply be Secret Speech. Everyking (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

text: I have never once heard the name that this page is labelled and I have heard "Secret Speech" probably 40 times in my life. I don't know how to prove this quantifiably but it is actively confusing with the current name. Even the Khrushchev page calls it the Secret Speech because it increases clarity.2601:602:0:231B:7D31:1DE3:EFF5:E82B ([[User talk) 20:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Common name

message: Khrushchev's ulterior motivation, however, was to legitimize and help consolidate his control of the Communist party and government, power obtained in a political struggle with Stalin loyalists Vyacheslav Molotov and Georgy Malenkov. I think the author should put from which reference this was taken. Otherwise, it would be personal judgment which are not to be made on Wikipedia. Tumsaa (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Among others, this type of opinion was held by Anne Appelbaum, but her accent, in addition to power consolidation, was cover-up of Kruschev's personal responsibility . I am pretty sure some others may have expressed similar opinions. -M.Altenmann >t 06:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

text: The author of that comment is obviously biased. Khrushchev condemned political repression and responded releasing political prisoners and considerably lowering censoring and repression. When words are consistent with actions there is no need to guess further motivations. -Miguel, from Mexico.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.145.144.187 (talk) 07:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: WRONG. Wiki follows what the Reliable Sources say, not your personal philosophy. 50.111.36.47 (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things that should be referenced 

message: " the Communist Party USA alone lost more than 30,000 members within weeks of its publication." Out of how many? Polar Apposite (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Communist Party Membership by Districts 1922-1950 source unfortunately goes up to 1950, and it shows only 37,751 members by 1950. If it hadn't moved a lot away from a figure like that by 1956, it would be consistent with the lead section statement from article Communist Party USA: . A few thousand plus 30,000-ish lost is close to membership in 1950. –Vipz (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be justified to add something along the lines, of, "[...] which would have been most of their members. Soon membership had sunk to just a few thousand. Khrushchev's public condemnation had the effect of causing the CPUSA to implode."? Polar Apposite (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Polar Apposite: "which would have been most of their members" would be WP:SYNTH if it's not in the source, and we don't really have to connect the dots for readers. –Vipz (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there some other way to phrase it that would be acceptable? How about "out of a total of about 40,000 members)"? The important fact, to the ordinary reader, is, surely, what fraction of the members left. To say the party lost 30,000 members without saying what proportion that represented, besides being highly uninformative, and to the inquiring mind, somewhat tantalizing, also seems to imply that the writer is assuming that the reader already knows what the total was, which is atrocious writing, IMHO. Polar Apposite (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we know that the party lost more than 30,000 and afterwards had a few thousand members, and these are both estimates. The total could've been anywhere from 30,000 to 40,000, maybe even more (if for example "more than 30,000" meant 35,000 and "a few thousand" in the aftermath of loss meant "7,000", making for e.g. 42,000). It is ultimately synthesis, there is no way around it than to avoid it altogether. We ought to seek other reliable sources, perhaps even contact CPUSA itself to see if they have anything in their archives (and of course, include such information only if published in reliable sources) about membership since 1950. –Vipz (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: How about stating, "The total could've been anywhere from 30,000 to 40,000, maybe even more", then? As a stopgap, until we get a more precise figure? Polar Apposite (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of how many?