Talk:Joseph Stalin/Archive 9

message: Rosa Kaganovich: did she even exist?  According to Robert Conquest, Stalin "associated" with her after Nadezhda's death (Great Terror, p. 68), but according to the Kaganovich family, she is a figment of the imagination.  The main references I've seen to her are on anti-semitic websites; but according to nndb, she was Stalin's third wife. D SCH 00:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rosa Kaganovich

message: I'm sorry about this; in an attempt to restore this article to a credible state after the actions of a vandal, I attempted to exchange the manipulated image in the sidebar with Stalin.jpg, as opposed to Stalin1.jpg.  It had become my belief after obeserving the image upload history that this was the correct image.  However, this exchanged the picture with the one which is currently seen there, and thus said picture appeared twice throughout the article.  I tried changing the code back to Stalin.jpg, hoping to restore the article to its previous state for somebody more experienced in wikiing to do what I had failed to do, but that resulted in there being no picture at all, so I changed it back to Stalin.jpg.  The image that should, to my knowledge, be in the sidebar is this one.
I leave it to those more in the know to repair the article.
Another user had uploaded the rather unflattering image of Mr. Stalin in which he fashions pink hair and a rather fancy suit, but he claims on a talk page (which I can no longer find, sadly) that this was accident.  Yet another user attempted to revert to the orginal image, but it would seem that this fixed only the archived picture and not the article in which it is featured.
Thank you in advance to whomever who fixes this!  --TheFinalFraek 15:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks mate!  --TheFinalFraek 18:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture mix-up

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? 
In the introduction I changed "tens of millions of deaths" to "millions of deaths". The sentence in the last paragraph now reads: "Stalin tried to crush all opposition by commencing a bureaucratic and usually arbitrary network of terror that resulted in millions of deaths." 
If whoever wrote this has a reliable source about "tens of millions" (see above about which sources are reliable) feel free to give a reference and to change the sentence back Bublick439 07:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following is the sentence that you are calling into question: Stalin tried to crush all opposition by commencing a bureaucratic and usually arbitrary network of terror that resulted in tens of millions of deaths. You would be correct in pointing out that the claim that the Great Purge and the Gulag system resulted in tens of millions of deaths is contested. The 'numbers' on the Great Purge vary greatly from estimates by Getty at the low end to estimates by Conquest around the high end. However, I think you are misreading the sentence. The sentence is broad enough to cover all periods and facets of Stalin's rule. Thus, I read the sentence to include the 1932-34 famine as well as the Great Purge and the Gulag. Including the famine easily puts us past the 10 million threshold. Hardly anyone disputes that the Soviet famine deaths in 1933 alone, for example, were not at least at three to four million. On a perhaps more compelling level, mentioning tens of millions of deaths is necessary if you consider Drogo Underburrow as a common example of the extreme emotional reaction triggered in many readers by the article. Without disregarding the objective standards that you are bringing up, we must establish in a very poignant way the scale of Stalin's criminality; the best way of establising this point is saying outright that the was responsible directly or indirectly for tens of millions of deaths. 172 | Talk 07:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we're on the same page when it comes to the estimates, such as the leading studies by Tsaplin, Getty, Conquest, Medvedev, and a handful of others. I think the dispute is our read of "tens of millions." I take that to mean at least 10 million. One can speak of "tens of" a unit X when X can be divided by ten and equal an amount greater than one. There is no disputing that we're easily above the 10 million mark when including the Gulag, famine, Great Purge, etc., even when picking out the low-end estimates for each category. So we can say "tens of millions" without disregarding the work of serious researchers whose numbers for the purges and the labor camps come up at the low end, such as Getty. At any rate, just about the famous 'combined' figures are much higher. Hence, Britiannica cites Medvedev's famous 20 million figure in their Stalinism article: In 1989 the Soviet historian Roy Medvedev estimated that about 20 million died as a result of the labour camps, forced collectivization, famine, and executions. Another 20 million were victims of imprisonment, exile, and forced relocation. 172 | Talk 09:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: These estimates are always going to be rough, even when they get passed peer-review. So I am not saying that we should present Medvedev's 20 million figure as an uncontestable claim... I still think the source of our disagreement is semantics. "Tens of millions" can technically mean at least one more than 10 million. Who's assuming that the 10 million figure can only be multiplied by a whole number? At any rate, this discussion isn't going to go anywhere. There is a contingent of users who will revert back to "tens of" without listening to you. Instead, they'll make the matter into a political fight. 172 | Talk 10:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: That is of course wrong. Academic books can be better than articles since thay can list their sources in great detail. For example the Black Book of Communism, written by several academics, lists thousands of sources. Ultramarine 10:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Academic press also have strict requirement. There is simply no way that a short article can list thousands of sources and give long descriptions. Ultramarine 10:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, you seem to know little about how academic press workds. Academic books are as a good a source as peer-reviewed articles. Ultramarine 16:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Please read something about what academic press is. Ultramarine 19:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeat: Peer-reviewed articles vs. Books and Websites

message: A lot of issues being brought up here have been discussed many, many times before and a quick skimming of the archives is highly recommended for every newcommer here. Actually, reading the first two-three archives covers most of the disputed points since the rest of the archive is basically just the same debates and arguments made all over again, but with slightly other participants.
I think it would be usefull to have the archives sorted by subject. The death toll debate is a frequent one, and the last 3-4 years debate on it could be put on one single page for easy access. Then we have the "Why can't we simply call him a despot/dictator/tyrann/mass murder" debate, that also comes up every few months, which could put on another archive page. And one for discussion on the intro, and so on. I don't mean to push the active and current debates out on some sub-talk page, just to have the old archived pages more available. I think I'll do that. I'll leave the current archives as they are, and just make a copy of relevant content of former discussions over in a new and topic indexed archive with a table of contents. If nobody objects, that is. Well, maybe even then ;-). Shanes 08:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Every incarnation of the intro is a very delicate consensus capable of standing for a couple of months until it's shattered by the arrival of one new user. Then the same fight plays out again, but with a new set of players... Regarding your proposal, I doubt that a topic-indexed archive will help. Most of the time the discussions involve reasonable users trying to reconcile different ideas for improving the text, as I think is the case now with the most recent newcomers. Reasonable users have always been willing to review the archive, despite the lack of an index. The problem with indexing archives involves the trolls. A topic-indexed archive might give trolls more material for disrupting Wikipedia. For example, users like User:Libertas and User:Agiantman were able to attract attention to themselves by cherry-picking their way through archives in order to misrepresent the work of other editors. At any rate, routinely rehashing the same discussion, no matter how tedious it is to longtime editors, may have some value when considering Jimbo Wales' argument about the role of "creative destruction" on Wikipedia. 172 | Talk 09:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The talk page archives 

message: Look, I'm gonna be kinda blunt here and say that this article is not good. The POV in some sections is very, very bad, and this is compounded by the very weak referencing. So I have a proposal: let's have all interested editors go through this article thoroughly, top to bottom, together; let's look at every sentence; let's be rigid about neutrality and sourcing for everything; let's look toward balancing out the referencing by including sources from a sympathetic perspective. With this being such an important article, I think we need to do something like this and can do it. I suggest we create a draft page for each individual section, starting with the intro first and foremost. Would there be enough people willing to participate in this to make it work? Everyking 09:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely don't want to. The editing environment is too explosive. The best I think we can do is to keep out ridiculously poorly composed and inaccurate material. The only hope of this becoming a good article is a complete rewrite by a well-read user. If I ever find the time, I'll do it. Though I won't have the time in months. If you have the time, I'm confident that you're capable of single-handedly producing a superior draft. 172 | Talk 10:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A proposal

message: The two first paragraphs in the first chapter  include references "Archer 11" and "Hoober 15", however there are only two sources in the references  non of which seem to apply.  I think I managed to find who added those references , those come from a Senior Research Paper by SteveBob but he did not cite them properly.  SteveBob does not seem to be active since this is his only edit.   There for I am going to remove them. --Friðrik Bragi Dýrfjörð 13:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing footnotes 

message: Once wrote:
Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, "I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so." Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:
:While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigours which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.''
Orwell must have peered into the future and read the Wikipedia article on Stalin. - Drogo Underburrow 04:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: George Orwell

message: the Marshall was fully rehabilitated by Khuruschev. The evidence against him was fabricated by Heydrich and leaked to Stalin by way of the Czechs. See article on Tukhachevsky.  The article was way too pro-Stalin and had to be toned down.--Will314159 01:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Marshall Tukhachevsky

message: Is there any verifiable source for the story about Papismedov (the Jew who is supposed to have helped Stalin in his early years and was later received at the Kremlin? I can't find one. It sounds like an 'Uncle Joe' fairy tale. If it can't be verified, it should be removed. --Smerus 16:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed this story.--Smerus 08:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pismamedov David , with a 2000  book as source, referring to a 1996 artricle by Edvard Radzinsky. At the same time in my opinion Radzinsky's bio of Stalin reads kind of fantastic in some places, not to say that the author has some pet theories to stretch facts upon them.  `'mikka (t) 16:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Papismedov

message: Is this sentence correct?  It seems 'either' should be replaced with 'neither':
:In Asia, the Red Army had overrun Manchuria in the last month of the war and then also occupied Korea above the 38th Parallel, with either the West's invitation or agreement.
Also, this sentence is terribly stuffy; I can't even discern its meaning without a thesaurus.
:Artists and writers vied with each other in egregious_sycophancy, crediting Stalin with almost god-like qualities, and suggesting he single-handedly won the Second World War.
::I changed "egregrious sycophancy" to "fawning devotion". This article attracts foreign editors, so you could help by scanning the article for other phrases that sound a little unusual in English. Art LaPella 01:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: Again, can anybody give a definition of the term? I will remove it until the exact definition presented.--Nixer 13:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you not like the one to be found at death toll?  We could discuss further if we need more clarification.--Deville (Talk) 13:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we say, for example, that number of shot in the USSR during Stalin's rule is a part of death toll of Stalin?--Nixer 18:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'd say if someone was shot by government forces, yeah. --Deville (Talk) 02:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Imagine a war situation: in a difficult moment there is a panicer, who claims that there is no way other than to capitulate. He was shot. If he was not shot, the casualities propably will be much greather. What's the death toll of the action? What's death toll of killing maniac? So I suppose we can talk about "death toll" only in the case of killed unjustly, dont you think so? Anyway this term is biased and non-encyclopedic.--Nixer 09:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Nixer, it would have sufficed to knock him out, like it would have happened in a civilised society. But, of course, according to you, whatever Stalin did was excusable and justifiable somehow.Dietwald 09:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look in the archives of this talk page and you will see many other discussions (Deng 18:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death toll 

message: I was a little surprised to see the name change.  Was there discussion on this somewhere?  In any case, is it even correct to say Stalin spelled his name "Josef" instead of "Joseph"?  Would he ever have written his name in Roman script?  I'm pretty sure he spelled his name Иосиф.--Deville (Talk) 21:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In anything I've read, it's been "Joseph" when Romanized. Most of the page also says Joseph. I propose it's moved back to Joseph Stalin. 204.9.144.52 14:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto.  The transliteration "Josef" is no improvement over "Joseph" in approximating the pronunciation of the name in Russian ("Yos-SEEF").  KonradWallenrod 15:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Eek.  I already went ahead and changed all the Josephs to Josefs, just to be consistent.  I didn't like having both Joseph and Josef on the article.  Should they be changed back? --C33 17:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As both a linguist and an historian, the transliteration "Josef" is most appropriate in that is maintains a letter-for-letter correspondence between the Cyrilic "Φ" and Latin "f".  However, in terms of what the article should be titled, I believe WP guidelines specify that it should be the spelling that is most common in English-language Accedemia.  I believe that would still be "Josef", although I would have to do the research to be sure.--WilliamThweatt 17:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The google test comes in at ~659,000 for "Josef Stalin" and ~1,370,000 for "Joseph Stalin".  A cursory overview shows no wikipedia mirrors on the first page of either set of results. siafu 14:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem with "Josef" over "Joseph" is that, although more accurate, some people might not recognize the J isn't pronounced as an English J, but an English Y (actually, it's more like an I, but that's beside the point). Joseph is better simply because it's the most common English transliteration (and people inevitably pronounce it "DZHO-sif", as per the English equivalent). So yeah, I know it's already been moved, but in case someone disputes this in the future, there's my two cents. --Yossarian 30px| 02:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page name change 

message: Please note that, beginning with October 1952 (the 19th Congress of CPSU), Stalin's position in the Party was no longer General Secretary but just Secretary of the Central Committee of CPSU. This is the fact noted in most contemporary encyclopedias, as well as in Stalin's obituaries in March 1953. I'm not really sure what exactly happened, but it seems that the position was abolished, then to be restored in September 1953 as the First Secretary. Later Soviet encyclopedias gloss over this little detail, but contemporary newspapers leave no doubt.
There is no doubt of course that Stalin remained the country's dictator between Oct.'52 and March'53 (and he remained the Prime Minister, as well), but it's just a matter of precision and detail. Thanks.  ouital77 21:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secretary or ''General'' Secretary? 

message: Ultramarine, IMO this passage in the "death toll" section
It is generally agreed by conventional historians that if war casualities, Nazi policy in the occupied territory, famines, prison and labor camp mortality, and repressions are taken into account, the number of deaths that occurred from unnnatural causes under Stalin is in the millions,
is indeed correct. Don't historians agree that it's measured in millions? (it's certainly not thousands or billions, right?)
It's then continued in the following paragraphs and explains that there's a disagreement over how many millions is that - just a few or more than 50.--Poison sf 16:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is generally agreed by conventional historians that if war casualities, Nazi policy in the occupied territory, famines, prison and labor camp mortality, and repressions are taken into account, the number of deaths that occurred from unnnatural causes under Stalin is in the millions, while according to Soviet archives, the number of sentenced to death, shot and executed for any crimes during Stalin's rule does not exceed 800 thousand.
There is certainly no agreement on that this is the number found in the archieves. Ultramarine 16:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Are there historians disagreeing with this number? I know that there's a book claiming 20 millions toll based on archives, but it's not about sentenced to execution, it's about combined toll of famines, death from conditions in camps etc. This, theoretically, is not in conflict with the number of documented executions given in the study.--Poison sf 16:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the book states 20 millions, not including deaths caused by combat or killed by Nazis. 20 million deaths caused by Communists from famine, exections, Gulags, and deportations. Another source, Europe-Asia Studies, September 1996, Vol 48, No 6, p 959-987: Stalinism in Post-Communist Perspective: New Evidence on Killings, Forced Labour and Economic Growth in the 1930s. Steven Rosefielde. It gives around 10 million deaths for some years during the 30s only. Ultramarine 16:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the purpose of determining whether the paragraph in question is factually correct, it's important to consider the cause of deaths. I.e. whether somebody disputes that the toll from the exact mentioned cause (execution) recorded in archives is what it's claimed to be.--Poison sf 16:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "As Table 1 shows, popular estimates of executions in the Great Purges of 1937-1938 vary from 500,000 to 7 million." Ultramarine 16:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if we quote that article, then we need to quote this too Anton Antonov-Ovseenko, Robert Conquest, Steven Rosefielde, and others have posited relatively high estimates (see Table 1). On the other hand, Stephen Wheatcroft and others working from the same sources have put forth lower totals. Both “high” and “low” estimators have bemoaned the lack of solid archival evidence So, many do not attempt to claim what is documented in archives --Poison sf 17:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not Wikipedia who should decide who is right. We should only report the differences among researchers. Ultramarine 17:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should also report the background about the studies. For example that the study is based on archives or that it's not. I don't know, maybe it's different for somebody else, but for me such information is of primary importance when I read about something like this. The facts are that there's a study which claims to have established a number of documented executions from NKVD archives. It can be believed or not, that's up to one's personal choice. There're also other estimates of executions, which don't claim to be based on Soviet archives (or were published before there was be a possibility to study Soviet archives, that's, I belive, post 1991).--Poison sf 17:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And as noted, for example another archive study state the Communists were responsible for 10 million deaths in 30s alone. Ultramarine 17:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "accepted by conventional historians number of deaths" 

message: The introduction attributes the victory in WWII to Stalin, but ignores his massive denial of the intelligence warning of the German attack. Or his killing of the most experienced military officers, often cited as another factor for the enormous initial military defeatsUltramarine 13:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 3

message: Okay, the most contentious section seems to be the one entitled (from memory) "Number of repressed" (which itself is kind of an odd title).
It seems to me the whole thing probably should be rewritten at this point, since most of it is obviously problematic.
I think maybe the best way to go about it is to break down the section under various smaller headings, listing each of the main causes of death and the range of estimates for each cause. That should then be followed up by a paragraph covering the other estimates for total victims (since some estimates appear to be overall totals rather than a breakdown).
That way we cover all bases, and everyone is happy. 
So, what could the subheadings be? There is the 32-33 famine, obviously. There are the political victims. Maybe the Great Purge. What else? Gatoclass 16:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Victims would include those directly executed, like during the Great Terror, dissenters sent to the Gulags were most were expected to die, the Holodomor, genocides of certain ethinic minorities due to deportations and hardhiship, and deaths of German and allied POWs and civilians. Unfortunately, the exact breakdown of these figures are usually not available online.Ultramarine 16:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of repressed

message: He is listed as having absolute pitch. Is there any source for this?--Blackfield 13:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is stated in at least one of his biographies. . - Rainwarrior 21:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absolute pitch 

message: (Moved from SuperDeng's talk page.)
Hello. Why are you reverting obvious factual errors? Ultramarine 20:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You remove sourced numbers becuase you dont like what they say (Deng 20:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But for example the figure of 6 million from the census is contradicted by its own source. When discussed on the talk page, outside editor agreed that the paragraph should be removed.Ultramarine 20:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it is not the only thing contradicting is you and you removed the demographics of the Soviet Union because they do not fit with your POW pushing (Deng 20:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But its own source states 14 million?  Ultramarine 20:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If you want to discuss anything do it on the Stalin talk page and stop useing internet refrences to push your POW. Anyone can make an internet page like that (Deng 20:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But that is you own source for the census! Ultramarine 20:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Stop posting on my page and stop saying mine, an internet page can be made by anyone and you can write what ever you want on it (Deng 20:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But this is your own source for the text you reverted to! Ultramarine 20:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Stop posting on my page and stop saying mine. (Deng 20:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Everything has been explained by many others. You only push your own POW like you are trying to push now for example one only needs to scroll up and one will see the discussion about the military and now again you are trying to push your misinformation (Deng 21:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You confuse me with yourself I have not deleted source info it is you who deletes sourced info I have explain about the military let me ctrl c ctrl v it yet again
This is the bigest problem with POW pushers like you even when qouteing your own sources you fail to see the details now let us see what you say :"The purging of the army, meanwhile, saw about 35,000 military officers shot or imprisoned." You do not see the word imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned So there is no way in hell that you can uderstand that when the war broke out that all except 8 thousand were back and you still do not see the big picture which was that the army grew from 1.8 million to 5.4 million between 1939 and 1941 but the officer corp did not grow in the same rate this is what you and your POW pushing mind do not see and can not see. (Deng 21:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Please respect Wikipedia:Civility and act in good fatih. Please do not repeat words many times, please try to find factual arguments instead. Please give sources for you claims. Again, please explain why you have deleted sourced material:  and inserted material contradicted by its own references.Ultramarine 21:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not need to repeat it if you would have gotten it the first couple of times but since you fail to understand it the first couple of times then repetition is the only way. You use internet sources and This question was answered to you atleast 3 times was it not? So now how big of a chans is it that you will understand it the 4th time. It was pointed out on your own talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AUltramarine&diff=53018963&oldid=52096954 then I pointed it out to you here WITH A SOURCE http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJosef_Stalin&diff=53070377&oldid=53068625 AND IT WAS POINTED OUT HERE AS WELL http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJosef_Stalin&diff=53053961&oldid=53052670 So it is clear that you are POW pushing you remove sourced material that do not fit your POW and you ignore it as well. And then you use home made internet references to back your own POW pushing agenda. (Deng 21:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I sugesst you read the talk page. You removed the sourced numbers of the official records that puts the number of dead at 4 million and the demographic link because it does not fit with the POW you are trying to push. The text has been altered to an incorrect and misleading version. You will see  that most people support the correct version and not this POW pushing version. If you read the archives and read the discussion page you will see that. And the page was totally fine untill Ultramarine came and altered so much. And he is the person who has added information that contradict itself. He also has removed the sources of facts and then says there are no sources and then removes the paragraph all togheter. Also and most importantly the version which is in correct and misleading says that some version put it at 20 million but others put it lower. This is ofcurse correct but it would be equally correct to say the official numbers put it at 4 million and some put it higher. You remove the number 4 million because it does not fit with your agenda. And this "Estimates of excess deaths under Stalin range from less than ten million to fifty million or more. Most agree that the famine of 1932-33 was the worst period, with estimates of the toll in this case ranging from 6 million to 20 million." Is a plain and absolut lie the lowest number is around 2.5 million and not 6.(Deng 17:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stalin 

message: The current edit war should not be called "vandalism". I will let others decide which editor is more guilty of POV pushing, but neither is a vandal. Wikipedia uses the word "vandalism" mainly to mean a silly edit like this one, not arguing over how many million died because of Stalin. Here is a quote from how the Wikipedia:Vandalism policy defines vandalism:
    
NPOV violations
    The neutral point of view is a difficult policy for many of us to understand, and even Wikipedia veterans occasionally accidentally introduce material which is non-ideal from an NPOV perspective. Indeed, we are all blinded by our beliefs to a greater or lesser extent. While regrettable, this is not vandalism.
Bold Edits
    Wikipedians often make sweeping changes to articles in order to improve them — most of us aim to be bold when updating articles. While having large chunks of text you've written deleted, moved to the talk page, or substantially rewritten can sometimes feel like vandalism, it should not be confused with vandalism.
Mistakes
    Sometimes, users will insert content into an article that is not necessarily accurate, in the belief that it is. By doing so in good faith, they are trying to contribute to the encyclopedia and improve it. If you believe that there is inaccurate information in an article, ensure that it is, and/or discuss its factuality with the user who has submitted it.
Bullying or Stubbornness
    Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them on an article's talk page, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is a matter of regret — you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. However, it is not vandalism.
Art LaPella 23:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: Maybe Deng is right that the lower number should be 4 million, not "under ten million".
From White's summary of sources:
Ponton, G. (The Soviet Era, 1994): cites an 1990 article by Milne, et al., that excess deaths 1926-39 were likely 3.5 million and at most 8 million.
If total excess deaths between 26 and 39 were "likely 3.5 million", then this period covers the worst of Stalin's rule and this source would probably not add too many more for the rest. Also, Deng says the official figure is around 4 million and he may be right about that, I'm not sure. How about if we say the figure ranges from "under five million to fifty million or more"? That might be a more accurate description of the various sources, and it might have the additional benefit of ending this rather fruitless dispute. Gatoclass 11:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say nothing I just restores the original version which was here BEFORE Ultramarine came and started to change everything. And you should look at the the diffrent version which can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josef_Stalin&diff=53941071&oldid=53933175 and you will see how much Ultramarine removes and what he adds then you should scroll up and see all the questions I have asked.(Deng 12:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1939-1953 period includes the continued killings in the Gulags, most of the deportations of ethnic minorities, and the kilings of German and allied POWs and civilians. Please give a source for any claim that Stalin killed less than 5 million when looking at the whole of his regime.Ultramarine 22:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Please answer my many questions above first and 2 sources have already been given with remark to the 4 million so please answer the questions above. And also answer why you keep on adding misinformation about the army when we have discussed it in such depth and detail. That the army grew that all except 8 thousand were back and that the total officer corps was around 139k so loseing 8k aint such a deep blow. Please answer the Questions above which have been asked so many times (Deng 23:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The 4 million figure

message: The problem is obvoius humans stand diffrently on the political scales and this will ofcurse flavour how they see and act in the world. So how do we solve it? Well we can either keep on yelling at each other and by doing so nullify each other which wont give or do shit or we can try to work togheter. Now how do we look beyond politcal thinking. Well it is quite simple, when ever comeing across a political hot potato that stalin and the death toll under him is then one should try just to give absolute truths and real facts. I will re write the death toll in some days and some other small parts hopefully tomorrow in this manner and hopefully it is something that most people or atleast those people who look beyond political ideology can accept. (Deng 01:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Problem

message: I have read in a historical book that farmers starved because of the collvising of farms which hurt the whole production thing and because they in revenge destroyed and hid food to get back.
::In short yupp, but as anything there are a million details and simplification of such huge matters are  always bad. (Deng 23:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Famine thing

message: I'm moving the article back to Joseph Stalin. Joseph Stalin is far more common than Josef Stalin, the results are in:
Google:
Joseph Stalin: 1,420,000
Josef Stalin: 715,000
Yahoo:
Joseph Stalin: 676,000
Josef Stalin: 390,000
And I don't think I have to tell you that it is Wikipedia policy to use the most common name. Jareand 19:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joseph vs. Josef 

message: SuperDeng has given this as a source: . I can find nothing there to support it.Ultramarine 20:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Time out guys, that statoid page is very misleading. It lists the 1939 Population with 12 million people from the annexations of 1939-40. The Census of 1939- corrected numbers, (Stalin ordered it bumped up to 170.5 million)- was actually 168.5 million. The territory of the annexed regions was 20.3 million. This data is from Andrev's study of USSR population. The Soviets always listed the 1940 Ukranian population as 41.3 million which included 9 Million in the annexed territories. The actual Jan 1939 population was 32 million compared to 28 million in 1926. This helped to mask the loss of 5.0 million in the famine of 1932-33. Never ever accept a Soviet statistic at face value always check and double check it. --Woogie10w 19:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you remove the famine, then only people who were shot are left. The page with the estimate of around 183 million pop removes the famine therefore only people shot are left and since we know that less then a million were shot well 1+1+=2 (Deng 21:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But why should we remove the famine? And you are forgetting those who died in the Gulags. They were not shot. Or those killed due to deportations.Ultramarine 21:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont know if you can read the text I that write but I will say it one last time. DONT USE INTERNET SOURCES BECAUSE THEY SUCK. USE REAL BOOKS WRITTEN BY REAL ACADEMICS WHO HAVE A BURDEN OF PROOF. AND IF YOU CAN THEN USE BOOKS WRITTEN AFTER THE YEAR 2000. Now the inernet-source gives a super high number of 183 million in 1939 that would mean that not only didnt anyone die of famine no one also died of deportations and people were makeing babies like there was no tomorrow. Now one last time Stop trying To push your views into Wiki and Start makeing a correct wiki because correctness is better then biasness, is that so hard to understand that it is better to have correctness then biases is it so hard for you to leave your political views out of wiki, why try to make something bias when you have a real chans of makeing something correct. So please stop it becuase correctness should be the aim not political bias. (Deng 21:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But it is you have given an internet source for your number of less than 1 million killed? Again, there are no such numbers there at all.Ultramarine 21:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It is to prove that internet sources are a joke and there are most likely many home made internet sources that say that stalin didnt kill anyone, yes no number gives the one million but the high pop indicates that none died either. Is it so hard for you to leave your political agenda at home and try to make something good out of wiki where people can find correct information and not spinned and twisted information. (Deng 21:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Giving a false source in an article is not acceptable. Since you have no sources for your statement that less than 1 million was killed, it should be removed.Ultramarine 22:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I can help you guys with the numbers. There is a Russian source- Vadim Erlikman. Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke : spravochnik. Moscow 2004.  that has the data you need on losses due to Soviet repression. His data is backed up with sources that are cited.  Erlikman lists the total deaths in the USSR due to Soviet repression from 1917-87 of 10.050 million not counting 7.0 million famine deaths in 1932-33. I believe his data would improve this page because he cites original Russian sources from the post Communist era. I will post the details this data to the talk page if you guys want to use it for the article. Please let me know if this will be of use.--Woogie10w 22:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All recent researchers argue that they have used  material from the Soviet arhieves. Your source looks interesting and a translation of his main findings would be valuable. However, I do not think it is the final word on this subject.Ultramarine 00:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It is no more a false source then your home made, obscure and obsolete internet pages, Ultramarine As I have said so many times before, the only thing false are your home made internet sources, and by the way the 50 million  Are ALL deaths suffered during the time of Stalins Rule, be it from old age or from the germans. Same thing with as with the 7 million deaths during 32-33 and when it is confirmed that those 7 million are ALL deaths during that period you will quckly lose intresst in that source and as always refuse to have a coherent discussion and just ignore the respond as you have ignored the discussions here so many times. (Deng 14:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is still you have given a false internet source.Ultramarine 20:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Mikkali is right the official statistic lists only those shot after a trial. The actual number may be about 1.5 million when you count summary executions. My source is Vadim Erlikman. Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke : spravochnik. Moscow 2004. .--Woogie10w 20:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I have not given any sources that are more or less faulse then yours, like you I have provided an itrnet source that like all your sources have no burden of proof and this source happen to show a super high pop date which would mean that no one died of famineor anything. Now if you could start useing real srouces from real books that I have tried to use so many times then perhaps we could move on. (Deng 02:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But you have not given any book as support for your figure of less than 1 million, only your false Internet source. What is your source? Also, could you please try to use punctuation and consult a dictionary when you write? Ultramarine 10:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Give the guy a break, be nice, imagine if you had to contribute to Swedish Wikipedia. Anyway he is referring to those executed. When you add Gulag and Deportation deaths the total is 8 million, not counting the contoversial 7 million deaths in the famine. The number of losses in the Soviet era has been the subject of intense debate. The following link to articles in the Journal Soviet Studies presents different points of view on this topic. []. --Woogie10w 11:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Less than 1 million deaths due to Stalin 

message: I quote this "During the early 1930s Stalin conceived the idea of having informants. An informant was anyone who reported others to the KGB. Informants were everywhere. Their main task was to report suspected anti-government activities."
This sounds more like speculation and POV. How does one substantiate "Informants were everywhere." Where is the evidence of Stalin conceiving the idea to have informants? Also, the proper name was the NKVD and not KGB (which we should know was post-Stalin).
: I agree that this sounds awfully conjectural, POV and poorly written to say the least. And for one, I think the 'idea' of informants goes back tens of thousands of years... Hauser 13:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baseless claim 

message: :::Rummel's numbers make a lot of sense. I have a great deal of respect for the man and have read his books. What if the USSR was a free country from 1917-89, there is no doubt in my mind that millions more would have lived longer lives. The lower numbers school count the official numbers dead in the Gulag. Rummel's higher number of 62 million dead makes sense when one compares the USSR to the west where people were free. He is saying economic and political freedom should be the norm and those 62 million should not have died an early deaths. The millions deported to Siberia, to work under barbaric conditions, were not volunteers. They are not in the official number. This is the key point to grasp when reading Rummel. Just compare East vs West Germany, Taiwan vs. PRC and North & South Korea. Rummel is a skeptic regarding Soviet statistics, which are the mainstay of the lower numbers school. He is right, we should always treat Communist data with skepticism and check and double check it. As I mentioned before the issue of "the number" is complicated and controversial.--Woogie10w 16:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fraud is a serious charge that I would not bring against Rummel. I believe his estimate of 62 million Soviet dead is way to high but I strongly believe he is an honest researcher. The root cause of his errors is the fact that he uses sources from before 1991 when the Soviet archives started to open up. When one compares Czarist Russia and the Stalinist USSR to that of western Europre and the US the disparity in death rates I believe is due to the lack of economic and political freedoms The USSR was a nation that used infantry to clear minefields, they were "killed in action" and in Stalins USSR many died after being deported to Siberia without a trial, their deaths do not appear in those official GULAG statistics.--Woogie10w 03:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not saying that one million or less died all I am saying is that some say that just as some say that 50 million died. now what you should do is get real books written by real people just like Woogie and start reading and not read home made internet pages. (Deng 01:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rummel

message: Wow, there's way to much templates on this talk page, someone should add a "too many templates" template. :p  Ok, enough of uncyclopedia.  
"Stalin was nicknamed "Uncle Joe" by the Western media. When told of this nickname by Franklin D. Roosevelt, he almost walked out of the Yalta Conference." --From the article, under "Other names"
I've tried to find a source for him "almost walking out" of Yalta, but only found documents that say otherwise.  From Roosevelt and the Russians by Stettinius:
"Stalin then asked jsut what this meant.  The President told him it was a term of endearment, as though he were a member of the family.  When Stalin appeared to be offended, Molotov told us not to be deceived. "He is just pulling your log," Molotov told us.  "We have known this for two years.  All of Russia knows that you call him 'Uncle Joe.'"  I had heard the story earlier that on some occasion before Yalta the Prime Minister was supposed to have asked the Marshal whether he minded being called "Uncle Joe."  Stalin was supposed to have replied that he would like to wait on this untill Mr Churchill knew him a little better.";
--Dandin1 18:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stalin's reaction to "Uncle Joe" 

message: "It is generally agreed by conventional historians that if famines, prison and labor camp mortality, and repressions are taken into account, the number of deaths that occurred from unnnatural causes under Stalin is in the millions. In attempting to collate the total number of victims of the Soviet regime under Stalin's leadership, historians have employed a wide variety of different methodologies and come up with a correspondingly wide range of results. Different researchers have claimed support for their numbers using official records in Moscow, some of which were opened after the breakup of the USSR in 1991. Estimates of the number of victims range from less than five million to fifty million or more."
Can this find acceptance? Except by Deng of course, but he is blocked again for a few days. I would like the exact source for an article or book that states less than five million, otherwise less than ten would be better. Regarding fifty millions, Wheatcroft mentions a more recent source than Rummel stating this in Appendix 3. Ultramarine 20:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a difficult topic that I wish I could provide a quick answer to, just " the number" and its source. The demographic data in Andreev, EM, et al, Naselenie Sovetskogo Soiuza, 1922-1991. Moscow, Nauka, 1993.  will help to clarify the issue. Here are the facts. 1- in 1914 the Russian death rate was 3% per annum, 2-From 1923-53 the average death rate was 2.8% per annum including the famine of 32-33 but excluding WW2, . The US death rate was 1.1% during the same time period. However the Soviet death rate had decreased to 1.1% in 1953. The data tells us that in the 20s and 30's life was on a medeival level but that progress was made to improve the standard of living. This point needs to be made when assessing Soviet losses. The reality was that millions were deported to harsh regions against their will and died early deaths. These deaths to not appear in those official statistics. The lower numbers school lists only those bodies counted in the Gulag and persons executed after a trial. The higher numbers school compares Stalins USSR to the west and counts the excess deaths as caused by the government. The answer to that argument would be that life was at a primative level in 1923 and instant progress was not possible. Somehow the readers need to grasp the fact that milions died of famines and forced labor in Stalins USSR but that life in Czarist Russia was also harsh. In 1913 most Russians lived in conditions that had not changed since the middle ages, health care and education were unknown, they were semi-serfs bullied by the landowners.I think Russians would understand this better than folks in the west. Maybe they can help to rewrite that Dead Toll section--Woogie10w 21:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somehow the readers need to grasp the fact that milions died of famines and forced labor in Stalins USSR but that life in Czarist Russia was also harsh. In 1913 most Russians lived in conditions that had not changed since the middle ages, health care and education were unknown unfortunately you fail to note that average food consumption in the USSR during the late 1980s did not bypass the level of average food consumption of the urban population of Czarist Russia in 1913. Official sources from 1988... plus living experience!--Constanz - Talk 06:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mean Czarist Russia was a good place to live in, but the situation was not that bad in all the different spheres; also, the literacy rate was rather high in Western parts of the empire.--Constanz - Talk 06:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I should mention the fact that during the Stalin era the demographic structure of the population had been changed by the losses of the war and communist repression. The 1953  population was  younger because so many adults had died unnatural deaths. The surviving younger popoulation had a lower death rate. This bolsters the argument of the higher numbers of victims school rather than defending the communists--Woogie10w 12:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Another very important fact that must be understood is that the lower numbers school- 5 million deaths- would include only adults in the Gulag and those sentenced to be shot. The higher numbers school- 15-50 million deaths- would include the entire population that would have had a higher death rate because of government economic policy, deportations and collectivization. The higher numbers school is saying that if Russia was a democracy with a free economy millions of deaths would have never occured--Woogie10w 14:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Important point. Many seem to argue for 20 million deaths or a slightly smaller number, if incuding all causes. For example Wheatcroft seems to argue for this number in Appendix 3.Ultramarine 14:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: "The total tally of his victims can never be exactly calculated, but is normally considered to have been about 20 million." No qualifier or statement that he disagrees. Please state what article you refer to when you say he gives a different number for the total killed.Ultramarine 18:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, he estimates a lower number than 20 million. But he has revised up his number for the famine victims, in his 2004 book he finds 5.5 to 6.5 million victims. Ultramarine 11:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The facts are disputed.  In the case of controversy, wikipedia states values that can be attributed to notable, verifiable sources and lets the readers draw their own conclusion.  It is not for the editors to decide with "facts" are correct and which are not. --C33 19:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK lets have the other people post their range of numbers and cite the sources and discuss the matter. Their version is not on the table.--Woogie10w 22:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Getoclass, under 10 is correct but so is under 4 as well, since we do have sources saying only 4 million died as direct result of his actions. Read what woogie says he knows his numbers well. I vote for that woggie rewrites the part and we go with what ever he does (Deng 22:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pulitizer prize winning author Ann Appelbaum notes on page 583 of book Gulag "no  death figures compiled by Gulag authorities can ever be considered reliable"  We must also account for the the deaths due to the deportations which have a seperate section in your article. Why only Wheatcroft as your source, is this guy God?  You need to breakout out the reasons for the losses and post your range for each, citing the sources in the footnotes- 1- Executions,including estimated summary executions  2-Gulag plus the Labor colonies, 3-Deportations and 4- the 1933 famine in Russia-Kazakastan as well as the Ukraine. That death toll section still needs a lot of work--Woogie10w 09:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Death toll

message: What do we need to do to remove the totally disputed tag.  I believe Ultramarine added it during the course of a dispute with SuperDeng.  The version as it stands now is close to the version Ultramarine wanted.  Is it safe to remove the tag, or do we need to resolve further disagreements?  --C33 19:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totally Disputed Tag

message: Ultramarine, these are excess deaths. If demography says it was not more than 1,5 million excess deaths (for various causes) how do you derive 6 million for the famine only?--Nixer 19:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That table is only registered deaths. Also, the total number of those deaths is 2.2, not 1.5.Ultramarine 20:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This comes from the same webpage:  Ultramarine 20:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Source please.Ultramarine 20:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Right. Just so someone does not miss it, since the table of registered deaths is endlessly linked to, this comes from exactly the same webpage: Ultramarine 20:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, thanks for digging up that link again. I couldn't find it before and I wanted to put it into the rewrite. I'll probably do that tomorrow now. Gatoclass 20:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excess deaths 

message: May I give a humble advice do not use the work of the gentleman as a source. He is a journalist not an historian (although in his youth he indeed studied history in Istoriko-Arhivny Institut). What I mean there is no such scholar as "Russian historian Erlikhman". This name is unknown in academic circles :) Here you are his works (in Russian) - http://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/2283471/?type=305#305 You see among them such works as "Stephen King. The king of dark side", "Anthology of children world literature", "Anthology of world fantasy" etc.
:Oh, great :) Since I rewrote that section, I've stumbled on one or two other apparent discrepancies I will have to try and resolve. 
:Actually though, if Erlikman is a journalist and not an historian it doesn't necessarily disqualify him as a source. Although obviously it would be better to have a historian instead. Gatoclass 20:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I mean that he is not a researcher he is an ordinary compiler. It's not bad thing whatsoever but (and I agree with you) that it would be better to use books of real historian-researchers who works with archives and other primary sources. --Nekto 20:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erlikman as a source 

message: I never understood the reason for Stalin's ethnic cleansing. The only incentives I could find were colonialism of the less-populated areas, removing perceived radical threats that didn't go well with the state (ie. Islam?), and maybe to create an enemy. But it seems rather counter-intuitive to Machiavellianism to ethnically cleanse if it doesn't gain power.
Perhaps it was the high number of rivals in the Party who happened to be Jewish and it was a convenient label? I mean, in order for ideological soundness it would have seemed wiser to pick another label. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 05:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Stalin and anti-Semitism.--Constanz - Talk 08:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  anti-Semitism 

message: I was just curious, but what did Stalin consider himself, religiously? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somerset219 (talk • contribs) 
:He was born a Christain, but as a communist, one would think he would consider himself an athiest. --C33 00:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, Stalin a communist...no really I think the Man of Steel's religion was the Stalin himself.
*Interesting take. Just be sure not to explode in giant wikiwars over this as in the Hilter page (incredibly ugly btw). Just serving as a warning. Colonel Marksman 01:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stalins religion of choice? 

message: The Joseph Stalin mentions that Lev Shubnikov, the physicist, was shot.  I'd like to see a cite for that.  Google has several hundred hits indicating that he was shot, but they're all derived from the Stalin article in Wikipedia.  This issue came up because someone created an article for him, and the question then arose over whether he actually was shot, and if so, for what. --John Nagle 05:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lev Shubnikov]] 

message: Man, that painting is hilarious- The Producers II: Summer for Stalin, Autumn for Mao.  Stalin dreessed in white, standing in a bucholic pasture, with small rosy-cheeked children giving him flowers.  Totalitarian kitsch, I love it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RolandDeschain (talk • contribs) 
:First please sign your comments with four tildes, like this: ~~~~
:Second, what is your point exactly? -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Roses For Stalin" LOL 

message: The estimations of number of victims of famines in Tsarist Russia differs. For example, this source  says it were 2.8 million victims in 1901,  and 1 million in 1911.--Nixer 19:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famines in Tsarist Russia 

message: Ultramarine, please exoplain your reversions. Why do you not respect the WP:AWW and WP:NPOV rules?--Nixer 20:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No comment on the nature of the edits, but I can say for sure that it would be much better if you could write the reference information in English, as this is the English wikipedia. siafu 20:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agrre, if you are providing Russian sources, you need to provide a translation. Richard Pipes states that the worst famine in the late Tsarist Russia, in 1992, caused 375,000-400,000 deaths.Ultramarine 20:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I will translate the source above but it is not connected with my edits. I only want to eliminate weasel words.--Nixer 20:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversions by Ultramarine