Talk:Joseph Stalin/Archive 10

message: The subsection "Stalin and changes in Soviet society" -> "Culture and religion" currently includes this statement:
"It is widely believed that the video game icon Mario was made to look like Stalin, to promote communism".
Someone with editing rights might want to do something about this. (PROTIP: Try deleting it.)
:I've put the  tag on there.  I'll give someone a chance to come up with a reference.  If no one does in the next few days I'll delete it.  --C33 03:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comrade Miyamoto 

message: Recently two Wikipedians censored an external link (Joseph Stalin: An emerging view) containing comments and views of Black scholars  and intellectuals on the issues discussed here. One would expect such behavior from the Grand Wizards of the Ku Klax Klan and not from members of the Wikipedia community. LCF 19:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop with the personal attacks (WP:NPA).  The link wasn't removed because of race issues, it was removed because it was non-notable.
*It is an irrelevant link. It has very little to do with Stalin and the logical rigor of it is as flimsy as the photoshopping job in the "enhanced reality" portrait. It adds nothing to this article and reflects a very poor understanding of the literature on both Stalin and U.S. race relations in the 1930s. I don't feel the need to address the accusation of being a "racist" because I find the link useless. I think you've noticed that I've tried to take out every link to your goofy web page which didn't enhance an article on here, and it has nothing to do with anything related to race. --Fastfission 22:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Admiring Harry Truman, for instance, doesn't make a person "warped" or unqualified as an administrator; it makes him normal. As foreigners here may be unaware, Harry Truman had enough admirers to elect him as President. Art LaPella 04:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll assume good faith and remind you that in order for something to be cited on Wikipedia, it needs to be verifaible and published by a reputable source.  Self published websites do not meet that criteria.  Also, on a personal note, you might find that people will listen to your arguments if you drop the vitriolic invective and don't cry racism at the first sign of disagreement. --C33 04:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I would also like to point out that the only contribution Truman made to the KKK was to pay them (It hink it was) 10 dollars as an initial membership fee. WHen he found out the extent of the KKK's goals, he severed connections with them. He never went to a meeting. He also was a big supporter of civil rights. So please, actually do research instead of picking one thing out of dozens, exaggerating it, stating it as fact, and then calling it racism. Phoenix Song 20:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racists on Wikipedia 

message: Why is Stalin changed to Joseph? It is common to use the last name when talking about persons. In his youth, before he took the name Stalin, would it not be better to use his last name then? Personally I think this is confusing and would prefer Stalin to be used in the whole article. Ultramarine 19:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It need not be confusing; there were already some mentions of his pet name "Soso", and they still stand. The edit, as it said, was according to context. Someone in his early years is usually referred to by his first name, colloquially. When talking about young Mark from the Smith family attending school, one says "Mark (not "Smith") did very well in his class today". I don't think there's a problem with applying this use in a written form. Actually I picked up this idea from Peter Thielst, who wrote a biography of Søren Kierkegaard. He distinguishes between the child and student, which he consistently names "Søren" in the first part of his book, and the philosopher and publicist, always "Kierkegaard" in the second. Stalin can in my view be approached in the same way. He wasn't "Stalin" when he had not yet chosen that "revolutionary" name. Also there should be no problem with the retrospective use. You wouldn't say "Pavel was a banker in 1980 in Prague. In that time, being a banker in the Czech Republic was a hard thing". No, at the time it was Czechoslovakia, and that's what counts for the situation described. In fact, there have never been "Stalin's friends from childhood". That's today's perspective. Nethency 19:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any Wikipedia article that uses the persons first name? Or any Stalin biography that uses his first name? Ultramarine 12:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are indeed more contextual (and even less contextual) first name uses in Wikipedia articles. Try Søren Kierkegaard, Vladimir Lenin, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Adolf Hitler, Karol Wojtyla, Indira Gandhi, George Michael, John Lennon. Occasionally or a bit more frequently their first names (or the ones of people in their environment) are mentioned. I think no one takes notice of it. (No, I haven't read any Stalin biography yet.) Nethency 19:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While the Adolf Hitler article uses his first name in his youth, the Indira Gandhi article does not. Looking outside Wikipedia, Encarta uses Stalin also young: . However, at least one of the biographies uses his first name as young (and later changes to "Koba" before "Stalin").Ultramarine 20:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, maybe you don't mind a compromise. :-)Nethency 12:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing Stalin to Joseph 

message: Ive edited the sentence saying his height was only 5 foot 2 inches. It is clear from photographic evidence that he was at least 5'5". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.17.56.81 (talk • contribs) 
: Do you have some links or references? (Because Stalin was known to wear boots with built-in heels, so a photo is not the best proof...) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 14:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stalin was known to wear boots with built-in heels? Never heard of it. Stalin's height was 174 cm, which is around 5'8". While from my 187 cm he seems a midget, he was actually a man of medium height.Ko Soi IX 22:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep, his police card, present in this very article, indicates 174cm. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 23:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  His Height 

message: The 6 month bounty placed on this article has failed to deliver the conditions for improvement. :( Bad showing guys --Steve Latinner 01:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bounty Expired!

message: From what I remember reading a while ago, the doctors plot was quite a prominent event of the final years of his life (some Jewish doctors were accused of collaborating for the "enemy" in trying to kill Stalin, which made him mad and lash out against Jews, or otherwise it was his excuse to do so).  However the article itself has no mention of it in the article at all!--Konstable 03:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard of this event as well. If you can find a reference for it, go ahead and put it in the article. Walton monarchist89 12:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To Max. That's right, Stalin hated jews. That's why he never purged Kaganovich nor Litvinov (real name:Meir Henoch Mojszewicz Wallach-Finkelstein) and had no problem with many soviet polititians having jewish wives, notably, V.Molotov. C'mon, stop it with the vintage cold war era bullcrap, it's obsolete now. Ko Soi IX 23:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they were arrested for treason, not for being Jewish, so there is no anti-semitism present. With respect, Ko Soi IX 23:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, who knows whether the motive behind their arrests was anti-semitic? Many were falsely accused of treason to Stalin's own ends. 3dom 20:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctors plot 

message: Content of this section looks as a good candidate for leaf article Stalin in the arts or Stalin in popular culture. This would keep the main article smaller and more focused. There's even category for such articles: :Category:In popular culture. Pavel Vozenilek 21:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a good idea.  The main article is far too long. --C33 22:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion: "Stalin in the arts" leaf article 

message: Why does the first paragraph say that he was effective dictator from 1922 on?  He was a leading Soviet figure from 1922 on, with arguably great behind-the-scenes influence, but he didn't really consolidate what could be called a meaningful personal dictatorship until the mid-1920s, and he wasn't unchallenged sole ruler until at least 1928. AnonMoos 23:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It used to say mid-1920s, but someone changed it recently.  I think it would be more correct to change it back to mid-1920s. --C33 23:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First paragraph

message: So its clear that some think the dictator tag is POV and doesn't belong, while others think it does belong.
I don't have a problem with Stalin being called a dictator, but I think it would be more appropriate to do so later in the article.  I think that the first, introductory paragraph should be constrained to a simple, concise biographical statement and refrain from opinions or value judgements.  I'm not disputing the fact that he was, in fact, a dictator, but its a somewhat controversial term that requires a value judgement.  I think it should be stated later in the article and not in the introduction.  --C33 00:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at a few other articles on Wikipedia, and Hitler, Mussolini and Franco are all listed as dictators in their opening paragraph, while Pinochet (of all people) is not.  It seems like leaving it in would be consistent with other Wikipedia articles on similar subjects.  So I guess I'll grudgingly withdraw my opposition to the "dictator" tag.  --C33 00:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think "dictator" should be labelled only those leaders who had extraordinary powers or positions such as "Extraordinary President", "Fuehrer", "Chairman of Provisional Military/Extraordinary Comittee" or so. Stalin did not have extraordinary powers. He had power only because of his authority/prestige.--Nixer 05:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Any president of modern president republic has much more formal power than Stalin had. In fact the late leaders of the Soviet Union also had the same powers (i.e. Brezhnev, Andropov). Gorbachev seeing that the position of General Secretary is not enough to protect him during the planned reform introduced the President of the USSR title, which made him invulnerable.--Nixer 05:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: In fact it made him invulnerabe in constitutional frame. That's why there a coup occured later. If he remained Gensec, the coup most likely would be avoided, because a General Secretary can be made retired by simple majority at any time.--Nixer 07:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It is not unique situation when a state is ruled or controlled by another entity such as church, party, order or company. The fact is this situation does not automatically imply dictatorship. Even if the government is actually controlled by a person who does not hold governmential position (such as mafia leader, favorite of a monarch, church autority), we do not call this person "dictator".--Nixer 07:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The dictator tag isn't POV. 'Dictator' is not, strictly speaking, a term of abuse, but a recognised politico-historical term for an authoritarian or autocratic ruler who exerts personal power over the state. Some rulers may be called 'dictators' as a term of abuse when they are not, strictly speaking, dictators, but as applied to Stalin the term is accurate. If I remember my etymological history, the term dates back to ancient Rome, where a dictator (equivalent to the Greek 'tyrant', another word that has changed its meaning) was an extraordinary magistrate elected to take absolute control of the state during times of national crisis. It's a technical term. Walton monarchist89 12:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And did Stalin ever had extraordinary powers (except WWII period)?--Nixer 19:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Dictator" Tag in First Paragraph

message: Stalin's "Official Birthday" was December 21st. I think that should be listed in his article. (it is also my birthday ;)). 
Diggerjohn111 15:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  December 21st