Talk:Joseph Stalin

Holdomor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

How is it possible that there is a Stalin page that does not even mention the word "holodomor." This page is shamefully biased! The gaul of putting up a history of Stalin that does not categorically state that he was a genocidal mass-murderer is just pathetic. This is why no academic trusts or respects wikipedia. Shame on you! Jtodd57 (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I assume you mean "Holodomor". It's mentioned in the 1932–1939 section. It is not discussed extensively because there are at least two other articles, linked in the hatnote, that cover it. Also please note that I am not French. GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

You are right of course. The holodomor was a horrible genocide.

It had nothing to do with europeans refusing to accept anything but raw materials (including grain) as payment from the USSR.

Nor did it have any relation with the sabotage carried out by anti-communist former landowners who were bitter about collectivisation.

Nor with the bad weather in the preceding period, which reliable sources tell us was caused by stalin anyway. He was an expert of the reverse rain dance, you see.

No, no, no, this horrible georgian man simply had it in for unkrainians, and he harnessed european economic policy, disgruntled landowners, and the weather to see millions of them starved. He had nothing against kazakhs though, they were just collateral damage. 41.108.109.104 (talk) 06:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Information removed, then returned to article

Over the past week, editors including me have been trimming information to try to summarise the prose and reduce the word count. Much of that information has been added back in, with this edit and this edit by Goszei. In my opinion, much of the information concerns Stalin's opinions on other's actions (particularily Lenin): with an article this big, I do not think there is space for this information. Furthermore, I think adding this back in is against the consensus that I observe in the "TOO BIG" discussion above.

My opinion is that these edits should be reverted, and that if editors want to add prose into the article, they must also remove some text: the goal would be getting the prose under 9,000 words, in line with WP:TOOBIG. What are other editor's thoughts on this idea? Z1720 (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Your edits cut the article to about 12,900 words, and mine brought them to a current size of 13,800. In my opinion, the goal of bringing the article under 9,000 is extreme and unusual when considering the sizes of comparable articles: Adolf Hitler (12,400), Mao Zedong (13,700), Franklin D. Roosevelt (14,300), Winston Churchill (14,700), Benito Mussolini (14,000), Chiang Kai-shek (13,600), and Vladimir Lenin (14,800), among others.

Many of the things you removed are important and heavily discussed in all Stalin biographies: Lenin and Stalin agreeing to disobey the Menshevik decision against robberies, Stalin vocally supporting the Cheka and Red Terror and brutal methods against peasants and "traitors" during the civil war beyond the scope of many other top Bolsheviks (very relevant when considering his latter career), information on the Georgian affair and the reason for his personal dispute with Krupskaya (the key parts of his break with Lenin), explanation of why "socialism in one country" clashed with established Bolshevik views despite Stalin's claims, his decision to advise the CCP to ally with the KMT in 1927 (which the CCP obeyed, and which drastically changed the course of history). Any biography of an early Soviet figure is defined by their relationship to Lenin, so including how their opinions differ with his is important. This is especially true where Stalin's positions contrast in a way that displays his nationalist and anti-internationalist tendencies, which defined his rule, e.g. him opposing the Polish–Soviet War due his belief the the Polish proletariat would support their nationalist government.

The points I just listed cover the bulk of my re-additions, and were counter-balanced by continued trimming of non-essential points. — Goszei (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Goszei: I was not finished trimming the article. While other articles are large, WP:TOOBIG is part of a guideline and I think those other articles also need to be trimmed. Just because things are talked about in biographies does not mean that they belong in this specific article: they can be moved to the child articles. While some trimming has happened since the concern was raised in June by another editor, I think more is necessary. Z1720 (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

My reading of WP:TOOBIG, in combination with the actually-existing state of things in the encyclopedia, is that 15,000+ words is the true cut-off, and as the guideline states, above 9,000 "the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material". This clause, if it applies to any of our articles, certainly applies to the biographies of the foremost figures of the 20th century listed above, of which Stalin is perhaps the most important. I think our approaches here are simply at odds, and that the opinions of other editors are needed. — Goszei (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Issues in other articles do not demonstrate that this article is okay as-is. I think both this article and several of the examples provided could be reasonably made considerably more readable. The specifics of what to include or not can be debated separately. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• @Goszei and Nikkimaria: It looks like this question did not produce much response. I am thinking of starting an WP:RFC, with the following information:

Question: Should the target number words in the Joseph Stalin article be 9,000 words?

Explanation: Some editors have boldly reduced the number of words in the article, citing WP:TOOBIG or WP:BLOATED. These efforts have been reverted (examples: [1] [2]) with the explanation that this information is important for the article. There is disagreement on the talk page on whether the article should have its size reduced. We hope additional comments from editors will help us come to a consensus.

Thoughts? Open to rewording this. Z1720 (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure this is a good genre of question for an RfC, tbh - it might be better to post to a relevant WikiProject or two to get more input, and only go for a full RfC if that doesn't attract much interest. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

In the interest of fairness, I posted a notice in all of the Wikiprojects connected to this article, inviting them to comment below on this discussion. Hopefully this will help achieve consensus on what the length of the article should be. Z1720 (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

It is far too long. If there is information which is considered to be both important and in summary style it could, and probably should, be removed to sub-articles. These might be thematic or chronological. They could then be covered in this article by a short paragraph with a hat note for those who wish to see more detail. (George Washington's Farewell Address, George Washington's political evolution, Military career of George Washington, George Washington and slavery and numerous other sub-articles of George Washington provide a good example.) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Removing of information is absolutely out of question. If too big, then split. --Altenmann >talk 18:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• Was the information removed or just split? Splitting is fine - the information is in many biographies, but our article can't be book length. If it was just removed, that is bad. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
• In the vein of Altenmann and PARAKANYAA, this article does not need to hold everything covered in major biographies of Stalin, as it is not a standalone product like a biography. There are existing sub-articles to contain the full detail, like Joseph Stalin's rise to power. That said, when cutting here, it is important to check what is cut is actually at the sub-article, which is not always the case when over time the main article has slowly bloated in length while the sub-articles languish. CMD (talk) 02:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I strongly oppose setting an arbitrary, even number target to get to an "idea" text count. No doubt if a precedence is set here it will be used as a benchmark elsewhere. To be clear; my sympathies are with Gosze on this issue. Ceoil (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Works by Joseph Stalin should be added

The Russian Social-Democratic Party and its Immediate Tasks (Nov–Dec 1901)

Marxism and the National Question (1913)

Our Disagreements (January 5, 1921)

Thirteenth Conference of the R.C.P.(B) (January 16–18, 1924)

On the Death of Lenin (January 30, 1924)

Trotskyism or Leninism? (November 19, 1924) [Alternate Translation]

The October Revolution & the Tactics of the Russian Communists (December 1924)

Concerning Questions of Leninism (January 25, 1926)

The Social-Democratic Deviation in our Party (November 1, 1926)

The Seventh Enlarged Plenum of the E.C.C.I. (November 22, 1926)

Revolution in China and Tasks of the Comintern (May 24, 1927)

Plenum of the C.C., C.P.S.U.(B.) (June 4-12, 1928)

Results of the July Plenum of the C.C., C.P.S.U.(B.) (June 13, 1928)

The Right Danger in the C.P.S.U.(B.) (October 19, 1928)

Industrialisation of the country and the Right Deviation in the C.P.S.U.(B.) (November 19, 1928)

The Right Danger in the German Communist Party (December 19, 1928)

Greetings to Selskokhozyaistvennaya Gazeta (March 1929)

The National Question and Leninism (March 18, 1929)

The Right Deviation in the C.P.S.U.(B.) (April 22, 1929)

The Results of the First Five-Year Plan (January 7, 1933)

Defects in Party Work and Measures for Liquidating Trotskyite and Other Double Dealers [a.k.a. “Mastering Bolshevism”] (March 3, 1937)

Dialectical and Historical Materialism (September 1938)

History of the C.P.S.U.(B) (Short Course) (1939)

Report on the Work of the Central Committee to the Eighteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.) (March 10, 1939)

[Back to the Top]

Speech at an Election Meeting [a.k.a. “Origin and Character of the Second World War”], (February 9, 1946)

Marxism and Problems of Linguistics (June 20, 1950)

Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, (February-September 1952)

Cjssjn (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

If this is added, it should be pared down to his most notable works, many of which we have articles on. Something like:

• "Marxism and the National Question" (1913)
• Foundations of Leninism (1924)
• Concerning Questions of Leninism (1926)
• History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) (1938)
• Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR (1951)

— Goszei (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there not a separate article with a title like, "Works by Joseph Stalin"?

If not, might it be appropriate to create one with a very brief section in this article reviewing his career as a writer and editor with a "see also" link to this other article? DavidMCEddy (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer that the works be wikilinked in the biography if mentioned. Then, a "Works of Joseph Stalin" article (or something similarly titled) be added to the "See also" section. I do not think a separate analysis of his writing style is necessary in this article, as it is already quite long and it is not primarily what Stalin is notable for. Z1720 (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2024

Hello! In the part of the article below you will see a grammatical error. Please change amd to and. Post-war era 1945–1947: Post-war reconstruction After the war, Stalin was at the apex of his career.[466] Within the Soviet Union he was widely regarded as the embodiment of victory and patriotism,[467] amd his armies controlled Central and Eastern Europe up to the River Elbe. DynDun AS (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Done. Thank you! Antandrus (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

"Joseph Stalin's death conspiracy Theories" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Joseph Stalin's death conspiracy Theories has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 17 § Joseph Stalin's death conspiracy Theories until a consensus is reached. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Mass murderer category

Should we add the Russian or Georgian Mass murderer category here for him or would this be more suitable for those more directly involved for events such as the Great Purge and the Holodomor? 2600:100C:A218:9A7B:BC5E:E0AD:C8F9:553 (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Stalin statutory rape

@Smallangryplanet There isn't any evidence Khrushchev tried to smear Stalin, at least the allegation isn't made in any credible sources. The first biography cited by Suny (2020) cites 3 other bios, including a Russian one I could not translate. The 2 English ones cited are Young Stalin and Stalin Unknown Portrait. Montiefore(chp.34) cites archival documents directly for the details of the event and also mentions a 1956 politburo report that signed of by all present and was then made secret. Kun(pg.168) cites archives and directly quotes villagers including Lidia herself from an interview in which she recalled details of her relationship and Svetlana(Stalin's daughter) after she defected in 1969. Both sources mention other rumors and accounts of the event, the earliest of which(according to Monteifore) is Essad Bey’s 1931 biography. No source cites Khrushchev or disputes that the 2 had a relationship. Originalcola (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

On the Cult of Personality and Its Consequences is a pretty notable piece of evidence that Khrushchev had it in for Stalin! Montefiore's sourcing for this story in particular is considered especially inconclusive by at least one review, (also available at DOI 10.1017/S0037677900010202) so I think it's accurate to add "alleged" given the difficulty of validating the information. Smallangryplanet (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Monteifore's biography has quite a bit of sensationalism in it but most major Stalin biographies released since then include this story(Kotkin's 2018 Stalin bio for example) without doubting it's authenticity and citing archival sources directly. Originalcola (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to assume good faith but please remember that articles are meant to be written from a netural point of view, its seems you also 'have it in' for Stalin. Please don't synthesise popular history articles and rumours into your own original research. 185.3.86.208 (talk) 02:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

As an aside, Khrushchev did not "have it in for Stalin." The Secret Speech was a political document that sought to extricate the Communist Party leadership from having any responsibility for Stalin's misdeeds (a difficult task given Khrushchev and the rest of the leadership dutifully served Stalin in carrying out said misdeeds), so it's definitely not intended as an objective analysis, but Khrushchev in that same speech says that all the groundless repressions and other harmful actions of Stalin were not "the deeds of a giddy despot. He considered that this should be done in the interest of the Party; of the working masses, in the name of the defense of the revolution's gains. In this lies the whole tragedy!" Any biography of Khrushchev I'm aware of, such as William Taubman's, make the point that Khrushchev's attitude toward Stalin was not wholly negative, however unsatisfying the Secret Speech is as a document seeking to explain what happened and why. --Ismail (talk) 08:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)