Jump to content

Talk:Joseph Stalin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateJoseph Stalin is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Good articleJoseph Stalin has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 18, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 7, 2018Good article nomineeListed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 3, 2006, April 3, 2008, April 3, 2011, April 3, 2012, April 3, 2014, April 3, 2016, April 3, 2018, April 3, 2020, and April 3, 2022.
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article

"General Secretary (1922-52)"

[edit]

Position of General Secretary was abolished in 1934 and he continued on as a "First Secretary of the CC of the AUCP(b)" 5.151.189.241 (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: the AUCP(b) didn't have a superior rank in the secretariat after 1934 until Stalin's death. 5.151.189.241 (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As our article on the position states, the post was not formally abolished in 1934, but rather Stalin was not re-elected to it. This was purely a cosmetic change, since Stalin still had absolute control of the party and was deeply involved in running it day-to-day. It was only in the 1950s when he began to increasingly withdraw from Secretariat business before the position's formal abolition in 1952. Presenting it in any other way, especially in the lead, would simply be confusing and misleading to the reader. — Goszei (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2025

[edit]

Widely considered one of the 20th century's most significant figures, Stalin was the subject of a pervasive personality cult within the international Marxist–Leninist movement, which revered him as a champion of socialism and the working class. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Stalin has retained a degree of popularity in post-Soviet states as an economic moderniser and victorious wartime leader who cemented the Soviet Union as a major world power. Conversely, his critics accuse his regime has been widely condemned for overseeing mass repression, ethnic cleansing and famine. For most Westerners and anti-communists, he is viewed overwhelmingly negatively, while for significant numbers of Russians and Georgians, he is regarded as a national hero and state-builder.

Change the second to last sentence: "Conversely, his critics accuse his regime has been widely condemned for overseeing mass repression, ethnic cleansing and famine" to: "Conversely, his critics condemn his regime for overseeing mass repression, ethnic cleansing and famine" Sansbs (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Remsense ‥  03:19, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"accuse" is better as man made famine is disputed. 2404:4400:4148:8600:3C6D:DD66:887D:11AA (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"millions of deaths."

[edit]

The phrase is used twice in the introduction. How can we change it up to improve the flow of the article? I'd either suggest removing one of the instances of the phrase, moving it to a different part of the article, or re-wording it. What do you think? 1101 (talk) 06:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the issue is the (comparatively recent?) expansion of the second paragraph of the lead. I would recommend that the lede be trimmed back further, getting it closer to the GA-rated version of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The length of the current lead is 567 words, compared to the GA-passed length of 576 words. I find the current lead superior in its explanation of the First Five Year Plan with respect to the 1932–33 famine, the targets of the Great Purge, the Gulag system (not mentioned at all in the GA lead), and deportations to remote regions (also not mentioned in the GA lead). I agree with 1101 that the phrase "millions of deaths" shouldn't be used twice. — Goszei (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Born Jughashvili, not Dzhugashvili

[edit]

"Jughashvili" is the original and correct spelling of the last name. "Dzhugashvili" is the Russified version because the Russian alphabet doesn't have the letter "J" and substitutes it with "Dzh". Similarly, it does not have the letter "Gh" [ღ] (also absent in the English alphabet; pronounced like the French "R"), so it substitutes it with just "G" - making it "Dzhugashvili". But in English, the last name would definitely be spelled "Jughashvili", especially when emphasizing that it's the birth name. So the opening of the article should say "born Jughashvili" and not "born Dzhugashvili" (even if Georgia was part of the Russian Empire back then; the official language was still Georgian and the surname itself is of Georgian origin, not Russian). Vaxxxo (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is complicated, but I think the best solution is the current one, where "Dzhugashvili" is in the lead text, and "Jughashvili" is explained in a footnote. The lead introduces his patronymic in the Russified style, "Vissarionovich", so for consistency it seems to me that the first introduction of his surname should be the same; a consistent alternative is the full "Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili", but that is too redundant. In their biographies of Stalin, Conquest used "Dzhugashvili", Service used "Dzhughashvili", and Montefiore used "Djugashvili" (though Kotkin used "Jughashvili"), so there are good grounds to lead with the Russified version here. Britannica also uses "Dzhugashvili". — Goszei (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He was born in the Russian Empire as Dzhugashvili, though. Tough luck. -heirnich- (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New infobox image proposal

[edit]
Stalin in 1932

I propose the image at right (which depicts Stalin in 1932) for the infobox, replacing the current one (which shows him at the Tehran Conference in 1943). In addition to being higher quality, the 1932 image has a better view of his mustache and hair (which is hidden in the 1943 image). It also shows him less aged and tired, as well as wearing his regular tunic without shoulder boards and no parade cap, placing less emphasis on his military role (which while important only made up 4 years of his ~25 year rule). His expression in the 1932 image is less rigid and more natural. The Tehran Conference image is also already used lower in the article. — Goszei (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the proposed image is superior to the current one. Emiya1980 (talk) 19:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Szchalchsz (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This image is in poor shape. Artefacts all over. Rejected.
Furthermore, one must be cognizant of the fact that Stalin was paranoid and almost every single image of him was edited by his ministry of propaganda. We need a more candid shot, and the current one fits. And I think he looks normal in it, as he did in real life. Tired and sad? Stop feeling for the genocidal maniac. Lastly, two matters of fact must be noted: 1. Stalin's face was chock-full of pockmarks in real life 2. Stalin had slight cross-eyes (his left eye tilted to the right) as visible in this gif if you zoom in: https://jumpshare.com/s/5GhNIAuXVEhpPvxNky0h I have the gif uncompressed, too, if you want. (by the way, I acknowledge that the current Adolf's imagebox photo is from the ministry of propaganda, too, and that's not good, though admittedly I don't know if Adolf got his face beautified by the Gerbil as much as Stalin did) -heirnich- (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the one scratch near his forehead, which is minor and could easily be retouched if desired, the image is in good shape. This photo was taken by the American photographer James Abbe, and is from one of the very few times Stalin consented to have his portrait taken close-up by a Westerner (the set taken by Margaret Bourke-White in 1941 is another example). The picture was therefore not airbrushed by Soviet censors, as evidenced by his visible pockmarks (they are even more visible in this image, from the same session). — Goszei (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]