Talk:Joseph Stalin

Too long

The too long tag has been there a year; it's 20,000 words readable prose size. With Winston Churchill, it's the highest profile article that is too long - WP:Article Size. There are different ways of trimming but it needs to be trimmed. Most or all of the main child/sub articles have been set-up already so it's simply a case of summarising them here, Tom B (talk) 09:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Moved paragraphs to relevant pages and trimmed content to be a little more precise. Abc747 (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Abc747, thanks for that, but please don't remove the tag just yet - more is needed still. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, just trying to be helpful! Abc747 (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, not like it's the most influential figure of the 20th century... there is so much to say that one easily falls into omissions, superficiality and skewed impressions when trimming it. I don't want to sound too rigid - but I hope you understand what I mean. Shoshin000 (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

At least concerning the lede: it has a similar size to Benito Mussolini, Francisco Franco, Mao Zedong. Curiously, António de Oliveira Salazar is longer. Shoshin000 (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I think one area that can be shortended is the "Personality" section: these sections have fallen out of favour on Wikipedia and the one in this article is quite long. Perhaps this information can have less prose or be distributed to other sections of the article. There is also a lot of places in "Personal life and characteristics" that have too much detail. For example, a reader does not need to know that "He was born with a webbed left foot" or his work schedule in the third paragraph. Other sections have hatnotes that summarise the text in less than four paragraphs: these sections should also not have more than four paragraphs. I suggest that someone aggressively remove prose that is too much detail for the average reader to know. I would do it myself but my methods are sometimes reverted and I do not want to spend hours editing an article only to have the work undone. Z1720 (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Is it long enough to put in a separate article? Shoshin000 (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Shoshin000: If you are referring to the personality section, I would only spin it off into another article if there were independent, reliable, secondary sources that provided significant coverage of Stalin's personality. In other words, an entire academic journal article discussing his personality, not having the information mixed in with biographical information. The same with other information that might be spun out. Z1720 (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the Personality section is where the bulk of any shortening effort should be focused. I also think that the shortening that was recently done to the Early life section was excessive, and that much of it should be restored. After all, Stalin was 39 years old (!) by 1917, so a lot more than 200 words should be dedicated to those years in our main biographical article about him. — Goszei (talk) 00:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I've restored the Early life section as it stood before, in line with the GA version of this article. Simply ripping out the entire section and leaving just two short paragraphs to explain 40 years of Stalin's life and career does a major disservice to readers, and seriously compromises the utility of the entire article. This isn't just another biography article, but the half-century story of how a man shaped the the economic, social, and cultural fabric of two continents. The 20th century cannot be understood without a comprehensive examination of Stalin's life, and if any biographical article in the entire encyclopedia is justified in exceeding 15,000 words of prose (as of right now, 16,857 words), it is without a doubt this one. An exception to the article size guideline (which is just that, a guideline, not an iron law of article writing) should definitely be allowed in this case, and I frankly consider any tagging with Template:Very long to be overzealous and counterproductive. — Goszei (talk) 07:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Duplication of prose in 2 articles and WP:SIZERULE or WP:CANYOUREADTHIS. Moxy🍁 11:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

While a two-paragraph version of Stalin's early life might be a little short, the current version is much too long and detailed for this article. Considering that there is an article on his early life at Early life of Joseph Stalin, I think this information can be moved there and the "Early life" in Joseph Stalin can be shortened to four paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

What is the target length of the article, in words? Would getting it below 15,000 be acceptable? — Goszei (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Goszei: WP:TOOBIG is English Wikipedia's guideline on this topic. Z1720 (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Given the guideline and the circumstances I laid out, I think 15,000 is a reasonable target. What do other editors think? — Goszei (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:TOOBIG says that articles under 9,000 words should probably be split. Many sections in this article have already been split and the information does not need to be here. For now, instead of targeting words I would target that each section with a spun out article only have four paragraphs, maximum: I suggest four because that is the amount of paragraphs that would be in the lead of an article, so the lead of the spun out article can be used as the foundation of the section. Z1720 (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I oppose this and suggest we revert your change. There is already an entire article on this subject. Two paragraphs is plenty here. GA-RT-22 (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The simple fact that there is a spinoff article does not mean two paragraphs is plenty. We have spinoffs about his time in Lenin's government and on his rise to power, but those are and should be covered fairly in depth in this main article. Surely a compromise can be reached between two paragraphs and the current length. — Goszei (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Above I suggested a target length of four paragraphs. In my opinion, it is better to have a shorter article that readers are more likely to read than a longer article that is discouraging for readers and takes longer for some browsers to load. Z1720 (talk) 19:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I know this is a bio ,,,but I always point to some of our most viewed main articles that cover a mutch wider topic as a rule of thumb based on our protocols WP:COUNTRYSIZE. Moxy🍁 23:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The last I'll say on this is that I agree there should be shortening, but that it should be done with care instead of by simply deleting enormous sections or shunting key parts of the biographical narrative to sub-articles that we know most readers are unlikely to view. Gradual shortening brought the length from 20,000+ words to ~16,800, which I brought down to ~15,800 through my recent efforts. I believe this course of development should be continued. — Goszei (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Goszei: Tough decisions have to be made about what to cut in this article. I support an editor making large cuts quickly to this article. If someone wants to return text to the article, they can WP:BEBOLD and add it back to the article, with the proviso that it must be cited and they have to propose removing other text from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I would like to commend Chirpy-slirpy-BURPY, whose recent edits have brought the article to about 13,900 words, with little loss of substance compared to the previous approach to cutting. We are now in the range of comparable articles, like Hitler's (12,400 words), Mao's (13,700), FDR's (14,300), and Churchill's (14,700). To me, this article is now of satisfactory length and depth, with no compromise of necessary biographical details or overall structure. Very good work. — Goszei (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Just trying to be of service, if I've done anything wrong then I am truly sorry but for now I think the majority of the work has been done! Chirpy-slirpy-BURPY (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Chirpy-slirpy-BURPY: You have made some factually wrong or contextually wrong edits while trying to shorten the article. I am afraid there is more, but I can't review all of them alone. Please recheck and follow this thread. I have reverted three of your edits that introduced various fallacies. While I adore your strive to improve this article, please don't be slippy and try not to introduce such mistakes next time. I am looking forward to your response. Best regards,--A09|(talk) 21:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

Image

The current image is not the best, just in my opinion, as it does not really show any of his hair and it is hard making out a lot of mustache details when looking at it in the infobox. I have a few options.

• 
  1 (current)
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5
• 
  6
• 
  7

Wcamp9 (talk) 00:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Use this one

it is the highest quality picture of Joseph Stalin. Teotzin190 (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this one is great due to the side profile and its heavy use in propaganda, concerns which other editors voiced about it in the 2023 RfC in this talk's Archive 24. — Goszei (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

If not 3, then we should use a colored image like 5, 6, or 7 Wcamp9 (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd prefer keeping 1, but if I had to pick another I think it'd actually be 2, as it best represents the historical image of Stalin. I don't think it matters whether the photo is in color or black and white. Remsense ‥ 论 08:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this. #1 and #2 are the only usable ones of this set, as #4 is too early in his career and #5, #6, and #7 are less clear than those two. — Goszei (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)