Talk:Joseph Stalin

Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7

Vandalized passage

I would like to know why the intro is vandalized so often and replaced by inaccurate, weak language. It has already been discussed at length in Talk:Joseph_Stalin/archive_7#Awful and the following sections, and if someone wants to change it they ought to have some pretty good reasons. -- Simonides 23:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Truth is stranger than fiction

Where if anywhere do we incorporate this:

Stalin sought human-ape super warrior TDC 19:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I put it in Policies and accomplishments. Good to stick something in that he failed to accomplish, pretty ropy title (from an NPOV) as it makes him sound like a great man but there you go, SqueakBox 19:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• And I deleted this bullshit from newspapers. You cannot add random paparazzi fantasies, printed without any solid references or quotaitons. mikka (t) 19:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you were a bit too speedy to delete the "super ape warrior". A reference to archival information has been given, why such strong objections. TDC 20:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't see any "reference" only void talk. mikka (t)

I can understand your opinion that since this is not too terribly notable, it should not be in the article. But your continual adamant refusal to even entertain that this might be true !?! Strange people do strange things. Hitler’s monstrous obsession with the occult and early Christian relics might seem like tabloid material, had it not been for the fact that it was so well documented. Where is all the hostility coming from? TDC 20:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Please stop panicking, forget Hitler, just answer my question: what "references" abot Stalin's' case besides tabloids are you presenting? mikka (t) 22:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

So UPI and the Scotsman are tabloids? I thought this might be an interesting tidbit to include in the article in some form like “trivia”. What reason do you have to doubt the veracity of the source for this story? TDC 22:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

My friend, all I am asking is source. So far it was all hearsay. I understand it would be an interesting tidbit, for a change among all this morose topic, but newspapers are source of "news", which quite often quite differ from "facts". 02:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoops! I should have waited to see what others thought. It may be true but it may also be a bad interpretation of what the documents actually said, SqueakBox 20:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

What documents? Until I see a word of an expert, I will not believe a single word. Get real, people. If you start addding each sensationalist rant from all over the globe, we will have bullshitopedia here. mikka (t) 20:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that until it becomes a nottable (ie generally accepted) fact that it shouldn't be in here, SqueakBox 20:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if it should be there at first, but the freaked-out UPI=bullshit response makes me think it's noteworthy after all. --Ajdz 02:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Does anybody really believe this wacky story? A loony-tune is a loony-tune no matter what paper it appears in. Come on - chimpanzee + man = super warrior? Methinks peeps have been watching to many B-horror movies. Camillus^{talk|contribs} 00:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It sounds very credible to me. The mad professor was obviously ahead of his time. Even B-horror movies have their bases in the society in which they exist, and it is whether this event actually happened or not and whether that makes it notable which count here. I don't doubt it could have happened, and more so in the twenties than in the fifties. If I hadn't thought that I wouldn't have put it in in the first place, SqueakBox 00:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Stalin, the account says, told Ivanov, "I want a new invincible human being, insensitive to pain, resistant and indifferent about the quality of food they eat."

Are apes "insensitive to pain"? Are apes "resistant and indifferent about the...food they eat"?

Stalin undoubtedly forced thru some very radical policies, and was ruthless in their propogation. But this above "account" just doesn't ring true with Stalin at all. IMO, it just doesn't ring true with any major political mover at all. It's straight out of "Weird Tales", or something that Ming the Merciless from Flash Gordon might have said. I don't believe it for a nano-second. Camillus^{talk|contribs} 00:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you are underestimating first how people thought at that time and second the level of insanity that was the Russians under the ideology of communism during those years, SqueakBox 00:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• The insanity of a modern average American way surpasses "those years" of "the ideology of communism". mikka (t) 00:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Well, I certainly have studied some extremely radical r-r-r-revolutionary ideas that floated around Russia/Soviet Union, but I've never come across anything as wacky as this. Can you give examples of similar loopiness from Stalin circa 1920s? Camillus^{talk|contribs} 00:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

"Rise to power"

Can someone clean up this long rant added to the "Rise to power" section? mikka (t) 19:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, the addition is very verbose and repetitive, and could do without the "we conclude" etc. It should be pared down drastically, however, some of it should survive, as prior to its addition, there was no mention of Stalin's struggle against "Trotskyism" and the machinations of the "troika" of S, Z and K, and then the struggle against the "Rights", Bukharin and Rykov.
• I have now pared down the "essay" (being kind, not calling it a "rant"). I guess it's debatable if it even needs to be in here at all, as most of the details are found in the other linked articles, but I don't like to shoot down new editors in flames :) Camillus^{talk|contribs} 21:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I am not calling it "essay", because at first sight the text seemed quite encyclopedic to me, and the word "rant" refers to form, not content. mikka (t) 22:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Mikka. I see that someone is making an attempt to salvage portions of the essay. I don't think that that's necessary, since just about all the points brought up in it are already better covered in more specialized articles, particularly collectivisation in the USSR. 172 23:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

As I said above, I pared down the essay/rant in the "Rise to Power" section (Mikka removed the same editor's "essay" about Collectivization, quite rightly, as it's well covered in the relevant article). I also said that it's debatable if it needs to be there at all, even in the "pared-down" version. I'm reluctant to remove someone's whole contribution, especially when they are a new editor, as I don't want to discourage new editors; but if the consensus feeling is that it should all go, then so be it. Incidentally, regarding "form", when I looked at the mark-up behind the "essay" it showed that the editor had separated it into paragraphs by indenting the separate paras, rather than leaving blank-lines, so it was just a case of a new-editor not being familiar with the correct way to format paragraphs, and ending up with one long para, hence looking like a "rant". Also, new editors tend not to be familiar with the idea of keeping to the salient points and wiki-linking to in-depth articles. Camillus^{talk|contribs} 00:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)