Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any article on Wikipedia that deals with this. If one is brought to my attention, then I'd certainly link it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is well described in Oleg Khlevniuk's book. And there is a short description on the Russian language page of Yakov Sverdlov since he shared the room with Stalin.--Armenius vambery (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
His battle with Trotsky was of central importance for his rise to power. What I am missing is an explanation of how Stalin did achieve that, as this says a lot about the person (if I remember correctly, he was systematically replacing high-ranked officials with ones outside the old elite who owe their whole career entirely to him and thus are fully loyal, while Trotsky failed to to the same, and appeared somewhat arrogant to other members of the politburo).
I've added several sentences on how Stalin appointed loyalists throughout the party and administration (and on how he cosied up with senior figures in the secret police) to the second paragraph of the "Succeeding Lenin: 1924–1927" section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You mention the August uprising just for completeness sake, but not how it relates to Stalin. Was Stalin not patriotic for his Georgian homeland at all, or was he originally and lost it since?
I'm actually included to remove mention of the August Uprising. As you point out, it has been included for completeness sake, but most of Stalin's biographies don't seem to even bother mentioning it. Would you object if I got rid of it? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the naming of Stalingrad – was this an honour given to him, or initiated by himself?
Volkogonov suggests that the former is the case, attributing the decision to Kalinin and Yenukidze. I shall amend the page in the article to make this clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The image caption "Avel Enukidze Joseph Stalin and Maxim Gorky Red Square 1931" is not, unlike other captions, a full sentence, and could do well with some additional information.
Ah, this is one of a number of images that have been recently added. I have ensured that the caption is now correctly structured as a sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "Wehrmacht" is singular, so it should always be "the Wehrmacht was" instead of "the Wehrmacht were".
The whole "World War II" section appears to be slightly biased in favor of Stalin, while his defects are not as deeply discussed despite their hugely important implications for Russian history. Some positive war policies are described relatively detailed, on the other hand.
In fact it is probably the most controversial issue. I have tried to dig and found Khlevniuk's opinion that the professional (with reliable sources) assessments of his military achievements and failures do not exist. Of course there are politicians who (as usual) provide one sided argument. Overall the picture is that he significantly weakened the army with repressions, until the last day believed in agreement signed with Hitler and was totally taken by surprise when the war started. However, Beevor's assessment of his role in key Stalingrad battle is that in contrast to Hitler he listened to reports from his subordinates and made more balanced decisions. --Armenius vambery (talk) 06:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a topic about which I do not know a great deal (military history isn't quite my thing) and I was simply following the RS available. Are there specific issues which you think need addressing to introduce more of a balance? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding winter war and second world war, it should be stressed that the red army was seriously weakened due to the fact that Stalin removed most officials during the Great Terror.
It might take me some time to find a citation to support the addition of this information, although I have come across that statement before and think it could be included in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since I did the review for the article Winter War, I happen to know. That article states (with sources): Stalin's purges in the 1930s had devastated the officer corps of the Red Army; those purged included three of its five marshals, 220 of its 264 division-level commanders or higher, and 36,761 officers of all ranks. Fewer than half of all the officers remained. Half of the officers eliminated is a huge issue that needs to be mentioned. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Despite having prior warning, Stalin was taken by surprise. – It would be good to mention that he prohibited most fortification and military buildup near the boarder despite urgent demands of his officials, as he wanted to not anger Hitler, and that this behavior left the red army unprepared for the attack, and caused heavy losses for both the army and the affected population.
There is already a sentence pertaining to this in the "Ideological and foreign affairs" sub-section. It states that "Stalin admired Hitler, particularly the latter's manoeuvres to remove rivals within the Nazi Party in the Night of the Long Knives." I think that that is probably sufficient detail on this matter. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have concerns about the section on the 1932 famine, also, this reads pretty much pro-Stalin. The first paragraph spends a lot of words to describe positive policies issued by Stalin that counter the famine, or are not directly related to the latter. Most of these seem almost insignificant for a two-paragraph summary of the famine. The second paragraph starts with "Such policies nevertheless failed to stop the famine" – which ready almost hypocritical, given the fact that it was because of Stalin's policies that caused the famine at the first place (or at least made it much more severe). These "negative" policies are not elaborated on, leaving the reader to wonder what the cause actually was.
The section now includes: "Stalin blamed the famine on hostile elements and wreckers within the peasantry;[381] his government provided small amounts of food to famine-struck rural areas, although this was wholly insufficient to deal with the levels of starvation." Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at some articles by Ellman and by Davies and Wheatcroft to provide some evidence for how Soviet policies exacerbated the famine. I'll keep my eyes peeled to see if there is any other citations I can introduce here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The world war II section reads a bit like Stalin would deserve all the credit for the victory. Didn't he left the major military actions in the hands of Georgy Zhukov, who was responsible for the strategy and victory in the important battles, and maybe deserves the most credit for the final victory? Zhukov is not even mentioned in the article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There was a brief reference to Zhukov when discussing the post-war victory celebrations, but you are absolutely right that it would make sense to mention him in the WW2 section; I have added such a mention. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article states "By the latter part of 1937, the purges had moved beyond the party and were affecting the wider population". I think it is a good idea to add a sentence how this worked; e.g. arbitrariness; the use of torture to enforce naming of further "accomplices"; encouragement to betray even friends and relatives in exchange for sparing; thus spread of distrust and psychological terror affecting large parts of the society, tearing families and other social bonds apart. It becomes not really clear that the terror was affecting everybody and not just officials.
The Gulag system was heavily expanded under Stalins rule, representing one of the darkest aspects of his rule in the eyes of many; this is not mentioned in the article.
Perhaps the "death toll" subsection can include more discussion of the gulag systems, including the total number of prisoners and morality rate. The subsection could be renamed "Repression, death toll and allegations of genocide". LittleJerry (talk) 04:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A vast literature devoted to Stalin has been produced; it is so substantial that even specialists could not read it all. – I have my problems with the second part of the sentence. The information appears not very encyclopedic. I wouldn't deny any specialist of their general ability to read everything if they would want to. If they do not, then the reason might be simply that there is no need, as most relies on the same primary sources. If the case, the info would seem without point anyway.
Could you recheck this citation of Robert Service, if he really wrote "statesman" two times? "He was also an intellectual, an administrator, a statesman and a party leader; he was a writer, editor, and statesman."
That's it from my side. I think the most urgent issue is neutrality and balance (too much insignificant detail in favor of Stalin while the important repressions are not discussed deeply enough); if this is resolved, I think the article is on a good way becoming FAC nominee. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, please take your time. I hope my critique is not too unreasonable and asking too much, and I'm not asking to resolve all concerns (only the neutrality issues are really standing in the way from my point of view); I am happy to discuss if there are any problems. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, none of it is unreasonable at all, your points are all good ones. It just takes a bit of time to go through those hefty volumes and find the appropriate pages. But we are in no rush. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am concerned that many points in this review relate to the article not being negative enough about Stalin, and these are described as "neutrality" issues. Wikipedia does not need to depict Stalin as a cartoon villain. The distance in time has enabled some historians to take a more nuanced view of Stalin, and we should embrace it, not censor it.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. I did never ask to censor positive points made in the article. But a nuanced view should include both the positive and negative points; as for the latter, I am simply concerned that the article leaves out far too much. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Drop in comment from nonreviewing editor. This appears to be a very thorough review. Also there is Hannah Arendt's book on The Origins of Totalitarianism of which Stalin is considered a principle author with a substantial literature following. The lede section appears to have grown and grown, although it is 4 paragraphs by MOS those 4 paragraphs are very top heavy in the article. This makes it difficult to readily get into the main article which is, I assume, the purpose of creating this article. These comments are meant constructively given that the participating editors have been this diligent. JohnWickTwo (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The lede is only marginally longer than the FA-rated articles for Vladimir Lenin and Nelson Mandela (two lines longer than the former, one line longer than the latter, in both cases due to the opening paragraph), and it follows the same four-paragraph structure that those articles also employ. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jens Lallensack: If the main reviewer of this article is holding that there should be more material on extended dissent about Stalin both domestically and internationally, then more attention seems warranted to this extended topic. I have only named Arendt above since there is a convenient link even to her book dealing with Stalin's totalitarianism. The domestic issues of dissent towards Stalin alone following his death and Khrushchev's criticism make this larger topic of international criticism more notable and useful for readers to see in this article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jens Lallensack: Is there a procedural point regarding the pass or fail on this article; I have voiced some support for your concern from 8 July regarding positive and negative viewpoints needing balance. JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Status query
Jens Lallensack, Midnightblueowl, it is now November, and the review was opened in late May. There haven't been any significant edits to the article since early October, and no reviewer comment since mid-September. Might it make sense to have a deadline for this review, perhaps November 21, this review's six-month anniversary? Progress really needs to be made here. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article has always been very close, and the only problem was the issue of neutrality. This has been improved in parts since, but one of the most crucial paragraphs, the one about the 1932-33 famine, still is unacceptable in my opinion. As explained above, it reads like the droughts caused the famine, and Stalin tried to prevent it but didn't do enough. The fact that his own policies were among the main causes is unmentioned (from the lead of the 1932-33 famine article: The forced collectivization of agriculture as a part of the Soviet first five-year plan, forced grain procurement, combined with rapid industrialisation, a decreasing agricultural workforce, and several bad droughts, were the main reasons for the famine.) I know this is "only" a GAN, but an article about Stalin has to discuss whether or not he was responsible for a major famine, and I just cannot persuade myself to promote until this is fixed, as I consider these omissions severe. If this paragraph would be fixed, I can consider promotion (as the other outstanding issues are less important); I hope this can be done within this month. I would, of course, happy to ask for more second opinions on the matter if the author is of a different opinion here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I would be more than happy to wrap this up soon. I am not sure about the best source, but there should be plenty; this for sure must be also covered in the Service 2008 biography in some depth. I only had a brief look, but on page 312, at least, he found clear words: "Probably six million people died in a famine which was the direct consequence of state policy [15]". Might also be worth looking into the source he is citing for this statement. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]