Talk:On the Cult of Personality and Its Consequences

Common name

The subject is almost always referred to as the "secret speech". Per WP:COMMONNAME, shouldn't that be the article's title? Everyking (talk) 00:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It's been more than a year since I suggested this. Does anyone have any thoughts, for or against? Everyking (talk) 06:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, we have an official name, and a reasonable one. The "common name" is a misconception, I am not sure Wikipedia must contribute to its propagation, common or not. No wonder quite often is is called so in quotes, just like you did [1]. So at best I could have agreed to Khrushchev's "secret speech", so that the word "secret" not to be taken it its face value. -M.Altenmann >t 06:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Regardless, it's essentially always called the "secret speech". So, per WP:COMMONNAME, this seems pretty straightforward. Everyking (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Regardless, it's essentially always called Khrushchev's secret speech, often in quotes, or variant thereof, as I checked in google books (where I found several more "secret speeches"). If you don't object, I would suggest to go ahead and move to the latter title, since the version with quotes, while IMO more correct, I fear will cause objections as ugly. -M.Altenmann >t 05:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

That would be much better than the current title, although I think the best title would simply be Secret Speech. Everyking (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I have never once heard the name that this page is labelled and I have heard "Secret Speech" probably 40 times in my life. I don't know how to prove this quantifiably but it is actively confusing with the current name. Even the Khrushchev page calls it the Secret Speech because it increases clarity.2601:602:0:231B:7D31:1DE3:EFF5:E82B ([[User talk) 20:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Things that should be referenced

Khrushchev's ulterior motivation, however, was to legitimize and help consolidate his control of the Communist party and government, power obtained in a political struggle with Stalin loyalists Vyacheslav Molotov and Georgy Malenkov. I think the author should put from which reference this was taken. Otherwise, it would be personal judgment which are not to be made on Wikipedia. Tumsaa (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Among others, this type of opinion was held by Anne Appelbaum, but her accent, in addition to power consolidation, was cover-up of Kruschev's personal responsibility [2]. I am pretty sure some others may have expressed similar opinions. -M.Altenmann >t 06:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The author of that comment is obviously biased. Khrushchev condemned political repression and responded releasing political prisoners and considerably lowering censoring and repression. When words are consistent with actions there is no need to guess further motivations. -Miguel, from Mexico. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.145.144.187 (talk) 07:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

WRONG. Wiki follows what the Reliable Sources say, not your personal philosophy. 50.111.36.47 (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

A 2011 book titled Khrushchev Lied by American academic Grover Furr

Please be serious. Grover Furr is an academician in old English literature. It doesn't make him an expert in chemistry or Soviet history. The text should be removed.Xx236 (talk) 06:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC) The quoted Sven-Eric Holmstrom isn't an academician, he is probably dead, so let's forget him.Xx236 (talk) 06:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Geoffrey Roberts is a Stalinist. The article seems to be POV, dominated by Stalinists.

Kołakowski doesn't deserve to be quoted among Stalinists.Xx236 (talk) 06:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Roberts is not a fan of Stalin at all. He calls him a dictator in his books. --Ismail (talk) 04:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

According to Kolakowski, Stalin presided over a country "blessed with the most progressive and democratic system of government in human history." Seriously? Seriously? Needs to be removed as biased with no counter-balancing pov. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Kołakowski was being sarcastic when he wrote that, he didn't actually think the USSR was progressive or democratic. His claim was that the post-1956 Soviet narrative made little sense. --Ismail (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 28 February 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain ^t/c 18:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

---

On the Cult of Personality and Its Consequences → ? – "Secret Speech" is the more common and recognizable name of the speech Prisencolin (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per Polly Jones Myth, Memory, Trauma: Rethinking the Stalinist Past in the Soviet Union, 1953-70 and White Spots—Black Spots "Nikita Khrushchev, first secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, gave a secret speech titled, “On the Cult of Personality and Its Consequences,” ". As we can see "a secret speech" has a title. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose – see discussion above ("Common name"). I'd agree that many people looking for the speech may not know its title, but the WP redirection from secret speech is picked up with a Google search. Newton's book Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica is commonly called The Principia by scientists, but the WP article uses its full title. Secret speech isn't even a convenient shortening like that. I wouldn't say that it's the "commonly recognisable name". It's not really a name at all; it's more like an ambiguous nickname. We could reduce the ambiguity by using Khrushchev’s secret speech, the name used by the Encyclopedia Britannica. But to do so we've moved into less common usage while still not approaching the real name or proper specificity. How about Khrushchev’s secret speech about Stalin? Or even better, the speech's actual title On the Cult of Personality and Its Consequences? Polly Tunnel (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support. WP:COMMONNAME clearly dictates that the article should be titled "Secret speech". It's always called the "secret speech"; there's not even a contest here. Everyking (talk) 06:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ambiguous and wrong title. Current title is correct, clear and reasonably short. COMMONNAME cannot 'dictate' anything. This is a guideline and must be used wisely. By straightforward logic we have to use the article title fucking for sexual intercourse, if most common usage to consider. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, per above and the NYT headline "Soviets, After 33 Years, Publish Khrushchev's Anti-Stalin Speech", suggesting it's not all that common. zzz (talk) 08:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • It is very common, I assure you. It is always called the "secret speech". If people for some reason want the overly long, obscure official title, fine, but it blatantly contradicts WP:COMMONNAME. Everyking (talk) 03:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Well, to be less sloppy, it is commonly called "Khrushchev's Secret Speech" - and this one is cewrtainly recognizable. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
      • I think just "Secret Speech" is simpler and more common. And there aren't any other famous speeches known to history as the "Secret Speech", so specifying Khrushchev wouldn't be necessary. Everyking (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Out of how many?

" the Communist Party USA alone lost more than 30,000 members within weeks of its publication." Out of how many? Polar Apposite (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Communist Party Membership by Districts 1922-1950 source unfortunately goes up to 1950, and it shows only 37,751 members by 1950. If it hadn't moved a lot away from a figure like that by 1956, it would be consistent with the lead section statement from article Communist Party USA: The party itself imploded following the public condemnation of Stalin by Nikita Khrushchev in 1956, with membership sinking to a few thousand [...]. A few thousand plus 30,000-ish lost is close to membership in 1950. –Vipz (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Would it be justified to add something along the lines, of, "[...] which would have been most of their members. Soon membership had sunk to just a few thousand. Khrushchev's public condemnation had the effect of causing the CPUSA to implode."? Polar Apposite (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

@Polar Apposite: "which would have been most of their members" would be WP:SYNTH if it's not in the source, and we don't really have to connect the dots for readers. –Vipz (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Is there some other way to phrase it that would be acceptable? How about "out of a total of about 40,000 members)"? The important fact, to the ordinary reader, is, surely, what fraction of the members left. To say the party lost 30,000 members without saying what proportion that represented, besides being highly uninformative, and to the inquiring mind, somewhat tantalizing, also seems to imply that the writer is assuming that the reader already knows what the total was, which is atrocious writing, IMHO. Polar Apposite (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, we know that the party lost more than 30,000 and afterwards had a few thousand members, and these are both estimates. The total could've been anywhere from 30,000 to 40,000, maybe even more (if for example "more than 30,000" meant 35,000 and "a few thousand" in the aftermath of loss meant "7,000", making for e.g. 42,000). It is ultimately synthesis, there is no way around it than to avoid it altogether. We ought to seek other reliable sources, perhaps even contact CPUSA itself to see if they have anything in their archives (and of course, include such information only if published in reliable sources) about membership since 1950. –Vipz (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

How about stating, "The total could've been anywhere from 30,000 to 40,000, maybe even more", then? As a stopgap, until we get a more precise figure? Polar Apposite (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

unverifiable source

I check this source From Our Own Correspondent. BBC Radio 4. 22 January 2009 and found nothing about the Speech. Pallikari (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)