Talk:Lavrentiy Beria/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Person in the background in photo with Svetlana, redux

User:Radyanskysoldativ is insisting as many have before that the person in the background in Nestor Lakoba. At least he has provided a source: Simon Sebag Montefiore "Stalin: Court of the Red Tsar" Random House, 2005 page 226(photo with Stalin, Beria and Lakoba)

At that source, a picture is presented (a copy is here) which is clearly taken at the same time as the one in our article, but it is not the same picture. We do not know who all was present with Stalin that day. Nestor Lakoba is clearly visible in the source's picture, which makes him easy to identify. But in our picture, the man in the background is not clearly visible. Who is to say that the man in our picture is Nestor Lakoba? The source provided does not -- it merely provides a picture taken on the same day in which Lakoba was present.

Now, they may well be the same man, although to my eyes they do not look similar. But the point is this: User:Radyanskysoldativ's source does not say that Nestor Lakoba is the man in our picture. It simply says at best that Nestor Lakoba is a man in another picture taken on the same occasion. To deduce from this picture that the man in our picture is Nestor Lakoba is OR, no matter how logical it may seem.

Still, on the face of it, I might be willing to accept this argument were it not for the fact that we have another reliable source ("Revelations from the Russian Archives: Secret Police". Library of Congress. Retrieved 6 May 2015.) which features not a similar picture but in fact exactly the same picture in our article, which says quite explicitly that the man in our picture has not been conclusively identified.

That, to my mind, means that people are not sure that the man we can not see in our picture is actually Nestor Lakoba.

In light of this, the OR that justifies User:Radyanskysoldativ's edit cannot be allowed to slide. If he or she provides a source featuring the same picture as ours saying that this is Nestor Lakoba -- a source that we can consider more reliable in this matter than the United States Library of Congress, for crying out loud -- then I will happily consider the mystery solved. But since that is not the case currently, I have duly reverted. Eniagrom (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Looking around, here is an article from Die Welt that features our picture and identifies the man in the background as Lakoba: (in German). I'm not sure that trumps the USLOC however, who knows where this journalist got his data from.Eniagrom (talk) 12:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Look, I give you a link (http://www.rulit.me/books/stalin-the-court-of-the-red-tsar-read-270681-226.html) to the foto wich depicts tha same people in same place and entourage. Papers on a desk are in the same position. They even wear the same clothes - Beria dressed in Vyshyvanka, Stalin in his famous shirt (which is actually called "french" in Russia), Svetlana wearing a jacket and dress under it and Lakoba dressed in some kind of belted kosovorotka(russian bluse). All are signs that this photo was taken in the same place and at the same time as as the one from the article. So most likely, it's the same people depicted. Moreover, both photos were taken from the so-called "Lakoba archive" (http://www.oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt6t1nd9gq/) (author was probably Alexander Shipenko), so it is logical that they depicted Lakoba, and not someone else. Two of your argument against: 1) that the hair of Nestor Lakoba in that picture does not resemble this man's - but if you look closer http://i68.fastpic.ru/big/2014/1114/9c/d77f330e92d17c3702b8b733554fa99c.jpg you can see that its the same slicked-back hair, as those of Lakoba from the second photo (btw, this hairstyle was very fashionable among the Caucasian Bolsheviks, so almost all of them wearing it, and giving the fact that this picture were taken in Stalins dacha at Museri, Abkhazia (https://europebetweeneastandwest.wordpress.com/2013/11/26/the-truth-as-a-moving-target-an-attempt-on-the-life-of-josef-stalin/) this man must be Lakoba, since he was the only reliable bolshevik in Abkhazia). His hair is flattened by headphones, but still we can see his white bluse and even something hanging from the belt on his hip(knife?), just like on the second photo. Besides looking more closely (https://fa275cf1143a67c87b5c867aa4583466c78c2df6-www.googledrive.com/host/0B7kPN7mtd0eZfmtDOWU4dUVySGtScXdySGJwb2Z5RE4yS3VDQTVET2phUzRaeU5KbDJGcjA/es-joseph-stalin/000081.jpg), you can see that on the second photo, he also wears headphones, only pushed them to the back of the head. 2)The second argument consists in fact that the Library of Congress site put some materials on Soviet hisory, this photo too with the caption of "unidentified person", but it proves nothing at all, cause if some guy who prepared this documents for presentation failed to recognize Lakoba, it doesn't mean that that we(or somebody else) can't do it on themselves and he should be known as "unidentified person" forever . Among other, he could have failed to identify Beria and called him "unidentified man in glasses", but it hardly could be a proof that man on the picture is not Beria, but probably his twin-brother or whatewer:).Radyanskysoldativ (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Your entire argument here is OR. Do you understand what that means? Please review WP:OR. Also, you are in violation of the 3 revert rule. Please review WP:3RR. Eniagrom (talk) 10:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, you are violating RS. Also, you do this reverts, not I. So, its you who are violator here.Radyanskysoldativ (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I think you may be misunderstanding here. I am not saying your source is not reliable. It is reliable; it simply doesn't say what you want it to say. As for reverts, I think you are also misunderstanding. A "revert" is when you undo another editor's edits. We have both reverted -- and so we both share some guilt here, for not going to the talk page sooner. But on english WP reverting three times as you did is a bannable offense. Anyway I do not think there is any need to make a complaint about that, as we are both talking now. We appear to be the only people arguing about this, however. Would you like to take this dispute resolution, or perhaps to the OR noticeboard? Then we can get the opinions of some uninvolved editors and see what they think. Since WP operates on consensus, if other editors agree with you, I will not press the matter further.
BTW, is User:Nikitahohol another of your accounts? If so it is generally frowned upon to engage in editing with more than one account on the same subject, particularly if there is a dispute. It looks bad. If it's not you, I'm sorry for suggesting it. If however it is you, I would advise you to stop using this account while we work through this issue. Eniagrom (talk) 10:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
So, you couldn't find reasonable arguments and opted to block your opponent? Very "wise" decision indeed. Now let's take a false link as a proof in a best Stalinist tradition.167.160.36.156 (talk) 00:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I had absolutely nothing to do with your block, but you probably shouldn't be trying to evade it. Generally speaking that's frowned upon. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Radyanskysoldativ/Archive if you haven't already. Frankly I find your willingness to resort to such measures over something so minor rather tiring. Eniagrom (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I have requested some other opinions to weigh in so that we can eventually get some consensus here. See Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#OR dispute at Lavrentiy Beria. Eniagrom (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Consider this photo from the Yalta conference. Who is sitting in the middle chair? Of course the man is FDR. But I wanted to find some example where someone is obscured in one of a series of many photos, to illustrate why I don't think this is OR.
I can see why this would be frustrating for both of you. An authoritative American source says the man is unidentified. I suspect that photo might have been the first one available in English-language sources, and Nestor Lakoba is not a major figure in the Anglosphere's version of history. It makes sense, too, that the photo available to American sources would be the one that doesn't show Lakoba.
So, for @Eniagrom:, identifying the man in the source may be OR. On the other hand, @Radyanskysoldativ: provided many observations as to why the man in the photo in this article is the same person who is standing in the photo in "Court of the Red Tsar". I think it is clear to R. that the unidentified man is Lakoba. And I think that is because R. is familiar with Russian-language sources.
The article in Die Welt, written by that paper's senior history editor, Berthold Seewald, is a reliable secondary source that states unequivocally that the man in the photo is Lakoba. Much of the article describes the scene in the photo and discusses the fates of each of the three men. Lakoba is referred to by name and he is also called "der mit dem Kopfhörer", the man with the headphones. The article also says Es gibt noch ein weiteres Foto in diesem Serie, "there is another photo in this series", which describes the one where Lakoba is standing and Svetlana is looking at the papers on the table. I don't see any good reason not to trust that article, particularly because it does agree with other sources.
Concluding, it's unfortunate that this turned out the way it did, because both editors had good points. The focus could have been on trying to find reliable sources (in whatever language), rather than responding to each other's messages; of course, that is much easier said than done. Roches (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's the whole point how wikipedia works: no matter what a wikipedian thinks, information is added only from reliable sources. Many a time a newcomer starts long rambles how we are fools and we don't understand. IMO we all have to adopt a strict stance, akin to "Don't feed trolls": "Don't argue with a knows-it-all": whatever he says, the answer should be one and the same: "Show me the source". This would have cut an enormous amount of drama, but no, we just love arguing. - üser:Altenmann >t 17:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Your argument makes sense and your support of the Die Welt article as a direct source not requiring any deductions on our part (and that satisfies RS) makes most of my objections moot. I have reinstated Radyanskysoldativ's edit with that as a source. Thanks for your input, @Roches:. Eniagrom (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Awards section

I propose removing the Lavrentiy_Beria#Honours_and_awards section. (The one worth keeping is perhaps the Hero of the Social Labour.)

This material is uncited, and it's unrelated to subject's notability. Would there be any concerns? K.e.coffman (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Since there's been no feedback, I've removed it. I'm preserving the content by providing this link. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lavrentiy Beria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lavrentiy Beria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Questionable sexual deviance claims

As it stands, the article has far too much information dedicated to the pet theories of Simon Sebag-Montefiore (who is threefold bias in this subject area as an anti-communist, part of the British establishment and a scion of a quite well known banking dynasty!). This information is either not taken seriously on Wikipedia in other languages, or, in the case of the French Wikipedia is limited to a paragraph and clearly attributed to Sebag-Montefiore. It is amazing how, on Wikipedia we automatically treat any trial from the Stalin-era as a "show trial" and yet anything that came out of Clown Prince Khrushchev's revisionist mouth, or those of his cronies during a power struggle, so long as it is hostile to "Stalinists" is presumed to be Gospel, veritable, pristine manna from the heavens. Claíomh Solais (talk) 01:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Sebag-Montefiore is only one of many authors who wrote about this. All others tell the same. See, for example, book "Beria" by Anton Antonov-Ovseyenko. My very best wishes (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Ah... is Anton Antonov-Ovseyenko an impartial witness? 13 years in labors camps, operating a Gulag's museum in 2001... it seems to me as impartial as Chomsky, e.g.--Morenohijazo (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Paragraph in the section Sexual predator. Sequence of events.

Dear Contributors,

Paragraph in the section Sexual predator:

Prior to and during the war, Beria directed Sarkisov to keep a running list of the names and phone numbers of his sexual encounters. Eventually he ordered Sarkisov to destroy the list as a security risk, but the colonel retained a secret handwritten copy. When Beria's fall from power began, Sarkisov passed the list to Viktor Abakumov, the former wartime head of SMERSH and now chief of the MGB – the successor to the NKVD. Abakumov was already aggressively building a case against Beria. Stalin, who was also seeking to undermine Beria, was thrilled by the detailed records kept by Sarkisov, demanding: "Send me everything this asshole writes down!" Sarkisov reported that Beria's sexual appetite had led to him contracting syphilis during the war, for which he was secretly treated without the knowledge of Stalin or the Politburo (a fact Beria later admitted during his interrogation). The Russian government acknowledged Sarkisov's handwritten list of Beria's victims on 17 January 2003. However, the 47-volume criminal dossier on Beria with the list containing the names of hundreds of victims will not be released until 2028.

has the problem with the sequence of events: Beria fall from power began in Jun-Jul 1953. However, Joseph Stalin died on Mar 05 1953. Therefore, Stalin could have demanded “Send me everything this asshole writes down!” only from his grave.

Propose to delete the following part: START “When Beria's fall from power began, Sarkisov passed the list to Viktor Abakumov, the former wartime head of SMERSH and now chief of the MGB – the successor to the NKVD. Abakumov was already aggressively building a case against Beria. Stalin, who was also seeking to undermine Beria, was thrilled by the detailed records kept by Sarkisov, demanding: "Send me everything this asshole writes down!"FINISH

Alternatively, the timing of the events could be improved. --Armenius vambery (talk) 08:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

This is all you own ideas (WP:OR). You removed sourced text. Are you telling that you checked the quoted source, and the claim was not there? My very best wishes (talk) 05:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
The article certainly has weaknesses. The events relating to the sack of B. and some more is not worked out. From reading e.g. it is not clear, if 'this asshole' writing things down might be Sarkisov (because he did betray B.), or Beria is meant by Jugh-Jugh. I guess Jugh may have been a bit pissed of B. (and others) at that point though, but this is not stated. Also ad categories: Had B. been actually convicted of sex offenses? Not mentioned. Is B. a child sex abuser? Only young women and girls are mentioned. Somebody may check the sources and the criminal code of the CCCP for a definition of 'minors' at that time. Categorisation seems biased. -- 88.151.79.191 (talk) 10:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

"Our Himmler"

I don't think this phrase should be used in the introduction at all and maybe not even the article. Firstly, it seems very tabloidy and IF Stalin said it, this would be meant in a joking way and does not deserve to be elevated beyond that. Secondly, there are different sources which promote this supposed phrase (which may be an urban legend), some books claim Stalin said it to Rippentrop, some say to Roosevelt. We need to ascertain whether Stalin ever actually said this from contemporary reports. It is obvious why it is in the article, as a propaganda means to say "the Bolsheviks and the Nazis were just the same. Stalin/Hitler, Beria/Himmler, etc, etc." Claíomh Solais (talk) 01:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)y

It is no argument for exclusion to say that the phrase has been included for propaganda purposes or is "tabloidy". The question should be, "Is there evidence, up to Wikipedia standards, that he said this?" If so then include it. If authorities differ then the text and citations should reflect this. This is a common circumstance when reporting historical research. Wikipedia is not a tool for historical research, its aim should be to give a fair summary of the current state of historical scholarship, not to try and resolve the question itself. (For Wikipedia policy on this see Wikipedia:Verifiability - [1]) JulianRDWinter (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Everyking's revision

  • I think it is precisely right. Someone else apparently seemed to think that the info about his personal murders and rapes belonged in the first paragraph but, compared to the millions of other deaths he was responsible for, I for one think it is of minor importance.

No such thing as panic mongering or cause panic about it, no panic for such or any. Do things not anxiex panicx etc about things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyhendv (talk • contribs) 04:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

warfarin poisoning

Dear Contributors, there is an excellent discussion about the idea that Stalin was poisoned by drug with an active substance warfarin. Please contribute proactively: go to Talk:Joseph Stalin section "warfarin poisoning section Death and funeral" --Armenius vambery (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

No one knows what was exactly the poison (hence I agree with removing the claim specifically about "warfarin"), but there are numerous books by notable historians/authors who tell with high degree of certainty that Stalin was indeed poisoned by Beria, probably with knowledge of other Politburo members. Among these authors are Abdurakhman Avtorkhanov, Anton Antonov-Ovseyenko, and Edvard Radzinsky (I did read their books about it), as well as apparently Jonathan Brent (his book "Stalin's Last Crime"), and there are other books that discuss his poisoning by Beria as something quite possible although not necessarily proven: Simon Sebag Montefiore, Robert Service and others. My very best wishes (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Now it is all confusion since the same events described differently (after the discussion) on the page Joseph Stalin. The specific difference is "poisoning" vs. "no evidence for poisoning". The latest book by Oleg Khlevniuk (I read), who tries to use only archival written evidence, did not find any support for poisoning. Also he stresses that memories, especially many years after the event, are not good historical sources. Radzinsky's book (I read) is illustration, since it is based mostly on recollections and rumors. The rest of the authors, I have not read, and do not know about their methodology. --Armenius vambery (talk) 02:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Surely the way forward is for the text to reflect the fact that there are differences of opinion amongst authors over this matter and different levels of evidence supporting them, - so providing the reader with a summary of the current state of scholarship. Plus, of course, providing all the citations. This is the best/most honest thing to do when evidence is unclear or contradictory. Not something I am qualified to undertake, alas. JulianRDWinter (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Beria of South Yemen

Muhsin al-Shargabi, (B.1949) head of the East German-trained internal security apparatus in Marxist South Yemen, played a major role in establishing the police deep state in Aden and had earned for himself the reputation of being the “Beria of South Yemen". He is suspected of playing a major role in the unrest in Aden. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buschcheat (talk • contribs) 13:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://shabwaah-press.info/news/58253

CE

Tidied some of the prose and rm duplicate wikilinks. Keith-264 (talk) 20:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

First sentence

The first sentence of this article doesn't make sense grammatically:

"... was a Soviet politician, Marshal of the Soviet Union and state security administrator, chief of the Soviet security, sexual predator, and secret police apparatus (NKVD) under Joseph Stalin during World War II, and promoted to deputy premier under Stalin from 1941."

Maybe it should be:

"... was a Soviet politician, Marshal of the Soviet Union and state security administrator, chief of the Soviet security and sexual predator. He ran the secret police apparatus (NKVD) under Joseph Stalin during World War II and was promoted to deputy premier under Stalin from 1941."

But I'm not an expert on the subject of the article, so hesitate to make the change myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RomQuant (talk • contribs) 13:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Sexual predator: lead says "allegations", body says "it was known"

The lead says there were "allegations" that he was a sexual predator. The body says, "At Beria's trial in 1953, it became known that he had committed numerous rapes during the years he was NKVD chief". There's an inconsistency here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think he was ever prosecuted or convicted for sexual offenses. Looking at [2] it says Beria, it was alleged, had been guilty of terroristic acts, of unscrupulously climbing over corpses, and of trying to place his police above party and government; he had been a foreign spy and a traitor almost from boyhood; he had worked for Georgian and Azerbaijani nationalists and Mensheviks; he had done his utmost to wreck his country’s economy and to restore capitalism. Quite what "became known" means is difficult to say, because I don't think they are part of any official records, but perhaps it was rumored at the time of his trial. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 10:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lavrentiy_Beria/Archive_2&oldid=1172268096"