Talk:Nikita Khrushchev

Pronunciation

The pronunciation (IPA symbols) for Сергеевич (Sergeyevich) given in the first footnote differs from that given in the article Mikhail Gorbachev ([sɜrˈɡeɪ.əvɪtʃ] versus [sʲɪrˈɡʲeɪvʲɪtɕ]). I think they should be standardized. Weedier Mickey (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with it being changed in one or the other, depending on which one it is felt is more correct.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

even a blind man can see that this article is pro american and not even remotely neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.24.142.7 (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

3-d First Secretary

Right now the infobox lists his position as 3rd First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Technically this is correct but my feeling is that the "3rd First Secretary" combination is visually confusing. I think it might be better to remove "3rd" from the infobox and to add it to the main body of the text, where the info can be presented in a non-confusing way. E.g. something like "He served as First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union from 1953 to 1964, the third person to hold that title, and ..." Any opinions? Nsk92 (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Another point here is that, in relation to First Secretary of CPSU, there is some ambiguity about the numbering. Stalin had the ttle of General Secretary, rather than First Secretary. It is also unclear from the record if Malenkov had even been elected as First Secretary. My understanding is that, following Stalin's death, Malenkov was the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR and a Secretary of the Central Committee of CPSU and that the formal position of First Secretary was instituted by Khruschev in Sept 1953 and that Khruschev was the first person to hold that title. So it is not clear to me that 3-d is the correct number here. Nsk92 (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I looked up the Russian Wikipedia page about Malenkov and it mentions nothing about him being First Secretary. My impression is that the (unreferenced) list given in General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is factually incorrect in relation to Malenkov. Nsk92 (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

K was given the title First Secretary to show he was not being made Stalin's sucessor.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but the question is whether describing Khruschev as the "3rd First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union" is factually correct. Nsk92 (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

After looking up a few sources[1][2] my understanding is that on March 5, 1953 Malenkov's name was listed first in the list of five Secretaries of the Central Committee of CPSU (but he did not have the formal title of First Secretary) and that on March 14, 1953 he resigned (or was removed from the post) as a Secretary of the Central Committee of CPSU. I think it is a rather debatable question as to whether his position during that 10 day period should be described as First Secretary. At least this should not be done without a more systematic look at the sources to see what the prevailing opinion among the historians is. Nsk92 (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's do that then. I am currently not home, I will review my K materials when I get home and see if they say anything. My guess is that Malenkov was never formally 1st Secretary. It probably took a Central Committee meeting to do that and I doubt it could have met that quickly.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That's fine by me. My feeling now is that Malenkov was an "unofficial" first secretary (the first on the list of 5 secretaries, although without the formal title of First Secretary). Nsk92 (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. In 1953, they were very touchy about making it look like anyone was Stalin's successor. Notably, Stalin was General Secretary, a title later resumed by Brezhnev. It is very likely that Khrushchev and (briefly) Brezhnev were the only First Secretaries, in the formal sense.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

How did no one spot this even though the article's an FA?

I just undid some vandalism on this page. It also looks like the IP who did this caused more trouble just a few minutes ago. There is no telling how bad this looks on Wikipedia; considering the Main Page gets 50 hits/second (on average), the FA probably gets arond 30-45 hits a second. So in the time this article has been featured, thousands of people have seen this. That's not good. Zero ^Talk_Contribs 15:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate it. While I personally, as the principal author of the article, try to look in as often as I can on main page day, my time is not entirely my own and there are limits to what I can do. Many editors pitch in to keep the TFA as free of vandalism as possible, but we are volunteers and human.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I hear ya. But whatever happened to cascading protection on the MP? --Zero ^Talk_Contribs 20:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that prevents editing the article which is the TFA.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, you're right. My bad. But I still think there should be a bot that automatically protects the FA. Of course, that would mean the bot had to acquire admin privileges, and if it broke, it might actually end up deleting the article instead of protecting it, which would look even worse...Should I move this discussion to main talk? --Zero ^Talk_Contribs 22:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

See here--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Americanisation of non-US article

Looking at diff, I wonder why date formats were changed to US-style month-day-year away from the previous international format. Is there any good reason for this change, as opposed to a personal preference for one style over another? --Pete (talk) 11:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the dates were US format in the article and international format in the infobox. I'd have to look closely at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The first diff, here shows that the article was begun in month day year format. When I began working on it in July 2009, it was a mix of both formats. I checked the origin of the article per WP:MOSDATE and ascertained which format it had been begun in, and made the article agreeable to that format.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but was there any good reason for the change to the US format? Khrushchev was a Russian, not an American. Russians use international format in dates. --Pete (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I was improving it towards FA. FA requires compliance with MOS. MOS says, first date determines in a situation like this. It may seem trivial, but MOS compliance is closely looked at in FAC, and I had no good argument to IAR.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

André Kertész --Pete (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS--Wehwalt (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course. But it is a trivial matter to find FAs that do not comply with every point of the MOS. What makes a FA is far more than pixel by pixel compliance with the MOS. --Pete (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't think it adds anything to switch to the other format. Yes, they use it in Russia, but so? We're not writing in Russian, we're writing in English. Better to change the MOS, at least a lot more eyes will be on it and you'll get better feedback.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

We're not writing in Russian, we're writing in English. No offence intended, but that doesn't make any argument at all. Of course we are writing in English. this is the English-language Wikipedia. English-language text (in Wikipedia, at least) has two preferred formats for dates. Month-day-year is mainly used in the USA, and the rest of the world uses day-month-year. You haven't given any good reason for Americanising an article on a Russian subject.

Compliance with a MOS guideline to make FA status, yeah, I can understand that. You want to add another FA star to your user page. But the guideline is often ignored, even in FAs. Is there any reason, apart from personal desires, why are you Americanising articles that don't need it? Some desire to refight the Cold War, maybe? I just can't understand this. --Pete (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Three months work, and my sole goal was to add another star? Umm, I guess. You are disregarding that I've followed the rules exactly on this. And as I said, I did not "Americanise" the article, at the time I started work, it had both formats in it. and I used the MOS to determine which should go. In any event, if we switched to international format, we'd presumably have to switch to British or another form of English, change all the ize to ise, and change Khrushchev's apartment (mentioned in the retirement section) to a flat. It will not improve the article to do any of this, and we are not called upon to do this. And, I should add, there is no consensus.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to second Wehwalt on this and also add that one of the reasons we have MOS in the first place is to avoid silly arguments like this one. There are no good reasons whatsoever to use one date format over another in this article, so sticking with the format used by the first major contributor is as good a compromise as it can ever get. Now, instead of producing kilobytes of complaints and rebuttals, perhaps we should get to doing something around here that actually makes a difference?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 1, 2010; 13:55 (UTC)

I am. I'm bringing Gough Whitlam, a former FA and TFA, back up to par. Using, I should add, strictly Australian usages and date/time formats, of course. And I agree with Ezhiki, the MOS is infuriating sometimes, but one reason it is there is to stop endless arguments.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Some possible improvements

I think this is an excellent article. Yet it does have some room for improvement.

The lead says: Flaws in Khrushchev's policies eroded his popularity and emboldened potential opponents, who quietly rose in strength and deposed the premier in October 1964.. This is weak on several grounds. 1. Talking about popularity in the country with no opinion polls and where expressing one's opnion about leaders is considered a crime, is more than problematic. 2. It is hard to define a policy flaw in an economic system which is fundamentally flawed. Khrushchev tried to introduce some changes and reforms. Some were relatively successful (such as housing construction), others failed. However flaw means that everything else was OK, just Khrushchev's polcies were flawed. I don't this this is a good description. 3. This sentence implies that he was ousted for flaws of policy. But the article body does not actually say this. In fact, the article is kind of silent about the reasons for the ouster. This is itself some gap in the article. Note Khrushchev's ouster is pretty significant as the only case in Soviet history of transfer of power from one living leader to the next. The causes of this are far from trivial. Whether they are related to policy flaws or threats to their interests, or popularity, or lack of it, is not a matter of any consensus and should not be stated as such. Sincerely. - BorisG (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a suggested phrasing? We could also say that most of the hierarchy was thoroughly sick of Khrushchev and his nuttiness, but that isn't a complete answer either, but if his policies had worked, his personal idiosyncrasies wouldn't have mattered. Many thanks for the feedback and the copyediting.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

To be honest no, I don't yet have an alternative. I am sorry. Will need to come up with one. I fully agree it is not easy. I'd say that the lede does not need to get to the bottom of this, just needs to say something pretty neutral. If we can improve the corresponding section in the body, it would be great, but not easy either. BTW I enjoy editing an excellently written text. Thanks for great work. - BorisG (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Its wrong to say the communist economic system is flawed, seeing that is un-neutral and a flawed arguement... I'm not saying you're wrong, i'm just saying that we can't include it in the article. --TIAYN (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I have three answers to this. First, I did not say this in the article, and did not intend to do so (did I?). Please note that this is a discussion page. Second, this is a nearly universal view, and the opposing tiny minority view does not count. And third, if we can't say the command economy system was flawed, by the same token we can't say that this or that policy was flawed, can we? - BorisG (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to make changes, this is a wiki and a joint enterprise, but you have to source things. See WP:V. This is a featured article, we can't just throw things in there, we have to have a RS which says it, properly cited in the format used in this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this rule applies to uncontroversial and well known facts. But OK. - BorisG (talk) 16:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I find people have different views about what is and is not uncontroversial so as a matter of practice, I ref just about everything. And I took huge care in this one, just because it was such a prominent subject and I wanted everything to be airtight. That's probably why I'm a little hyper about keeping up standards here.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I can understand this. But then, we have to balance this against the need to say some useful things that may not have been said exactly the same way, but which are nevertheless based on sourced information. I can cite this: This policy does not forbid routine calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which it is derived. I consider what I've said to be precisely in this domain. But, you know what, maybe you are right. Maybe what I said can be challenged by asserting that, say, Malenkov was also supreme leader in 1953, so Khrushchev was not the only one who was peacefully replaced. OK. - BorisG (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I was more thinking the end of the USSR, but then you are right. Malenkov was certainly dumped. Don't you think that quote from Khrushchev about how Stalin would have had anyone who asked him to retire wiped out conveys the same point?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Sort of. Except that he did not know the future:) In the end, not only Lenin and Stalin, but also Brezhnev, Andropov and Chernenko all died in office, while Gorbachev's post was made redundant by the breakup of the Soviet Union. Kind of important but we can live without it. - BorisG (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll look for my books on K and see if I can find something that conveys that point. The comment on Beria being the last loser of a top level struggle to lose his life I felt was one of the most effective moments in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is. - BorisG (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Politician?

Description of someone as a politician in a communist dictatorship is problematic. I proposed political leader. Wenwalt reverted to an earlier version: K.... led the Soviet Union.... I don't like this. I think every article should start by defining what the subject is or was, not what they do (or did). I know it's semantics, but... Could you please explain what's wrong with political leader - BorisG (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not think it is necessary that it begin "is" or "was". Please see WP:LEDE.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I did read it, and did not find any justification for your view. In fact, it says: The article should begin with a declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?" I think "is" or "was" are the only two words that can be used to answer the first question. Also, coupld you please explain what's wrong with policial leader. - BorisG (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Education

If you read #172, it is clear that both initiatives were part of the same package. - BorisG (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, fine. To spare me the trouble of searching it, can you pull out a quote and post it here?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Here it is. Khrushchev's Memorandum on education reform was first published in

September 1958, arter a drart had been submilled to the Presidium of the Central Commillec in June.~ Khrushchev and his team annoullced radical measures: it was suggested either to remove the last two years spent in secondary schools, replacing them with work in production in conjunction with evening or correspondence courses, or similarly to abolish the first two years of the curriculum in daytime VUZy courses. This would mean that all students would begin their higher education studies having dedicated two full years exclusively to work in industry or agriculture. again alongside evening or correspondence courses. This would involve a significant interruption (at least two years) in students' studies. Special secondary schools for particularly girted children in sciences and the arts (herearter 'special schools') were to be created (with daytime and more intensive courses) on the model of the foreign- language schools that had been established in Moscow and Leningrad from the end of the 1940s. - BorisG (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Incidentally, if I don't react to an edit you make it means I am cool with it. Not that I have any great voice other than as an editor who has worked on the article but ...--Wehwalt (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"few visitors, especially since [...] guards kept track of all guests"

The phrase "He received few visitors, especially since Khrushchev's security guards kept track of all guests and reported their comings and goings" implies causation, as if the security guards are the reason Khrushchev received few visitors. I suggest the following revision:

The guest logs kept by Khrushchev's security guards indicate that he received few visitors.

I believe the source made it clear; many of his potential guests were scared off by the fact he had guards who would note their comings and goings. He did not hire his guards, and they reported to the Politburo. You may have misunderstood the sentence.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The misunderstanding suggests that the wording is ambigous. Wenwalt's explanation is clear but the sentence in the article is confusing. I suggest it needs to be rewritten.

He received few visitors; perhaps some were put off by the guards, who kept track of all guests and reported their comings and goings

Actually, I still don't like it, because the presence of guards is not essential. Instead we should be saying that former collagues were unwilling to visit the deposed leader because this would be politically wrong (or something like this). Who recorded what is not important. Important people were watched, regardless whether they had guards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BorisG (talk • contribs) 12:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Nationality

What kind of nationality is 'Soviet'? It means nothing 'couse there was no Soviet nation. It concisted of tens of nationalities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beegees (talk • contribs) 03:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Nationality

What kind of nationality is 'Soviet'? It means nothing 'couse there was no Soviet nation. It concisted of tens of nationalities.--Beegees (talk) 03:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll add in parentheses, "Russian".--Wehwalt (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Being ignorant in this matter, I've just looked up the nation article. Maybe Beegees mixes up political and cultural definitions of nation? Maybe this question is much wider than this article? (We call Ghandi and other people from India "Indian", which is pretty much the same as Soviet). Materialscientist (talk) 03:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If it were an Indian matter, I think I would agree that Beegees would be out of line. However, as the Soviet Union has a dozen or so states that stand on its former territory, I think it is helpful to the reader to say "Russian". Additionally, I get claims he was Ukrainian from time to time.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Kalinovka?

Wehwalt, you removed the long standing location of Kalinovka, Kursk Governorate. Without this, the sentence is almost meaningless, as no one knows where this small village is. I understand that you want the lede to be brief, but every sentence needs to convey information. There is no information conveyed by the current sentence, except that he was born in a Russian village. Since Russia is a vast country, this seems to be insufficient. I understand Governorate may sound clumsy but you may say 'near Kursk', although I have no idea if it is really 'near'. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 17:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It was clumsy, I'll play with it. By the way, it was not long standing, certainly the Kursk mention was not in the lede on TFA day. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, "near Kursk" is just meaningless. Even today there are four places called "Kalinovka" in Kursk Oblast, and there were no fewer than that in Kursk Governorate when Khrushchev was born. Kursk itself was located fairly close to the northern border of the governorate, so "near Kursk" might as well mean a good chunk of Oryol Governorate. Fixing clumsy sentences is a good goal, but it shouldn't be done at the expense of the readers.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 24, 2010; 19:50 (UTC)

I looked on Google maps, Kalinovka is a long way from Kursk itself. I think describing it as near the Ukrainian border will at least somewhat pin it down for most readers. I'm not wedded to it if someone has a better idea!--Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

My only problem with the "Ukrainian border" is that there was no such border to speak of at that time. Kursk Governorate bordered with Chernigov Governorate of the Russian Empire, but Kalinovka at the time was located closer to Oryol Governorate rather than to Chernigov Governorate. Dmitriyevsky Uyezd's border with Chernigov Governorate was a very, very short segment. You'd be mixing old historical entities with modern borders, and that could be very confusing. "Modern Ukrainian border", perhaps?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 24, 2010; 20:30 (UTC)

"Present-day". Modern leads to all sort of problems, mostly thanks to Khrushchev.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Heh, you are right. "Present-day" works for me. Boris, are you good there?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 24, 2010; 20:40 (UTC)

To be honest, I would actually prefer Kalinovka, Kursk Governorate, because this is precise. This is how Russian localities are usually referred to (would be Kursk Oblast' in present-day terminology). The fact that there was more than one Kalinovka in Kursk Governorate does not bother me, because that's not really important: the sentence gives the name of the locality, the type of the locality (village) and the region. Village of Kalinovka near present-day Ukranian border sounds a lot more vague because present day Ukranian-Russian border is pretty long. They say Kalinovka, Kursk Governorate in the Russian version and I don't quite see the problem with it. Let me illustrate it to non-Russian people. Say, someone was born in the town of Forrestfield, British Columbia. Would you find this excessive? Will you prefer in the town of Forrestfield close to the US border? I know Americans and Canadians have nice acronyms that Russians don't have but I think there are conventions that need to be followed. - BorisG (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Were the this the Russian Wikipedia, I would for sure encourage precision. It is not. Most English speakers are not terribly familiar with Russian geography. They have a fair idea where Ukraine is, though. It is a long border, for sure, but it lets people know we are not discussing Siberia.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I am actually a fan of being precise as well, but in the infobox we already have an extensive definition of where Kalinovka was located at the time of Khrushchev's birth. Why repeat this again in the text? Not to mention the fact that any geographical details about the village should go into the article about Kalinovka itself (which is linked to and easily accessible to the readers who want to know more). It's not like this particular factoid is terribly important to people who want to know about Khrushchev; we only include it as a background piece?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 25, 2010; 18:39 (UTC)

I can accept that as a rationale. I have fought to keep the Cyrillic out of the first sentence, using a similar justification, that it is right across the way at the infobox and all ti does intext is clutter things up.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that's right. I still haven't ground that particular ax :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 26, 2010; 14:45 (UTC)

It's like this. I put a lot of work in this article and getting it FA and TFA This wiki is a collaboration, and it's good when others edit the article. However, I insist that standards be kept high. Too many FA's drift and deteriorate, and I will not have that happen here.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I also like to keep the standards high, but in order for that to happen, they need to be simply kept first. Including original spelling into the first line of the lead is a de facto standard. But this thread is not the good place to discuss this. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 26, 2010; 15:00 (UTC)

I agree with a suggestion to leave out place of birth altogether (from the lede), if that is what's proposed. - BorisG (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I could live with that too. Infobox is there for a reason. I believe you should have as little clutter in the lede as you can get away with. Most readers don't read the whole article and you want to maximize the value of what they do read before their attention span expires!--Wehwalt (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I just saw this Khrushchev was born in the Russian village of Kalinovka in 1894, close to the present-day border between Russia and Ukraine. And you said Kalinovka, Kursk Governorate was excessive :) - BorisG (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Clickable references

Does anyone know why some of the references in this article are clickable (e.g. Taubman) and some are not (e.g. Tompson)? Best, Xtzou (Talk) 21:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Because one is spelled Tompson in the footnotes section and Thomson in the reference list, while Taubman is spelled identically in both sections. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I busted my little head trying to figure it out. Reassuring that there is a describable reason! Best wishes, Xtzou (Talk) 22:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Amended. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Color *VIDEO* footage of US visit

Just to let you know, there's a color NTSC video tape in existence of Khruschev debating in 1959 with Nixon in a TV studio (NBC?), with Nixon saying that color TV is proof of American supremacy over the Soviet system (to which Nikita replies that under Capitalism, millions of Americans are starving while everybody is well-fed in the USSR due to superior sowing and harvesting technology). It's not some Kodachrome film made with a Kinescope shooting off a color TV screen, it was actually recorded live to video tape. There's an excerpt shown in one episode of People's Century, I'm not sure but it could be the Cold War episode Brave New World. Don't you think it'd be a nifty addition, either to this article, Khruschev's media page on Commons, or at some place like Color television? Unfortunately, my VHS copy has German voice-over translation (as is usual for documentaries like this). --79.193.57.210 (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

First secretary: predecessor

Guys, first of all, the correct place to sort out the question of predecessor is here, not in article itself or edit summaries.

Secondly, a brief look at the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union shows that the only person to occupy this post before Khruschev was Stalin. Malenkov has NEVER held this post, so his inclusion would be completely wrong. - BorisG (talk) 14:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but apparently User:Trust Is All You Need does not. Anyway, you may want to comment at Talk:Georgy Malenkov#First Secretary where most of the discussion about this has been taking place. Nsk92 (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

WAW. Thanks. Couldn't imagine that such a trivial issue could evoke such passions. - BorisG (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggest we await the outcome of that ... err ... discussion.--03:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, it appears that the teacup is now calm:) It appears that in 1952 the post of General Secretary was abolished (on Stalin's own suggestion), and in 1953 a new post of First Secretary was created for Khrushchev. I still think this can be chategorised as succession of Stalin by Khrushchev in the party leadership post, but it depends on how technical/litteral you want to be in the infobox. - BorisG (talk) 10:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is a bit more complicated. Stalin held the post of General Secretary until February 1934, when the 17th Party Congress left the post of General Secretary vacant and appointed four Secretaries (Zhdanov, Kirov, Kaganovich and Stalin). Formally, from that point until his death in March 1953 Stalin held the party post of Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU. As I understand it, the post of General Secretary was formally abolished in 1952, by the XIXth party congress, which removed any mention of the position from the party statutes. In September 1953 the position of First Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU was formally created and Khruschev was appointed to that position. In terms of specifying predecessors of Khruschev as First Secretary, probably the most accurate thing is indeed to specify Stalin as Khruschev's immediate predecessor or maybe specify something like "vacant"/"new post" - I am not sure. Nsk92 (talk) 10:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps have predecessor be: "Vacant (last incumbent Joseph Stalin (as General Secretary))"--Wehwalt (talk) 10:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but this sounds confusing. I support the current inforbox. Everything else can be explained in the text. - BorisG (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I support Wehwalt's idea. --TIAYN (talk) 16:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Great Patriotic War versus World War II

Someone changed the subsection's title from Great Patriotic War to World War Two pending diff. Personally, I'm against this change, but the only place I found this mentioned was Talk:Nikita_Khrushchev/archive_1#FAC_nitpicks without any further discussion. Is there consensus on keeping GPW instead of WWII? ---Sluzzelin talk 23:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I wrote it, and based on that brief discussion, I've been maintaining the article that way.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I reverted according to WP:BRD, and invited the IP to discuss it here (albeit only in my edit summary). ---Sluzzelin talk 23:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not care much about semantics, but the section title as it currently stands is inaccurate, because the Soviet invasion of Poland cannot be considered part of the Great Patriotic War. The latter covers the period from 22 June 1941 to 9 May 1945. WWII is from 1 September 1939 to capitulation of Japan in 1945. - BorisG (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Dates again

I would refer Trust Is All You Need to WP:MOSDATE and to the above discussion, presently section 4 of this talk page, on "Americanisation". The rules of the Manual of Style were applied to this aritcle in preparation for it becoming a Featured Article. Those said that this should be month day year as the article began as a month day year article and Russia is a non-English speaking country. We do not say that, say, Benjamin Netanyahu, should have all dates in article in the Hebrew calendar. These are just the rules. If you would like to have them changed, then please do so and I will happily change the format. However, I do not care to see this Featured Article start on the slippery slope downhill by a major MOS violation. Thanks for your good faith efforts.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The Russian article uses the day month method, not the other way around; so it does follow my approach.. Secondly, this is the only Soviet leader article which don't follow the day month method, the Soviet Union page does it, but there are also others, such as the Joseph Stalin, Leonid Brezhnev, Vladimir Lenin, Yuri Andropov, Konstantin Chernenko, Mikhail Gorbachev, List of leaders of the Soviet Union which uses the day month method. As it stands the Khrushchev article stands out by not using the day month method in which all other important Soviet article uses. --TIAYN (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point, but this is the only one of those which is a FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The article won't lose the FA-status because the date system changes.. There isn't a FA guideline which says they have to be month day and day month. It seems that it is you who has a personal objections to my inclusion... Anyhow, even if this article is a FA, it doesn't mean that this article is without its faults and all Soviet-related (important) articles should use the same date method, and seeing the majority uses day month and not month day this article should switch to. --TIAYN (talk) 13:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

TIAYN, please read what Wehwalt wrote above and address his points. Better still, may I suggest you find something more important to edit than date formats. E.g, improve one of those articles you have mentioned (they are mostly very poor quality compared to Khrushchev - BorisG (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That is true, those articles are not as well written and formated, but changing the dates from day month from month day won't make the article worse. Your statements that the Khrushchev article can't be change just because it is a FA, and the others are not, is not a very good article. This article is not perfect, while it is closer to perfection then those other articles, it still can be improved. When i read Wehwalt comment; "but this is the only one of those which is a FA" it seemed to me that he did not want to improve the article any further. Or even worse, that his wants the article to remain more-or-less unchanged. We use the British date system on British articles (e.g. day month), we use the Norwegian date system on Norwegian articles (e.g. day months), why can't we use the Russian date system on Russian articles? --TIAYN (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Why not have the article in Cyrillic? We are not looking for faux Russian. This is the English language Wikipedia. The idea, I think, of WP:MOSDATE is that it provides an exact method that is designed to eliminate disputes like this. I do not think it is an improvement or detriment to change it, just a breach of the Manual of Style. By the way, TIAYN, I had to remove the image of Khrushchev's graves. Russia does not have freedom of panorama and that artwork is not in the public domain. Actually, I did the same thing, went to K's grave when I visited Russia in 2009 took an image and posted it to the article. It got deleted. Check the history.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, WP:MOSDATE approves the day month approach, and therefore, so this is not a breach in manual style. From reading WP:MOSDATE it becomes clear that there are no real "breaches" here, but instead, personal opinions. I believe we should support the day month method because the majority of Soviet-related articles uses it, and leaving the Khrushchev article as the only major article using the month day method is disruptive. I'm not saying we should copy Russian wikipedia, but it make sense, if we use the British day month approach on British articles to make them more Englishish, why can't we do the same to articles on Russian-Soviet topics? --TIAYN (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Because WP:MOSDATES draws a distinction between English speaking countries and non English speaking countries.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt is right here, you know. Please re-read MOSDATE carefully; all the explanations you need are there.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 30, 2010; 14:26 (UTC)

nvm

Edit request from Planetamerica, 8 April 2011

Please change Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev's birthdate from April 15, 1894 to April 17, 1894 because his birthdate recorded in other encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia Britannica and The Great Lives in History: The 20th Century have it recorded as the 17th. Thank you.

Planetamerica (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The discrepencies about his bithday are explained in a footnote. There is no need for such a change.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.191.93.20, 18 April 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} I believe that Khrushchev was born on April 17, not April 15. 24.191.93.20 (talk) 02:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Many do. See note [2]. Materialscientist (talk) 02:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Birth date

Born 17 April NOT 15 April — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erichblueace (talk • contribs) 05:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

See foot note

I've taken the liberty of renaming this thread to "Birth date". Calling it "Nikita Khrushchev" on a page devoted to discussion of Nikita Khrushchev tells the reader precisely NOTHING about the topic, thus defeating the purpose of the header. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Shoe on desk

Re [3].

Gromyko's New York Times obituary (1989) clearly says that "When the Soviet leader took off his shoe and banged it on his desk at the United Nations in 1960, Mr. Gromyko did not follow suit." See [4]. Your edit (or is it your source?) clearly implies that he did. Please do not revert my reversion. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

These are from sources later than then. Generally, I tend to trust the later source. However, I have no great objection to losing Gromyko. I won't revert you again.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks, lots of newer source get facts wrong, particularly when they're about far-away folks and places. (I recently looked at an American book on Soviet Army history that refers to Nadezha Krupskaya as Joseph Stalin's wife.) That Khrushchev was "joined by Gromyko" doesn't really say that he banged his shoe; it implies it without saying it, which is kinda sneaky. AFAIK, there is no source actually saying that Gromyko did, while sources stating the opposite are readily available, as here. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not have the source with me right now; perhaps I misread it. Usually I'm all right when it comes to accuracy, but it's always possible I've erred. No, I definitely meant to imply that Gromyko also banged his shoe, but shortened so as to avoid repeating "shoe".--Wehwalt (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Gheorghiu-Dej & Khrushchev at Bucharest's Baneasa Airport (June 1960).jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Gheorghiu-Dej & Khrushchev at Bucharest's Baneasa Airport (June 1960).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)