Talk:Sergei Witte

Relevant?

'Witte was transferred to the relatively powerless position of Chairman of the Committee of Ministers in 1903, a position he held until 1905. This position was also called Secretary of State in the US. '

A small point, but one which I still feels needs addressing - even if the result is no change. I would question the relevance of 'This position was also called Secretary of State in the US.' in the article - the position undoubtedly has other names in other national systems, and, whilst it may provide some sort of 'contextual placing', I am inclined to believe that it heralds too much to an American reader. Wikipedia should surely remain 'multi-national', and giving such a reference without citing other examples only detracts from this utopia. With the overall relevance doubted however, I would simply scrap the reference.

- I agree with the above Grible (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: This position was also called Secretary of State in the US. [1].

Could the following be construed as plausibly relevant here?

The article explains that Witte negotiated an end to the Russo-Japanese War. The text of the treaty which was published in the New York Times, lists the signatories and their titles in the preamble. Witte was identified as the Russian Emperor's plenipotentiary and "his Secretary of State and President of the Committee of Ministers of the Emperor of Russia" along with "Baron Roman Rosen, Master of the Imperial Court of Russia." -- see "Text of Treaty; Signed by the Emperor of Japan and Czar of Russia," New York Times. October 17, 1905.

If the term "Secretary of State" is an error in this context, it's at least an error which we can attribute to the New York Times in 1905. Does this help, perhaps, to better focus this discussion or perhaps to move it forward constructively? --Tenmei (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't actually suggesting the statement is in error, neither I think was the first anon poster, it just didn't seem to add anything to the article. - I like the new wording that some one (you Tenmei?) did but I suggest removing the NYT bit from the main article as so *edits*. It seems more right to give the source in the reference. -Grible (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The implication that Witte's status as a State Secretary or Secretary of State being the equivalent to the US Secretary of State is incorrect. The enacting of the US President's foriegn policy which he formulates as the US Head of State is the principal responsibility of the US Secretary of State but in Imperial Russia that responsibility fell on the Russian Imperial Foriegn Minister. Witte's status as a secretary of state was an indication of his ability to communicate the orders of the Russian Imperial Head of State (the monarch) verbally and without question in both foriegn and domestic matters. Thus Witte was one of many Secretaries of State. This is explained by Professor Sydney Harcave in his translation of The Memoirs of Count Witte. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcdanielbrianc (talk • contribs) 00:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Tsar

Which Tsar did he work for, Alexander III?

-He worked for Tsar Nicholas II, it was he [Witte] that penned the October Manifesto after all.There is some more information about this here; http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSwitte.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.115.178 (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Witte served under the last two emperors of Russia, Tsar Alexander III and his son, Tsar Nicholas II -- see Harcave, Sidney. (2004). Count Sergei Witte and the Twilight of Imperial Russia: A Biography, p. xiii.

Contradiction

• Witte was transferred to the relatively powerless position of Chairman of the Committee of Ministers in 1903, a position he held until 1905.
• Witte was brought back into the governmental decision-making process to help deal with the civil unrest following the war and Bloody Sunday. He was appointed Chairman of the Council of Ministers, the equivalent of Prime Minister, in 1905.

How can he be in the powerless position of chairman till 1905 then be appointed to the same job as a reward? These lines contradict; was he something else from 1903 to 1905? - Grible (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Witte was promoted to his position as Finance Minister (Russia) by Alexander III; but when Nicholas II ascended the throne, the newly enthroned tsar was less comfortable with his father's minister, Witte. In 1903, Witte was "promoted" into an new role with a hollow title and no real power; and there he languished until the tsar couldn't think of anything else to do other than recalling Witte to mitigate the consequences of those three fallow years. As I see it, the problem here is simply that our Wikipedia text wasn't as well written as Harcave's account. There is also some degree of understandable confusion because the two positions -- Committee of Ministers (Russia) vs. Council of Ministers (Russia) -- appear to be a little too much alike, almost as if one or the other were a mistake. -- see Harcave, Sidney. (2004). Count Sergei Witte and the Twilight of Imperial Russia: A Biography, p. xiii-xiv.

I didn't but thanks for answering it for me. :) Grible (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Prior to the government reforms of 1905-6 all ministers reported directly to the monarch. The ministers, as heads of executive departments made most routine decisions on their with the monarch making all important non-routine decisions based on recommendations. They were not part of any collective decision making body and didn't really coordinate policy amoungest themselves. The committee of ministers was for when details for the implementation of decision of the monarch or a minister needed to be worked out with other governmental agencies in which a minister had no control. Thus the chairman of the committee of ministers was head of a body that ministers participated in only when they had to in order to implement policy. Their participation was not mandatory, they regularly sent assistants or even directors in their place. Thus the chairman was not making decisions but just overseeing a process. The council of ministers was a collective body for the purpose of coordinating policy, the chairman could require ministrial participation and although the ministers still made direct reports to the monarch they were typically just to keep the monarch up to date with the doings of their department or approval of a policy formulated by the council of ministers as a whole or at least its chairman and the minister affected. This information is primarily derived from Professor Sydney Harcave's translation of The Memoirs of Count Witte.

Theosophy?

Someone thought it made sense to add the following amongst the "External links" ...:

• Biographical notes on Peter von Hahn, etc.

The only relevance I can see is that Witte's first cousin was prominent in the Theosophy movement. In my view, the link is not helpful; but I'm posting it here in case someone else recognizes a connection which would support restoring the link to its former location. --Tenmei (talk) 11:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Image caption

• 1. The documentation which accompanies the uploaded photograph identifies J J. Korostovetz as seated at the negotiating table with others who worked on the Treaty of Portsmouth in 1905. The image comes from the following:
  • Davis, Richard Harding, and Alfred Thayer Mahan. (1905). The Russo-Japanese war; a photographic and descriptive review of the great conflict in the Far East, gathered from the reports, records, cable despatches, photographs, etc., etc., of Collier's war correspondents New York: P. F. Collier & Son. OCLC: 21581015

• 2. A quick Google search reveals that Korostovetz was secretary to Sergei Witte in this period; and the account of the treaty negotiations which was based on Korostovetz' diary is considered a credible primary source:
  • Korostovetz, J.J. (1920). Pre-War Diplomacy The Russo-Japanese Problem. London: British Periodicals Limited.

• 3. A quick Google search of "Kokovtsov and Portsmouth" has not produced support that he was in the United States during the negotiations.

For these reasons, it would appear to be a mistake to replace Korostovetz (which is supported by a specific citation per WP:V) with Kokovtsov in this caption ... unless a credible source can be presented which contradicts the results of research which have been plainly cited here. --Tenmei (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Peace treaty table

In an important photograph, Witte is shown sitting at a negotiation table at the close of the Russo-Japanese War. The actual table on which the Treaty of Portsmouth was signed becomes a physical link to the life and successes of this diplomat -- a plausible relevance, but not essential. In my view, the crucial question becomes whether this trivial detail helps in making the article and the accompanying photograph "come to life"? --Tenmei (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Witte and arrange the financing to build the Chinese Eastern Railway

There is not a word of Witte´s part to arrange the finance for building the Chinese Eastern Railway to Manchuria, nominally inside Chinese territory and which role he played when the Banque Russo-Asiatique was created under close ties with Russian Ministry of Finance. This happened in 1895 and it was Witte who arranged the financial ties with French bank named Banque du Nord France. The article is not complete at all. His wife is mentioned in many occassions to be a Jew, which turned him out of certain powerful political influenced circles in Russia. Witte had also some connections to one Belgian bank and one American banker was also involded to financing the rolling stock from Baldwin Locomotive Works, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America. Peharps there comes more information available in main article. It seems that some financial "sharks" entered into scene to make easy money in China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.122.217 (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)