Talk:Joseph Kobzon

Dead

He is long dead - the article should probably be adjusted to reflect that he is no longer "currently" performing his various roles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:5526:1300:604E:DC4D:5DB7:400A (talk) 04:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Best known song performance by Kobzon

I think the "Victory day" song by him comes to mind first. Not that the "Instants" wasn't popular too. On a side note, we could add to the article a recent controversy that surrounded Kobzon during the Ukrainian presidential election, 2004. Just a suggestion, if anyone wants to consider/do smth about this. I will unlikley do anything on this article in the next days. Cheers, --Irpen 18:59, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Lev Leshchenko was the first to perform Victory Day, and IMHO his version is more popular. --Ghirlandajo 07:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

It is hard to continue to call Kobzon a Soviet singer exclusively when the country ceased to exist in 1991. Added Russian singer because he lives in Moscow and sings almost exclusively in Russian. Despite being born in Ukraine, he doesn't really fit the profile of a Ukrainian singer. Bandurist (talk) 13:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Lev Leschenko was indeed the first person to sing "Victory Day" - in 1975 see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_Leshchenko. Dispute resolved! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeko (talk • contribs) 16:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

'Russia's Frank Sinatra'

Who made this garbage text without any sources? Frank Sinatra is American legend, who sold 200 million albums worldwide and Kobzon is a local singer who became popular because of he served to the Communist Party elite. I know it I'm Russian. --LordWeller (talk) 06:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

On top of that this section is extemely apologetic and adulating as if written by a PR agency or someone close to the subject. -- HH 92.228.50.158 (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, just leave it. This particular statement is especially hilarious: "Kobzon has since successfully sued numerous publications for propagating unsubstantiated rumours, presenting a multitude of personal and professional references from the likes of Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev, who have attested to his impeccable reputation and great honour". It says it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.191.199.107 (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

"Garbage text without any sources"? The only garbage is you calling Kobzon a 'local singer'. It's like saying that Russian-speakers only live in Russia. If you knew anything about Russia (being Russian and all...) you would know that Kobzon didn't sell records - the Soviet State enterprise sold them, and it wouldn't surprise me if the sales figures gave Sinatra a run for his money. And by the way, it was citizens of the Soviet Union (some 290 million) who were buying the records - not just the Communist Party elite.

There is little question about the Kobzon/Sinatra analogy - the internet is full of sources referring to this. I suggest you look at the 110,000 results on Google confirming this to be a generally known truth; and while you're at it, why not use them to fill in the missing citations in the article.

As for "hilarious" statements - how many publications have you seen containing unsubstantiated rumours about Kobzon recently? Kobzon's honours and awards speak loudly of his reputation. Laugh all you want, but the truth is undeniable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeko (talk • contribs) 02:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Citations have now been added to resolve this dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeko (talk • contribs) 19:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Removal of balance

User:Georgeko and 109.148.248.57 have attempted to remove the following material. I believe the material is necessary for balance. Without it, the article looks like a fanpage. How does it make sense to have a huge chunk of the article listing dubious state "awards" and "honors" but delete a relatively short and well-sourced paragraph presenting the other side? The argument that it "taints" the individual is faulty. Wiki does not censor information on entry bans and removal of honorary citizenship. Also, Kobzon himself made the comments on Makarevich and performed in the concert, therefore he clearly doesn't consider it "tainting". Hergilei (talk) 12:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

In July 2014, Kobzon was banned from entering Latvia and his appeal was later rejected. The Latvian Foreign Affairs Ministry stated that "through words and actions [he had] contributed to the undermining of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity." In August 2014, Kobzon declared fellow singer Andrey Makarevich a traitor after the latter performed for internally displaced people in Ukraine. Kobzon gave a concert in support of the Donetsk People's Republic in Donetsk in late October 2014. Due to his support of Vladimir Putin's actions in Ukraine, Dnipropetrovsk and Poltava stripped Kobzon of honorary citizenship in autumn 2014 and the national Security Service banned him from entering the country.

Attempt to politicise

User:Hergilei is continuously attempting to include information about Kobzon's stance on Ukraine. The topic of Ukraine lies at the heart of highly contentious geopolitical subject with thousands of well-known commentators expressing their views and taking actions in relation thereto. Hergilei is singling out Kobzon among many high-profile individuals and focussing on his particular stance on Ukraine, as though Kobzon is a recognised key player in the world arena or a decision-maker on the matter. Incredibly, even the key players' pages on Wikipedia (such as Barack Obama's) mention nothing about their respective stances on Ukraine. Yet, Hergilei feels that digging up dirt to sling at Kobzon (no matter how significant) is good for "balance". Such an approach to editing Wiki pages, however, is in fact anything but balanced. It is typical of character abuse employed by scandal mongering journalists who are happy to print anything negative for the sake of 'negativity' alone - no matter how relevant or significant the material actually is. Whilst Wikipedia is not a fan page, it is neither an instrument for character assassination. If one's stance on Ukraine has suddenly become a universally important yardstick, then it should universally be applied to all well-known individuals who are somehow connected to the topic. Whilst one's stance on Ukraine is not considered a benchmark of any sorts, there is no basis (other than gratuitous trashing) for it to be mentioned on Kobzon's page. Oh, and by the way... Hergilei's unfounded reference to Kobzon's "dubious awards" is either an embarrassing testament to this user's ignorance, or simply evidence for what may be an underlying bias against Kobzon. You are not Ukrainian by any chance, Hergilei? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.248.57 (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You have failed to show that any of the well-referenced information is an attempt to "politicise" or a "character assassination". If anyone has "politicised" Kobzon, it's Kobzon himself. He chose to call Makarevich a "traitor", he chose to give a concert in support of the DPR. Kobzon is very public about his views, it's clear he doesn't consider it "tainting" his image. Furthermore, see Steven Seagal, Anna Netrebko, Anastasia Prikhodko, Oliver Stone, Andrei Makarevich, etc. Information about their involvement is not censored. In Kobzon's case, the information is especially important because his actions have led to him being given entry bans and stripped of honorary citizenship. Hergilei (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hergilei, you are politicising Kobzon’s page by drawing on politically controversial assertions. For example, you say that “[d]ue to his support of Vladimir Putin's actions in Ukraine, Dnipropetrovsk and Poltava stripped Kobzon of honorary citizenship…” In fact, Putin has always denied Ukraine’s allegations that Russia is involved in Ukraine Therefore, your editing is biased to the extent that you choose to acknowledge only one side of the political picture. You claim your reason for doing this is to offer a ’balanced’ account, but clearly you are just digging up ’negative’ information with disregard to its objectivity or veracity. Rather irresponsible for a Wiki editor.

If you want to go down the route of well-referenced information about Kobzon, then you should do it in a neutral way. Why don’t you mention the fact that Kobzon himself requested that Ukraine strips him of his People’s Artist of Ukraine award or the fact that he was recently awarded honorary citizenship in Donetsk Krai .

There is in fact much well-referenced information available about Kobzon e.g. his recent public veneration of the jews that suffered through the Holocaust Why choose to focus on e.g. Makarevich? How is this objectively important enough to be included on a Wiki biographical page? You are just digging up scandal on the level of a trashy journalist.. Your editing is biased and for that reason I am contesting it!

You see, the problem is that Kobzon is a media mountain. For every “well referenced” piece of dirt you dug up, there is an overwhelming volume of well-referenced positive material in retort. That’s why editing of Kobzon’s page must be done with considerable care - not to open the floodgates and risking the page becoming an untenable news archive.

I welcome a balanced approach by way of unbiased research and objective commentary, but deplore shallow, scandalous editing for the sake of diminishing someone’s profile - or as you refer to it as ‘balancing’. And yes that’s exactly what you are doing by using phrases such as ‘dubious awards’. I'm afraid your true agenda is exposed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeko (talk • contribs) 19:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I removed "[d]ue to his support of Vladimir Putin's actions in Ukraine" and added Kobzon's request. Why didn't you do that yourself instead of deleting the whole paragraph? There's no focus on Makarevich; Kobzon's quote is mentioned in one sentence. The awards are dubious because they come from extremely corrupt governments that regularly give out awards and honors to people who are also accused of corruption. Having said that, I didn't include my comment in the article. As for "For every “well referenced” piece of dirt you dug up, there is an overwhelming volume of well-referenced positive material in retort", you're continuing to ignore the fact that a large portion of the article is devoted to Kobzon's awards and honors. Also, since Kobzon himself doesn't consider his comments on Makarevich and concert in the DPR to be "dirt", why should we? Hergilei (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

If we include every comment that Kobzon makes about a current affairs issue, the page will turn into a news reel - not an encyclopaedic survey of his biography. Kobzon's expressed opinion on Makarevich is a highly subjective selection of his commentary on the subject. I can of course add balancing commentary to make the section more objective, but then we will end up dedicating a significant portion of his page on the contentious topic of the conflict in Ukraine. Where do we draw the line? I think all discussion surrounding the matter belongs on the "2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine" or another dedicated page - not on the Kobzon page.

As for your attempt to justify your 'dubious awards' comment, clearly you haven't researched the basis for Kobzon receiving the awards. One key example is listed on his page - the Moscow Theatre Siege - during which Kobzon risked his life (negotiating with armed terrorists) to save innocent citizens (women and children). There are many more examples that I can reference (including Kobzon's selfless appearance at Chernobyl to support the radiation-afflicted residents immediately after the blast; his numerous trips to war zones to support Russian troops; his ongoing charitable work for homeless children of Russia, and the list goes on and on). How does that fit with your 'corrupt government' comment? Again, an example of prejudice and bias stemming from a very skewed understanding of the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeko (talk • contribs) 13:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It's one relatively short paragraph compared to a very long section on awards and honors, how many times do I have to point this out to you? The information relates specifically to Kobzon, therefore the Kobzon article is where it belongs. Just like information about Seagal, Netrebko, Prikhodko, and the others went in their specific articles. If you want to add more Kobzon comments, you're free to do so. Hergilei (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but including this short paragraph is a provocation designed to politicise the Kobzon page - thrusting it into a discussion on the topic of the Ukrainian conflict, which doesn't belong on either the Kobzon, the Seagal, Netrebko, or the Prikhodko pages. Commentary and discussion, including noteworthy opinions on the topic of the Ukrainian conflict belong on the page designated to that specific subject. Otherwise, we must reference EVERY noteworthy individual's stance on Ukraine on their respective pages! Why just limit it to the individuals listed above? You are opening the floodgates to an insurmountable task that converts Wiki into a news website rather than encyclopaedia. How many times do I have to point this out to YOU? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeko (talk • contribs) 14:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that I have no problem with exposing noteworthy commentary or action on the Ukrainian conflict. In fact, I encourage it. But there is an existing Wiki page designated to this, and people's stances on the subject belong there (not on their biographical pages). As a Wiki editor you should know and respect this!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeko (talk • contribs) 14:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It does belong on the Kobzon page because it's material specifically relating to Kobzon. I've provided plenty of similar examples. Show me the Wiki rule which says a celebrity's comments/concerts relating to a conflict may not be mentioned on his/her page. Hergilei (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The rule/policy is NPOV (neutral point of view) - specifically 'Balancing Aspects' WP:BALASPS. The policy states:

"An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news."

Besides directly breaching this policy, you have demonstrated a lack of research ('dubious awards' remark) and a bias towards Western perception ('Putin's actions in Ukraine' reference) that is sufficient to reveal your true intent in using the 'Stance on Ukraine' section as a means of 'balancing' the positive tone of Kobzon's biography. In fact, you admit this by aiming to 'balance' the article by introducing a negative spin derived from RECENT EVENTS THAT ARE IN THE NEWS. You are, therefore, maliciously predisposed to state something (anything) ostensibly negative which is DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE OVERALL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ARTICLE. Do you have a pro-Kiev agenda?

I am, therefore, removing the 'Stance on Ukraine' section based on your breach of the above editing policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeko (talk • contribs) 19:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Explain how it's "disproportionate". I edited the paragraph, taking into consideration some of your comments and inviting you to add more Kobzon statements. You responded by deleting the whole paragraph yet again. You are a disruptive and aggressive editor who has no understanding of the word balance. For you, it means delete everything that you perceive to be an attack on your idol even if Kobzon himself doesn't consider it "dirt". Hergilei (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It's 'disproportionate' because for many years Kobzon's biographical profile on Wiki has been a testament to his achievements, with many editors contributing and agreeing to this point of view. Your editing stems from some degree of ignorance about Kobzon's symbolism to millions of Russian speakers around the world. The article doesn’t need negative balancing, particularly by way of isolated incidents or comments found in recent news articles. Wiki is an encyclopaedia - not a news forum. Therefore, incidents (such as Latvia not granting Kobzon an entry visa, or his ‘traitor’ remark about Makarevich) fade into insignificance compared to what this man has achieved in his lifetime. He had a monument erected in his honour during his lifetime. How many people do you know who can boast about that?

I hope you understand why your negative contributions to the article are disproportionate. It's not about whether Kobzon considers them to be dirt, it's about them actually being dirt in the context of their overall significance to the body of the article.

You accuse me of being a disruptive editor, but in fact you are the one using relatively minor incidents to disrupt a preeminent and remarkable biographical profile.

I may be aggressive in my defence (sorry about that!) because I am passionate about preserving Kobzon’s well-earned reputation, and about respecting Wiki’s editing policy. Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeko (talk • contribs)

Kobzon may have great symbolism to Russians but that doesn't mean we should delete everything about his involvement in Ukraine. That's a violation of balance. Your opinion that it's "dirt" is just that, an opinion, not a verifiable fact. The European Union has now announced that they're adding Kobzon to their sanctions list because he "visited the so-called Donetsk People's Republic and during his visit made statements supporting separatists." http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/eu-adds-famous-russian-singer-and-deputy-minister-to-ukraine-sanctions-list/515978.html Therefore his actions and statements on Ukraine are not "insignificant", no matter how many times you claim they are. Hergilei (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to express my opinion, as a follower of Kobzon’s biography for over 35 years, I consider myself somewhat of an expert on this individual. Firstly, I want to say that when editing anyone's wikipedia page, particularly when adding negative information, one should be clear that he is interfering with this person's legacy, which remains a historical record of that person’s lifetime achievements long after they are gone. This is a huge responsibility to take and therefore cannot be unbalanced or intended to damage someone's reputation. There is an enormous volume of media coverage on Kobzon, much of which is about his incredibly honourable actions. However, as any famous person, he is open to regular criticisms and attacks from people or even governments who don’t agree with his view on one thing or another. These attacks often pop-up in the news. Today's news of EU sanctions against Kobzon is significant enough to be added to his biography. However, there are two sides to this story - the EU side and the Russian side. Both aspects have to be covered for proper balance. If an editor chooses to highlight any fact stemming from a controversial/political event they need to do it neutrally, otherwise one has to wonder about the editor’s motives. In Hergilei’s case, is it something personal? Is it an anti-Russian or pro-Ukrainian stance? Or are you a fan of Makarevich? I recommend user Hergilei to undertake thorough research about anyone he chooses to write about. Yes, Kobzon is a person who was never afraid to express his opinion publicly, that is why his radical stance has often been a media sensation. He is a man of truth and principles, he is well-known for his devoted love for Russia and his words and actions have become an inspiration to millions of Russian patriots. For those reasons, Kobzon has many enemies. I’m not surprised that there are many anti-Russian activists, but as far as facts go, Mr Kobzon is one of just over 20 individuals among 146 million Russians who have Russia's highest awards - the "Order for Merit to the Fatherland". Historic figures such as Yuri Gagarin, Valentina Tereshkova, Dr Roshal, innumerable Russian cultural icons, countless Russian world and olympic champions, all of the former Soviet leaders starting from Khruschev up to Gorbachev and of course the current leader Putin, high ranked politicians, nobel prize winners, authors, poets and the general public have recognised and expressed Kobzon's invaluable input into Russia’s cultural and political landscape. Kobzon is a living legend, he is a symbol of Russia, a national treasure and a hero. Thank goodness we live in an age when these facts are well documented and cannot be called “dubious” by impetuous editing. Risking his life, helping many in need, staying true to his beliefs is what earned him his true reputation. What can we say about Hergilei’s achievements that give this editor the authority to ‘balance’ Kobzon's wikipedia page? Clinging onto some arbitrary remark made about Makarevich, who not only Kobzon regards as a traitor, but a large number of Russian citizens, is a minor comment from countless remarks Kobzon has made since the Ukranian crisis broke out. In my opinion, even Makarevich, with his level of fame is not worthy of mention on Kobzon's Wikipedia page. Rest assured Hergilei, Kobzon's legacy and fountain of daily good deeds will leave the most remarkable memory about this person. The Latvian ministers of this world will be quickly forgotten for their nasty self-serving actions. That’s the law of Karma. Seeking accomplishment through sabotage is not a worthy path, Hergilei. Just because someone enjoys honour and admiration, that’s no reason in itself to try and find something negative to balance this individual’s profile. You have a lot to learn, but the good news is that it's never too late! Good luck! PS. Don’t waste your time by replying. I’m not going to engage in a discussion with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthiskarma (talk • contribs) 01:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

RFC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus is that the information be included. While no specific wording was mentioned a couple of editors suggested it be a small addition. AlbinoFerret 02:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Should the Joseph Kobzon page mention his entry bans and removal of honorary citizenship, and his comments/activities leading up to that? Hergilei (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem with the fact of entry bans or honours removal being mentioned objectively (full picture). Specific commentary on Ukrainian conflict, however, that demonstrates the individual's stance on the subject should be reserved for the page designated to commentary on the Ukrainian conflict (if considered sufficiently relevant).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeko (talk • contribs) 14:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Material like this is typically included on the particular individual's page. See Steven Seagal, Anna Netrebko, Anastasia Prikhodko, Oliver Stone, Andrei Makarevich. Explain what you would change so that the entry bans and honors are "mentioned objectively"? Hergilei (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Objectively, you should not mention things that have been recently in the news about the subject, which are disproportionate to the overall significance of the article. This is a Wiki editing policy, which you are breaching by 'balancing' the overall significance of Kobzon biography with controversial topics that are currently in the news. WP:BALASPS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.248.57 (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The paragraph is not "disproportionate" when looking at the article as a whole. A large portion of the article lists his awards and honors. Removing the entire paragraph shows you have no respect for balance. Hergilei (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

From a biographical perspective things like Kobzon's remark about Makarevich don't sit on par with his overall legacy. You can't draw upon minor incidents in a person's life to 'balance' major achievements. That is disproportionate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.34.52.35 (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

He made a very bold statement about a famous Russian singer, that's not minor, and mentioning it in one sentence is not disproportionate. Hergilei (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC Votes

• Yes, briefly per Hergilei. One sentence or two would be okay with me. --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Fascist Ukraine

I had to revert statements to Kobson citation about Ukraine being a "fascist state" with the explanation of alluding to the influence of far-right parties in Ukraine and volunteer militias fighting in the country's east. (some ref). Unless the reference provided specifically mentions Kobzon we should not put any arguments into his mouth. Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material specifically prohibits such synthesis. In fact it is highly unlikely that the opinion of Kobzon on Ukrainian government is influenced by the English-language sources, as he most probably does not have a sufficient command in this language Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree with your edit but I'd also like to point out that way too much of the article concentrates on his idiotic stance on Ukraine, it creates undue weight on this silliness.Miacek (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Joseph Kobzon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100602065927/http://www.iosifkobzon.com:80/ to http://www.iosifkobzon.com
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131211220229/http://rollingstone.ru/articles/music/article/3479.html to http://rollingstone.ru/articles/music/article/3479.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131213123816/http://chinovnikam.net/content/18/224/3.html to http://chinovnikam.net/content/18/224/3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Credibility

I casually browsed this page while reading Misha Glenny's book "McMafia". Kobzon's Wikipedia entry is an embarrassing hagiography, ignoring his close associations with organised crime and gangsterism. Editors who have sought to balance this have been attacked and demeaned. Very disappointing quality for Wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.32.239 (talk) 12:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)