Talk:Lavrentiy Beria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Lavrentiy Beriya)
Jump to: navigation, search

Everyking's revision[edit]

  • 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.

Person in the background in photo with Svetlana[edit]

This has come up before (see discussion here in the archives). The identity of the person sitting behind Beria is unknown. Sadly anonymous editors seem to like playing detective, and even more sadly the current state of affairs has persisted since 2011.

Because this seems to be the kind of thing that slips in and is never checked, I have changed the caption to state that the man in the picture has not been conclusively identified, with a source. Any editor that thinks he or she knows better is invited to provide a source saying so rather than simply playing drive-by Sherlock Holmes. That this kind of misinformation should persist on an article as important as this one for so many years is very upsetting.Eniagrom (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Person in the background in photo with Svetlana, redux[edit]

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 ( 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" ( (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 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 ( 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 (, 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. (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[edit]

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[edit]

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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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