Talk:Mikhail Gorbachev

The article formerly stated that Gorbachev was the youngest man to hold the position of Secretary of the Central Committee and cited p163 of Taubman's biography. I'm unsure whether this accurately reflects what the source says, but regardless it is plainly incorrect; Vyacheslav Molotov was 32 when he held the job after the secretariat was reformed in 1922 and several Stalin-era Secretaries were in their late 30s. --RaiderAspect (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Why would someone address everything in past tense in this section: Personal life? The man is still alive so describing attributes of him as if he was not is just stupid.

In the sentence..

He was appointed the First Party Secretary of the Sevastopol Regional Committee in 1970, in which position he oversaw construction of the Great Stavropol Canal.

"Sevastopol Regional Committee" seems to be incorrect. Should it be "Stavropol Regional Committee"? __Chaduvari (talk) 05:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

The sentence As of 2022, he is the only former leader of the Soviet Union who is still alive - added yesterday, has been suppressed again today. Why? Is this a false statement? As I don't think he died recently, the question is: who else is still alive? Of course, "leader" is a bit vague, may-be "top leader" or something like that would be better--UKe-CH (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

The article currently has a mix of American and British/Commonwealth English spelling. According to MOS:ARTCON, it should be consistent one way or another. Since MOS:TIES doesn't seem to apply, according to MOS:RETAIN we use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety, unless there is a consensus to do otherwise. It appears that American English was established by at least 2002, see: Special:Diff/398181 (traveled, democratization). Unless there is a reason to use something else, I will run the WP:EngvarB script to make that the consistent variety throughout the article. --IamNotU (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

There are way too many semicolons in this article. The semicolon should be used rarely, not every time one writes two adjoining sentences that relate to each other. NoNonsenseHumJock (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

2019 Meeting Gorbachev https://play.google.com/store/movies/details/Meeting_Gorbachev?id=5jN_A_ADCG0.P

Please unblock Gedium account. I do not wish to be a sock puppet! Your admins are idiots and do not follow procedure or protocol as stated by other admins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.44.166.231 (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

• RIAN archive 852682 XXVII Congress of the CPSU.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

On 10 March 1985, Chernenko died.[153] Gromyko proposed Gorbachev as the next General Secretary; as a longstanding party member, Gromyko's recommendation carried great weight among the Central Committee.[154] Gorbachev expected much opposition to his nomination as General Secretary, but ultimately the rest of the Politburo supported him.[155] Shortly after Chernenko's death, the Politburo unanimously elected Gorbachev as his successor; they wanted him over another elderly leader.[156]

Reading the book "Why Gorbachev Happened" by Robert Kaiser, a leading U.S expert on the Soviet Union (aka a Kremlinologist.)

There are a couple parts here this book disputes.

It is true that Gorbachev nomination ultimately was by acclimation, but that was De Jure as by this time, all additions to the Politburo and all nominations to General Secretary were officially by acclamation. De Facto, Gorbachev was opposed by Viktor Grishin. It seems to have been a very close vote in the Politburo with Gorbachev making sure at least one and possibly two of Grishin's supporters were away and unable to attend the vote (Vladimir Shcherbitsky and possibly Dinmukhamed Kunayev.) It also wasn't so much of older versus younger as opposed to reformers (Andropov's people on the Politburo) vs status quo (Brezhnev's people.)

In the end however, it was De Jure acclimation with Grishin officially nominating Gorbachev for the post. (Pages 80-82.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.140.177 (talk) 06:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

To be sure, it is true that those who supported Gorbachev didn't realize the extent of the reforms Gorbachev ultimately pursued or how they would end up destroying the Soviet Communist Party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.140.177 (talk) 06:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

he had a policy of "Glasnost" --52.144.111.126 (talk) 02:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)JZReply

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Vladimir Gorbachev. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 3#Vladimir Gorbachev until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I suggest that we use an image from this video (which is licensed with a CC BY licence) for the infobox photo. --Love and Parting (talk) 01:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Really? Not Gorbachov or Gorbachyov? Strange... --2A02:908:1460:CF80:44F8:C8C1:71F5:9BF7 (talk) 19:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I agree it's a mistake, the russian letter although looks like e it's pronounced as o and for instance Ronald Reagan always addressed him properly Mr Gorbachov not Gorbachev. V8 13:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

The current portrait used is not the best to use for good ol' Gorby.

I propose we change it to one of these images.

Khalif Ali Husain the Third (talk) 09:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Why was the image changed to the 1st one of those? I personally prefer the cropped one from the Reykjavík Summit. Victor Scimitar (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Gorbachev (cropped).png Victor Scimitar (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

The "Personal life" section uses past tense for him: "Throughout his life, he tried", "he drank", "he was", etc. Using past tense that way implies he is dead, but he is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:b011:1005:7a95:d1a2:275e:47d1:8bfb (talk) 06:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

It's definitely strange that this hasn't been fixed yet, I had to go back and check that he wasn't actually dead while reading it. ~~~~ Zinalova (talk) 06:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

this didnt age well 49.245.30.41 (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Dulxolixb (talk) 07:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I want to suggest putting my photograph of Mikhail Gorbatchev that I took when he was visiting Paris in 1989. This photograph is already in the French version. Here is its code:

 

Thanks Olivier DUMAY

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Please say where you'd like the photo to go. Thanks. --Ferien (talk) 14:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

This claim is geopolitically important, and is becoming more important as Vladimir Putin continues to use it to justify his opposition to Ukraine's desire to join NATO. The source that was already here (a biography by William Taubman published in 2017) claims that Gorbachev was offered assurances that NATO would not expand eastward. In an interview in 2014, Gorbachev himself says that nothing of the kind was even part of the conversation (http://rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html). The latter view is backed up by analysis from folks who have reviewed transcripts from the meetings at the time (https://www.rferl.org/a/nato-expansion-russia-mislead/31263602.html). I don't know if the article, as I've edited it, follows NPOV, or if it's giving undue weight to any source, and I'd appreciate review. My initial thought is to treat Taubman's representation of events as a minority view. --140.162.13.134 (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

There is another source backing up the claim that Gorbachev accused the US of breaking promises about NATO, found in an interview by The Daily Telegraph found here (proxy found here.) It's quite puzzling, as 2 reliable sources show Gorbachev having completely contradicting views only 6 years apart.

The Telegraph article, published on 6 May 2008, says that Gorbachev stated: "The Americans promised that Nato wouldn't move beyond the boundaries of Germany after the Cold War but now half of central and eastern Europe are members, so what happened to their promises? It shows they cannot be trusted."

The Russia Beyond article, published on 16 October 2014, says that Gorbachev stated: "The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. … So don’t portray Gorbachev and the then-Soviet authorities as naïve people who were wrapped around the West’s finger. If there was naïveté, it was later, when the issue arose. Russia at first did not object."

In the same Russia Beyond article, Gorbachev did express that NATO's decision to expand into Eastern Europe was, as he put it, "…a mistake." However, this is solely due to the violation of "…the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990," referring to the 1990 Paris Charter. That is decisively not the same thing as stating that the US promised that NATO wouldn't expand further east. I definitely think some more input is needed. Qbox673 (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

"no oral"

It is in the protocol notes for at least 2 meetings/conversations. It was infinitely stupid to trust the west, but it is the west that has betrayed and broken their promises as usual. The Gorbachov quote is about a meeting where it was NOT part of the discussion, and hence, using it to pretend that it was never said is grossly dishonest.

"not one inch east" is a direct quote. IIRC, the other quote is something like "we guarantee that Nato will not expand eastwards". No, he does not have contradicting views, in one case he is asked about a specific meeting, in the other he is asked about the subject. In the meeting there was not talk about it, but USA at least TWICE gave specific guarantees. 178.174.137.197 (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

The term Marxist-Leninism is somewhat of a wastebasket taxon within marxism. It refers to a lot of positions that dont always line up well. For example both Stalin and Trotsky saw themselves as the inheretors of Lennin's legacy but drew radically different conclusions about it, to the point that a significant level of violence became associated with the schism, culminating ultimately in the assasination of Leon Trotsky. Further, in China , the maoist and post maoist tendencies within chinese political history also have tended to lay claim to the mantle of Marxist Leninism. This schism persists to this day, particularly between the "trots" and "tankies" of Trotskyism and Stalinism respectively, as well as a growing resurgence of interest mostly in US circles in Maoism. To be clear Marxism-Leninism is a legitimate term and I'm not quarreling with the fact its used here, but I think it would be prudent to affix terms to denote the "flavor" of marxist-leninism, like "The prevailing interpretation of Marxist-Leninism" etc just so we dont convey the interpretation that ONLY Stalin, Kruschev or Gorbachev's interpretation was the "correct" one. And to be clear its not a small matter, theres an entire corpus of literature analysing this stuff, as well as less academic literature on "Revisionist marxism" and other more polemical contributions to the discussion. Duckmonster (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

The "In the Arts" section, or, maybe an "In Popular Culture" section, might mention that "The Internet series" _Epic Rap Battles of History_ featured Gorbachev in the "Rasputin vs. Stalin" rap battle, played by Lloyd Ahlquist." 216.228.184.182 (talk) 02:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I would like to start a discussion about using an updated photo of Gorbachev for the infobox image. The current on was taken in 1987, and while it is a good quality photo, it is very outdated. I’ve changed the photo a couple times to one from 2015, citing that it is more recent. My reasoning is that since Gorbachev is still living, a relatively newer photo is more appropriate. The user who reverted the edit stated that the photos of Presidents Carter and G. W. Bush were also outdated, but their photos are official photos taken during their time in office. The 1987 photo of Gorbachev is not an official photo, and therefore I think it should be updated to a more recent one, or to an official office photo. When Gorbachev dies, an older official photo (if one can be found) could and should then be used.

When it comes to politicians, I think official photos are the most appropriate to use, anyway. LordVesuvius (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if it's policy, but the custom has for heads of state has been to use photos taken while they were in office. If there is an official photo free to use, then it should supplant the current one. Otherwise the infobox should remain as is.MisterCSharp (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Recent Gorbachev is not a topic of much interest--he is a major figure of the 1980s-1990s but no longer and what he looks like or says in 2022 is not very interesting to users. Rjensen (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Courtesy ping: LordVesuvius, Couple of points here. In general recency of the image doesn't matter unless the subject is still active and their appearance significantly changed. The preferred image we use for all articles should strive to be: (1) representative of the subject, (2) photographically good (i.e. no poor shadows, angling, poor framing), and (3) good quality/resolution (no fuzz or blur, minimal pixels). Since this article is being considered from a historical perspective, it is preferred we use an image from the time-period when the subject was most famous, and/or the most famous image available. For example, even though William Howard Taft served was Chief Justice after leaving the presidency, we use his more famous presidential photo [1] instead of his more recent Supreme Court photo [2], even though both are official portraits.

Now with this particular case, the problem is that pretty much all available images we have of Gorbachev are (quite frankly) shit lol. There is no cross-wiki consensus, with several of the other language Wikipedias having different images (ex. Russian, Spanish, French, Hungarian). All that being said, I actually think [3] is the best one from those we have available. This is the image used by Commons and Wikidata, ad I think it is most representative of Gorbachev, while also being contemporary to the time-period, and being better quality than the others available ([4] is too blurry, while [5] is overly pixelated and not representative of the subject). Curbon7 (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Curbon7 Thanks for explaining! I agree with it, the current choice seems to be the least bad one. I hope someone in the future will upload a better freely licensed picture from that era. PhotographyEdits (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Curbon7 FYI: The user @Fijipedia has reverted the change back to the White House Library picture. PhotographyEdits (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have changed the lead image back to the White House Library image due to there being no consensus change the image in the first place. I believe the White House Library image has better quality and is more representative of the subject. Fijipedia (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think [6] is the best of the listed photos above. It's the closest to a formal photo, which is the standard for heads of state - even if it's not official. The angry pointing picture [7] doesn't seem suited to the top of an article.MisterCSharp (talk) 13:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ok thank you. This is reasoning that makes sense and I can get behind. Curbon7 (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

If we can get some context for the pointing photo it might work further down in the article.MisterCSharp (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

MisterCSharp, The photo info is on the commons page. Curbon7 (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

And what about this one? Maybe I'm too picky, but I'm not a big fan of including as a photo in the infobox those portraits in which the person who usually wears glasses is not wearing them. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Alsoriano97 I agree about the glasses, but this picture is relatively unsharp and taken from a side angle. I prefer the current one over that one. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

There are rumours of Gorbachev's death on birdsite. Any RS? They should pop up quickly if the rumour is confirmed. Boud (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the avalanche of WP:RS's is open. See below. Boud (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Title says it all. Please change the page. Shhssh (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I completed this just now.

https://www.reuters.com/world/mikhail-gorbachev-who-ended-cold-war-dies-aged-92-agencies-2022-08-30/ ArmenianSniper (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

https://ria.ru/20220830/gorbachev-1813287586.html CallMeHyphen (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Gorbachev's date of birth, 2 March 1931, has six sources given in Wikidata (at least three are online), and four offline sources here, so that seems undisputed. Russian sources presumably write that Gorbachev died in his "92nd year", or write "92" in a Russian convention of age that rounds up. In English, 91 years and just under 6 months (30 Aug 2022 minus 2 March 1931) is summarised in integer years as an "age of 91", not an "age of 92". Thomson Reuters, a WP:RS, has been quite sloppy about this. This is not a direct problem for this article, since we let mediawiki software calculate age instead of doing the calculation that was too difficult for Reuters journalists to do. Boud (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Associated Press calculated 91 - it clearly has more high-powered mathematicians than Thomson Reuters does. Boud (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Seems like Reuters has decided to change its arithmetic to match Wikipedia. That doesn't justify using it as a source for the calculation of 91, especially since we don't need a source for basic arithmetic and the extremely wide English-language convention on rounding human's ages. Wikipedia's convention happens to match the usual English-language convention. I fixed this because apparently someone wants to hide Reuters' sloppiness in fact-checking. Boud (talk) 08:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

We achieved consensus for the lead photo a few months back, and people are replacing it for no reason. Please don’t remove it. If you want another photo to be in the lead, state your opinion on the talk page. Consensus can change. Fijipedia (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

the info box picture has been changed over and over again. and there's no consensus for it so this is a talk section just for it, I'm taking a page out of the book of The Talk section of Olivia Newton-John and doing a !vote section.

I have compiled a gallery of all the candidate images, Just sign under your choice(s) 4me689 00:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm neutral any image works for me, by the way if your neutral or want to debate it on why your choice is the best, put the text up above the choices just so it doesn't mess it up, the choices section is only for your signature and a short statement on why your choice is the best. 4me689 (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

There has been consensus 4 months ago and as far as I know it still exists. So stop being vandals and stop changing the White House photo. Fijipedia (talk) 11:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Stop accusing people of vandalism. Madeline (part of me) 12:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

You don’t get consensus in one day. Fijipedia (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

See WP:CCC and stop nagging everyone. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

1. Skyshifter ^talk 00:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
2. Willthehelpfuleditor -- Willthehelpfuleditor (talk 01:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
3. I believe I was the one who started this whole thing when I changed the infobox image to the one currently there, but I agree with the contention that we should have an picture of Gorbachev in glasses, as this was a recognizable part of his "image". Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

   My impression is that Gorbachev wore his glasses when making speeches at parliamentary assemblies and went without them at state functions and other public events, so either might be appropriate. Carlstak (talk) 02:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

4. I think this one is better primarily because he looks less uncomfortable/taken by surprise in it. It also shows him on home turf instead of at the White House on a foreign trip, which has some value for use as the infobox image, in my opinion. — Goszei (talk) 02:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

   I want to reiterate my support for Option 1. I oppose Option 3 because of the uneven lighting on his face, and because the background filtering makes for an uncanny result. — Goszei (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

5. I just like the composition of the first one better. Commons has a couple more, perhaps higher quality, let's see.... Ovinus (talk) 06:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
6. +1 on him looking less uncomfortable in this one. Madeline (part of me) 12:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
7. Also favour this one. I had made the change already, to match what's on the main page currently, but it seems that matches the consensus here anyway. There is no need to wait, the discussion here shows that option 1 is the community's choice. We can always change back if that changes.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
8. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
9. Gorbachev is wearing his iconic glasses in this one and looks more natural, as opposed to option 2. I also like the idea of having a photo of him in a setting where he is speaking to others for the infobox. The background filtering of option 3 makes the whole image look rather off-putting in my eyes; at first I thought it was a CGI rendering of Gorbachev. Aria1561 (talk) 05:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
10. Option 1 is shot from a low-angle, reflecting his political position as superior to everyone else. I think they're all okay photos because they're all in shallow-focus, but the framing of this one is really great whereas I don’t think there's any aspect of the others that any good on a technical level. This isn't a comment on Gorbachev's politics, but how the photo conveys who he was for the purpose of the article Stephanie921 (talk) 06:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

1. The White House Library photo looks like a proper portrait while the other photo shows Gorbachev in a meeting of some sort. We should keep it. Fijipedia (talk) 11:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
2. I think this one fits more since it's more like a portrait and the other one is him speaking in the Congress. Octagon758 (talk) 12:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
3. The image we would still be using had it not been for his death on Tuesday. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 08:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Today I added this picture. I have processed it, the colors and color correction look nice, unlike option 1, here Gorbachev looks more like himself. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 11:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

This is a better picture in general, but the lighting and the angle of Gorbachev's face hide the distinguishable birthmark on his head. Samuuurai (talk) 07:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

@User:Samuuurai What's wrong with that? Stephanie921 (talk) 08:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

It is an identifiable facial feature which is largely associated with his appearance. It would perhaps be more fitting to have this feature clearly visible as his main infobox photo. Samuuurai (talk) 08:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I can also support this one. It also looks more "portrait-like" than number 1, for those concerned about that. Madeline (part of me) 12:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Also support the third option, per the two reasons stated above. Willsteve2000 (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Oppose this option because of the uneven lighting on his face. Ovinus (talk) 05:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Note that the third image was added after the voting started, so some people might want to reconsider their opinion. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Dear PhotographyEdits,

Based on my experience I would only update a persons page, preferably a famous person or currently popular person(s) until a consensus of most people. I'm not in charge of if you leave it or not, this is just a suggestion for future preference.

Yours Truly,

BettyCrocker321 (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I see where you're coming from, but I don't see any problems here currently. This just feels like WP:BOLD/WP:BRD working. Madeline (part of me) 21:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Nevselbert: It's been a week since anybody's commented here; I don't think this discussion can be considered "ongoing". Madeline (part of me) 18:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Neveselbert: ping Madeline (part of me) 18:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove this sentence

Later that month, Bush visited Moscow, where he and Gorbachev signed the START I treaty, a bilateral agreement on the reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms, after ten years of negotiation.

and replace it with this one:

Later that month, Bush visited Moscow, where he and Gorbachev concluded ten years of negotiations by signing the START I treaty, a bilateral agreement on the reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms.

By moving up the ten years of negotiations, the sentence is reduced from five clauses to four — it's marginally longer, but simpler to understand. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 03:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks IP, because the month wasn't actually specified I tried something slightly different from what you wrote (replacing the beginning with "Bush visited Moscow in late July, when ...". Ovinus (talk) 06:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In this sentence:

In June 2018, he welcomed the 2018 Russia–United States summit between Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump,

Please change "2018 Russia-United States summit" to "Russia-United States summit". If a date isn't given for the summit, one would expect it to occur around the same time as his remarks, which are in June 2018. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I disagree, I think the specificity is a good standard Stephanie921 (talk) 04:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think this is a matter of opinion, so I've reworked it to "the Russia–United States summit in Helsinki". Ovinus (talk) 06:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough @User:Ovinus ty for telling me :) That's good wording Stephanie921 (talk) 06:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I tried to put two more in the section, but 'Stephanie' thinks they are not valid. Who is she to decide? AMCKen (talk) 06:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Mikhail Gorbachev at IMDb
• Mikhail Gorbachev discography at Discogs

To me, they seem like rather trivial items. He wasn't primarily a musician or film star; this isn't like putting such links on biographies of politicians such as Peter Garrett or Arnold Schwarzenegger. And per WP:LINKFARM, we shouldn't have lots of trivial external links. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 06:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

They're not reliable sources. See WP:IMDB for one. Also, why did you put my name in quotemarks? Stephanie921 (talk) 06:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Stephanie is quite correct. Plus, it doesn't make sense to link to IMDb when we're writing about one of the defining figures of the 20th century. We have countless better sources. Ovinus (talk) 06:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

To change his death to the 14 august, because he died there https://www.gorby.ru/presscenter/news/show_30344/ This is the source 85.83.200.22 (talk) 07:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Maybe machine translation is failing me, but I can't find anything about him being dead there. Madeline (part of me) 08:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Me neither @User:Maddy from Celeste. I don't speak Russian but my translation says both msgs date from over two weeks ago Stephanie921 (talk) 10:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: pending clarification. Madeline (part of me) 12:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

@User:Maddy from Celeste What? :) I was just saying what u did Stephanie921 (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yeah I meant I marked the request as answered while we wait for info from the original requester. Madeline (part of me) 17:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Oh okay, ty Madeline! Stephanie921 (talk) 17:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

@User:Ovinus Why do u think the Pizza Hut commercial is undue weight for the lead :) If it has an article about it I don't see it being there as undue. But maybe I'm missing something Stephanie921 (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

If anything, I think it'd be more due to add stuff about what the Foundation has actually done, rather than about a silly commercial it made. Worth noting that The Gorbachev Foundation doesn't mention the commercial at all (it probably should, but the writers apparently didn't think it important enough). Is Gorbachev remembered for this commercial? I wasn't alive, so I wouldn't know, but I'd estimate not.... Ovinus (talk) 02:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

He absolutely is remembered for the commercial. The article about it notes how it was representative of the Post-fall transition, which is why it is notable and has an article. It was shared and discussed massively after his death. I don't think WP:RS would cover its online notability, but I was just trying to answer ur question generally in terms of how it's remembered now. You might be able to find academic analysis of it considering it's historical importance. Cos it entails the former leader of a state-capitalist country - which masqueraded as a Communist one - doing a capitalist commercial for an American company.

But I agree that it'd be more due to describe the Foundation's general goals in the lead rather than Pizza Hut commercial.

Also, the Hut commercial is historically significant because - and I'm not kidding - Gorbachev's legacy is actually discussed in the advert. Stephanie921 (talk) 02:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I haven't read these but here's proof of my claim: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/amp/entry/mikhail-gorbachev-death-pizza-hut-ad-soviet-union_uk_630f08d4e4b0dc23bbed1dfc/, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-62739564, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62736976.amp, https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/gorbachev-pizza-hut-advert-was-a-symbol-of-capitalisms-victory-over-communism-xn6qkg587 . All these were written since he died Stephanie921 (talk) 03:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

That is... fascinating. Ovinus (talk) 05:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Cool that u think so :) Do u want me to edit a clause in the lead about the Foundation? Stephanie921 (talk) 06:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Since there seems to be consensus about this (and I agree as well), I'm going to be WP:BOLD and add it back. PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Midnightblueowl Hi, have you seen this discussion about the Pizza Hut commercial? PhotographyEdits (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Both the articles for Lenin and Stalin include their death in the lede of the article. Why not for Gorbachev? There even is a sub article for specifically his funeral, indicating that it is a major event. PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Because both Lenin and Stalin died while still in power? Gorbachev's death isn't anywhere near as consequential. His death could be mentioned briefly but the paragraph you added was overkill. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:34, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Boris Yeltsin also died after leaving office and that's also mentioned in the lede. I have added it back without naming the cemetery. PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Woon Sue (talk) 12:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Not done @Woon Sue: It is unclear as what you want to be done. Peaceray (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

There is a conflict about the infobox image again. Let's discuss this @4me689. I do quite like the BW image actually, would be fine with having that one as the main image. Otherwise, the previous speech picture would be good. PhotographyEdits (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

(i'm coming back just to respond to this), I thought we already had a consensus on the info box picture when Mikhail Gorbachev died, if there's ever to be a conflict again we should do an RFC on his info box picture, as for the info box picture I do like the black and white one better. 4me689 (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I also like the black and white better. But yeah I don't feel motivated to start an entire RfC again PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

the previous photo had enough consensus. I don't think it is necessary to open another discussion or make changes. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Alsoriano97 My point is that the discussion was never about the image that is currently used. But I like the image so I don't mind personally, just wanted to make sure that it isn't controversial then. PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

As someone who took part in the initial discussion about the infobox photo, I prefer the newly-added photo to the previous one and support its usage as long as there is no opposition to it being in black-and-white. The angle is better, his birthmark is more easily visible, and there is nothing occurring in the background unlike in the previous photo. Aria1561 (talk) 05:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Agree. Then let's not make a fuss about this then, until there is someone from the original discussion who opposes this picture. I suspect there would be broad consensus for this image, it just was not available at the time of the previous discussion. PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well, frankly, I don't like it. First, I don't understand why a photo from 1991 has to be in black and white; it would make sense if it was a personality from the 20's or 40's, for example. Secondly, because he doesn't wear glasses, something that in a certain way also identified him (although sometimes he didn't wear them). And, thirdly, because, IMO, a photo of a historical political leader giving a speech or in a political space is the best way to represent them. Besides, I don't see the need to have to change it when you have already chosen what it would be. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. I can see a reason to boldly change it when a new good picture comes to Commons, but it's also fine to revert that back to the previous consensus. People can open a new discussion to change the consensus, I'll leave it here for now. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

maybe it's the best we do a RFC, what do you guys think, the last time it was not a RFC. 4me689 (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

The Template:Mikhail Gorbachev series sidebar was removed. I think it should belong in this article. Can we put it back? PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's causing a lot of squishing over on the right hand side of the article and serves little useful purpose. Was there any consensus for its original addition (which I believe occurred fairly recently, after this article gained its GA rating)? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

It was added after it became GA, yes. But the article has been a GA with the template longer than it was without. The article because GA in 2020 and I originally created this template in 2021. I would suggest putting it back in the article. Would you say that such a template needs to be removed from Barack Obama? PhotographyEdits (talk) 07:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Exactly the title. There’s not a single citation except for a little thing that says [f] in the main body text of the page all the way from the start up until Early Life & Education. For example, it claims that he’s often derided in Russia, which may or may not be true, but there’s no citation for this claim, which makes it look a lot like hearsay instead of actual fact. 166.182.80.216 (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

You are correct that there are no citations, this is because the first part of the article is supposed to be a summary of the later parts, which *are* supported by citations. Because it's a summary, the information is a duplicate of information that is cited. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

The "dubious" tag was added on 2 January 2024 by User:AverageWikiEditingEnjoyer, who wrote this edit summary:

"I thought numerous claims state he was closer to reformist marxism, market socialism, or an ideology closer to the ideology of "Eurocommunism" instead of "social democracy", which he only affiliated with much later on".

Since the editor acknowledges that Gorbachev did affiliate with social democracy, I'm not sure that the dubious tag is really warranted; but while it's there it should link to the editor's objection on the talk page. Richard75 (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Let's remove the tag. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Due to the excessive length I think this article should be re-assessed. I am currently not putting it on the page because I think the top contributors might be able to cut it down. @Ezhiki @Yanksox. I have already put a message for the top contributor in their talk page. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 15:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

The article is excessively long, about 17000 words. It also has some slight WP:NPOV and WP:MOS issues. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 15:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Explain, what are those WP:NPOV and WP:MOS issues?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Looking back, I don’t think there are any significant NPOV issues. However, in terms of MOS, sentences like 'On 10 March 1985, Chernenko died.' may convey an unnecessarily emphatic tone. Overall, the tone throughout could be improved to sound more encyclopedic. While I initially said there were no NPOV issues, some examples, such as 'He would stop to talk to civilians on the street, forbade the display of his portrait at the 1985 Red Square holiday celebrations, and encouraged frank and open discussions at Politburo meetings,' come across as slightly biased and could benefit from a more neutral phrasing. And yes I used ChatGPT to fix my own phrasing. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 07:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)Reply