Talk:Nikita Khrushchev/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Pronunciation

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

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

Neutrality

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

I agree very much with the above comment. Just by reading the introduction we can see a clear bias. A lot of notice is given to his role in the Stalinist purges and his policies are described as disastrous. This is wikipedia not conservapedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.112.248 (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's political articles are indeed well-known to be controlled by a small clique of people who are so politically biased, they can't even analyze anything socialist, or even get the terminology correct -- and yet they stamp out any opposition to their slanted articles. Wikipedia and the Internet await their own Perestroika.

Pazouzou (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

The shoe fits just fine.................so wear it. - Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.151.233 (talk) 10:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

We all thank you for that elegant quote. May we suggest you instead start your own website - we propose the name 'Redneck Colouring Book' - and leave this site alone.

I feel that an intro this article is too harsh towards Khrushchev. Keep in mind, that, basically, under his rule USSR launched the first satellite, the first man into space, basically, created a status quo with respect to nuclear arms, had rapid developments in both IT, aerospace and rocket technology, denounced Stalin's purges, and was as close to US as, probably, it ever was. The whole corn program did end up in a failure, but it is hard from a misguided attempt: it was based upon a very efficient US corn industry, and, while it did produce a number of miserable results, sometimes programs like that just need a few years to work out. And I would refrain from comparing USSR to US of the time - a more or less true benchmark will be a Continental Europe country like Italy or Spain, as Tsarist Russia has never been that rich to begin with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.86.159 (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The Thompson citation source seems to have an american bias. Other sources should also be referenced and certain sections of this article revised accordingly. In particular, it was Eisenhower who was left red faced over the powell U-2 incident, not Khruschev. --70.100.20.88 (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree about the U-2 incident. It reads like it's written by a White House spin doctor. The answer to this is to get other sources. I think it's also a mistake in Wikipedia articles to describe emotions (embarrassed, stunned, etc). This is basically speculative. It's better to write about what people said and did.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

3-d First Secretary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Americanisation of non-US article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some possible improvements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Politician?

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

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

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

Education

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nationality

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

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

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

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

Kalinovka?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clickable references

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

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

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

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

Color *VIDEO* footage of US visit

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

First secretary: predecessor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great Patriotic War versus World War II

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

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

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

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

Dates again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nvm

Edit request from Planetamerica, 8 April 2011

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

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

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

Edit request from 24.191.93.20, 18 April 2011

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

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

Birth date

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

See foot note

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

Can Someone change the birth dates on the Spouses...the 1916-1919 is pretty distrubing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.231.162.176 (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Shoe on desk

Re [3].

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

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

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

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

Wehwalt, my objections to claiming this incident is something proven are quite simple:

1. Different sources claim incident happened on different dates,
2. Different sources claim it happened as a response to statements of different people,
3. Some sources claim it actually never happened,
4. No sources ever produced any recording of the incident (which is really strange, considering it happened in the UN).

Right now the article looks like it very much promotes a point, disregarding sources (like that Pulitzer prize winner's, Kruschev's biographer's article), that do not confirm the theory. I have added all links in the edit you reverted, and I'm ready to quote them, and many others, if you still feel you lack quotes to authorise the change. P.S. I absolutely understand how you feel about someone changing a featured article you wrote, but with a FA it's even more important to keep it up to standards. FeelSunny (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you for convenience and posterity post the sources here? I know you did in your edit, but this is more convenient for all than diff hunting. What I am minded to suggest is that we craft language along the lines of "has led to historical controversy, with some stating that the event did not occur, while others ..." Something like that, and fleshing out with sources and whatnot.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

@FeelSunny, I'm amazed you could call an incident "alleged" which is preserved in news accounts and audio-visual archives. What am I missing here? VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing, Wehwalt, see sources below.

• Different sources claim different date of the incident: 23.09[5], 29.09 [6][7], 12.10[8], 13.10[9].
• Different sources claim Khrushev was responding to different persons: Lorenzo Sumulong (Carlson, 2009) and Harold Macmillan[10][11][12].Other people are also named as opponents of Khruschev.
• William Taubman, a winner of Pulitzer prize (received for the biography of Khruschev) claims "it may never have happened". He also notes that no pictures or video-recordings of the incident are known of, and quotes John Loengard, then-NYT picture editor, who witnessed Khruschev speeches in the UN, and argues this shoe-banging never happened (which was the only reason none of dozens of photographers present made a single picture of it).[13]

And so on, and so forth. This whole thing looks starts to look more like an urban legend. I don't say it did not happen, what I say is many reliable sources claim it may have not happened, or doubt that what happened was correctly described in other sources. That's exactly what we call a controversial event, and I don't think we should describe it as a proven fact.

P.S. Wehwalt, there above you see Vecrumba's answer to myself. He(she) also claims that the incident "is preserved in ... audio-visual archives". That's just another evidence of how far it has gone by now - many people that do not dig deep into sources claim they saw "some picture" or "some video" of Khruschev actually banging his shoe on his deck (sometimes adding he was shouting "we will bury you" at the time:D). So the legend is now being transformed into a popular myth. That's why I would like to see this article as clear as possible about the nature of this incident. Thanks, FeelSunny (talk) 08:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

P.P.S.Here you go, another example of the belief Vecrumba demonstrated: [14]. A former U.S. history teacher, and now a columnist in a regional newspaper: "ugly little bald guy with a wart on his face took his shoe off during a speech, banged it on the podium at the United Nations in New York City and declared: “We will bury you!”".

Can we, based on Taubman's column, agree on something along the lines of "and brandished his shoe, though his biographer Taubman points out that whether he actually banged it on his desk, as he became notorious for, is uncertain, with no photographs of the incident extant and witnesses disagreeing on Khrushchev's actions." I'm generally convinced, though a bit uncertain as to how the Times, in that day a reputable newspaper, printed it if it didn't happen. Even (especially!) if one reporter said it didn't happen.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your description, though I'd probably not attribute it to Taubman only. Attribution to a certain person always undermines credibility. And, probably, I wouldn't call Times that reliable, knowing they 1) thought in 1970 that shoe-banging happened during Macmillan's speech[15], and 2) they used a doctored image in 2008 to demonstrate how he banged his shoe at the rostrum in response to Sumulong[16]. See, wherever you look at in this story, you see some inconsistency.FeelSunny (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. For example, why was it reported if it didn't happen? And why didn't Khrushchev object? Let's see what other views are from people.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Well, Taubman describes in detail what was reported and what happened, and he quotes sources: Times man, James Feron, who was at the United Nations but did not write a story, recalls, "I actually saw Khrushchev not bang his shoe.", Khrushchev's son, Sergei, asked NBC and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for a tape of the event, but neither could find one. A former CBS Moscow correspondent told me that his search turned up nothing either, etc.
• I linked to sources claiming it happened on 4 different days, so did it really happen 4 times?
• As to Khrushchev, I doubt he was that interested in the US media as to denounce anything, really.FeelSunny (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• I still think that it is necessary to attribute. If doubt is expressed and is not attributed, there will be a running series of edits to it. Granted, by the way, that there is no tape, but neither is there a tape of it not happening as far as I know.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• I am all for attributing all accounts about the accident. Sumulong, Macmillan, all dates, etc. This whole story really worth explaining in details here - because when one thinks Khruschev, one remembers "a boot in the hand".FeelSunny (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Or "We will bury you", a certainly misunderstood comment. Perhaps someone should write an article on the shoe-banging incident, and then we could put in a hatnote and a link.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

There is an article. Bad thing it all needs rewriting...FeelSunny (talk) 06:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I have just amended the Shoe-banging incident article which described the incident as alleged. Numerous newspapers reported it happening on 12 October. Khrushchev discussed it in his memoirs. And in his 2003 book Taubman accepts that it happened.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

There is now a discussion under way at the Shoe-banging incident page about whether the incident should be described as "alleged". I wonder if anyone watching this page is interested in contributing. It might seem trivial, but I don't think Wikipedia should be promoting a "conspiracy theory", especially when I don't think we have a source that says it didn't happen.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Religion

Regarding this revert, the references do not pass WP:RS criteria for a featured article: most of them do not site their sources, like [17] [18]. What is the reference for this book [19]? Where does it say Khrushchev was an anti-religious chammpion as the leader of the Soviet Union. He was highly ideological, and worked hard to bring the Communist ideals, particularly the Soviet policy toward religion, based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism? Materialscientist (talk) 03:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The first one and a half sentences are from the Russian wiki. I will ask for a source from the authors there. The part on Soviet policy on religion comes from this [20] Soviet policy toward religion has been based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism (see Glossary), which has made atheism the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and, ultimately, the elimination of religious beliefs.--BoguSlav 03:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

That sentence is not related to a specific time or specific leader, and there is no evidence this source is reliable - it does not identify itself, and only leaves a vague note "Based on the Country Studies Series by Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress". Materialscientist (talk) 03:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does identify a time frame. It refers to Soviet policy, which was in the time frame roughly between 1921-1991. As for the reliability of the source, I would recommend that you don't challenge the credibility of the Library of Congress.--BoguSlav 04:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, I think you will be very hard-pressed if you try to deny the following fact. In 1959, Khrushchev famously promised that he would show the Soviet people the last priest on television by 1980. [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] --BoguSlav 03:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

One step at a time. "Soviet policy" is not a time frame, and 1921-1991 is your conclusion. "Based on a document from the Library of Congress" tells nothing about affiliation of that source with the Library of Congress; a reliable source is expected to identify its author, year and publisher. I see none of that. As to the 5 references in your last reply, news articles do not qualify as reliable historical sources, they don't even present their sources. Materialscientist (talk) 04:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

if you truly believe that the Soviet Union was impartial to religious people, then you should read: Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union and Soviet anti-religious legislation--BoguSlav 04:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe additions to featured articles should comply with the basic wikipedia policies such as WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, and wish you the same. Materialscientist (talk) 04:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I find that hard to believe considering that you are editing outside of your area of expertise. Most of the sources I provided are in Russian, and yet you claim that they are unreliable without understanding the language.--BoguSlav 05:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Let us go back to my replies, especially on WP:NOR. Do you have any reference for this statement? Materialscientist (talk) 05:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Featured article

I think that when this article was promoted to featured status, they overlooked the fact that there are pretty much no Russian language sources here. In fact, almost all sources are based on a several English language books. This completely undermines the Russian perspective of their former leader (Soviet Union), making this article extermely Amerocentric, and therfore, biased. Just imagine an article on President Obama without providing a single English-language source. This article should be reviewed for NPOV. Otherwise, it is not featured article material.--BoguSlav 07:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It is fine to have FA sources written in any language, but English is preferred on English wikipedia. You probably mean Russian authors rather than Russian language. About half of the authors seem of Russian (Slavic) origin upon a cursory look (Fursenko, Khrushchev, Medvedev, Zubok, Neizvestny). Materialscientist (talk) 07:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Corn versus Wheat

The article used the term "corn" without any disambiguation. This seems to be the common usage in histories too (British English is favored by Russian historians too?). In current American English corn is maize but in British English corn is wheat. A non-specialist American wikipedia reader will come away with the idea that the USSR was (failing in) growing maize not wheat. Wheat is unambiguous to all English speakers hence the change. Kevin Purcell (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I have seen pictures of Khrushchev in corn fields (i.e., maize). Are you saying wheat was what he was promoting?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

He was promoting maize, which was relatively unpopular in the USSR; wheat has always been the major crop. Materialscientist (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Khrushchev

Surely Khrushchev ought to be pronounced "Khrushchyov", as Gorbachev is pronounced "Gorbachyov". The cyrillic letter Ë is pronounced "yo". This would mean the article is wrong. I'd like to canvass opinion before I change the article: do you think the article should be amended? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plokijnu (talk • contribs) 23:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Most of us don't know enough about the Russian language to offer a reasonable opinion. I suggest posting a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia, asking that response be posted here. Cresix (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I have looked at several Russian language books, and I have determined that the Russian pronunciation of ë is indeed 'yo' as in 'yonder'. It is the same pronunciation as ë in Gorbachëv (Gorbachyov), Pëtr (Pyotr Ttchaikovsky), and Fëdor (Fyodor Dostoyevski). Also, please listen to the audio file attached in the article. It sounds as if it is spoken by a native Russian speaker. I use as my main reference The Penguin Russian Course, compiled by J. L. I. Fennell, first published in 1961, and adapted from Russian by N. Potapova, which was published in 1958, USSR. I will amend the article accordingly. Plokijnu (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

In some Slavic countries, transliteration is fixed by laws, but not in Russia, as far as I know, and several versions exist for some sounds. Even when it is legalized, we still have to follow major use in English-speaking literature per WP:NAME. Anyway, this is all about spelling, not about pronunciation, which is handled by IPA. Materialscientist (talk) 01:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are not making yourself very clear. Could you expand on, and clarify, what you have said, please? What is English-speaking literature? Do you mean English literature or spoken word? By 'laws' and 'legalized' do you mean to say that it is, or was, in some countries unlawful? "...Several versions exist for some sounds": versions of what? "...This is all about spelling, not about pronunciation": are you sure? I don't think spelling is in doubt – Nikita Khrushchev in English and Никита Хрущёв in Russian. Etc. etc. Plokijnu (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for my sketchy comments. I'll add more hoping they help :-). (i) Some Slavic countries like Bulgaria have adopted laws defining transliteration of names into Latin alphabet. Russia and Ukraine have not (for example, international passports were issued in "French" transliteration until recent years when "English" versions became more dominant). While pronunciation is fixed in those languages (normative versions), transliteration is not. As a result, many sounds or letters have 2-3 common transliterations. For example, sch and shch for щ; ё is usually yo, but e, io or jo are also used. (ii) There is no use discussing pronunciation (of Slavic) names outside Slavic world because they are usually mispronounced, for obvious reasons like absence of sound щё. By "English-speaking literature" I meant literature written in English (sorry). Materialscientist (talk) 03:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Great stuff. Well, I think we can definitely both agree that transliteration is done and dusted! There's no point in attempting to change it now, and this would be no place to do it. It's spelled Khrushchev in nearly every book one looks in. But it is your second point where I think you're amiss. "There is no use discussing pronunciation (of Slavic) names outside [the] Slavic world because they are usually mispronounced": This is exactly why I wish the article to be amended. This article, and many like it, shows the reader how names ought to be pronounced. And we should be honest about it. I can't fathom why you should want the incorrect pronunciation retained while you admit that Slavic names are mispronounced. If we are to tell readers that it is pronounced without the 'yo', then we should really delete the audio file too, surely, and re-record it.Plokijnu (talk) 03:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Just have a quick look at the Mikhail Gorbachev article. (The earlier version updated at 15.34 on 23 June is better. I'm minded to revert the edits of Futurist110 because nowhere before have I seen 'Gorbachov'.) The normal English spelling is there, and the correct pronunciation – Gorbachyov – is also there. Plokijnu (talk) 03:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

We have to follow wikipedia policies, which say that spelling must follow the written English literature. Pronunciation is handled separately via IPA (see, for example, note "a" in this article). Materialscientist (talk) 04:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I think we would be ill-advised to have anything other than how it is pronounced by English speakers, i.e. "-ev". I do not think Gorbachev is any guide, any more than though is a guide for the pronunciation of rough. I think we are over thinking this.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 January 2013

I would like for the line "He did not suffer the deadly fate of some previous losers of Soviet power struggles, but was pensioned off with an apartment in Moscow and a dacha in the countryside." to be changed to "He did not suffer the deadly fate of some previously deposed Soviet politicians, instead being given a bona fide retirement by the Communist Party which included a pension, an apartment in Moscow and a dacha in the countryside." 69.14.38.40 (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the improvement. Can you say why this is better? And I'm not quite certain who paid his pension, that isn't sourced in the article, whether it was the state or the party.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Space program

There's too few about his influence on Soviet space program. The space program is the greatest achievment of Khrushchev's era, and somehow it is given only a couple of lines.Garret Beaumain (talk) 06:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Add a few sentences if you like, just make sure they are properly sourced.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Succession box?

This looks like an article that should have a succession box at the bottom but there isn't one. Is there a feeling that the infoboxes and templates contain all the relevant information and a succession box is redundant, or is this an omission? Afraid I don't know enough about the subject to write one myself. Skteosk (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't it just duplicate the information in the infobox?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: What Religion Was Nikita Khrushchev?

69.40.55.101 posted this comment on 6 November 2013 (view all feedback).

What Religion Was Nikita Khrushchev?

The Soviet Union being anti-religion, he probably did not affiliate with any religion but especially no religion was disclosed as it would have gone against the union's principle. Any thoughts?

Xionbox^₪ 14:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

We could put Religion: Athiest in the infobox. I think it was there at one time.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Except atheism is not a religion... If you want religion mentioned in the infobox, put "none", but even then it's best to have a source for it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 20, 2013; 20:40 (UTC)

I don't greatly care either way. Reading the article makes it clear that as a loyal Bolshevik, he did not adhere to a religion, but I understand that everyone wants summary points in a compact form. This one is borderline though. Why would there be an expectation that a Soviet leader have a religion? Surely that would be the norm.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Wehwalt -- if, unusually for a Soviet, he had a religion then it would be worth noting in the infobox, but if he adhered to the norm of atheism I wouldn't bother including the field at all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

More popular then Brezhnev

I've added a section about contradictions between this article and Leonid Brezhnev to Talk:Leonid_Brezhnev#More_popular_then_Khrushchev; it would be better if most of the discussion went there, instead of split across two talk pages.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Nikita Khrushchev - speeches in the United States or about the United States

I'd like to see a copy of the early 1960's speech (in full context) in which Nikita Khrushchev presented in the United States (or in reference to the United States) in which he speaks of an America; with his prediction that its' citizens will become willingly participants in becoming a Communist Nation.

This speech aired on our local talk radio about 18 months ago and I found it to be "spot on" with the current policies of our Federal Government, as well as the majority of our citizen's liberal viewpoints.

Please add this speech to the Wikipedia page devoted to Khrushchev.

Thank you... Christine Parrott ChristineEliseCe@charter.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.14.40 (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

We do not add complete speeches to articles, there is a sister project called Wikiquote that could host a copy of the speech if you could find one. --Wehwalt (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Long texts go to Wikisource. You'd need to make sure that make sure that the translation was public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Khruschev's visit to IBM

Re: While visiting Thomas Watson, Jr.'s IBM headquarters, Khrushchev expressed little interest in the computers, but greatly admired the self-service cafeteria, and, on his return, introduced self-service in the Soviet Union.[195]

I don't know of any evidence Khruschev visited IBM headquarters in New York. Rather he visited IBM's Disk Drive Storage division in San Jose, California. There are pictures of him in the IBM San Jose cafeteria that give rise to the anecdote.

Atilla19 (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, will tweak.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimea

Given the headlines and the lack of discussion in this article about the transfer of Crimea in 1954, we should probably add something. Is anyone aware of sources that go beyond the "Khrushchev gave Crimea to Ukraine because he really liked Ukraine" level?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a lack of critical attention to this issue. There are a few points that could be made. Firstly, Crimea was the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic until 1954. It was recognised as different and was obviously anomalous, being disconnected with the rest of the RSFSR. Secondly, Khrushchev seems to have been genuinely remorseful about Stalin's treatment of Ukraine. But sources???--Jack Upland (talk) 10:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Infobox too long?

Wehwalt, I saw your recent edit summary. It does seem to be pushing the boundaries of sanity. I'd have thought the most senior and/or longest-held offices/memberships were worth keeping, but not all of them. Also I strongly believe we can do without medal ribbons/icons in infoboxes or anywhere else, but admittedly that's always been a bugbear of mine in MilHist and WP as a whole. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

I'd toss the memberships and try to keep it to about five. Anyone who cares can put them at the foot of the article as succession boxes, though I won't bother myself to.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: The problem is that it doesn't make sense; Politburo, Secretariat and Orgburo membership are all more important then Chairman of the Council of Ministers, and arguably more important to mention then his chairmanship of the RSFSR Bureau. Soviet politics aren't democratic politics; mentioning Khrushchev's membership is akeen to mentioning Obama's tenure in the US Congress (yes, while its true the Supreme Soviet was the actual state counterpart, the party counterpart and therefore the one vested with power, the Central Committee served this purpose). Mentioning his tenure, in the infobox, in the Politburo, Secretariat and Orgburo also easily explains why he was so powerful before he became leader; the post of Moscow Secretary and Ukrainian First Secretary were handed to him, formally, by the Politburo, and his dual membership in the Politburo and the Secretariat explains why he became First Secretary in the first place. The Orgburo was responsible for organizing the party, and carrying out reorganizations.. It literally appointed officials to top posts, something which led to Khrushcehv being able to form a patronage network of his own. Not mentioning them would seem strange, very strange indeed, considered that its also not mentioned anywhere else. If you want to shorten it down, then it should be; General Secretary, full Politburo, Secretariat, Orgburo, candidate Politburo and full Central Committee...--TIAYN (talk) 12:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Marriage dates?

On Nina's page, it says: 'Kukharchuk and Khrushchev officially married only in 1965, after Khrushchev was retired from office.' What is the significance of the date of 1923 quoted in the infobox? Valetude (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

They lived together and held themselves out as man and wife, as apparently was acceptable as it certainly did not inhibit Khrushchev's career prospects.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Sources

This article relies on a few sources repetitively, which doesn't seem to me to be good.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

It's what we had at the time.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Shevchenko Prize

According to List of Shevchenko National Prize laureates, Khrushchev won the 1964 Shevchenko Prize for "big contribution in developing and strengthening the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Culture and due to the 150 Anniversary of Shevchenko's birthday". This should be mentioned in the article along with any other distinctions he received. Opencooper (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nikita Khrushchev. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090816211643/http://www.regels.org/humanright.htm to http://www.regels.org/humanright.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)