Talk:Lavrentiy Beria/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Old talk

Adam, please watch what you are doing when you are reverting one's edits. First, you rebroke the fixed links. Second, you restored the POV-ish phrasing: "it is true...". Mikkalai 16:32, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

After re-reading the section I see your point: "it is true" is quite logical in the context. When I saw it first, it seemed to me as an extra embellishment. Next time I'll be more carteful with context. Mikkalai 01:14, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, Adam is intent on adding to the intro that Beria was a notorious murderer and rapist. I have no personal opinion on whether he was really a serial rapist or murdered people with his own hands, because I have not reviewed the evidence to such an extent as would be necessary to draw a conclusion, but on the other hand, this really makes no difference, because whatever I think is not history's final judgment. It seems to me totally contrary to NPOV to unequivocally state that a controversial historical figure is guilty of such crimes. NPOV would require the evidence to be presented without simply telling the reader what he or she should believe. Adam can write 10 paragraphs worth of documentation for the charges if he wants, as long as he does not force a conclusion on the reader. He knows that the history of the Stalinist USSR and its leading personalities is controversial and needs to be treated as such. Everyking 11:18, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

First let's get our facts right. I did not add the phrase in question, someone else did. I merely objected to its removal, or rather to its removal on the grounds that it is "POV" to state the fact that Beria was both a murderer, in a personal hands-on sense, and a serial rapist. These facts have been thoroughly documented in recent post-Soviet biographies. If Everyking is going to intervene in debates about Soviet history he needs to do some reading first. These facts were also examined by the Russian courts when an attempt was made to overturn the 1953 verdict against Beria.

Now, if the phrase was removed in order to state the matter more fully in a following paragraph (for example), I would have no objection. If I was writing an article about Beria, that is how I would handle the issue. Since this is not my article, however, what I would do with the phrase is not the point. The previous author has stated the matter in this way, and has every right to do so. The reference cannot be simply deleted because of some absurd perversion of the NPOV rule. Stating facts can never be POV, even if they are held not to be stated fully enough or in the right place.

Everyking says: "It seems to me totally contrary to NPOV to unequivocally state that a controversial historical figure is guilty of such crimes." Has he really thought through the implications of this statement? He is saying that it can never be said that Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mobutu, Ceaucescu etc, were guilty of the various crimes they committed, no matter how thoroughly these crimes are documented and attested and generally accepted as proved. What kind of rule is that for an encyclopaedia?

Adam 11:43, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• I think it's wrong to use the word "notorious" here. Notorious means generally known and talked of, especially in an unfavorable sense. He may be notorious now, to historians, but I don't think he was notorious at the time, in the sense that the citizens of Moscow, say, thought of him being primarily a murderer or rapist. They thought of him as being the dreaded head of the secret police, yes, and the most fearsome crony of Stalin, but not primarily as being a man who carried out personal murders or who abducted women on the street to be raped at his apartment. I think this lead paragraph should say that he was a state-appointed murderer of millions of people, or words to that effect. The fact that he was also, at times, a personal murder and serial rapist should, I think, be in a later paragraph.Hayford Peirce 01:06, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Silly weasel words

Oh so it is only "widely believed" that Beria was responsible for millions of deaths, is it? Why does Everyking persists in rewriting this article the conceal the historical facts? Does he do the same thing for Himmler or Pol Pot? This is the use of "NPOV" weasel words to conceal facts which have been amply documented and should be stated as facts. However I won't bother with a revert war at the moment, since this is a very poor article and I intend completely rewriting it when I get time. Adam 12:53, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To say that I am trying to conceal anything by adding objective, qualifying phrases like "widely believed" is a ridiculous assertion. I look forward to reading your rewrite, though; will it display the same rigorous neutrality as your rewrite of the article on Robert Conquest? Everyking 14:32, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Adam - these weasel words take the desire for NPOV into a sick joke. Qualifying proven facts is not NPOV PMA 16:08, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jewish?

Wasn't Beria Jewish?

• I can't say for sure that he wasn't, but the only sources on the Web that suggest he was Jewish are clearly antisemitic, and the context is always either of the form "Communism was a Jewish conspiracy and Beria's another damned Jew" or "Stalin wasn't all that bad; it was the Jew Beria who did the real nasty stuff." --jpgordon 02:53, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Beria was in fact, not Jewish (unless he converted or something... hehe). He was an ethnic Georgian with an Orthodox background (see the newly added early life info). JackO'Lantern 06:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • To be more specific, he was Mingrelian, which I guess you could describe as a kind of Georgian. --LarsMarius 18:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing the vandalism below, people who are reading this talk page do not need to be shouted at. If this person had written it in non caps or left a signature I might have left it, it adds nothing but that's not the point, it is a talk page. What we do not need is slurs shouted at us.Colin 8 02:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Beria is not a Russia name, it is unquestionably a jewish name, it is a name from the Talmud referring to a celestial mystical heaven. Also Lavrenty refers to the Levant in meaning.

Beria was not jewish! He, unfortunately to me and other Georgians, was Georgian, in particular Megrelian. Beria is common Megrelian name.

He was a Crypto-Jew. --Nicoliani (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Beria's father's name Khulaevich or Son of Khulae, is not Mingrelian, and my Russian friends from nearby Stavropol tell me that Beria is a Jewish name without question. A search for 'Beria' brings up people by that name who are members of synagogues in America. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Its often spoken of in a very matter of fact way, that Beria was a Jew and killed Stalin because he was about to start a big anti-Jewish purge, but he was born in Georgia, and wasn't that far outside the Pale were Jews were supposed to live in Czarist Russia? Isn't all of Caucasus outside the pale?--Dudeman5685 (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Simple. No, he wasn't and btw he was atheist with an orthodox background. The names Beria and Lavrenti are not that usual in Georgia but they are used. Beria was born in Georgia and was a Georgian. There is nothing questionable on that. Besides that, there are no real sources on any claim that he was a jew and only nonreliable to nonserious claims and reports about allegedly jewish rutes. End of discussion, unless there will pop up any surprising facts, what I highly doubt. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 07:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The article seems to imply he was Jewish. I would be surprised if he wasn't; given his support of all things Jewish; his name; and his distinctive Jewish looks. Really, what sources do you have that he wasn't Jewish? You talk about religious background, but "Jewish" has been a cultural and ethnic identity for the past 100 years. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Soviet phraseology

The following piece replaced. Mikkalai 00:10, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Georgia was at this time still being contested between the Bolshevik government and armed Georgian nationalists

There was no "armed nationalists", there was Democratic Republic of Georgia at this time.

Mingrelians

Mingrelians or Megrels are 100% Georgians and they are not related to the Georgians neither strictly speaking nor softly speaking. I have deleted that incorrect phrasing.

He was still mingrelian. The info can be presented in correct way, rather than simply deleted. Mikkalai 16:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mikkakalai, Megrelians are Georgians. Please don't doubt it. I am Megrelian and therefore I am Georgian. there are some Megrelian nationalists that draw a line btwn Georgians and Megrelians but this is a stupit and false thing.

Mingrelians have their own language (a dialect of Georgian), and culture. Modern Mingrelians not differ from the rest of other Georgians but in times of Beria these differences were significant. Even Stalin said that Mingrelians "are not real Georgians" and held a series of repressions against them.

What is your point !? Mingrelians are Georgians. Period. Like Bavarians are Germans.

Urban legends ("Personal character")

The vigor with which npov is applied throughout this article varies considerably; but the "Personal character" section clearly stands out. It is a pure fantasy on the face of it and is not rooted in any documents. Or if such documents exist, they are not referenced.

The section is heavily relied upon the book of the Russian "historian" Anton Antonov-Ovseenko ("the first fully researched biography of Beria", cf. Лаврентий Берия). To begin with, the book is not "fully researched", not "well researched", and not at all researched in the Academic sense of the word. It is not related to the "the opening of the Soviet archives" after the end of the Soviet regime in 1991, as the section implies. This source claims that Anton Antonov-Ovseenko used as his sources "private archives and memoires of old Bolsheviks and Menshiviks" ("В качестве источников широко использовал частные архивные материалы, воспоминания старых большевиков и меньшевиков"). No specific source is cited in the book, however.

To put it another way, the book collects and inflates gossip and innuendo spread by old communist butchers not unlike Anton Antonov-Ovseenko's own father, Vladimir Antonov-Ovseenko, who in 1917 organised arrest of Russia's legitimate government and looting of Winter Palace, and is well-known to Russians as "the butcher of Tambov" for organizing of mass murders of civilians in the Tambov region in 1921.

The other source for the section appears to be the following Christmas Eve horror story in London's Telegraph, which in turn relies on certain Anil, an Indian worker of the Tunisian Embassy in Moscow for the last decade or so who was showing a "plastic bag of human bones he had found in the cellars"---no matter that plastic was not even available in 1953. Complete drivel, actually.

Is this the gold standard of substantiation Wikipedia should adhere to? If so, let's go ahead and fill Wikipedia pages with sexy images of Hillary Clinton killing Vincent Foster in the midst of a hot and humid Southern night, or MI-5 doing in Princess Diana in Paris. A perceptive mind like Adam's will have no troubles finding sources for all these and zillion more "urban legends".

So, that's how I suggest we rename the section, "Urban legends". After all, it would be a pity to have to part with such picturesque material altogether.

I am putting a "disputed" tag on the article, and will give Adam time to comment.

--Alexei 02:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Forgot to mention: Antonov-Ovseenko's book was written in 1979-88, before the opening of the "Soviet archives". --Alexei 02:22, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

• I will ignore Alexei's rather silly and inflated rhetoric, and will just make the obvious points that (a) the behaviour of Vladimir Antonov-Ovseenko is irrelevant to the veracity of books written by his son, and (b) the bones found in Beria's cellar were put in the plastic bag by the people who found them and not by Beria.

• If Alexei wishes to edit the article to reflect his view that Beria did not do the things historians say he did, he is welcome to do so, provided he provides sources, as I have done.

• I can't find any reference to Antonov-Ovseenko's book being published before 1999. Here is the Library of Congress reference:

LC Control Number: 00306220  
Type of Material: Text (Book, Microform, Electronic, etc.) 
Brief Description: Antonov-Ovseenko, Anton, 1920-
Beriia / Anton Antonov-Ovseenko.
Moskva : Izd-vo AST, 1999.
469 p. : ill. ; 23 cm. 

Possibly Alexei is confusing this book with Antonov-Ovseenko's The Time of Stalin: Portrait of a Tyranny, New York, 1981.

Adam 05:11, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

• Re the Ovseenko's book timing, cross-check the reference and see that the _last_ line says, in Russian, "Москва. 1979-1988 гг.". Agreed, the book was not _published_ then, but the point is, the author had not have access to any secret archives at the time of _writing_. And he is not even claiming this. Where did this statement come from, anyway?

I don't read Russian and I don't know what "Москва. 1979-1988 гг.". means or refers to. It is clearly not a date of publication. If the book was published in 1999 it seems reasonable to assume that the author used the archival resources available to him in the 1990s. Why would he write a book in 1979 and publish it 20 years later without revision? Adam 06:38, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

"Москва. 1979-1988 гг." means, written in Moscow from 1979 through 1988. 11 (not 20) years before the publication. Can you even count? Sorry, scrap it. FYI, in Soviet Union, it was not unusual---in fact, it was a norm---to not being able to publish books for decades because of censorship. Not London, OK? Not Melbourne. Not Sydney. Get it? Examples include Mikhail Bulgakov's "The Master and Margarite" published some 30 years after being written, V. Grossman's books, etc. Rings a bell? Hello?

(Free advice) As a general rule, your being a journalist, even if something seems "reasonable to assume", don't assume, research and find out what the truth is. --Alexei 08:07, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

• Adam, neither you nor I have any way of knowing who put which bones where; but do you not agree that this entire story sounds---and probably is---a myth? How about the likelyhood of a foreigner finding anything of interest in the cellars of Beria's house after (and, 30 years after, at that) KGB has thoroughly cleaned up the house being passed to an _embassy_. Come on... Or, Beria hiding remains of the people he allegedly killed under the wall of his own kitchen? In the presence of his mother, disabled sister, and wife? And what would he hide this for and from whom? Be reasonable, admit it is fairy tales... He may be responsible for millions of lives, but it is clear he did not kill people in his kitchen and hide them under his house walls.

I find it perfectly believable. Beria was clearly a criminal sadist. But if the allegation has been disproved by Russian authors or journalists, you are free to cite that fact. Adam 06:38, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I do not find it believable at all. What are we to do?

And YOU are shifting the burden of proof here. It is YOUR duty to establish the facts, not, actually, mine or anybody else's to refute. Shit, or get off the pot.

"Beria was clearly a criminal sadist" is, clearly, a POV. --Alexei 08:07, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

• The sources, yes, I have already added a couple which I will use. But Antonov-Ovseenko's book is not, imo, a reliable source, I was trying to say to you. Not Academic. Not documented. And biased, yes. Here is what Anton himself says (about the Stalin's book, but it equally applies to Beria's): "Может быть, автору не удалось сдержать чувств человека, пережившего ужасы террора" (~="Perhaps, the author did fail to restrain the emotions of the person himself subjected to the nightmares of terror"). We should base our writing on something firmer than this.

• And, it is not that I wish to express my point of view the same way as "you have done", but, imo, we should not be in the business of expressing "points of view".

Can we agree?

If you wish to dispute that the statements made in the article are factual, you are free to edit the article accordingly, and cite your sources (in English please). Adam 06:38, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Sources do not have to be in English---as sources go, most of the Russian-related material will actually not be. --Alexei 08:07, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

--Alexei 06:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

If childish abuse and tiresome heavy irony is all you are capable of I am no longer interested in this discussion. I will assess any edits you make on their merits. And yes, at an English-language encyclopaedia sources have to be in English. You are free to go and edit the Russian Wikipedia. Adam 08:57, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

This is not the case. The sources do not need to be in English for the English wikipedia to use them. If you cannot speak Russian, then that means you personally may not be able to verify them, but for the many English native speakers who took the trouble to learn Russian they are verifiable. We do not need to be held back with regards to facts by the laziness of those who have not bothered to learn it, Adam. This is not about catering for the lowest common denominator. Furthermore, your suggestion that someone whose mother tongue is Russian should "go and edit the Russian Wikipedia" comes across as rather bigoted and nationalistic, if I may say so. Since his English is clearly good enough to write here, there is no reason why he should not participate. Uncle Davey (Talk) 10:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Makkalai, what was your reason to remove the reference to the book by Avtorhanov? I intend to use it as a basis for rewriting the piece on Slansky, Gomulka, etc. later on. --Alexei 04:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

It was removed as unused. It cannot be "further reading" in English encyclopedia, but may be used as a reference to the source of article material when you add it. Mikkalai 00:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Makkalai, I see that you've removed the two stories that I agree are compelete crap. My problem is though that the Antonov-Ovseenko's tales are equally unfounded, and yet you think they should be preserved. So what goes in and what stays out?

Further, there are no stories of sadistic nature left there anymore. Yet I predict they are going to resurface. It is better imo to tell what they are and then assert absence of supporting evidence (or give the evidence if such exists). For now, the phrase "no police report could be uncovered of Tunisian Embassy finding human remains on its grounds" looks out of place as the original story is removed.

Convince me we should leave it as is, then I will rename the section to "Allegations of sexual misconduct" and remove any mention of sadism altogether.

On the policy: why can't we have a newspaper article as an external source? This is where the Ovseenko's quote comes from. --Alexei 02:59, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

For now, I am reinserting the "bones" tales to keep the story from breaking. --Alexei 03:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Persecution of Leningrad intellectuals: Zhdanov vs. Beria

What is the source for the claim made in the "Postwar history" that Beria was largely responsible for the Zvezda/Leningrad affair (Akhmatova and Zoschenko). We should consider removing the claim if no such evidence is presented. --Alexei 07:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

This has been resolved by Adam's removal of the line. --Alexei 22:24, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Alexei's edit

I have considerably condensed Alexei's edit (and improved its English). I have removed:

• the statement that the Soviet leadership made up the allegations against Beria. This is Alexei's opinion. If he has evidence for this he is free to produce it.

I did not make such a statement, here is what it if fact was: "the Communist Leadership has early on decided to spice up the charges with informal accusations ...". This is factual and supported by the cited sources. Indeed, (1) Shatalin represented the said leadership; (2) the accusations were informal in that they were made at a Party meeting rather than in the police investigation that then concurrently proceeded; and (3) the charges were made to spice up the main charges for which Beria was eventually convicted---as you are right to point out, these were not even criminal charges. --Alexei 22:22, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

• the long quote from Shatalin, which is unnecessary - all he alleges is that Beria had sex with lots of women, which is hardly the most serious allegation made against him.

agreed, but I will restore the part about the 25+ list as it factually contradicts, and thus helps to put into the right light, the later statement by Khruschev.--Alexei 22:22, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

• the material about Vladimir Antonov-Ovseenko, which is just an attempt to smear his son by association.
• the assertion that there is no verification of the story about the bones in the Tunisian Embassy. The story in the Telegraph is quite detailed, and if it is fabricated someone must have said so. Alexei should provide a source for this assertion.

here I foresee that we will have more of a war.

To begin with, I think the story should stay in (and I objected to Makkalai's removing it). It is not because I believe the story, but because it is a good (and rare) quotable example of such kind of stories.

However, the story of the bones found during the re-tiling of the kitchen is unattributed, and, as you probably know by now :-), any attempt to unearth the source on the internet will fail (I have researched the Russian Internet as well).

The story of the bones in the cellars is attributed (to "Anil"). Any attempt to confirm it on the internet, outside of the Telegraph's article context, will likewise fail. However, the story is a fantasy (probably by "Anil" rather them Mr. Strauss) on its face, and here is why.

If any human remains were indeed found anywhere in the embassy, the embassy would surely make a police report, police would start an investigation, and the first thing they'd do would be to take the remains into evidence and run pathology tests to ascertain the origin and age of the bones, as well as whether they were human. This would not leave "Anil" any bones to carry around in a plastic bag.

As part of my research, I have tried to uncoved any mention of the bones found there in the press releases of Moscow police, FSB, or police chronicle in Moscow papers, but did not find anything. This makes the removed statement ("...police report could not be uncovered...") factual.

Thoughts?

--Alexei 22:22, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Adam 09:16, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

The first photo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ac.beria.jpg) appears to be a mirror image---the gold start SHOULD be on the left side---??? --Alexei 22:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Postwar politics

I am planning on expanding the section and changing the plot line wrt the Slansky etc. trials.

Here is what appears to have happened:

• Beria staffed the secret police and leadership of East European countries (which the current article correctly states)
• A large percentage of these leaders were Jewish. A substantial number of Beria's subordinates in all his capacities were also Jewish (Vannikov, Raikhman, etc.)
• When Beria surrendered his state-security work and concentrated on the atomic project and other military work (1945-6?), the state security went to Abakumov (not to Merkulov as Beria wanted), and later to Ignatiev
• Abakumov, using Stalin's growing antisemitism, started persecution of Jews (Jewish Anti-fascist Committee, then Slansky, Berman, doctor's plot, etc.), as well as mingrelians, with the aim of getting to Beria as these were "his people".

All these campaigns were put to an end, and the persecutors themselves arrested, immediately after Beria's rise to power in 3/53.

Thoughts?

That seems quite plausible, but it cannot be stated as fact here without sources. Alexei needs to realise that this is not the Journal of Speculation about Soviet History, it is an encyclopaedia, and nothing at all controversial can be presented without sources - that is, without showing that someone else has said it first, in print. Adam 01:13, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

The original plot is published in Avtorkhanov's book. I know you can't read Russian; the original pub. was in French: "STALINE ASSASSINE: Le complot Bèria" PARIS, Èd. PRESSES DE LA RENAISSANCE, 1980. in-8é, 289 p. I can't find an English translation.

It is also discussed in Amy Knight's book.

I have been just looking to see if this plot seems completely off-the-wall to anybody---is it even controversial?

--Alexei 01:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I rewrote the "postwar politics" section, based mostly on Amy Knight's book (pp. 132--175) which is supported by Avtorkhanov's account.

--Alexei 00:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I object to the use of the term "anti-semitic campaign" in the context of this Wikipedia entry - and in post-WWII Soviet politics, generally. The purges initiated by Stalin and his epigones targeted indeed many Jews living in the USSR but there are two important differences : 1. The purges were confined almost exclusively to people in the corridors of power (and that includes the unlucky Kremlin doctors, in the Doctors' Plot). There was never the massive persecution that has characterized all anti-semitic campaigns in History. 2. Jews were disproportionately represented in the Soviet leadership, from the time of the 1917 Revolution onwards, thus making them also disproportionately large targets in any purge affecting the leadership in general. (The reasons for Jewish pro-Bolshevism should be traced, among other factors, to the anti-semitism of most European nationalisms, and the pogroms of the old Czarist regime in Russia.)

--The Gnome 00:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Beria's bones

I don't object to the edits Alexei has made. But in response to his arguments above:

• Alexei says: ""the Communist Leadership has early on decided to spice up the charges with informal accusations ...". This is factual." If it is factual there must be a source, unless Alexei was an eye-witness to the deliberations of the CPSU leaders in 1953. At the moment it is just Alexei's opinion.

"decided" was a questionable wording, I have changed it to "sought". Sergo Beria says that, rephrasing a bit, it's a complete fantasy that Khrushchev et al. decided to use to smear his father. If I follow you, you only dispute that they "decided" to do it, not that they have done it? It is becoming hair-splitting... --Alexei 01:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

• The bones story is not unattributed. It is attributed to the Daily Telegraph. The Telegraph is a reputable newspaper and Alexei can't just assert it is untrue without a source. He needs to come up with a source asserting that the story is false. Presumably when the Telegraph story appeared in 2003 there was some comment on it in the Russian media. If Alexei can come up with a quote from the Russian media saying "this story is untrue," that will be sufficient to have the story presented here as disputed rather than established. Adam 00:49, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Russian newsgroups ridiculed this at the time. I have't seen an actual article. --Alexei 01:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Neither Sergo Beria nor newsgroups are acceptable sources. Adam 02:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed on the groups.

If "the behaviour of Vladimir Antonov-Ovseenko is irrelevant to the veracity of books written by his son", by the same token, Sergo Beria's book should be given a benefit of a doubt. Was his account disputed? Let's be consistent. Reminds me of an old joke:

A naked old Jew with a cross hanging on his neck is walking on the beach. Somebody addresses him: "Ivan Solomonovich, be consistent: either wear the trunks, or take off the cross..."

--Alexei 04:15, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

• There is no inconsistency in saying that Valdimir's Antonov-Ovseenko's career is irrelvant to the merits of Anton Antonov-Ovseenko's book, and saying that Sergo Beria is a worthless source on the crimes of his father. First because Beria's motive is obviously filial loyalty (just as Yevgeny Djugashvili maintains that dear old Grandad never hurt anyone), and secondly because he is too young have any firsthand knowledge of the events under discussion. Anton Antonov-Ovseenko is not writing about his father so there is no analogy.
• I don't dispute that you know a lot about the period but I am beginning to find the preoccupation with Jews in your recent edits a bit worrying. My experience at Wikipedia is that a proccupation with Jews is a sure of sign of a crank. Adam 05:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

worries me too, after re-reading this. Surely the post-war history wasn't all anti-semitism; but this has played a big part. Can you help diversifying the section? What else of interest was going on in 46-53?

On Beria-jr., he actually was a PhD and Dr. of Sci. by the time and a Stalin's Prize winner. About 30 in 53??

--05:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

According to this he was 74 in 1999 so he was born in 1925 so he was 28 when his father was executed. Adam 06:54, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

And I don't get the joke.

so, is he still "too young [to] have any firsthand knowledge of the events under discussion" at 28 yo iyo? On the joke: most Jews are circumcised which is apparent when they are naked; most others (in the USSR) were not. So it is a juxtaposition of a cross (a symbol of a Christial affiliation) against a circumcised penis that was a basis for the (admittedly Russian) joke. --Alexei 07:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Image flipped

Again, the the main (1st) image is mirror-flipped left-to-right; who is gonna take care of it; Adam?--Alexei 06:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I no longer touch images except those I have taken myself. I am sick of being pestered by the copyright police. Adam 06:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You've posted this image anyway; flipping it does not call the f-g polive in (by itself). Want me to do it?? --06:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mihnea Tudoreanu's revisions

There were 3 revision:

• removal of a claim that USSR remained under the shadow of communism until 1991,
• replacing of "Communist leadership" with certain "authorities within the soviet government", and
• removal of the reference of Khrushchev antisemitism

Of them, only the last one may be discussed if Mihnea insists it should.

Let's discuss the issues here before making any unfounded revisions. --Alexei 22:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Amy Knight's biography of Beria discusses Kruschev's anti-semitism, so as that is a credible source, it should be fair to at least say that "some scholars think that Kruschev was anti-semitic" Dhilbert83 (talk) 21:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Adam's edit

Adam, we have discussed this subject of allegations before. If you have reason to go into this again, please outline it here. Since you know your viewpoint has been and is disputed, your tactics border unethical. I have reverted your edit for now.

On another subject (and I am not reverting for now): can you explain your systematic removal of Jewish names from this article? In Postwar Politics? --Alexei 02:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Since this article has become infested with cranks and anti-semites, I am taking it off my watchlist and it can go to the dogs. I have better things to do. Adam 10:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV/Khrushchev

While I believe Khrushchev was an anti-semite, there's no citation for it here, nor any comment referring to it on other places on wikipedia. I'm not dealing the information at this point, but I would like this matter addressed here. I'm for deletion as unsupported, but this is definitely an opinion above anything else. J. M. 23:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Khrushchev was any more anti-Semitic than any other Eastern European, or European, for that matter. A given level of anti-Semitism seems to be related to the historical presence of Jews in a given location. For example, the Jews had major presences in Germany and Poland and suffered some of the most virulent anti-Semitism there. Conversely, England, thanks to ethnic cleansing from the 12th to 17th centuries, had relatively few Jews and thus a relatively more "enlightened" behavior in the modern era. Diaspora Jews reached their height, civilly speaking, in the Khazar Khaganate, which dominated Eastern Europe in the 9th and 10th centuries and where Judaism was the state religion. The Khazars were overthrown and absorbed by Kievan Rus towards the end of the 10th century. Thus, by inheritance, the Jews became the wealthiest and most influential population in the Ukraine, far out of proportion to their numbers. And, predictably, this generated the malignant envy which is at the root of anti-Semitism. The values of Krushchev, a Ukrainian, were informed by this "folk" mindset. So, I don't think his anti-Semitism was any more than second nature to him (like it is, to different degrees, to most Gentiles), and though Khrushchev may have been complicit for careerist reasons, under Stalin, I can't recall any example of his initiating a persecution. If you want to make Krushchev's anti-Semitism noteworthy here, then you'd have to do likewise for most of the historical figures of Eastern Europe. — J M Rice 21:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Weasel Words and POV

The Neutrality Disputed tag is well-founded. There are so many weasel words here.... This is supposed to be an article, not a polemic! This is not a place for people to display their brilliant insights. Someone even inserted "Indeed. Indeed" (which I deleted).

I've placed citation tags on weasel words and other places that need sources. Editors should stay invisible. Of course, inserting citation tags isn't invisible (like Iraq, the sooner they're out of there the better), so please, either source the tagged text or remove it. — J M Rice 15:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Beria and the bomb

The article mentions that Beria was in charge of the Soviet A-bomb program, but goes on to imply that this was because he could provide slave labor. Surprisingly, the best book on the subject, Stalin and the Bomb, indicates that Beria was quite competent at running the program. He wasn't that heavy-handed about it. Although the classic story was that, after the bomb went off, the scientists who would have been executed if it failed got Hero of the Soviet Union medals. The ones who would have been sent to prison got the next medal down, and so on. --John Nagle 05:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• "Quite competent": what would this mean? Did he actually run R&D? Of course not. A clever bureaucrat can run any project without knowing nothing technical. Beria was well-placed for four crucial components: workforce, security, espionage, and liaison to Stalin, so it was a natural choice for this most critical military project of the time. `'mikka (t) 06:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Beria and Abakumov

There is an awful contradiction between this article and the one about Viktor Abakumov in the way Stalin was weakining Beria's power. This one states that Abakumov was trying to supersede Beria with the support of Stalin, that one states that Abakumov was arrested in '51 because Stalin was trying to remove Beria's supporters from power. If Abakumov wanted Beria down then why did Beria bring him back to power after Stalin's death?

All of this needs to be resolved

Seektrue 08:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Beria and his (alleged) sexual perversities

Removed the details of "The Flower Game". They are not relevant and due to their hard-core pornographic nature shock and offend readers. The link to the source is of course still included so those who want to find out how the "Flower Game" can be played still have the option to do so. Anonimous User: Nomad 14:36, 27 August 2006 (GMT+1)

You know, it's interesting: on wiki, we demand that articles have references. And yet that newspaper article doesn't give a single reference for anything its saying. They could be making it up. How would we know?

WikiReaderer 02:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I find it unbearable that an anonymous reader be allowed to suppress a passage on Beria's sexual deviances, because it is entirely part of the scene of totalitarianism. Sudoplatov who is quoted as not supporting the story, in fact, just confirmed the fact that he used his bodyguards to kidnapp girls in the street. --Jacques l'innocent (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I don’t know about this flower sex game. I spoke to many Russian & Georgian intellectuals and history buffs, who are connected, and no one heard anything about it. My family has many crazy stories to tell about Beria and they are hardcore anti-communists. It was understood that he abducted teenage girls and forced them to have sex. I couldn’t find any references regarding this flower game anywhere. From what I understand, his bodyguards just abducted girls they thought Beria will like. I would like to see some better sources regarding this. This flower game is only mentioned on Wiki and 1000s of websites copied this info almost word for word. Can someone have an original source for this, not a rumor? There are many books about Beria, is this flower game only mentioned in one?

Also the last sentence in the article - "It is said that Beria kept a special room adjacent to his office for the torturing and raping of small children" by "Knight, Amy, 'Beria: Stalin's First Lieutenant', Princeton University Press, 1993." Who is this Amy Knight and how is she so privileged to know such information? Beria killed small children. Perhaps he even raped some. I am not sure if there was a special room designed for this task next door to his office. I will look into this, but unless some better references are found, I feel we should take this sentence off. Maybe rephrase it as "Beria was known to rape the children of his torture victims in front of the accused." (If there is a reference) Meishern (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Amy Knight's book can be partly read at Google Books. She is much more cautious about these stories than our article suggests, and treats them mostly as disputed rumours. And there is no "flower game" there that I can find. McKay (talk) 11:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

What camp? What exile?

"Beria's wife and son were sent to a labour camp, but survived and were later released: his wife Nina died in 1991 in exile in Ukraine;"

What's this rubbish about Beria's wife and son being sent to a labor camp? His son was kept in jail (not even in prison) for a short period and then released, given a new name and a research position - it's all in his memoirs. And I have never heard about his wife being tried or sentenced.

As for his wife dying "in exile" - are you nuts? In Ukraine in 1991 - in exile? Come on, even Sakharov came back to Moscow - when, in 1986? What exile in 1991? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.176.245.169 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Backwards pic

Does anyone have a "correct" version of the main pic of Beria? This one is reversed (left-right). --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 13:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Genrikh Yagoda?

In the photograph of Beria with Stalin and Svetlana in the Postwar Politics section the figure in the background is described as Genrikh Yagoda. It is, I admit, difficult to make out; but on the basis of the hairline-and colour-I would say this was not Yagoda. Clio the Muse 22:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This was a recent adition by an anonymous know-it-all. The Library of Congress, from where the image was taken, notes that "the man at right, rear, is unidentified".[1] Thanks for spotting this! --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Version 0.7 nomination

There are many horrific acts described here, and I think these need good documentation and referencing because of their controversial nature. I'm hesitant to include this article in Version 0.7 until we see some more inline citations. Will check back later to see if anyone can include these. Thanks, Walkerma 04:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Death

The version that Beria was killed on the spot has only passing mention in the article. But as I remember (unfortunately from private sources) it was quite common knowledge in higher Soviet eschelons. The official version went of course into the books with some convincing myths, like Beria kneeling and begging for his life etc. I cannot give any RS now, but just wanted to point out that this version is worth digging. --Magabund 09:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Stalin Poisoned

The claim that "it is widely beleived that Beria killed Stalin" should have a CREDIBLE source (citing Molotov is certainly not enough.) This is because I have never once read that Beria killed him. Certainly Beria probably wanted him dead (since he was being implicated along with the anti-semitic campaign going on) and it's claimed that Beria told other upper eschelon Stalinists (like Malenkov, Zhdanov, and Molotov) at the time that it was in their interests for Stalin to die (since otherwise he might have unleashed a new purge against those currently in power). Also it's claimed that Beria and others might have let him die when he was sick, by withholding medical attention.

But as I said, I've never read that he poisoned him. Perhaps it's true, but if so, do cite a credible source that says this Dhilbert83 (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm 99,99% sure there are no reliable sources (in WP meaning) that state unequivocally that Stalin was killed. However, number of authors play with this possibility, and Edvard Radzinsky sure as hell suggests that in his book "Stalin". Its mentioned even here on article about him, but Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. --Magabund (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no proof that Beria was responsible for Stalin's death. No one did an autopsy on Stalin after he died to determine the cause of death (maybe because it wasn't in anyone's interest...). We only have Beria's word for it that he did the deed, and we only have Molotov's word for that, as far as I know. But it was indeed in the best interest of both men (especially Molotov, who was likely marked for Uncle Joe's next purge), that Stalin die. I take Molotov as a credible source, but not as absolute proof that Beria did it. What's written now seems plenty fair to me. Jsc1973 (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Why mention religious affiliation?

It holds no relevance to the article whatsoever. Whoever included it seems to wish to discredit atheism by associating it with a notorious historical figure like Beria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.208.48 (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I think it makes sense, as most Communist officials in the USSR were officially atheism. All the officials working at the Spanish Inquisition were Catholic. --Dudeman5685 (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

need a rewrite badly.

I mean using a talk page as a source for the article is terrible.

"Around that time, Abakumov was replaced by Semyon Ignatyev, who further intensified the anti-Semitic campaign. On 13 January 1953, the biggest anti-semitic affair in the Soviet Union was initiated with an article in Pravda: the Doctors' plot. A number of the country's prominent Jewish doctors were accused of poisoning top Soviet leaders and arrested. Concurrently, a hysterical anti-semitic propaganda campaign, euphemistically called the struggle against rootless cosmopolitans, occurred in the Soviet press. Altogether, 37 doctors (17 of them were Jewish) were arrested. It is alleged that at this time on Stalin's orders the MGB started to prepare to deport all Soviet Jews to Russian Far East or even massacre them, e.g. see here[7]. However, this issue is quite disputed (see discussion in Doctors' plot article), and many claim that no such deportation was planned at all or that at least not nearly as much progress was made with the preparations for it as is claimed by the proponents of this theory."

EG see here? I'm just going to edit some of it and remove a lot of it since it reeks of pov and terrible writing.--GeneralChoomin 04:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneralChoomin (talk • contribs)

Allegations of sexual sadism section

I have reverted[2] the removal of the Allegations of sexual sadism section. Before such a massive chunk of text is removed, consensus for such removal must be obtained here, at the article's talk page, especially if another editor raises an objection. Nsk92 (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That of course is nonsense. There is nothing that requires prior talk page discussion when removing or adding content. In fact, per WP:REDFLAG we need to vigorously remove all unsourced and badly sourced content, and this section is just that. Interestingly you have nothing to say about the content apart from your fabricated claim about talk page consensus required to remove large chunks of text.

Large parts are without source, those that have source are sensationalist rumors and not confirmed by scholarly studies of Beryia. Although there is some truth to the claims made in the section, the claims itself are outlandish. See for example Stalin's first lieutenant by Amy Knight, where she clearly says that most of these claims were simply invented by his opponents after 1953 (see page 251 for example). Pantherskin (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The material, as it currently stands in the article, is not unsourced. The allegation of sexual sadism are included in most books about Beria. The book of Amy Knight that you mention discusses them at length, for example. Knight raises reservations about these allegations but does not dismiss them out of hand. E.g. on page 97[3] she says:"Even if these stories circulating in Moscow were exaggerated, they almost certainly had some foundation. They were corroborated by Edward Ellis Smith, a young American diplomat who was serving in the U.S. embassy in Moscow after the war. Smith noted that Beria's escapades were common knowledge among embassy personnel because his house was on the same street as residence for Americans, and those who lived there saw girls brought to Beria's house late at night in a limousine." Given that the allegation are discussed in most books about Beria, I think they need to be included in the article, with a discussion of reservations about these allegations, etc, as Amy Knight's book does. Nsk92 (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

But that is not what the section says. The first paragraph is completely unsourced. The second paragraph has a pseudo-source, and some of the claim in this paragraph are not even mentioned in the source. About the special room for small children, well nothing about a special room for small children is mentioned by Amy Knight. Allegations need to be discussed, but they need to be based on reliable, scholarly sources, and not a recounting of the most outlandish and gossipy rumors. Pantherskin (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your last points. The section, as it stands now, is in a very bad form and needs to be substantially reworked. My point is that there are plenty of solid sources where the sexual allegations are discussed. So the correct thing to do, IMO, is to include them in the article and also mention sources (such as Knight's book) raising reservations about these allegations. As as a sample, here are a couple of other sources gotten from googlebooks search. A book[4] Stalin and His Hangmen: The Tyrant and Those Who Killed for Him, by Donald Rayfield, which discusses the sexual allegation against Beria in relation to his trial (pp. 466-467). Here is another one, the book Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar by Simon Sebag Montefiore which discusses these allegations on pp. 506-507[5]. I do not have a problem with making the section much shorter (at least temporarily), even cutting it down to just a few sentences, but I do not like the idea of completely removing the section. Nsk92 (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I took a whack and reworked this section of the article. I made it much shorter and, hopefully, more neutral and balanced. I also eliminated some of the urban-legend type stuff and added some book references (Knight and Rayfield). If someone wants to take it from here, please go ahead. I am really not an expert on Beria and do not intend to do much further editing of the article for now. Nsk92 (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

cant believe family release was 1964, wrong year stayed way2long but what can u expect here?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.0.59 (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted[6] a recent edit by User:Bravo Foxtrot: the addition that user made relied overwhelmingly on a single source (a book by Sebag-Montefiore, whose bibliographical data were not provided). Plus that addition was disproportionately long (over 4000 bytes); something shorter and more compact is needed to preserve the balance of the article. Additionally, the edit of User:Bravo Foxtrot removed the neutrality dispute tag from the section; a more clear consensus is needed for that. Nsk92 (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Reversion of my edits to the sexual predator section

Wholesale reversion of properly sourced material--in favor of an abominably written and extremely poorly sourced prior version--simply because you think it's "disproportionately long" is not acceptable. I have restored my edits to the article, as I believe my edits were sound, encyclopedic and neutral. Please take the time to carefully consider the following:

1) My edits were painstakingly sourced with numerous inline citations, and included a variety of highly relevant direct quotes from primary sources. Your previous version (1), which you reverted in preference to, has no primary quotes, few inline citations, poor organization, and a disorganized, quasi-apologetic tone. In short, I replaced crap with something better and properly cited it all per the dictates of WP:CITE. If you have issue with my properly cited content, please bring it up on the talk page so we can have a discussion on it, do not simply blanket revert cited content. The last discussion on this issue was last year, and it ended with you admitting your inexpertise on the subject, professing to leave the article alone, and "yielding the floor" to new improvements. The removal of the dispute tag was entirely appropriate, per Wikipedia rules, in this case, as there was no current dispute.

2) Your argument that my edits rely too much on Sebag-Montefiore's book is specious. First and foremost, I left all of your original references in the paragraph; none were removed, thus nullifying your argument that I rely too much on one source. I rely on one more source than your preferred version. Secondly, Simon Sebag-Montefiore is an internationally renowned Stalin biographer, and, most importantly, Court of the Red Tsar compiles the absolute newest data on Beria, specifically, the details from Beria's NKVD secret file, which (as I noted in my reverted edit) were not released until 2003 and thus post-date all of your preferred sources. As I also mentioned in my edit, the opening of Beria's NKVD file in 2003 finally corroborated the allegations made against him at his trial by introducing vast amounts of heretofore unseen new primary evidence, via both physical evidence (Col. Sarkisov's handwritten secret log), witness reports, and, most importantly, the official testimony of "dozens" of women who were assaulted by Beria. In short, this represents a body of new and never-before-published scholarly primary material as presented by a well-respected expert in the field, none of which is contradicted (or even approached) by any of your sources. The only source that remotely argues against the evidence from the NKVD file is Beria's wife and kid, which you apparently have decided represents evidence-based scholarly criticism that deserves equal weight with the actual scholarly material.

3) Your argument that the "bibliographical data was not provided" for Sebag-Montefiore's book is 100% demonstrably false. Please review my edits and see that I have properly cited the book and included all the relevant bibliographical information, both inline and in the works cited. This is a specious argument.

4) Your argument in your edit summary ("per talk page discussion") is specious and untrue. Your last edit to this talk page was back in December of last year, when you stated "If someone wants to take it from here, please go ahead. I am really not an expert on Beria and do not intend to do much further editing of the article for now." I am uncertain how this attitude has transitioned into blanket reversion of any version other than the flawed version which you yourself (not an expert) abandoned and offered up to the community to improve. You asked for improvement; I did so, and did so without destroying any of your existing references.

In closing, your arguments for reverting to your preferred version are demonstrably misguided and I ask you to please reconsider your motives. I am not out to "bash" any historical figure, but if we are going to include a section on the allegations of Beria as a sexual predator, it deserves the newest, most up-to-date primary sources and enough detail to flesh out the issue. There is no WP:POV or neutrality issue here, because there is no scholarly sources saying that Beria didn't do it, only that insufficient evidence existed to definitively say that he did. The new primary sources taken from the 2003 opening of Beria's file and subsequent publishing in Sebag-Montefiore's research are the current definitive documents on Beria. Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: I've taken the liberty of asking the members of WikiProject Soviet Union to come over and add their informed opinions. Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thats fine by me. Like I said, I am not an expert on Beria and I certainly think that involvement by more editors would be welcome here. I have reverted your last edit for the moment, until the discussion here is concluded. I'll take a more careful look at your edit, but let me underscore my main concern (which still remains): the section is way too long in relation to the rest of the article. This creates WP:BALANCE and WP:WEIGHT problems. The sexual sadism section of the article is important, but it does need to be a reasonable proportion of the whole text. Nsk92 (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

After taking a closer look, I have restored your edit. I still think the section, as it is now, it too long and needs to be compressed. Nsk92 (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

A wise choice. As I have noted repeatedly, preemptive blanket revision of properly cited edits (especially ones which augment rather than replace previous edits) is unacceptable per Wikipedia standards; it is reserved for controversial, uncited edits and vandalism. Repeatedly blanket revering cited edits you don't personally like is tendentious editing. Please feel free to bring up specific issues with the section to discuss. Personally I feel it is precisely short enough to properly detail and explain the evidence for Beria's sexual predation (per the section title). Additionally, your citation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALANCE to support the evisceration of the section is extremely poetic, since the former applies to the "overall weight" of scholarly opinions in cited sources in determining how much space to give to each scholarly perspective (0% of which in this case profess to deny Beria was a sexual predator) and the latter isn't remotely a policy. Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You know, you should calm down and ease off with throwing around accusations of tendentious editing, "demonstrably misguided", and the like. I have been a WP editor long enough to know what tendentious editing is and, whether you believe it or not, I do not have any preconceived agenda in relation to this article. I suggest that you look up WP:AGF while you are at it, and stop reacting in such a confrontational manner, as if I said something bad about your sister. Now, poetic or not, I still feel that the current version of the sexual sadism section is too long in relation to the rest of the article, which does create balance problems. Nsk92 (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The sexual assault charges section seems to be the best sourced, most accurate part of this article. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-Beatification?

Is it just me, or there an overwhelming tone in this article, that everything this man did was out of good intentions and a desire for his country's freedom? The impression is made that all the allegations against him, when he was taken out of power, were 'trumped up'. Maybe they were (as it was the Soviet fashion), but to continuously say, without source "but that wasn't true" or "but they had no evidence" or "he was such a nice guy, why would he do that?": that's not fitting for this encyclopedia. This article desperately needs sources: where are you getting this material from, oral tradition? "Some say his removal from power sent Russia back 40 years economically and culturally!" That's a pretty big claim without a source, especially since it is ahistoric conjecture. Let's not forget this guy went along with the deaths of several million people, was a murderer and a rapist: sending a few guns to Israel didn't change that. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

And not that I think the article should demonise him, but that we should take the middle road. As there are apparently some who respect him, and yet people like me and other posters here, who have little to no respect for him. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

His crimes demonize him. The man was a mass murderer and a serial rapist, basically an all-around thug. If he did in fact kill Stalin, that's probably the only worthwhile thing he ever did in his entire depraved existence, although I'm sure he didn't do it for any good motives.24.6.159.76 (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The language avoids coming straight to the point sometimes, such as "sexual predator" instead of "rapist", but as an alternative of condemning the beast, Wikipedia:Let the reader decide and my personal opinion, the attacks on his behavior becomes stronger if they have a factual tone, not exaggerating, not diminishing the effects of them. We don't know why he lessened the purges somewhat, if it was because he detested them morally, if he just thought them ineffective and destructive, if he lessened them because Stalin said so, that in combination with his rapist and otherwise sociopathic behavior, or such things, so the fullness of his nature is hard to know exactly. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I will give this article one week to source all the uncited portions

Or I will delete them. Either cite it or remove it. I will also edit out any parts in the article which are attributed to those uncited sections. 04:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneralChoomin (talk • contribs)

I have removed a lot of uncited as well as irrelevant portions of the article. The uncited portions date back to 2007 and since no one has cared to cite them then I have fullfilled a pledge that goes back to may 30th. Plenty of time to cite them. I also removed uncited hearsay. This is not a gossip column but an encyclopedia. General Choomin (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna edit more of this three days. If it doesn't have a cite it's going to be deleted. If it has a related article linking to it with cites I won't delete it. I will just reword it so it doesn't look terrible. Typing in (see blah blah) is just terrible writing. What I will do to is rewrite it to integrate it in after I read the (see blah blah) and then ask for a citation but not delete it in hopes another user can provide it. If the (see blah blah) has no mention of Beria then I will have to remove it since the citation has been waiting for as long as 2007. If anyone objects I will give them three days to say so. That way we can discuss how to make a better article. Thanks. General Choomin (talk) 02:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you try to find references yourself, rather than deleting material? This is not BLP. - BorisG (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not my job to prove things I haven't asserted. If you wish to reference it or any of the other material I removed then you can as long as you provide citations. Otherwise, in my eyes, it will be hearsay and/or gossip as well as historical revisionism. I have improved the article by eliminating the bloat of unsourced gossip anyways and left enough time for you or others to cite and/or improve other sections. General Choomin (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree about gossip, but appointments etc.? They can be checked and referenced. This just takes time. I don't have time now. The [WP:V] says: All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research, but in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly supports the material in question. So did you use this criterion when deciding what to delete? Sincerely - BorisG (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Excessive emphasis on 'Anti-Semitism'

There are as of now several paragraphs devoted to 'anti-Semitism' that seem quite misguided and if anything, deliberately false. "Anti-Semitism" is generally understood to mean "being against Jewish people due to their Jewishness." The activities described in the article are clearly political - the Czech leaders who were liquidated were clearly liquidated because of their politics, not because they were Jewish. This is easily evidenced by the fact that other, non-Jewish Czechs were equivalently murdered. The same holds true of the "Doctor's Plot." It is particularly interesting / wrong how this article spends a good two paragraphs on the "anti-Semitism" of Beria, which lead to the death (per the article) of perhaps two dozen individuals, but virtually no time at all is spent on equivalent characterizations on his far, far, far, far more widespread anti-other-religionist and anti-nationalist activities (even if ultimately those activities too, may have been entirely "political" in nature - a matter of some debate amongst historians). The lack of balance is very bad. The article should be reconsidered and the overblown claims of "anti-Semitism" from Beria and the NKVD in general, a man who worked alongside and with senior persons of Jewish ancestry and an organization in which Jews were statistically well over-represented thrown out entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.176.123 (talk) 07:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Portrait is Flopped

Hello,

It appears to me that the portrait of Beria haas been flopped. The normal position for a ribbon bar and medal would be on the left breast of the uniform.

No, according to post-war rules of wearing medals it looks correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VVPushkin (talk • contribs) 15:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Wholesale removal of sexual assault charges section

Editors on this page been going back and forth on the size, wording, and detail of this section, and I would not be averse to a smaller, more concise description of the essential fact that the sexual assault crimes Beria was convicted of were in fact substantiated by the documents released after the fall of the Soviet Union, including his official testimony (as well as that of "dozens" of women who accused him of raping them) and other forms of physical evidence that composed the case against him.

Nobody's arguing the section should be huge or give undue weight in comparison to his career as a Bolshevik secret policeman, but it is highly relevant because at one point the charges were simply written off as standard Stalinist-era frame up charges typically used to discredit someone so they could be discredited and then executed. The Iron Curtain simply denied researchers access to any kind of real evidence. The fact that the sexual assault charges were later substantiated by researchers analyzing several kinds of evidence after the Soviet archives were opened is pretty definitive.

Sq178pv recently blanked the entire section (and all the inline references) and replaced it with four lines completely denying Beria had done anything and was a victim of a conspiracy to steal his records from the Moscow Archives and doctor them to show him in a bad light. His single source for this was a Russian nationalist TV program (in Russian). I've promptly reverted it and will do so again if he returns (although I suspect he is a "drive-by" Russian nationalist, of which there are many on Wikipedia). If anybody wants to discuss any value in the Russian language media source, despite it's non-scholarly and non-neutral status, we can do so here, as this page is now on my watch list and I will revert any further blanket removals of cited content or addition of non-neutral source material. Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I support this, but why did you also blank other material related to postwar politics? - BorisG (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It was mistakenly deleted during the restoration, I apologize wholeheartedly. I would be glad to re-add the material unless you've already done so. Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It wasn't actually MY content. It was someone else's. But I thought is was relevant, though lacked sources. - BorisG (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Content deleted again

23:51, 13 February 2012‎ Greyhood (talk contribs)‎ (44,210 bytes) (rv per WP:NPOV, the language in the previous version is more neutral and encyclopedic; the sexual assaults section is about the likely made-up accusations and if re-added should be more nautral and short) (undo) Yet again, no talk page comment, no communication. I don't know how many times I have to say that you can't just delete reliable, sourced claims that you don't like and leave the ONE source that you approve of. It's disruptive editing. I realize you think the sources are "likely made up", and while I strongly disagree, it frankly doesn't matter what either of us thinks. They all comply with Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources, are properly formatted and provide relevant scholarly content to the article. I would be thrilled to see MORE and alternate reliable sources in the sexual assault section. The more the merrier so long as they pass WP:RS. Currently, the only source you approve of is Beria's wife; could possibly you consider finding other reliable sources you think add to the discussion?

I would also love to see more consensus on how big it should be, and how it should be worded, etc. Regardless, there are MULTIPLE RELIABLE SOURCES that attest specifically to Beria's acts, reported acts, and convicted acts of sexual assault. These include Soviet archival documents as well as multiple scholarly works. You're not going to whitewash valuable material because it makes you uncomfortable and you don't trust Western media.

All of that happens right here as a result of discussion. The drive-by reversions of cited material needs to stop. If it happens again I'm going to ask for a block or a topic ban. Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Strong support for Bravo Foxtrot. It's an excellently written section and adequately referenced. Of course Beria was a nauseating sexual predator. I don't do page watching but if this user continues to make a nuisance of himself and you take him to a resolution process, let me know on my Talk page and I'll support you. LHirsig (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

This resolution-supporting comment looks strange for a new user. Also, makes sense to be more WP:NPOV in your assertions, it is encyclopedia afterall. GreyHood ^Talk 14:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid there's been a misunderstanding here. :/ According to the list of contributors, as of this writing Greyhood has edited the article only four times:

• the edit in question,
• reverting clear vandalism,
• removal of different content that was unsourced
• adding list of Russians

Greyhood's behavior seems so far well within keeping with WP:BOLD, although it might have been a good idea to leave a note of explanation for the removal at this talk page or to discuss the change first, as Wikipedia:Editing policy suggests under "Talking and editing".

I've changed the section header, but am concerned that the conversation here not portray Greyhood in a negative light. :/ He has not made "a nuisance of himself" and should feel welcome to express and expand on any concerns with the material here to help reach informed consensus. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Moonriddengirl, I was just going to fix the section title myself per WP:TALKNEW. GreyHood ^Talk 14:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

He is making a nuisance of himself and his nuby bite at me above is yet another example. He should mind himself so. LHirsig (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Bravo Foxtrot, I fully understand your concern regarding deletion of the information based on allegedly reliable sources, but please do not ignore the concerns of other editors with neutral and accurate representation of facts/theories. And please don't make your edits to the talk pages to look like an attempt to drive away the users, who want to this article to be more neutral, out of editing and discussing the page. I mean WP:TALKNEW as well as the incorrect assumption that it was me who removed the section previous time, and subsequent talk about blocks or topic bans. GreyHood ^Talk 14:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

When it comes to my actions, I apologize for not noticing this discussion before. I just had reverted to the version with obviously more neutral and encyclopedic wording, and suggested to re-add the sexual assaults material in shorter and more neutral form. And I do not see why you reverted the rest of the edit to the version which uses POVish language.

As for the section discussed here, the mention of the issue should be in the article, but not in such an expanded form and presented in more neutral way. Likely that is the reason why various users find the section inappropriate. We should not present the accusations of Beria in the poisoning of Stalin and and the sexual charges as facts - they should be presented as theories, reported acts or convicted acts yes, and in very clear way.

I've made a partial revert to more neutral language version and removed the first para related to the Beria's involvement in Stalin's death - Edvard Radzinsky is not a reliable source and has a reptation of pseudohistorian, he is more belletrist rather than scientist. The overall theory of Beria's involvement is no more than a theory, and there are various facts contradicting it. As for the assault charges section, I've put the relevant tags on it. GreyHood ^Talk 14:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Greyhood, please do not delete sourced information. It is not ip to you to decide who is and is not a reliable source. radzinsky is an established historian. But even if he was a journalist, he is still a reliable source. Books published by established publishers are reliable sources. There is no mention in the policy that only 'scientists' are reliable. Even newspapers are. Please read policy on wp:rs. If there are counter-claims by reliable sources, you are welcome to present them in the article. Please restore sourced content and seek consensus before removing. - BorisG (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Apparently you misunderstand the situation. Radzinsky is not even a journalist (just a TV host), he is a dramatist by profession and not a historian in academic sense. He is characterized as "folk-historian" (i.e. pseudohistorian), see the sources at Edvard Radzinsky, and he is set in a row with such fringe "historians" as Anatoly Fomenko. GreyHood ^Talk 19:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Is the same true of Simon Sebag Montefiore, though, another source provided? Ironholds (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

---

First, thank you Greyhood for the new picture of Beria. I agree it is better as you can see his whole profile rather than a crop from a photo.

I'm going to break down the particulars on this issue, since I think the important details are getting muddied:

1) The two best and most frequently cited sources for this article are Simon Sebag-Montefiore's Stalin: Court of the Red Tsar, and Amy Knight's Beria: Stalin's First Lieutenant. They constitute the bulk of the valuable material in the article:

• Simon Sebag-Montefiore is a Cambridge grad, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and a Distinguished Visiting Professor at the University of Buckingham's School of Humanities Research. Stalin: Court of the Red Tsar won the "History Book of the Year" award at the 2003 British Book Awards as well as being declared "book of the year" by over a dozen separate British historians, journalists and politicians. His follow-up biography of Stalin's early years, Young Stalin, won "Best Biography of 2007" at the Costa Book Awards. Court of the Red Tsar is currently the best, newest and most up-to-date scholarly work available on the subject of Lavrentiy Beria; its been extensively peer reviewed and fact checked, there's no credible argument to be made that it is "non-neutral" or features "made-up accusations" and there's absolutely no reason it shouldn't be extensively used in the article. Furthermore, it takes advantage of brand new Soviet archival material on Beria not yet available in any other publication. A large amount of the previously deleted text from the article (including Beria's role in Stalin's death, as well as the new evidence on Beria's sexual assault history) is directly cited to (and supported by) Court of the Red Tsar. It is worth noting that the entire 45th chapter is titled "Beria: Potentate, Father, Husband, Lover, Killer, Rapist". Hardly a passing or insubstantial point.

• Amy Knight's Beria: Stalin's First Lieutenant, until the publishing of Court in 2003, was the best available scholarly work on Lavrenti Beria. Although it's an excellent all-around Beria resource, Knight's book was published in 1995, prior to the full release of Beria's records, so Knight (called "the world's foremost scholar on the KGB" by the New York Times in the review for Beria) did not benefit from Sebag-Montefiore's data and thus wisely did not make any new conclusions about Beria's sexual history. Instead, she collected and presented the available public evidence (including testimony from Beria's boyguards and quotes from a US official) along with contesting quotes from one of Beria's colleagues, as well as his wife and son. (97) It was not groundbreaking, but it did firmly establish that a dispute existed over the veracity, but that Beria had an existing reputation as a sexual predator before he fell from power, not as a result of it. It also strongly corroborates Sebag-Montefiore's later description of the events of Stalin's death and Beria's involvement, both during and after.

2) A great deal (but not all) of the deleted material is directly cited to these two sources, and since they represent the largest and best available body of work on Beria, they are of major importance to the article. Thus I have gone through and restored the material that's directly cited to these two sources. I did not do a blanket revert, and I did not restore any contentious uncited claims I saw. The mission is for everything to be cited and reliable, just like these two sources are, so please feel free to help out with tagging if you see anything contentious that needs an in-line citation.

3) Please feel free to add to the work that is there, but please do not simply delete this sourced material. If you wish to dispute the data presented by Sebag-Montefiore and Knight, please do so by following the standard Wikipedia procedure and presenting alternate scholarly/peer-reviewed sources so they can be integrated into the article as opposing viewpoints. The article can always use a panoply of sources, but just because the article doesn't have a lot of sources saying "Lavrenti Beria wasn't a rapist" vs. ones that state "Evidence shows Lavrenti Beria was, in fact, a rapist" does not mean that the section should be deleted and it doesn't mean the article is POV or unbalanced. That is not the way undue weight works. We're here to inform, not whitewash. I look forward to discussing this further. Thanks. Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 07:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for your description of Sebag-Montefiore and Knight. They might very well be established historians, even though the titles of some of their works are suspiciously belletrist-looking, and the language they use and some assertions of them are often too far from neutral. Is it true, however, that Sebag-Montefiore cites Radzinsky as it appears from the way Radzinsky was mentioned in the text? Citing a pseudohistory does not add credibility to a histotical work. Certain highly POVish points which you referenced to them (such as Gulag "slave labor" camps, which looks more like a figure of speech or a propaganda label - the incarcerated people were not anyone's slaves nor de jure slaves and sometimes they even get some payments as far as I know) also raises doubts about the credibility and neutrality of those works.
• The way the sexual assaults story is currently cited makes it look just like Montefiore simply accepts all the allegations made against Beria during his trial, which is not a wise thing to do, given the facts 1) that only one case of rape was eventually explicitly mentioned the verdict, and the evidence behind the case was very poor 2) that there were multiple legal mistakes, inconsistencies, strange hurry in proceedings., which all indicates that allegations of Beria in various crimes were fully or partially made-up. There is a book called "Кто вы, Лаврентий Берия", written a Honored Jurist of Russia Andrey Sukhomlinov, who examines the case of Beria from the legal point of view, and there are various other Russian publications which dismiss many allegations made on Beria. I could examine and bring some of these works as well. But it seems that a work by professional jurist (who by the way holds a certain noticeable degree of neutrality recognising both Beria's wrongdoings as NKVD chief but also recognising some of his positive achievements, and focusing on a purely legal side of the story rather than on historical assessments or describing the history in fiction style) is more credible than a work of belletrist historians who are ready to believe in every alleged Beria's crime. And anyway the existence of reliable sources with a different point of view render the present version of the sexual assaults story in the article highly inappropriate. Also, the more scrutiny the source shows in relation to some particular issue, the more reliable it is in relation to that issue.
• And sorry, but the phrases like "sexually predatory nature" don't look like a neutral encyclopedic language for me. Sexual triller maybe, but not an encyclopedia.
• I have read various Russian accounts of Beria biography and alleged crimes, but nowhere the sexual allegations story was given so much attention. Even if we suppose that there was something beyond the allegations, we should not give this dubious story so much place in the article, and the section on it should not be written like a triller, it is encyclopedia not a fiction work or a publicist article.
• Overall negative slant is too obvious in this article - it fails to properly notice the fact that Beria was actually the person who stopped the Great Purge by purging many of the Communist leaders and NKVD workers who had started it and carried it out. The article fails to properly explain the role of Beria in World War II and the Soviet nuclear program. Overall, Beria was not a nice guy and there is no point in whitewashing him, but it is wrong also to make him look like a fiction monster fixing the attention on dubious and POVishly represented parts of his life while overlooking more factual and encyclopedically important parts of his biography. That's why I insist that the overall attention given to the sexual allegation story is WP:UNDUE, that more hard-fact parts of Beria's biography are underrepresented. GreyHood ^Talk 01:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've got Sukhomlinov book and later will add some of his citations to the article in the next few days or weeks. Until then I restore the appropriate tags. The section needs to be cut, since it takes too large space while being just a description for dubious allegations mostly not mentioned in the verdict and doubted by specialists and various authors. I also intend to make few more improvements to the article to make it less POV-laden. There are also non-neutral language issues, of course. GreyHood ^Talk 01:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

"In record time"?

The lede of the article says:

…the Soviet atomic bomb project, which was… completed in record time…

The phrasing here seems very strange to me. What does "in record time" mean? Was it actually a record, and if so, compared to what? Or was the intent only to communicate that it was completed with great speed? Neither this article nor Soviet atomic bomb project makes any other mention of a record. If this isn't really what was meant, I would like to replace this cliché with something like "completed with great speed" or "completed in under five years". Thanks for any assistance you can offer. —Mark Dominus (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Excellent point, Mark. I agree, go right ahead and make the change if you haven't already done so. Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree, anyway what was the comparative? Ceoil 21:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure. The whole Soviet A-bomb project and Beria's role in it really deserves it's own section. In terms of notable achievement, Beria does deserve an unusually large amount of credit for the building of a successful bomb in under 5 years. He was responsible for converting and handling mole Klaus Fuchs, who gave them the edge they needed to quickly and identically replicate Fat Man within 5 years, which was Stalin's demand. He also "drafted" and sequestered every single semi-useful Russian scientist for the project, massively increased the slave labor population at the uranium mines of the Gulag, and basically ensured that Stalin's "meet your superior's work standards or be executed" was the Golden Rule for the whole project. He even was nice enough to build special Gulag camps where imprisoned scientists could do research and regular Gulag prisoners could screw together A-bomb components for 18 hours a day. He truly spared no expense, because he knew his life was forfeit to Stalin if he failed. Like any good Bolshevik, Beria despised and distrusted all "bourgeois intellectuals" and thus every scientist knew he would live or die based solely on Beria's grossly uninformed opinion of his work. For example, when invited to observe a cyclotron in operation for the first time (making the first Soviet plutonium from uranium), Beria reportedly became agitated when he couldn't actually SEE the plutonium accumulating ("What? Is that it?!" is his recorded opinion), accused the "eggheads" of trying to trick him, and demanded to go into the cyclotron chamber (while it was running) to verify they weren't perpetuating a fraud against the Soviet state. Luckily for his sake, they managed to somehow talk him out of it. Later, at the Joe-1 test, a junior officer made the mistake of being the first person to call the Kremlin to report that the test was successful; when Beria found out, he punched the officer in the head, accused him of trying to steal his glory and told him he was going to "grind him to powder". Doesn't say how things turned out for that poor guy, but Beria was never one to make idle threats. Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this Bravo Foxtrot, very strong insight. I agree a section is called for, and I dont think anybody doubts the the ruteless efficiency of Beria's achievement, or the human cost. Ceoil 07:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll work on it in userspace and post a link when I'm done. I think a lot of info from the Soviet A-bomb article is applicable. I'll see what I can do. Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 07:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you do it in record time?:) - BorisG (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

He had better, or its off to the dungeon. Ceoil 13:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

According to book "Beria" by Anton Antonov-Ovseenko, Klaus Fuchs was recruited by the GRU, an agency that competed with NKVD led by Beria, and then transferred to an NKVD handler to make Beria happy. Beria has no credit here whatsoever. The most interesting piece of evidence with regard to Stalin death was an interview taken from one of his former bodyguards by Radzinsky (published in a Stalin's biography). It turned out that Stalin was probably poisoned by his senior bodyguard Khrustalev, briefly mentioned in memories of Svetlana Alliluyeva. He relieved other bodyguards of duty at the night of Stalin's death, contrary to the common practice. My very best wishes (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Football Career

According to

Edelman, Robert (2002), "A Small Way of Saying "No": Moscow Working Men, Spartak Soccer, and the Communist Party, 1900-1945", The American Historical Review, 107 (5): 1441–1474{{citation}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) Beria was not only a passionate fan of FC Dynamo Moscow, but also a former player (presumably of an associate team). Does anyone have more information about this?Leutha (talk) 09:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Ac.beria3.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ac.beria3.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 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. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Ac.beria3.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Lavrentiy [sic]

Who actually uses that overly precise and silly spelling?
I don't see a lot of sources on the page spelling it like that.
I see "Lavrenty". I see "Lavrentii".

The IMDb calls him "Lavrenti" for documentary film purposes.
I created Beria's IMDb page over a decade ago, when I set up the pages there for Lenin, Stalin, and all the Bolshevik and Soviet leaders.
I used printed library materials – history books and encyclopedias – to establish the spelling I would use, and at that time, that meant "Lavrenti".

I have my copy of Stalin and His Hangmen here. Donald Rayfield, London: Viking, 2004. In other words, years after my IMDb page.
Rayfield uses "Lavrenti" Beria, p. 8. His index includes 3/4 of a page (!) devoted to "Lavrenti" Beria.

Varlaam (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC), IMDb Top Contributor

"Georgian Rapist" Category

Clearly a case of over-categorization. When I tried to see others, there were none. This category of one(!) serves no purpose. The main purpose of categories is to alert relevant Wikipedia editors that an article relates to their general subject. I will take out this category.Mwinog2777 (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The CIA on Beria?

Are we seriously setting up CIA internet internal documents-- and they look like notes, like contemporary documents, like they're not even finished reports, even....

I mean, now, the CIA is a serious, objective source of information on Beria? Really?

Isn't that a little.... ironic, to say the least?

I mean, I know that Russian has *those funny letters*, but....

I mean, c'mon.

Come on.

It's like the Taco Bell assessment of Burger King or something.

Let's get real.

Kwiataprilensis (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

"TheGovernor3 moved page Lavrentiy Beria to Lavrentiy Beriya"

Someone please reevert this ASAP. --Niemti (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, certainly, per WP:Common name. Moved back.My very best wishes (talk) 04:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Further source: Richard Rhodes

I read "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhodes and there is further detail in the book about Beria including his arrest and execution. The book says that on arrest all the buttons were cut from his cloths to hamper any escape attempt. I expect there are further details of interest to those curious about this man194.176.105.135 (talk) 12:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

1938

Something is missing in the part about 1938. 'The Great purge started in august 1938 ... and ended in 1938' should that be in december maybe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.125.148.175 (talk) 22:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Person in the background in photo with Svetlana

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

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