Talk:Mikhail Gorbachev/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Mikhail Gorbachev. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Top

Hello. I had quite a little trouble finding this article, and it was caused by the misspelling of his name. So I would like to propose, that searchs on Gorbatjov/Gorbatjev would be linked to this article. At one point I thought the article didn't exist, because I Googled Gorbatjov, at there it found 65.000 artikles (including the article in the Danish Wikipedia), so I thought it was spelled right. Well, just a propose.

Thank you

Liv Evert, Denmark

What is that spot on his forehead?!

I think someone spilled wine on kristen annes head!

It's a birthmark called a port wine stain. This particular one bears a resemblance to the lightning scar on Harry Potter's forehead. Scott Gall 19:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

"(this quote arised from his misunderstanding of Jesus: Clearly Moses was the first socialist proposing to give anybody according to his deed - 'eye for eye', delivery of slaves each 7 years, canceling the capital by forbidding interests for borrowed money. Jesus was the first communist, proposing to give anybody according to his needs - 'give to whoever asks you')"

I removed this expression from under the Jesus quote. It's blatant POV and irrelevant. We don't need random editors arguing with a direct quote from a historical figure. -- Styrbjorn 22:32, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The phrasing around G. taking out trademark protection on his birthmark is quite unclear. Also: I have read in a short biography that G. was what's called a "teetotaler" or something in english, he didn't drink alcohol. But I have also seen a russian documentary made after his wife's death that seems to indicate that he isn't that any longer? Other issues which may be of interest may be his close relationship to his wife, and the humanitarian organization they started (cancer research?)

Featured on Template:March 11 selected anniversaries (may be in HTML comment)

What about moving this article from Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev to Mikhail Gorbachev? Most articles link to the second title, few to the first one. -- Juan M. Gonzalez 22:39 Sep 9, 2002 (UTC)

Moved. --mav

Thanks, mav. I had a nagging suspicion that just moving the text wasn't enough, but I couldn't remember why (it's the history, of course). --Ed Poor

Ivashko can not be considered as Gorbachev's successor as the leader of the Soviet Union. Andres 01:00, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't see how you can put Yeltsin as Gorbachev's successor. Yeltsin become president of the Russian republic in 1990 before Yeltsin resigned. The Soviet Union encompassed more than Russia. This was not a simple name change. A larger entity dissolved and a lower entity became sovereign. --Jia ng 19:48, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

First of all, your change is not just fixing a typo. If there are disagreements in basics, they must be settled in the talk page.

Now, you are saying "the SU dissolved". If it were so easy. There are international treaties, obligations, debts. In many aspects Russian Federation claimed to overtake. There is a historical continuity Imperial Russia -- Soviet Union -- Russian Federation. If you don't like the chain of rulers as it is displayed now, let's discuss something different, to display this chain of succession, rather than simply break it. Mikkalai 21:01, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I never said that my change was fixing a typo. Russia declared its independence in June 12, 1990 and the USSR was not dissolved until a year later. There is no continuity. Are you claiming that Gorbachev ceased to be legitimate in June 1990? The navigation bar states "List of leaders of the Soviet Union". That's all we need to include. It's not a "List of leaders of Russia". The key word in your statement above is "many", not "all". It was not a direct succession and the two are not synonomous. To claim that is to be misleading. --Jia ng 21:30, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The key word is "don't be too formal" in my comments to edits. You are breaking the actual chain of history of the land under a formal pretext without giving any replacement. Mikkalai 22:07, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia, we must do our best to be factual. What's wrong with being formal? I don't see your point. This is not a direct chain of leaders. --Jia ng 22:26, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wrong with being formal is that history is not mathematics, unfortunately.

For example, I could disagree with inclusion in the list of leaders those temporary ones, from coups, since the were not formally recognized anywhere in the world (and by the people of the country as well). Why is your formalism so selective? Mikkalai 22:48, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Since when has formal recognition by other states determined whether a leader would be a leader, period? --Jia ng 23:01, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

With regard to Gorbachev and Yeltsin - we link from Kerensky to Lenin at one end so we should link from Gorbachev to Yeltsin at the other. PMA 12:33, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Since that one was directly overthrown and replaced it's fine, but it should link to the state replacement, not the person. That navigation bar also links to "Leaders of Russia", not "Leaders of the Soviet Union".--Jia ng

what's wrong with navigation bars mixed? See List of British monarchs, with all these changes and intertwines of lands and rulers. Main goal in historiography is connectedness, otherwise it is impossible to trace through time. Mikkalai 22:48, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You mean at James I of England? That was a direct succession and the crowns were merged. I don't see the issue or confusion there. It's been the same family since the Norman conquest. --Jia ng 23:01, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Silly things removed until serious confirmation

... and explanations.

Gorbachev won the 2004 Grammy Award for Best Spoken Word Album for Children, called "Prokofiev: Peter and the Wolf/Beintus: Wolf Tracks", along with Bill Clinton and Sophia Loren.

OK. This one seems seems true, but the above text is total confusion. I have no desire to write it correctly. If someone wants, go ahead. Mikkalai 02:29, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In early 2004, Gorbachev created a copyright of his famous birthmark after a vodka company featured the mark on labels of one of their drinks in order to capitalize on its fame. The company now no longer uses the trademark as Gorbachev takes it very seriously.Gorbachev to Trademark his Forehead

This text may also be true, but the exposition is unencyclopedic, good for a tabloid (what's the company? why did gorbachoff copyright? to get rich or to fight defamation? etc.) Mikkalai 02:29, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The excision comes across as an attempt to de-trivialise the Gorbachev article, always a worthy goal, but overdone here in my opinion. The Grammy Award alone would qualify Gorbachev for inclusion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies), and the Grammy articles would link here. The trademark issue will probably be mentioned in the trademark / intellectual property / celebrity articles at some stage as a famous example of protecting one's likeness, and is the only mention in the article of the famous birthmark - there is a photo but it could be thought to be from a burn late in life. I agree that the text should be improved, but please use pages such as Wikipedia:Cleanup, Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute or Wikipedia:Pages needing attention instead of deletion. My view is that the article currently needs more content, not less. -- Zigger 04:14, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)

Gorbachov vs Gorbachev

The correct transliteriations of the Russian name Горбачёв is Gorbachov;. The name is often spelled in Russian as Горбачeв (without double dot) hence the spelling of Gorbachev but this is a rude spelling error. We have to avoid the spelling errors. ABE 00:16, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That is true. The chauvinistic comments that follow are clearly from snotty snarky people in the US. It doesn't matter this is a bloody 'English language encylopAedia' - the English language does not have the letter 'ё'. And this letter is NOT an 'e'. It's closest is the 'o' as the above person has already taught you.

This is an English language encylopedia. It doesn't matter which translation is more accurate. In English, Gorbachev is the most common spelling, used by the English language media and elsewhere. --Jia ng 00:18, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

According to the Transliteration of Russian into English, Gorbachyov is the proper transliteration. The source of confusion lies in omission of diacritic marks over ё, as explained in the Reforms of Russian orthography; even when written with without diacritic, it's still universally spelled as yo (hence the simplified CHOFF ending in the phonetic guideline). The similar confusion is applied to Khrushchev, who should have been properly transliterated as Khrushchyov and it's in fact the spelling used by every Russian.

I think these variants be mentioned in the intro as primary with commonly accepted ones in parentheses, just like Joseph Stalin is correctly named by Russian Iosif on the first line. DmitryKo 12:08, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I never spell as -chyov as this is not correct in any sense. In Russian we pronounce -chov, and this is not a "simplification" but a strict rule.--Nixer 20:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Nixer, it doesn't matter much what YOU do. You are wrong and that's easy to corroborate. Enough of this nonsense already - why don't some of you go back to the article and try cleaning it up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.221.88.129 (talk) 05:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Spelling variants in the lead are very disrupting considering how much other info there already is in there. We're interested either in correct spelling or a reasonable representation of the actually pronunciation. I've made layout tweaks to the lead and this includes removing the IPA of his first name and patronymic to de-clutter. The last name is really the only relevant to state in the text. Using "-chyov" is, however, hyper-correct. If we have to have reasonable representation of the Russian pronunciation, then "-chov" is good enough. It can't really be interpreted differently by any English-speaker.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

English speaking people are so stupid. Gorbachev?! Really thought it was a joke. Everybody knows he's called Gorbachov! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.52.138.145 (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

I remember my teacher of elementary Russian in High School used to blame it on French correspondents in Moscow who could not undestand that capitalised ё appeared as just Е in Pravda (due to technical limitations). Obviously I have no references for this ;-) --Asterion^talk 13:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, anything but "Gorbachyov"! It is the most incorrect transliterration ever. Native russian speakers would laugh on it. There's article Yo:

It is an iotated or palatalized O (/jo/ as in yogurt, or /ʲo/), but when following a postalveolar fricative, like ж, ч, ш and щ, represents a simple /o/.

There we have ч before ё, so it's the our case.

And, I must add, vocally Ё is the sound like in bird or burn.Garret Beaumain 14:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobody writes "Gorbachyov", and nobody says it this way. The romanization table referred to above shows SEVERAL ways to transliterate the cyrillic alphabet, and "yo" for "ё" is there in only one sytem: GOST 1971. However, NOBODY uses this sytem today: for example "Ц" should be transliterated as "cz" and "щ" as "shh" which I've never seen. If you want to be correct in superlative, you can write Gorbachëv (according to the ISO *** systems), but of course the trema on e is actually almost never written in Russian. So I deleted Gorbachyov; if you want to have a hypercorrect tranliteration, you can add Gorbachëv. Gorbachov is not a correct transliteration, but it seems to be ok as a transcription. Lebatsnok 15:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Both "Gorbachyov" and "Gorbachëv" are valid romanizations; however, per Wikipedia's guideline to romanization of Russian, the former should be used for standardization purposes. In other words, while numerous romanization schemes exist, Wikipedia had to choose one to standardize on. I will thus have to revert. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ëzhiki. —Nightstallion 11:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You can do whatever you like. I wasn't aware of these guidelines and I don't think they're any good. The guidelines don't help in pronouncing the words, and they do not count as exact transliteration. So it is difficult to see what the authors are trying to achieve with these rules; the idea is probably to have relatively simple rules to render uncommon names (names which do not have a conventional English spelling). In fact, the rules say explicitly that "When something has a conventional name in English, use that name instead of transliterating." Further, it says that conventional names may be "simplified, more familiar-looking, or easier to pronounce for English-speakers, e.g., Gorbachyov→Gorbachev, Kray→Krai, Khrushchyov→Khrushchev, Yuriy→Yuri.". So according to these guidelines, "Gorbachyov" should NOT be used here or anywhere else. What would perhaps make some sense is to have the name written in a scholarly transliteration (Gorbačëv or Gorbachëv), but of course this would be of little use because the original Cyrillic version is already there. So my conclusion is that (1) it is wrong to say that "Gorbachyov" is a more accurate romanization, and (2) according to the Wikipedia guidelines, the form "Gorbachyov" should not be used. Lebatsnok 11:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The "conventional name" clause is already applied to this article—the article is titled "Mikhail Gorbachev", not "Gorbachyov", and the "ev" spelling is used throughout the article's text! The "yo" spelling is there for standardization purposes, and for standardization purposes alone—it is a fairly commonly used romanization of the name (a fact that you for some reason are denying), and it is in line with WP:RUS, which, as you correctly noted, was devised for rendering names of not-so-famous peoples, among other things. All in all, there are dozens of ways to romanize any Russian name, some of which are more common than others, and some are more commonly used in certain contexts or for certain purposes. We cannot (and should not) list every possible romanization (no matter how valid), if only not to clutter the articles with this information. An article should be about the subject, not about different ways of romanization of that subject's name! It does not mean, however, that we should not mention a spelling that's in line with the romanization system used elsewhere in Wikipedia. A person for whom English is a second language may have no idea what the "conventional" spelling is, or if there even is one, but s/he would nevertheless still be able to apply the romanization rules we are using as a standard to arrive to the sought article, either via a redirect or via a search. As to whether the existing standard is a good choice or not, I urge you to review the (extensive) discussions that surrounded this issue around the time when the guideline was adopted. There are downsides to WP:RUS, but there are also many points that alternative romanization systems would handle much worse. And remember, WP:RUS was never intended to provide readers with accurate transcription or transliteration; it is solely a romanization tool created to serve as a standard for naming articles (and to document exceptions when such exceptions are warranted).

So, here is WP:RUS's purpose in a nutshell: a Russian name is always romanized using WP:RUS, unless a good case can be made for using an alternative spelling ("conventional name"). When conventional name is used, the WP:RUS variant is set as a redirect and is mentioned in the article, in order to preserve the integrity of the standardization scheme and to assist with searches to people who may not be aware what the conventional name is. I think the practice makes perfect sense.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The important thing is pronunciation, not the spelling. The last syllable is stressed and it is pronounced with an "o". Spelling Gorbachyov will only make it worse, Gorbachov is better in my opinion, since there is no [j] sound (in English) or palatalisation (in Russian), ч is always soft (palatalised) in Russian. Letter ё after letters ш, щ, ж, ч is equivalent to о, it doesn't affect the pronunciation (is used because of the spelling rules). Besides, letter ё is always accented in Russian. So, Горбачёв is pronounced "Gorbachóv" and Хрущёв is pronounced as "Khrushchóv" --Atitarev (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The important things are how Anglophones write his name (Gorbachev), followed by the romanization conventions we adopted (Gorbachyov). Pronunciation has nothing to do with how we title the articles; not in this case of human names anyway. If you want to show pronunciation, use IPA.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ezhiki, are you going to revert all my edits? And yes, accent symbols are sometimes used to show accents. I am not changing the way names are spelled. Spelling "Gorbachyov" is simply wrong when "yo" follows "ch", as ё has the reading "o". "Yo" adds an unnecessary [j] sound, which makes the name unpronounceable from Anglophone point of view but which will make sense if it is a different consonant. --Atitarev (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not going to revert all your edits; only those which contradict the rules of the English language, Wikipedia guidelines, and established practices. Here are your concerns addressed point-by-point:

Accent symbols are sometimes used to show accents. True, but not in what is supposed to be English words. Where was the last time you saw "Medvédev" spelling in an English text? Exactly, that never happens. And how is writing "Medvédev" etc. not "changing the way the name is spelled"? Looks like a very different spelling to me... The bolded name in the lead is supposed to match the article's title. Accents showing stress can be added to Russian spelling (as it is a common practice in reference works) or indicated in the IPA transcription. English words should be left alone. And once you show stress in one of these two locations (or in both), additionally spelling out which syllable needs to be stressed is quite redundant. This is an encyclopedia article, after all, not a dictionary.
Spelling "Gorbachyov" is simply wrong when "yo" follows "ch", as ё has the reading "o"... "Gorbachyov" spelling is per WP:RUS—a guideline we use to romanize Russian words (and which is based on BGN/PCGN romanization developed by the very same Anglophones you are so concerned about). I assure you, plenty of Anglophones reviewed WP:RUS before it was accepted in its present form. What's more, it is a romanization guideline, not a pronunciation guide (for that, again, we have IPA).

Hope it helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ëzhiki, thank you for the answer, I can see your point. I have put in a suggestion in Wikipedia talk:Romanization of Russian under Letter ё following ж, ш, ч and щ, suggesting to transliterate as "o", not "yo". It is the main point I don't agree with and I didn't see any discussion on this issue. Consider this as my answer but more importantly, I'd like to get some feedback from Anglophones who reviewed WP:RUS --Atitarev (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(resetting indent) I've just come across this discussion, and I'd like to make a few general points. But I don't have time right now. All I'd say for now is that I share Atitarev's misgivings. "Gorbachyov" will inevitably be misinterpreted by many people as if the pronunciation were supposed to be "gor-bay-chy-ov" (4 syllables). We had the same problem with the former Byelorussia, which was often mispronounced as "by-lo-russia". -- JackofOz (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Jack, have you read my comments above? This is not about pronunciation; this is about romanization. Pronunciation is covered by trancription (we primarily use IPA for that); romanization, on the other hand, is a form of transliteration, but with the primary purpose of standardization. All three concepts solve three completely different problems.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 01:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't they go hand in hand? Otherwise why would we have the issue romanising Russian "e" either as "e" or "ye" depending on the position of the letter? What about ь? We don't blindly romanise letters one to one, do we? Russian is more or less phonetical compared to some other languages but some romanisation rules should follow the pronunciation differences. Do Хрущёв and Щорс have a different pronunciation of the vowel after щ? No, it's simply a convention. --Atitarev (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If it were only pronunciation then we would be transcribing муж as mush. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

A good point, too. In response to Atitarev's concerns above, we are using the romanization system that's already in use by Anglophones; we are not re-inventing the wheel here. If you want to know why a distinction is made between "ye" and "e" depending on the position of the letter, you'd better contact BGN/PCGN and ask them. Apparently, they thought such an approach would work better in English texts, and if they thought that "ё" would be better shown as "o" after certain letters, I am sure they would have added that rule, too. All in all, there are hundreds of people out there who think they invented a "better" romanization system (<sarcasm>which Wikipedia must adopt immediately!</sarcasm>), and after four years with Wikipedia I think I've got a chance to talk to a good number of them. But in reality, just as we are not using Wikipedia to promote certain, err, "nonstandard" points of view but rather are supposed to report on what's already out there, we are also trying to re-use the conventions which have already been widely adopted for similar purposes. When WP:RUS started in 2004, it was nothing more than a collection of made-up rules with not much support behind them. After a few waves of "improvement" attempts, the guidelines were re-written on the BGN/PCGN base with a few minor changes which could't easily be documented but could be easily observed and supported with thousands real-life examples. As for the Atitarev's improvement suggestion, I don't see that it either documented or based on real-word usage, nor do I see any real benefit to it as far as the main goal of romanization goes. I added more on this here; let's move the discussion there, please. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Berlin wall

There is a nice anecdote on the page from the French language wiki, which would be nice to incorporate if anyone can think where best to put it. Here is my translation of the French:

In 1989, on an official visit to China soon after the events of Tiananmen square, he was asked for his opinion on the great wall of China: "It's a very beautiful work", he replied, "but there are already too many walls between people". A journalist asked him, "would you like the Berlin wall to be taken down?" Gorbachev replied very seriously, "Why not?"

~~,,,~~Trainspotter~~,,,~~ 19:52, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with a comment someone said about using a better picture. Could someone find a better one?

Glasnost: eastern europe tore away the USSR

It was not so much eastern europe... eastern europe was in itself manipulated easily, but the balitic region was the actual definitive *region* which had the momentum and history to actually break away. Remember in the baltics the germans were greeted as liberators against the soviets in WWII... capsulised in the movie "Hunt for the red october" goes the saying "but why would a russian want to defect?". "He's not Russian. He was born in lithuania". That pretty much sums it up. This isn't the united states of america we're talking about. It was never united, and never was, and never will be. period.

That's true. If the USSR would have been like the USA, Baltics would have lived in reservations that would be used as nuclear waste dumps.

Yes, but the question is why do the Baltic people feel this way?

-- The people from the Baltic states are not Slavic like most of Easter Europe (and Russia), they are for the geniology as the Finns. Traditionally, they've been closer (language, culture, religion) to Finland (or by extension, Sweden - although that is a bit of a stretch). I think they saw themselves as the oppressed Nordic peoples of the USSR. A good read would be on the Russian/Swedish wars that took place on that territory. At that time, Finland was part of the Swedish Empire and the baltic states were kind of a vassal land that the Russians wanted....also see the history of St. Petersburg. ~~Thoolie

Just to make a correction. Two of the Baltic States, Lithuania and Latvia ARE Slavic nations, very similarly related to the Russians, Belarusians, Poles, Ukrainians, etc. The Estonians are geniologicaly related to the Fins. The reason why people from those states wanted to break from Russia wasn't a matter of geniological roots, but the fact that these countries, (like Poland) were independent for many years prior to Soviet Domination. Some of you may be aware of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth that was one of the most powerful nations in Europe 500 years ago, and troops from this nation actually attacked and destroyed Moscow early in Russian history. -Dorian

As to Lithuania and Latvia....Slavs? Maybe. The 3rd Reich didn't consider them quite as guilty of being Slavs as they did Russian, Belorussians, and Ukrainians, although my parents do remember being labeled as "Ostlanders" while in Germany. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was a big player in the region, but that was a very long time ago...long enough to not really count nowadays? I think the big difference that drew them to seperate from the USSR is the fact that due to religion and to a lesser extent language, they were more a part of Western European civilization or at the very least not really part of the Eastern Orthodox civilization, of which Russia was the leading state?

Just my $0.02

From the linguistic point of view Lithuanians and Latvians are NOT Slavs; their languages are related and belong to the group of Baltic languages. Estonian is completely different and related to Finnish: they both belong to Finnic languages. The term "Baltic countries" is usually applied to Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia due to their geographical position. Tsf (talk) 02:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Clarify

What i mean by that is eastern europe is much a generisation... there was a real difference in the warsaw pact between communist "satelite states" and those states actually IN the USSR... dissent towards the soviets varied greatly between them, on a scale of 0 to 100, objectively between 4 trillion 5 hundred billion 4 hundred and twenty seven million, 800 thousand , four hundred and seventy three to say on the same scale of 0-100, 3 in Georgia. Ukraine less, take into account that soviet union encouraged russian nationals to "Spread everywhere" to complete the russification of the USSR.

Raisa

Shouldn't Raisa's death in 1999 be mentioned?

Inadvertently dissolved Communist Party

The article states that Gorbachev inadvertently ended the supremecy of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union. He had intentions to end Communism (as stated later on) so inadvertently is a bad word to describe the situation.

Religious beliefs

Although he doesn't adhere to any religion, I'm not sure if it's correct to label Gorbachev an atheist. For example, he is quoted as saying: "We must not categorize nations into first-rate and second-rate because all nations are God's creation. And God knew what it was creating." [1]

Atheist or not, he is a trained politician, and I would rather believe that his invocations of God and Christ are a PR trick, nothing more. There is a Rusian say, "You live with volves, you wail as volves". As for labelling, this is a kind of label which is valid only according to person's claim about himself, regardless any amount third-party guesswork. mikka (t) 01:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

On October 27, he became an archon to the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the orthodox church. ==> http://www.hri.org/news/greek/ana/2005/05-10-25.ana.html#15 and http://www.orthodoxie.com/2005/10/michael_gorbatc_1.html

Sources for Mikhail Gorbachev

I am looking for additional sources pertaining to Mikhail Gorbachev. The sources should say how he took a stand in history. I will give you a current list of my in-use sources: Wikipedia (of course),Time.com, Galegroup.com "Cold War" from Gale encyclopedia, CNN.com, Galegroup.com biography, Why Gorbachev Happened: His Triumphs and His Failures(book). I would be appreciative of any new sites. Thank you.

Jack F. Matlock, Jr. Autopsy on an Empire: The American Ambassador's Account of the Collapse of the Soviet Union. Random House, New York. Copyright 1995. This book has extensive footnotes, bibliography, index, list of dramatis personae, and a summary chronology. It is a combination of primary source and secondary source; the main article lists it under secondary sources. -- Jasper 04:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

mikhail 77.164.178.122 (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

humanitarian

He is a humanitarian becorse at he stop the Cold War on the peaceway, at he was the only democraty president of Soviet Union and at he fought agaist Stalinism. Swedenman 13:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

He's a humanitarian because he brought down the only rival of the US so the US can rule supreme. Is that what you're saying? 75.2.153.192 00:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure 'humanitarian' is really a good fit. He was a patriot who genuinely believed in communism, and introduced reforms in genuine, if at times naive, effort to make the lives of Soviet citizens better. Peter Grey 13:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

He sent tanks to crush unarmed civilians in Vilnius in 1991.. What humanitarian would do that? Sigitas 13:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

A conflicted one? Peter Grey 04:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Gorbachev correctly calculated that if the Baltic states gained independence, the entire Soviet state was doomed. He may be a humanitarian, but his primary responsibility at the time was protecting the territorial integrity of the Soviet Union. Besides, one can safely assume that Gorbachev was under immense pressure from the military and KGB to act against Baltic nationalism. His position was far from secure. 220.235.60.178 14:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This page clearly needs a lot of work, because many of the things you are saying are simply historically innaccurate. No historian I have ever read has ever suggested that Gorbachev was responsible for the incident in Vilnius. Read any major historian of the Cold War - Gaddis, Archie Brown, Zubok, Westad etc - and they will provide evidence that Gorbachev had no idea (he makes this clear in his autobiography but by all means do not take his word alone for it, as other figures in their autiobiographies have agreed that he had no idea). The action was taken by increasingly indepedent local elites in collusion with the KGB; Gorbachev, through the chaos of his reforms, was losing control of many areas that were once under the control of the totalitarian CPSU general secretary. The Vilnius incident exposed his loss of control of the armed forces amongst other things. Unfortunately, this page lacks the work of someone who has studied the period. I am studying it at university and have a large amount of books with various views on the subject and therefore I will do some work on it. But please do not be misled by assuming things about incidents like Vilnius on their face value. A similar thing happened during Chernobyl - hardliners in the administration hid facts deliberately from Gorbachev and the public, which led to Gorbachev removing many of the 'old thinkers' and promoting more 'new thinkers'. Aled Dilwyn Fisher 12:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

GA nomination failed

I am failing the GA nomination. While the articles is generally well written and comprehensive there are several problems that need to be addressed. There is too great reliance on a few sources, in particular the entire Early Life section is only referenced to one source. More should be found if possible and I would prefer if specific facts had more specific references (i.e. page numbers) but that is not a hard requirement. There are a couple of citation needed tags that should be fixed. The Legacy section should be expanded and sourced and any POV problems (it looks reasonable to me) dealt with. The trivia section should be merged into the rest of the article and the specific incidents cited. The final Naevus Flammeus section should also be merged and cited, it is an odd way for the article to end. Eluchil404 06:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Picture

How about we include this picture? :) http://qrm.pri.ee/foto/archives/04_12_10_Vipgirls.jpg

Only if it has a free license. We already has quite a number of Fair use picture in this article abakharev 14:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Mikhail Gorbachev

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The article says MG won the nobel peace prize in 1690. I don't think that's accurate

Clarification

The article says "Soon after the constitutional amendment, Lithuania declared independence and elected Vytautas Landsbergis as President." This is inaccurate. Landsbergis was head of state in 1990-1992, but his title was "Chairman of the Supreme Council". See President of Lithuania.

Languages?

There is little general biographical information; a lot of it is about his political career. Specifically, what languages does he speak? --66.11.174.139 22:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Mikel Gorbachev should redirect here. Gorgachov, a misspeling, should also be added as a misspelling.

The above user (myself) used at the time IP 71.64.201.157. Looks like this has been fixed, if, entertainingly, somewhat indirectly.--189.121.183.72 (talk) 04:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Trademark

In Germany there exisist a famous trade mark which is called Wodka_Gorbatschow but has nothing to do with Mikhail Gorbachev. But the german population thinks it's called after Mikhail Gorbachev [2] --Japan01 12:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you that no-one in Germany thinks that Wodka Gorbatschow has any connection with Mikhail Gorbatschow (at least not the generation that remembers him as the secretary general of the SU). Many people think however that this is an (inappropriate) attempt to cash in on the popularity of this name. In fact Wodka Gorbatschow was started in 1920 by a russian emigree (by the name of Gorbatschow) in Berlin. So no trademark issue there.195.128.251.238 22:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Gorby's successor ?

He had none as Soviet Leader. The position ended with his resignation, in December 1991. Yelstin was the 1st Russian President (who took office before Gorbachev's resignation). PS- if you were to argue the opposite, on the grounds that Russia is the USSR's successor, then Gorby would have 15 immediate successors (the 15 post-Soviet republic's 1st Presidents). GoodDay 19:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

President of the Soviet Union

We need an addition to the Infobox: Listing Gorby's tenure as the 'only' President of the Soviet Union (March 15, 1990-December 25, 1991) & his Vice President. GoodDay 22:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Current Life

I'm kind of wondering what he's been doing since he left power. The article talks about his political life, but I have to wonder what he does to pay the bills?

Anyone know?

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently he is a fan of Juventus FC

He lives in Boston along with a lot of famous former Russian/Soviet politicans and citizens who left after the coup. His brother Sergei is also a famous resident in New England. 68.9.253.175 (talk) 03:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"Mikhail Gorbachev dissolved the Soviet Union"

is something of a historical fallacy -- he may have (unwillingly) signed on the dotted line, but the extra-legal decision between Yeltsin, Shushkevich (Belarus) and Kravchuk (Ukarine) is what dissovled the Soviet Union, a pretty important detail, furthered by the fact that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was the last thing Gorbachev wanted having thought (before the August coup) that he had safely secured the 9+1 confederation treaty. Sophiehume 19:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"Also How Could Gorbachev be born in 1831 but lead the USSR form 1985 to 1991 (notposible nuless he is the oldest man ever) (which he is not)"

Protection

As there's been nearly no comment on the discussion over why this page is protected, I'll be taking it away in a week unless somebody gives a good reason. Hadoren 06:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was originally protected due to heavy anon IP vandalism. As it has been over a month since then, I have unprotected it. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement on Communist party extremely misleading

The introduction contains a clause about Gorbachev helping remove the influence of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

This is really not the case at all since Putin and other officials were all high ranking Communist Party Members who have maintained their authority.

Maybe the Party names have changed but the people have not. Rag-time4 00:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

DmitryChestnykh (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Influence of Communists Party and influence of members of CP are different things.

Deleted Pictures

Why are all these pictures being deleted? So what if they don't give you a huge amount of info? They're good to have and don't clog up the article or anything. Please keep the pictures.1.21 jigwatts 16:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia removes pictures which are not verified because they could cause copyright disputes. It would be a shame if a lawsuit brought down Wikipedia, so it's best to play it safe. --Whiteknox 01:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It's ridiculous that the page doesn't have a replacement main picture on top.1.21 jigwatts 01:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The birthmark

I was told by someone, shortly after Gorbachev's election) that there was a Russian story that a man with a birthmark would destroy Russia? Has anyone else come acroos this? Jackiespeel 17:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a yarn to me, and it would certainly need to be attributed, if you were to include it. Which reminds me... during the heyday of the Soviet Union, at least some of the official portraits of Gorbachev were retouched to omit the birthmark. Not necessarily related to this story, since it could have been mere personal/party vanity, but still interesting.--195.215.9.140 12:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Born in the USSR

Should it be noted for posterity's sake that he was the only leader of the USSR to have actually been born in the USSR (i.e. after the Revolution that established the Soviet Union)?

Considering that there were only a handful of leaders... no.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 04:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Third Person

Someone should write about his habit of talking about himself in third person. Is this a common russian thing or is it just Gorbachev? It's quite strange when he talks about himself as if it was another person. --ChristianKarlsson.se 16:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Clio on Gorbachev

Copied from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 August 30 for processing. --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is Gorbachev's tragedy that he truly believed that he could indeed reform the unreformable, to give fresh life to what was, in practice, a political and economic corpse. If you look closely at the history of the period you will see that he was acting on conclusions already reached by Yuri Andropov, his predecessor, who died before he could implement any policy changes. Alterations to the moribund system had to come, in one form or another. So, what went wrong? Well, let's have a look.

The first thing is that he was too ambitious: he opened so many doors that could not be closed again; to rooms within rooms, ever beyond. He began by looking for both political and economic change, whereas the wise thing would have been to renew the economy, the immediate area of concern, and leave political superstructures to a later date. He might, in other words, have adopted the kind of model being pursued with considerable success by the present Chinese administration. Attempting political and economic change at the same time was bad; it was far worse when one ran far ahead of the other. In Gorbachev's case political reform proceeded well out of pace with the rescructuring of the economy. To be more precise, the the whole Soviet economy went into a state of freefall, while a growing sense of political freedom opened the whole apparatus of Communist rule to acute forms of criticism that Gorbachev could simply not control. It was a self-reinforcing process; the more living standards declined the more critical people became. For some the pace of change was too fast; for others it was not fast enough. There was no strategy; there was no road map; there was no coherence.

Gorbachev was also faced with the inertia and lmitations of the whole system; an entrenched and sclerotic bureaucracy, and a population that over time had learned apathy as a mode of defence. The Secretary's attempt to appeal to 'the people' beyond the apparatus only incresed hostility towards him within the Communist Party, just as his wider social and political initiatives often had risable consequences. I am thinking here of the anti-vodka campaign, intended to reduce absenteeism and increase productivity. All this did was to give an added spur to the black economy, and draped poor Gorby with the unfortunate appellation of 'Lemonade Joe.' Unpopular within the system, and unpopular without, he went on to attempt to ride all of the horses of the Soviet republics and the People's Democracoes at the same time. Practically speaking, the whole thing was quite impossible.

Internal matters were made worse for Gorbachev by the falling world price of oil and gas, which reduced his room for maneuver still further. In international terms his inititives looked increasingly desperate, particularly his moves towards disarmament, which further weakened the Soviet military-industrial complex, and only confirmed to western leaders that the U.S.S.R was in serious economic difficulties. The cuts in defence spending also failed to have the intended effect, with little in the way of realignment towards the consumer economy. Shortages remained a feature of the whole system, made worse when reduced subsidies led to a sharp rise in the rate of inflation. Many ordinary Russian people, particularly those on fixed incomes, were effectively priced out of the market altogether. And here I think what I wrote in response to the question about the Roman historian Tacitus has some relevance: when it comes to a choice between freedom and security, between hunger and bread, there are few people who are satisfied to chew on abstractions.

Gorbachev certainly saw Communism as an ideal which could be renewed, in the same fashion that Christians throughout history have sought renewal in a return to the primitive faith. But Communism was-and is-The God that Failed. I think I should let the man himself have the final word;

When I became General Secretary, I admit that I was not free from the illusions of any predecessors. I thought we could unite freedom and democracy, and give socialism a second wind. But the totalitarian model had relied on dictatorship and violence, and I can see that this was not acceptable to the people... I wanted to change the Soviet Union, not destroy it. I started too late to reform the party, and waited too long to create a market economy.

How hindsight makes us all wise. Clio the Muse 01:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I found a better image for gorvachev's image

Hi guys i found a image much better than that gorvachev's old peronality, the image its ubicated in [http://www.infoplease.com/images/gorbachev.gif, please someone can upload that gorvachev image, it taht image it shows younger and his president's suit too, i think that image was taken in 1980.

Should we mention...

Gorbachev’s father was a member and supporter of General Vlasov Army that fought on the side of German Nazis against the Soviet Red Army and, did such atrocities against their own people that sometimes surpassed even those of the German SS troops. Or is this article striclty anti-Soviet?

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 04:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you think Gorbachov deserves keeping Nobel Peace Prize? It looks like he is nor really what he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.46.199 (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Christmas Day

"Gorbachev resigned on Christmas Day and the Soviet Union was formally dissolved the next day. Two days later, on December 27th, Yeltsin moved into Gorbachev's old office."

The Christmas Day in Russia and other orthodox countries of the former USSR is 7th of January. Please write the correct date (25th of December), because "Christmas Day" is a relative term. (Please do not use that kind of terms in wikipedia).

Gorbachev wants a revolution in New Orleans

http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/index.ssf?/base/news-9/119165226043420.xml&coll=1 - found Sunday, December 16, posted earlier (not sure when). This should be updated, I'm not good with Wiki's. SZF2001 (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

What about Haydar Aliev's critism over this so called "Social Democrat"

Deportatioın of turkish-only muslim people of bulgaria was whose invention? Todor jirkov's or this "Social Democrat" this guy is a real facist like his Georgian grand-father(not biological of course) Joseph.. Nobel award ... sure deporting, killing minorities plus setting own people into hunger deserves a peace award who else could give it except then Vikings their peace is this cheap.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.103.220.250 (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

yes i have also listened that from Alievs own words... And wasnt suprised that Michael had a nobel peace award :) kill muslims you will have peace award, humiliate muslims you will have literature award, pity its not easy for phisics to do smt against muslims,... :) btw i am not muslim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.108.42.184 (talk) 01:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

religious affiliation

Gorbachev has recently formally confirmed that he is a believing Christian- something that has long been a rumor. His religious affiliation should be changed from Pantheist to Russian Orthodox.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/19/wgorbachev119.xml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.133.248 (talk) 05:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

) that explains his act against muslims in bulgaria... :) todor is criminal while michael(who gives the order and idea is awarded... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.108.42.184 (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverted to Atheism. It is becoming silly, the Chicago Tribune article is the latests report on this and clearly states that he himself labels himself as an atheist. I wonder what points the believers get with their god when they can put their labels on people? The article in the Tribune about his conversion does not have a direct quote of him like the atheist quote. Also http://www.mattbors.com/2008/03/always.html Belgianatheist (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with 67.130.101.131's addition of Russian Eastern Orthodox Christians (though it is quite impossible to be Russian Eastern Orthodox Christian and atheist but whatever), alternatively no label would also be okBelgianatheist (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well Gorbachev really contradicted himself, and we are not sure which he is. So it is probably best to include both. Happyme22 (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, if it's been reported at different times that he's been of different religions, we should just report both. It's not really our job to figure out what he "really" believes. --Delirium (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

His remarks about how many years God will give him may be figurative speech. Calling S:t Francis an Alter Christ does not, as far as I can see, indicate a Christian faith, only reverence to a great man and to the founder of Christianity. (From a Christian standpoint the expression is suspect, since there is only one Christ.) --Årvasbåo (talk) 02:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

But the key word there is may. We cannot be sure, and making conclusions based on facts is what we call original research, stricly banned by Wikipedia policy. Since we cannot determine one or the other without making conclusions, it is best to report both. Happyme22 (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The or lets readers know that it's uncertain. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Redirect Mikel Gorbachev

I say again: Mikel Gorbachev should redirect here.

Gorgachov, a misspelling, should also be added as a misspelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.210.163 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 22 April 2008

I have added a few redirects. Bwrs (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section needed

Please add criticism section --Dojarca (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No. Per WP:CRITICISM, criticism sections are discouraged and criticisms should be incorporated throughout the article. I will say that the article needs major work, though. Happyme22 (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There is too much criticism of Gorbachev I think to be incorporated in the article's body. --Dojarca (talk) 12:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The same could be said about George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, etc. -- those two articles are good articles. And Ronald Reagan is featured. Happyme22 (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent events that should be included

In September 2008 Gorbachev announced that he would be setting up a new political party with the Russian billionaire Alexander Lebedev. It has the provisional title of the Independent Democratic Party. See Guardian article :http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/30/russia To quote the Guardian the party will "campaign for legal and economic reform"..."a stronger role for parliament, less state capitalism and the expansion of Russia's independent media". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.207.45 (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Only for People in the US

The 'religious affiliation' section is only interesting to people in the US who simply can't leave well enough alone. One's beliefs are one's beliefs - they're personal. Just because the people in the US want to redefine everything - including history itself - doesn't mean anything is actually changed.

The section should be immediately removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.221.88.129 (talk) 05:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Mikhail Gorbachev/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Article is now a failed good article candidate. Early life needs other reference sources, page numbers would help, a few citation tags need to be fixed. Neutrality considered a non-issue by reviewer. Badbilltucker 22:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 22:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 19:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)