Talk:Shoe-banging incident

Did he actually pound his shoe?

I'm surprised this article presents the incident as fact though any number of sources cast doubt on whether the incident actually took place at least as described. Certainly he pounded his fists on the table and at some point he either removed his shoe or it came off on its own. But there seems to be no concrete evidence he actually pounded it on the table. See for example [1].Gr8white (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

As a kid, I saw a video of it on TV a few decades after it happened. Or, that's what I remember. K was up on the podium giving a speech about, i dunno, nuclear war or something, and he got more and more agitated, then he started yelling, pounding with his fist against the podium, then he reached down, grabbed his shoe and started banging the heel against the podium as he continued his tirade. "We will bury you!!!". "The living will envy the dead!" History, captured on videotape by multiple news channels from around the world.

So I guess it didn't happen that way? I was a kid or a teen when I learned about it. Maybe I saw a picture or a few, and it easily could have been that faked photo (where he's banging the wrong side against the table). And my father was republican, and maybe I heard the republican version of the story. Possibly, over and over again. That was the cold war belief system that kept the US building weapons.

This is just too strange. There must have been at least 100 witnesses to it in the same room, maybe several hundred. Nobody remembers it? No photos? Didn't they have a complete electronic audio system with translators so each diplomat can participate? Nobody tape recorded this? Not even a steno pad? Doesn't the govt of the Phillipines have a record of when Sumulong spoke at the podium? I refuse to believe that the UN doesn't have records of this, or records that could prove it false. I refuse to believe that there wasn't a flurry of letter-writing about it at least, if it really happened. It's not like it was in a small room and they all died and so there's no way to know what really happened. K and S and the moderator and everybody else involved, they all walked out the door that day, still alive, along with each man's entourage, and must have told somebody, if it really happened.

great article about it! http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/26/opinion/26iht-edtaubman_ed3_.html or [3] below.

OsamaBinLogin (talk) 07:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The "We will bury you" was a totally different event, which has its own Wikipedia article. One ponders though, the stories of him banging the shoe, the witnesses saying he didn't, the photograph of his shoe on the desk, could he, as some witnesses said, waved the shoe, then slammed it down onto the desk and hence, the story built upon retelling? What is actually amazing is, with hundreds of eyewitnesses who are still alive, none seem to have a consensus on what actually happened.Wzrd1 (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's a usual story, witnesses never remember anything. We don't have that much "space" in our memory to really remember details of events. Just think when you could remember in detail how some meeting, some talk with someone, or some party happened, especially if at least a few days have passed since. - 89.110.23.178 (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

That's why minutes are taken, recordings are made, etc. Regrettably, no archived footage seems to exist of the incident. Eventually, history will forget about the incident, as the UN in particular has plenty of drama to eventually make it the minor footnote that it was.Wzrd1 (talk) 12:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually most national televisions must have some footage of the incident. Here is an Italian TV video snippet showing it on the 12th of October (it may have happened on other days too, just pointing to some definite proof for that day): http://www.raistoria.rai.it/articoli/la-scarpa-di-kruscev/11034/default.aspx between 00:14 and 00:21 in the video. His hand moves too fast to recognise the shoe as such, but he drops it at the end (about 00:22) and while it comes to a stand-still you can clearly see it's a shoe. The guy in light grey coat was laughing all the while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.134.195.47 (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• I guess the question is whether that is fake.
• It is notable that, while Khrushchev's behaviour has since been taken as threatening, The Times at the time accused him of "treating the General Assembly as a huge joke, even to the extent of taking off his shoe yesterday, shaking it in the direction of the president and banging his desk with it while chuckling to his colleagues". This fits in with the footage of laughter.
• In response to the second post above, according to this [2], "The living will envy the dead" was attributed to Khrushchev by Kennedy in 1963, but has never been verified.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
• In response to the post of 109.134.195.47. The Italian TV video snippet showing Khrushchev along with Andrei Gromiko on the 12th of October with Khrushchev brandishing his fists but nothing else. Then a big guy follows, only loosely resembling Khrushchev, who is pounding his shoe on the desk. This is the way how Fake News are being produced for gullible persons! It would be interesting to find out who's actually that person pounding his shoe! Here's the archived version with the Italian text translated into English claiming that Khrushchev is the person in question: raistoria.rai.it - La scarpa di Kruscev

New York. During a United Nations Assembly, Russian Communist Party Secretary Nikita Khrushchev removes a shoe, brandishing it. The gesture, one of the iconic images of the 20th century, occurs in protest of the 'intervention of a Filipino speaker, Lorenzo Sumulong, who was speaking about Soviet domination of Eastern European countries. The light-colored, lace-up shoe then remained in plain view on the table throughout the session at the UN. Many diplomats would later say that it was never clear whether Khrushchev really used one of his own, borrowed one from Gromiko, who was standing next to him, or brought one on purpose in his bag, to beat it on the table.--2001:9E8:4608:9705:43E4:7E9B:5E73:69E2 (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

My father watched the show banging incident and I don’t understand why this world wants to lie about it. Khrushchev said “ he will destroy us without even firing a shot”. Khrushchev lost his temper and because of this exposed what the KGB was really up to. Needless to say Khrushchev affiliates with the KGB weren’t too happy. Khrushchev apparently got sick and died 2601:46:37E:5340:1921:83DD:C626:2BBA (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Photo requested

I gather there's no photo of this incident, but I've just added this page to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of historical events in the hope that there is. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

According to the article cited above there were several photographers poised to capture the incident, and the fact that no photo exists lends credence to the assertion that the banging never actually occurred. Although according to one source there is at least one faked photo on the internet. Gr8white (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's a reference to the faked photo (about halfway down the page): http://www.dreamtimepodcast.com/2009/07/k-blows-top.html Gr8white (talk) 03:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Found the best-known fake and the AP original, created a collage and added.FeelSunny (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Competing New York Times reporters

A New York Times Page 1 article from October 13, 1960 claiming he banged it: [3] A New York Times editorial from 2003 which references a photographer from the time claiming it didn't happen: [4]

Oh, the unreliability of human eyewitnesses! --Aervanath (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Move

I suggest that this page be moved to a more approptiate title, for exapmple "UN Shoe Banging Incident" or "Khrushchev Shoe banging incident" 27.32.52.160 (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Khrushchev shoe banging incident would probably be an improvement. --BDD (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it should mention Khrushchev.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

NY Times photo

The photo from the NY Times Store can serve definite proof of this incident. http://www.nytstore.com/1/1/3051-soviet-premier-nikita-khrushchev-1960-nsapfs5.html However, it's clearly not available for insertion here on WikiPedia. Question: should it be at least mentioned in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bornmw (talk • contribs) 04:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The question is, does a photo exist if one has to pay for it. For, indeed, that is the actual question you asked. By that standard, I must not exist, as my official photographs are impossible to find. But, my wife would most certainly disagree with you. More importantly, Wikipedia has more than a few thousand references that are behind paywalls, offering the same issue. Do we revert all paywall references and remove a substantial amount of political and scientific articles from Wikipedia? We obviously do not. We give the citation and on occasion, explanation in the citation.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the addition. Next time keep in mind you don't need to ask a permission for an addition of anything relevant and well referenced. -No.Altenmann >t 05:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Alleged?

I don't see how this incident (or these incidents) can be called alleged.

1. Khrushchev has admitted (for want of a better word) to the incident in his memoirs, though his recollection might be different. His memoirs aren't particularly reliable: for example, he says Roosevelt was an Irish migrant. His family also admits it took place, as does his translator.
2. There could be several incidents. This [5] states that Macmillan wrote about shoe-banging on 29 September in his memoirs.
3. The NYT article pinpoints the date of the Sumulong incident at 12 October. Taubman has simply confused the date of the incident with the date of the newspaper. This is a minor error.
4. Clearly, at least one photo was faked. That doesn't mean that the incident didn't happen: just that no one took a photo at the time. Obviously, it was considered valuable for propaganda purposes.
5. Part of what's missing in this account is the rowdiness of the session (see the memoirs and John Lewis Gaddis, Now We Know p 182). Perhaps it didn't seem so startling in context.
6. Differing recollections and discrepancies in historical accounts are normal. They don't indicate that an event didn't happen. Particularly if there were actually several incidents.
7. Part of this issue is caused by the title: "Shoe-banging incident". It implies there was one incident and that it involved banging. As, I have said, there seems to have been several incidents. The photographer quoted by Taubman says that Khrushchev waved his shoe but didn't bang it. I don't think this amounts to saying the incident didn't happen, but rather it was misreported.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

As I have now found multiple sources that confirm that the incident took place on 12 October, I will amend the article accordingly.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

William Taubman seems to be the only one querying the authenticity of the incident. However, in his biography, Khrushchev (2003), he accepts the shoe-banging did happen, and gives the date as 12 October (p 657). He notes that the NYT and the Washington Post both reported it at the time, but doesn't delve into any other contemporary sources. It seems odd that he put so much store on 40 year old recollections. As a result, Wikipedia has misrepresented a famous incident for the past five years.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken in judging it beyond any doubt, but I don't care to dig books now. - üser:Altenmann >t 04:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The phrase, that William Taubman is using in a book Khrushchev: The Man and His Era is quite special: I have adopted the view that the shoe was not only brandished but banged. It doesn't mean, that he is absolutely sure, it only means the researcher is inclined towards that hypotheses. Besides, the book was published in March 2003, but the article is from July 26, 2003, so it was his more recent opinion, in which he told exactly: "The celebrated shoe was allegedly banged on Oct. 13, 1960". Also, the article is slightly more reliable source, because there is some editorial control in a reputable newspaper. --Alogrin (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, I didn't realise the article was later than the book, but I don't agree that a newspaper article is more reliable. After all, in the article he gets the date wrong. Who actually disputes the banging? We have 5 reputable newspapers cited that reported it when it happened. Khrushchev did not dispute it himself!!! The only doubt has been created by the vagaries of memory and the political opportunism that led some people to fake evidence.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a generic policy of Wikipedia, that sources with editorial review are more reliable, then self-published materials, though in this case the difference is not significant. What is important, that reliable sources do present different versions of this event and it's not our position to judge the reasons of different descriptions of the event. 5 cited newspaper articles, that were published immediately after the event, does not carry more weight, then literally dozens of other sources. Besides, only two of them, based on the names of those articles, are confirming that shoe-banging actually happened. It would be on boundaries of wikipedia policies to summarize by ourself the contradicted information from multiple primary source (rules require that "wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources"), but luckily we have such secondary source (William Taubman, The New York Times), that summarized information from multiple sources and concluded: "The celebrated shoe was allegedly banged" and "it may never have happened". --Alogrin (talk) 16:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Are you serious? The book was published by a major publisher — it wasn't self-published — and it received a Pulitzer Prize. How can you judge the content of a newspaper article merely by reading the heading? That's ridiculous. Khrushchev said it happened, and so did the press covering the conference. It happened.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Italian public broadcaster RAI's footage of the incident

I have doubts about the correctness of that RAI video (http://www.raistoria.rai.it/articoli/la-scarpa-di-kruscev/11034/default.aspx). At the time 0:15 sec you can see clearly, that there are at least a couple of awards on the right side of the guy. There is no NewYork photos of Khrushchev with two awards on the right side. Sometimes there is one (possibly Lenin Prize medal, like here http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/polish-president-wladyslaw-gomulka-with-soviet-premeir-news-photo/2636930), but mostly there were none, especially during UN meetings. People around him doesn't resemble people on any other photos (the guy to right slightly looks like Gromyko, but seems older). --Alogrin (talk) 09:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

The video might be faked, as were photos, but there seems no doubt that the incident occurred. The article cites 5 different press reports at the time. Taubman in his biography accepts the incident occurred, and Khrushchev discusses it in his memoirs. It happened.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

The issue for this discussion is not whether the shoe-pounding took place, but whether the statement "RAI has video of the incident" is accurate. I agree with Alogrin that the video referenced in the link is of very questionable authenticity, and the language of the statement should reflect that the authenticity of this video has not been verified. Cemcq (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

This is major broadcaster. If video is fake, this is not our business to do "mythbusting". We report that RAI claims to have it. This is interesting in itself. - üser:Altenmann >t 04:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

In the context of an article that discusses whether or not an incident took place, it is indeed reasonable to discuss the veracity the evidence. The statement "RAI has video of the incident" is unequivocal, and such video would be the only known visual documentation of the incident. It seems inconsistent to document the doctored photograph of the incident, but allow the link to the RAI to be unquestioned. To say instead "RAI claims to have video" would at least alert the reader that this video is unverified. Cemcq (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

So, Altenmann, do you object to the removal of the word "alleged" and the references to other dates for the incident?--Jack Upland (talk) 06:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

At the moment I have no opinion; being somewhat busy. Last time I looked at the article a long time ago. But IMO the word "alleged" is misplaced in the first phrase. Even if it is an urban legend, it is known as such. Its veracity may be discussed a bit later. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I do have concerns about the authenticity of that video. The man banging his shoe does not look like Khrushchev. If you compare it with the footage of K at the podium, his face is not round enough, his nose and forehead are different, and his expression is far more aggressive. It looks like the shoe-banging was spliced into authentic footage. I think saying it is "claimed" or "purported" to show K's shoe-banging is the way to go. We can't suggest it's a fake without a reliable source that says that. I think it is clear that the incident happened, and K confirmed that, but it seems to have been a famous event that no one photographed or filmed. It would be understandable that people faked photos or footage afterwards, particularly given the propaganda value of the event for the West.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm comfortable leaving it at "claimed," although the video is clearly a recreation. There are a number of of issues as you noted, but the kicker is the presence of microphones on the desks in the video. The Dallas Morning News Photoblog from August 11, 2016 features a photograph similar to the one behind the New York Times paywall, which was taken shortly after the incident. It clearly shows the shoe on the desk, but also clearly shows a variety of details from that day that don't match up with the purported video. http://photographyblog.dallasnews.com/2012/10/today-in-photo-history-1960-nikita-khrushchev-pounds-shoe-on-desk-at-u-n-general-assembly.html/ A wider-angle image (not credited, and I suspect is a copy of the New York Times image used without permission) is at https://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/nikita-khrushchev-and-his-shoe/, and shows more clearly how the setting in the video does not match the actual location. Cemcq (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is fake. We have to balance RAI's assertion with the statement by William Taubman that he couldn't find any video evidence.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Why don't anybody ask RAI about the tape? where it came from, who else is seen, etc. - üser:Altenmann >t 00:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Who is the man in RAI's video footage?

If it is not Nikita Khrushchev in RAI's video footage (at 15 sec), then who is it? And when and where was it recorded? --Bensin (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

If it was a recreation, they could have used actors and created a set. That's not a major issue.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

An event noteworthy enough to merit its own article (correctly so, given the extensive media cover of it), and there is claim of authentic video footage of said event, then I'd say there is an issue that need to be addressed. --Bensin (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

1. It is clear that the event occurred, despite Taubman's muddying of the waters. Khrushchev confirmed that it did himself. 2. There are a number of fake photos etc. 3. The question whether this is a fake video of a real event or a real video is not greatly important. 4. Still less important is who the act was. Some fat Italian, presumably.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Other dates

As there are multiple sources that confirm that the incident occurred on the 12th, is there any point in canvassing other dates any more?--Jack Upland (talk) 11:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

YouTube Video

Is this real? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKdo1xwVK7s Charles Juvon (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Nikita Khrushchev's shoe-banging incident.gif Charles Juvon (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Um. Did you see the thread "Italian public broadcaster RAI's footage of the incident" above? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: My lack of copyright information will cause this image to be deleted. Please see the notice. Is there a possibility that the RAI footage is in the public domain and that we can find it? Charles Juvon (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it's unlikely. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Date in photo caption

The photo caption in the 'Description of incident' section says "23 September", but the main article says 12 October and the photo in the lead says "22 September"? JezGrove (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Well spotted, Jez. I think that's a mistake, so I have corrected it. The HuffPo source clearly says 12 October: [6]. But I'm not sure why all those sources (some of which no longer work) are in the caption and not in the text. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

NPOV

This content: "In 2003, American scholar William Taubman reported that he had interviewed some eyewitnesses who said that Khrushchev had brandished his shoe but not banged it. He also reported that no photographic or video records of the shoe-banging had been found. However, in his biography of Khrushchev, he wrote that he accepted that the shoe-banging had occurred. There is at least one fake photograph, where a shoe was added into an existing photograph.[dead link]" should not be in the lead. Rather it should be placed within the section Subsequent commentary along with the other witnessed accounts to provide NPOV. Considering the dead link, and that the account is from 2003, there is more weight from first hand accounts at the time that say it did happen than not. It is also contradictory of itself and is not "lead" content but more article material. Maineartists (talk) 02:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)