Talk:Vyacheslav Molotov

And...?

In November 1940, Stalin sent Molotov to Berlin to meet Ribbentrop and Hitler.

We should know the purpose of this meeting and its results. I heard that Hitler and Molotov disliked each other on sight, and did not agree on anything. Valetude (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Molotov moderating the purges

The article claims "There is no record of Molotov attempting to moderate the course of the purges or even to save individuals, unlike some of the other Soviet officials." The next source is Felix Chuev's Molotov Remembers.

In this very source, one can read:

"MOLOTOV: A commission on Tevosian was set up after he was arrested. Mikoyan, Beria, myself, and someone else worked on that commission. Tevosian was a Central Committee member, a most upright man, an excellent specialist in metallurgy. An extremely competent man. A report came in that he was a saboteur and that he was working to damage our steel industry. He had intensive training in Germany with the Krupp works, and upon returning home he most perseveringly and effectively worked in our steel industry. But soon a lot of evidence given by specialists and managers was received. At Stalin’s initiative, a special commission was set up to review his case thoroughly. We went to the NKVD building to examine the evidence. We heard out one engineer, two, three. Each one insisted Tevosian was a wrecker because he had issued such and such instructions. Tevosian was in the same room and listened to all those accusations. He easily exposed and rejected all the charges. We compared the evidence with the facts and concluded that the charges were absurd. Sheer slander. Tevosian was acquitted. He remained a member of the Central Committee, and then he continued to do his job. We reported to Stalin, and he agreed with our conclusion." Chuev, Feliks. Molotov Remembers. Chicago: I. R. Dee, 1993, p. 294

There are other records of Molotov moderating the purges:

"Beginning in the summer of 1938 a coalition of Politburo members, reportedly consisting of Zhdanov, Andreev, Kaganovich, Mikoyan, and Molotov, worked to limit Yezhov’s and the NKVD’s powers." Chase, William J., Enemies Within the Gates?, translated by Vadim A. Staklo, New Haven: Yale University Press, c2001, p. 306.

And this, technically before the height of the Purge in 1936:

"The next day [May 8, 1933] a document carrying the signatures of Stalin for the Central Committee and Molotov for the government ordered a drastic curtailment of arrests and a sharp reduction in the prison population. Half of all prisoners in jails…were to be released. The power to arrest was sharply restricted to police organs, and all arrests had to be sanctioned by the appropriate judicial procurator." Getty & Naumov, The Road to Terror. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, c1999, p. 113

These works were cited in https://espressostalinist.com/the-real-stalin-series/yezhovshchina/ .

There is more from Russian historian Yuri Zhukov:

[Molotov:] "There's no point in searching for people to blame, comrades. If you prefer, all of us here are to blame, beginning with the Party's central institutions and ending with the lowest Party organizations." (Inoy Stalin, p. 349)

[Peskarov:] "They condemned people for petty stuff . . . illegally, and when we . . . put the question to the C.C., comrades Stalin and Molotov strongly supported us and sent a brigade of workers from the Supreme Court and Prosecutor's office to review these cases. . . . And it turned out that for three weeks' work of this brigade 56% of the sentences in 16 raiony were set aside by the brigade as illegal. What's more, in 45% of the sentences there was no evidence that a crime had been committed." (Tayny Kremlia, p. 43)

Cited in Grover Furr, Stalin and the Struggle for Democratic Reform. https://web.archive.org/web/20071214155423/http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html

The sentence about Molotov's record should be removed and maybe something of Molotov's role relating to Tevosian and Peskarov could be mentioned.

Wiki user wiki (talk) Wiki user wiki (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Zinnober9 engaging in non-constructive behavior

Zinnober9 reverted my edit, which would have been fine, but they then brought a patently and obviously false charge of vandalism against me that cannot be sustained in any reading of my edit. This suggests that Zinnober9 is biased and is engaging with ulterior motives. 203.192.209.6 (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Is Special:Diff/1208748242 vandalism? No. Is it supported by the provided reference? Also no. It's a fine sentiment and I can see why you would put it there, but without a reference to support it (somewhere in the body of the text) we can't be adding superlatives like "greatest" so I can also see why it was removed. Please assume good faith and don't immediately assume that anyone who has a different opinion that you is somehow biased or out to get you. Primefac (talk) 07:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Dear IP:

I do not appreciate your making these claims of me and my character based on our one and only interaction prior to your posting this. Other than your reply on your IP's talk page (which you posted immediately prior to this) you made no attempt to discuss with me any issues between us before you made these claims of me here. I would have appreciated a chat on your (or my) talk page with us each replying at least once prior to this public thread being started so that we might have worked things out before sharing our disagreement publicly.

While I admit I was in error in choosing to leave the warning message that I left on your talk page instead of leaving a message stating I'd reverted you for lack of a reliable source. Sorry for that; I've struck the warning message as a gesture of good faith. As for my revert, I was correct in reverting as the use of a puffery statement without any clearly understood, Reliably Sourced reference to support the claim is a generally a remove on sight issue as puffery is not permitted phrasing (unless it is part of a reliably sourced quote).

"Anderson" is not a valid, reliable source because it is not clear who Anderson is, or what the sourced work reference is. If that is fixable, and meets reliable sourcing criteria, I won't have any objections.

Best wishes, Zinnober9 (talk) 05:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I am very confused. Have you actually read the article before engaging in this? The Anderson reference that so puzzles you was not originated by me, but was already present in the article.

What you are reverting is not addition of new content/"puffery" but simply surfacing (already referenced) material from the body of the article into the lead. If you have any concerns regarding the citations in the pre-existing content then let's talk about that, otherwise I don't see any grounds to oppose this material being significant enough to mention in the lead. 203.192.209.6 (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, as for working things out, you opened our interaction by slapping a vandalism notice so I really don't see how I was the escalating party here. Nevertheless, you apologised and struck out your notice, and I appreciate that. 203.192.209.6 (talk) 00:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are outlined below:

• There is uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs and the entire "Portrayals in media" section
• There is at least one large block quotes used in the article from secondary sources. This creates copyright concerns, and in my opinion this information should be summarised instead. The block quote of what Stalin said is also quite large and should probably be reduced as well.

Is anyone willing to address the above concerns, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 03:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Vyacheslav Molotov

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

There is uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs and the "Portrayals in media" section. There are also lots of large block quotes of secondary sources which should be summarised and used as prose instead. Z1720 (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't think this meets the GA standards at the moment, but it's not the worst that I've seen. I think all the (remaining?) block quotes are quotations from primary documents (though they are quoted in secondary sources), which is generally forgivable (it's a textbook FUR when they are quotations of or about the article's subject) if not necessarily best practice. Most of the uncited material is short paragraphs, which makes me wonder if they are simply meant to be covered by the citation of the following paragraph? If anybody does want to pick this up, I don't expect it would be a huge job. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delist @Chiswick Chap: fixed some of the block quotes, but the article still has lots of uncited prose. Z1720 (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep. As UndercoverClassicist says, very little wrong here, I think. I've paraphrased some (more) blockquotes, cleared the cn items, and added a ref or two. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Uncited statements have been resolved. No further concerns. Z1720 (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)