Talk:Yuri Andropov

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

Christian?[edit]

He was Christian?! Source? I find it very doubtful that not only a hardliner communist would be one, let alone the one running the KBG with his record — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.184.193 (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^ Probably meeant that he was BORN a Christian. (120.149.122.162 (talk) 07:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Misc[edit]

This could sound unbelievable:
....Both campaigns were carried out by a typically Soviet administrative approach and harshness vaguely reminiscent of Stalin's rule.
But this is from my personal, documented, experience.

  • I "voluntarily" joined the "Abstinence Society", with dues, meetings, and all. I still keep the membership card.
  • At daytime, a cinema used to be blocked, people's identities verified and those who were watching movies during their worktime were punished.

The latter tale tells two things, isn't it? Mikkalai 19:48, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

"Andropov's legacy remains the subject of much debate within Russia and elsewhere, both amongst scholars and in the popular media. He remains the constant focus of television documentaries and popular non-fiction, particularly around important anniversaries" - although I recall him being parodied in the video for Frankie Goes to Hollywood's Two Tribes, his status in the UK - I can only speak for the UK - is one of total obscurity. Whereabouts is he 'the constant focus of television documentaries and popular non-fiction'? I'm not saying that he isn't, merely that this sentence needs expansion. A search of both Amazon.co.uk and Amazon.com reveals a flurry of books with 'Andropov' in the title from 1983-1984, but very little thereafter. - Ashley Pomeroy 13:58, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeh! Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  23:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish origin[edit]

Some are claiming he was Jewish (eg this and this). Was he? Kwantus 05:43, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)

This calls it a rumor. I doubt it's more than an antisemitic rumor. What's certainly clear is that he didn't practice judaism, and that he didn't consider himself to be jewish. So that pretty much rules out both the religious and ethnical aspects. He could only be jewish if you consider anyone with a jewish ancestor to be jewish, which is a poor definition, and would probably make most Europeans jewish. --BluePlatypus 02:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you call it an anti-semitic rumor? If someone's ancestors are Jewish, the person is Jewish no matter what. How are most Europeans of Jewish ancestry? And the article you provided is old, written in 1983. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YMB29 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa. Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  23:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Andropov's mother was Jewish, thus by Jewish Law he is a Jew. If someone has a Jewish mother then they are a Jew for life, so to speak, even if they convert to other religons or turn to Atheism. 58.168.88.251 09:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC) CommanderJamesBond (Are you serious about that name? And if you are, can anyone take you seriously?)Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk [reply]
WTF Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  23:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


His official biography say he is Russian meaning ethnicity, not citizenship (as always in Soviet biographies and passports). So, this is definitely a Russian yellow press rumor. Note that all official Russian sources and English sources do not say that he is a Jew. I do not care at all about his ethnicity, but this "Controversy" section divides his biography into parts and makes improvement of this article very difficult. Therefore, I agree with BluePlatypus and have to remove this part at some point.Biophys 03:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yellow press? Like this little exchange? -- Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  23:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one was able to choose your ethnicity in the good old union. Seriously. If your parents were georgian and jewish for example, you could choose between georgian and jewish ethnicity on your passport. 88.73.2.54 (talk) 08:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hell, when I re-wrote the history of my country to extinguish my sins I forgot to make myself handsome as well as heroic. --Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  23:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, Andropov was an official head of the Soviet state; he has numerous official biographies (Russian and English). Some people here are citing a few unreliable (obscure) Russian sites that contradict hundreds of other sources and claim nonsense - "he was born in a rich Jewish family", etc. Such rumors promoted by "yellow" internet press have no place in wikipedia.Biophys 16:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


-- Prove it with a source Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  23:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andropov's mother is described here as "the daughter of a rich Jewish merchant." Why is the term "rich" invariably affixed to "Jewish merchant"? Aren't most merchants rich? This strikes me as a residually anti-semitic usage, even setting aside the slightly smarmy tone of the section in general. Jperrylsu (talk) 03:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


-- Viva political correctness. Let me propose that the difference between starving in the streets and being sent to private school qualifies as 'rich'. --Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  23:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


One must say though, these "rules" are entirely man-made. It makes no sense, that some is a jew for life if the mother was jewish (even if the mother was only half jewish and her mother was half jewish), despite being a catholic, atheist or even an anti-semite, but NOT being a jew if only the father was jewish...

It's pretty stupid, arbitrarily and makes no sense. It's pretty interesting though, that secular regimes followed jewish law to determine whether some one was jewish or not...

I never understood why even many atheists and the like take these odd "rules" seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.2.54 (talk) 08:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-- Ho hum. What's the point? Who cares whether he had his foreskin involuntarily amputated? Does that really shed life on being a murderous bastard? I'd like to think that peopel who meet me don't assume my worth is summarised by Jewishness or not. -- Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  23:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for translation of the German version[edit]

As many other articles concerning Socialism in general and the Soviet Union in particular this article is badly in need of a total revision ! I do not want to appear immodest but I think I have written quite a good German version of the Andropov article on Wikipedia. Contrary to the English version the German one (which admittedly is still a work in progress) really tries to be both factually correct, comprehensive and (more or less) truly objective, not containing the typical Wikipedia-style gossip, factual errors and above all anti-Soviet and anti-socialist prejudices. Since I do not have the time to do so by myself at present, perhaps somebody with a good faculty of the German language could try to translate the German article into English. Markus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.194.203 (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the FilmRiss Markus? Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  23:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an error or does it need rewording?[edit]

The Early life section says "Andropov was the son of a railway official and was probably born in Nagutskoye" this is disputed further down in the Controversy section.

Perhaps saying "Andropov's biography stated he was the son of a railway official" and adding a reference to the controversy section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.204.101 (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- Perhaps? Aren't you sure about this? Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  23:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image replacement[edit]

To replace the Andropov photo that a 'bot deleted, I found a photo [1] on a Marxist website that claims that all of its content is "Creative Commons". So I presume that its OK for Wikipedia. (The only "problem" with the photo is that he's giving a quite friendly wave, for a KGB guy.) There may be some other photos too, I didn't spend time looking through their gallery [2] and photo album [3]. - Ryanjo 02:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added an image which I photographed at the FSB Headquarters on Lubyanka Square, Moscow. It's better than nothing. By the way, I thought that TIME magazine covers were Fair Use; They have their own selection on the image licensing option. Feel free to tamper with or edit. Here is the uncropped version of the image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Andropov_at_Lubyanka.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natebjones (talk • contribs) 14:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apprently TIME covers are only Fair Use when the article specifically mentions the issue of TIME that the image is of. However, simply browsing through the articles that use TIME magazine covers, it is apparent that the majority do not follow this rule at all, unless simply putting something like "[Person] on the cover of TIME magazine, [date]" in the image's caption box counts, which I doubt it does. -Palpatine 00:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- This is nonsense. Time is such a major concern that anything it does is fair use in its own right. I am not an attorney in Florida, but I'm fairly sure that I could argue the case in any courtroom (even dressed in one of those cheesy seersucker suits). -- Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  23:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And even if there are many people who don't follow the rules, this doesn't mean we should not follow them too. I had removed a bunch of misused TIME images from other articles before and in some cases PD images were added in place of them (e.g. in Ho Chih Minh article). I think a good replacement can be found in this case too, one image is already added. Cmapm 00:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Life[edit]

Need clarity and completion regarding his first wife. It tells her name, where she was from, and that she had cancer in 1983. Nothing at all about when the marriage ended (or began). Then, nothing regarding the dates of his second marriage, only that they met during WWII. It doesn't even give the second wife's name in this section. Very poorly done. Venqax (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Death[edit]

Andropov's kidneys stopped working in January 1983 but he didn't die directly because of kidneys failure because as i said they totally stopped working in january 1983. His health also harmed by long-term complications of diabetes. According to the Soviet medical report Andropov suffered from several medical conditions: interstitial nephritis, nephrosclerosis, residual hypertension and diabetes, which were worsened by chronic kidney deficiency". Superzohar Talk 16:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC) -- Cite your sources Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  23:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funeral[edit]

It seems that parts of the paragraph on his funeral were copied over from the article on Leonid Brezhnev.
Compare the additions to Andropov's funeral on 12th July 2007, 11:23[4]

His state funeral was one of the biggest the world ever knew. A four-day period of nationwide mourning was announced. His body was lying in state in an open coffin in House of Trade Unions in Moscow. Inside the hall, mourners shuffled up a marble staircase beneath chandeliers draped in black gauze. On the stage at the left side of the hall, amid a veritable garden of flowers, a complete symphony orchestra in black tailcoats played classical music. Andropov's embalmed body, dressed in a black suit, white shirt and black-and-red tie, laid in an open coffin banked with carnations, red roses and tulips, faced the long queue of mourners. At the right side of the hall, in the front row of seats reserved for the dead leader's family, his wife Tatyana Filipovna with her reddish- tinted hair held in place with a hairclip, sat alongside with her their two children, Igor and Irina.

and to Brezhnev's funeral on 23th June 2007, 13:56[5]

He was honoured with one of the largest and impressive funerals in the world. His body was placed in an open coffin in House of Trade Unions in moscow. Inside the hall, mourners shuffled up a marble staircase beneath chandeliers draped in black gauze. On the stage, amid a veritable garden of flowers, a complete symphony orchestra in black tailcoats played classical music. Brezhnev's embalmed body, dressed in a black suit, white shirt and black-and-red tie, faced the long queue of mourners.

and on 12th July 2007, 13:45[6]

At the right side of the hall, in the front row of seats reserved for the dead leader's family, his wife Viktoria, sat alongside with her their two children, Galina and Yuri.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.246.7.154 (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


-- Nothing like being able to re-write history from yoou own coffin, innit? Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  23:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 2 of the paragraphs are exactly the same as Brezhnev's. In addition, it reads like something out of a press magazine. For both reasons I just removed them. 213.114.83.242 on August 9th, 07:40 CET. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.83.242 (talk) 05:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These paragraphs are back. they should be at least rewritten so that they are not a carbon copy of the Brezhnev funeral description. Schmoozy 17:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

references[edit]

There are very few clickable references. Some of them seem to be out of date. dima 02:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)-- No shit!Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  23:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surname[edit]

Is it true that Andropov's family's original surname was "Lieberman," as some websites state? Badagnani 05:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You can read about it in the "controversy" section about hus origin. M.V.E.i. 19:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read about it or believe it? --Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  23:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arkady Volsky Account.[edit]

A very interesting addition. I think it needs to be sourced though. Where is it from? Natebjones 15:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- No need for that here, innit? Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  23:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements needed[edit]

I think this article does not describe real deeds of Andropov. One important aspect is his involvement in organization of international terrorism worldwide [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1398086/posts]. Another is his role in Hungarian events [7]. Work of fifth KGB directorate also was not described.Biophys 01:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Terrorism" is USA helping Bin-Laden to fight against the Soviet Union in the Afhganistan War. M.V.E.i. 14:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This link is not reliable, its writen by a regular internet user. Imagine me noe writing you here invented information and then using this talk page as a link. M.V.E.i. 14:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Soviet funding for international terrorism? Never! And where would the citations come from? The KGB archives? Those liars? --Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  23:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Byophys, stop vandalism[edit]

Stop deleting the controversy section. It's an interesting detail about where he came from. I'm half Jewish (by the mother) so dont blame me in speculation! Ethnicity is an interesting fact that's worth being mentioned. Many people before you edited this controversy on his origin section. Your not to decide what will or will not be in the article. My sources are reliable. Just write Andropov Jew or Андропов еврей in google and you'll get more. M.V.E.i. 15:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is your responsibility to provide reliable sources. So far you provided NO souces that support your claim.

Your first/third source say:

Есть и другая версия. Будто бы мать Андропова в младенчестве подкинули к дверям дома купца Карла Файнштейна. Он вырастил девочку и удочерил ее, дав свою фамилию и отчество. Так ипоявилась Евгения Карловна Файнштейн. Впрочем, версия кажется слишком романной.

«Еврейский тип лица был у Андропова, – писал литературовед Вадим Кожинов. – В 1993 году я беседовал с бывшим заместителем председателя КГБ Ф. Д. Бобковым, и он сообщил мне, что, как в конце концов выяснилось, мать Андропова родилась в еврейской семье».

Но еврейское происхождение, если оно и было...

This source describes such claims as a "version" that is doubtful.

Your second source says:

1. АНДРОПОВ (в некоторых источниках указывается - ЛИБЕРМАН) Владимир (┼1919, от тифа). Жена - ФАЙНШТЕЙН Евгения Карловна (┼1927 в Моздоке), дочь богатого еврейского купца (или, в некоторых публикациях, удочеренная им).

Id does NOT say: "Andropov is a Jew".

Your fourth source says: 

Меж тем документальных подтверждений всего этого нет.

Translation: "there are no any proofs of that".Biophys 16:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats why i gave you 2 more links. JUST GO TO GOOGLE, is that so hard? You shouls have seen the program about him. M.V.E.i. 17:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see ABSRACT of YOUR first/third source: Некоторые обстоятельства появления на свет Юрия Владимировича Андропова, как и сведения о его родителях, в определенной степени так и остались невыясненными, что породило множество слухов и легенд..
So, these are "rumors and legends". Period.Biophys 17:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with the facts hiven there. We still dont know some stuff yeah, and those links state these. But nevertheless, facts like him being Liberman and his parents being Jewish are facts. M.V.E.i. 18:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? Find me real links, and again, real, that say that these information is not correct. Use the magic thing called Google. M.V.E.i. 18:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just look at his photo, he's Jewish. And as i said, find me real links that say that these information is not correct. Use Google. M.V.E.i. 20:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Find me links"? Thanks, but no thanks. This is your responsibility according to WP rules. Please find best references you can. Then, we will need third opinion on this matter. I am not going to delete anything at this moment.Biophys 03:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My responsibility was to link the information i uploaded. I did that. If YOU have somthing against it then YOU should find the links that say that the information that Andropov is Jewish is not true. M.V.E.i. 14:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your current sources say his origin from "a rich Jewish family" is a rumor. WP is not a place for rumors. If you do not find better sources, this should be deleted.Biophys 20:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ITS NOT A RUMOR. Calling everything you dont like a rumor is not writen in the Wikipedia rules. His mother, Yevgenia Fainstein, was a daughter of a rich Jewish merchant, so whats your problem? Thats the reason he had problems in stating the class he came from giving versions which contrast each other. I said, find links. M.V.E.i. 22:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not call this a rumor. Your source does.Biophys 16:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My sources dont call rumours the facts that he's parents were Jewish and mother was from a rich family. "Romours" is that some say that he's mother was adopted and originaly from a poor Jewish family. M.V.E.i. 14:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References issues[edit]

There are 3 references for the controversies paragraph. I cannot open the first one ([8]). Is it my personal problem or has it disappeared? ``That pesky line-through makes it kinda hard to read. Innit. Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  23:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The second one says:

Note the words "in some sources".

The third one is to the book review in RussianSeattle journal. Could someone point out the place where it's written with certainty that he was a Jew?

While there's really a controversy over this matter the article now presents information so as if it were 100% truth. Alæxis¿question? 18:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Fainstein thing is certain. There are many books and publication on the topic, buy randomly any book on him from the last decade. Why to write Russian in he's nationality if he's not? I really don't understand the problems here. P.S. It's really a nice check to do. Enter a book store and ask books on Andropov. In the store read the chapter about his background, and you'll see. M.V.E.i. 17:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

`` Forget it. Unless one of the WikiGestapo with godlike powers comes across this article, actually knows something of it, and actually cares, you might as well call Andropov a Martian and no one would care. Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  23:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality[edit]

See Webster's for the meaning of 'nationality' in English. The most common meaning is:

It's not the same as 'национальность' in Russian (it almost always means 'ethnicity').

That's why Jew isn't a nationality - for the citizens of Israel we'd use the term Israeli (and it is a nationality) and for other people of Jewish descent it's rather an ethnic/religious group. Alæxis¿question? 08:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens of isreal are Israelis, while the ethnic grupe is Jew. Just read the article on Jews. How does it start? An ethnic group. The religion is something else it's Judaism and it's a different case. For example, if an ethnic Jew converts to christianity. His religion will be christianity, but his ethnic nationality will be Jew. While a different case, if a Russian for example converts to Judaism. His religion will be Judaism, but his ethnic group will stay Russian. M.V.E.i. 17:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right but 'ethnic group' (or 'ethnicity') isn't the same thing as 'nationality' in English. Alæxis¿question? 09:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But nationalism. Isn't it from the word nationality? Which shows in English to it's etnicity. Maybe you got confused because of American movies or cencuses or something like that because there many say "American" as nationality, but that's because there's a muxture their many people dont even know their nationality so they say American as response. M.V.E.i. 09:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
American is a perfectly valid nationality, as is Russian. Russian can, I suppose, also be an ethnicity but Jewish can be an ethnicity but not a nationality. Haukur 11:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But thats the whole thing, nationality=ethnicity. Thats why nationalism is when a man judges by ethnicity. In America the word was wrongly changed because of identification problems. M.V.E.i. 19:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're wrong. "Nationality" refers to your country of origin and/or residence, not your ethnicity. Whether your parents were Jewish or not has nothing to do with your nationality, because nationality is based on the nation your from (hence "nationality,") not the ethnic group you're in (which would be "ethnicity.") His nationality was Russian, his religion (or more accurately his absence of religion) was atheism (IIRC), and his ethnicity was Jewish. Those are three separate things. Please do not use the terms interchangeably because they are not interchangeable. -- HiEv 19:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nationality is ethnicity. From this the word, nationalism. What you say is an American invention. BUT, as a compromise i wrote Soviet. M.V.E.i. 20:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, "nationality" is not the same as "ethnicity," nor is it the same as "nationalism." My nationality is American, but that is not my ethnicity. My ethnicity may be Irish but that is not my nationality. Please, do not inaccurately conflate words. "Nationalism" is about pride in a "nation," and "Jewish" is not a nationality because there is no nation of "Jew." You are using words in nonstandard ways, and the consensus is that you are using them incorrectly. Please stop reverting this information incorrectly as that constitutes vandalism. (Sorry, probably a bit over the top there.) -- HiEv 00:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You belive your nationality is American due to ideological reasons (you wrote in your user-page: recognized ancestry ends at the border). Trying to fit a scietific resource to your ideology is vandalizm. And besides, in America due to many ethnicities and mixtures it got confused so they just say, "American". In Europe you'll never find and Irish from England saying his Nationality is British or English, same thing about Ukrainian from Russia, Turk from Germany, and etc. What you said it's an idea developed omly at the french revolution (but with all respect to it, those guys wamted to make a 100-minutes hour). If you'll notice i already changed the nationality in Andropov to Soviet as a compromise, i just continue the argument out of interest. M.V.E.i. 11:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't keep up with the colons. Making sources fit with ideology is exactly what ideology is all about, including the current ideology infecting Western academies. But worse than having to quote some other idiot is having to apologise for facts that just don't sit too nicely with bourgeois sentiment. Like mass murder. Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  23:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HiEv is right here. There's no logic in languages, it's just happened that 'nationality' and 'национальность' mean different things (as, for example, 'speculation' and 'спекуляция'). I've shown the meaning of this word in the well-known English dictionary, do you think you know what does some word mean better than Webster's?
ps. Andropov's Soviet nationality is ok for me also. Alæxis¿question? 14:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the dictionary is British or American. M.V.E.i. 16:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why my "recognized ancestry ends at the border" isn't an "ideological reason," it's because I'm adopted, and while I was born in Canada, I was adopted by American parents, raised in the United States, and I'm a naturalized citizen. Also, I have no idea what ethnicity my biological parents had/have beyond Caucasian. I don't recall Canada at all, so I really only joke about being Canadian. That is why it ends at the border.
I'm not trying to fit anything to my "ideology," I'm trying to get you to use words as they're commonly defined in the dictionary and as they're used in Wikipedia. That's not "vandalism." You using your own personal definitions for words to push a personal agenda, that would be vandalism. As for your examples, well, you're still using nationality and ethnicity interchangeably, so let me point out that people will list their ethnicity as "Caucasian," but they will never list "Caucasian" as their nationality. Why? Because "Caucasian" is not a nationality, therefore "ethnicity" and "nationality" mean different things. QED. -- HiEv 04:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the OED definition of nationality
There is also

--Work permit 19:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, great work with the quotes! I can see that your a hard-worker by that. Second, those quotes prove my point. First nationality was an ethnic group, that is the original meaning, and from here nationalists are those who are fanatic of their ethnic group. After the French revolution, (with all respect to it, and it was better then statying like it was), they wanted to change everything. They wanted an hour to be 100 minutes, change the calendar, and etc. One of the things they wanted to change was the word nationality. Because they belived in a complete international, they wanted to cancle the word, or at least change it's meaning. M.V.E.i. 20:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, they don't prove your point. Whatever the "original meaning" was is irrelevant, we're concerned about the current meaning. Furthermore he didn't compare or contrast multiple words, he just listed information about one word. One cannot draw the conclusion that two words mean the same thing by only looking at one of those words.
Compare the definitions of the two terms. First, here are some relevant definitions of "nationality" from here (please note: using multiple definitions of the same word interchangeably is a fallacy known as equivocation):
  • 1. the status of belonging to a particular nation, whether by birth or naturalization: the nationality of an immigrant. - Random House Unabridged Dictionary
  • 1. The status of belonging to a particular nation by origin, birth, or naturalization. - American Heritage Dictionary
  • 2. the status of belonging to a particular nation by birth or naturalization - WordNet
  • (the state of belonging to) a particular nation - Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary
You can see the focus on the nation they belong to is the important point. This is not the same as the relevant definitions of "ethnic group" found here ("ethnicity" was often just defined as "ethnic group" as seen here, which isn't particularly helpful, so I used "ethnic group" instead):
  • 1. pertaining to or characteristic of a people, esp. a group (ethnic group) sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like. - Random House Unabridged Dictionary
  • people of the same race or nationality who share a distinctive culture - WordNet
While nationality may be included, this pertains more to racial and cultural traits. So, while there is some intersection between the two definitions, they are not the same. It's possible to have the same nationality as someone else, but a different ethnicity. It's also possible to have the same ethnicity as someone else, but a different nationality. Therefore you have to conclude that they are not equivalent terms. How can you explain that away?
It seems like what you've been doing in this conversation is noting where the definitions overlap, and ignoring the parts where they are different. Glossing over the weaknesses of your argument, when they are the crux of the problem, is why you are having trouble convincing anyone else that you're right. Count up all of the similarities you want, it's the differences that are the issue.
Now, to tie this all up, Yuri Andropov was born in the nation of the Russian Empire, not the Soviet Union. It shortly became the Russian SFSR, which is also where he died. Yes, it was part of the Soviet Union, but "Russian" is more specific, and avoids the vagaries of the term "Soviet," plus today Russia is again its own nation. He is listed in the categories "Russian Jews," "Russian communists," and "Russian politicians," so therefore it seems pretty clear to me that his nationality should be listed as "Russian," not "Jewish" or "Soviet," because it is the nation he is most closely affiliated with and its meaning is clear and precise. -- HiEv 04:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The current meaning is ethnicity to, excepr in north-America. M.V.E.i. 10:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any evidence to back that claim up? Even if you're right, what's relevant is what "nationality" means on Wikipedia. I also note that the Wiktionary defines "nationality" as "citizenship," while "ethnic group" is defined as "A group of people who identify with one another, especially on the basis of racial, cultural, or religious grounds." Those are quite different things, and the fact that they come from the Wiktionary seems particularly relevant to determining how the terms are meant on Wikipedia. -- HiEv 19:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The best evidence is the word Nationalism. From where did it come from? Nationality. Fanatic about nationality. Nationalists are fanatic about their ethnicity. From here, nationality=ethnicity. M.V.E.i. 10:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More accurately, "nationalists" are usually fanatic about their nation of residence and/or origin (see here.) "Ethnicity" may also include nationality, but that doesn't mean that the terms equivalent as you are asserting. A group of "nationalists" could all be supporting the same nation, but be of various ethnicities. Again, you're focusing on the overlap in the terms but failing to explain the differences. Making it worse, you're defining the terms yourself and then using those definitions as proof of your claim. That's a circular argument. So, let me put my earlier request another way: Do you have an independent source that backs up your claims? Your personal interpretation of your understanding of things, based purely on your say-so, isn't particularly convincing. I'd like to see evidence from a third party that supports your position. -- HiEv 00:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Havent you noticed that nationalists dont like to see members of some other ethnicities in the country, even if those have the citizenship of that country? Exacly. Shure a have. Here: [9]. You could see that the word nationalism came from the word nationality. M.V.E.i. 18:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're arguing in circles, dude. I fully agree that some nationalists are like that, but what you're saying is that they're all like that, and so far you have provided zero evidence of that beyond "because I said so." Your argument is the equivalent of saying that because there are some men with mustaches which are also firemen, then that proves your argument that all men with mustaches are firemen. Obviously that's not true. Simply put, not all nationalists care about race. Please stop focusing on the hits and ignoring the misses in your arguments, you're just wasting everyone's time.
As for your dictionary reference, the relevant definition of "nationality" from there is:
3 a : national status; specifically : a legal relationship involving allegiance on the part of an individual and usually protection on the part of the state b : membership in a particular nation (emphasis in original)
Note the use of the terms "national," "state," and "nation"? Note the absence of a mention of ethnicity and race in that definition? Whether the word "nationalism" comes from the word "nationality" (which is not what that page says) or not is totally irrelevant. So, please, no more wasting everyone's time with talk of "where words come from," and instead focus on what the words currently mean. Remember, what's important is the meaning of "nationality" here on Wikipedia, and all the evidence I've found supports the side that it means "nation of origin," and not "ethnicity" here.
Tell you what, I'll make it easy for you, show me one Wikipedia page that has "Caucasian" listed as the nationality for some real person added a month ago or more (people from Caucasus don't count.) Do that and I'll support your argument that "nationality" means "ethnicity" here. -- HiEv 05:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Andropov funeral coffin house trade unions.JPG[edit]

Image:Andropov funeral coffin house trade unions.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information should not be subject to superstition or sentiment. If you don't like an image say why and leave it be. It would help, too, if you could use English. Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  23:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andropov's Jewish origins should be mentioned[edit]

His original family name was Liberman-Faynstein and his father was a Jewish bourgeois. It is not anti-Semitic to mention this; quite the opposite: Andropov had to reinvent his identity as an Ossetian proletarian precisely to avoid the bigotry of the Soviet nomenclature against bourgeois Jews, who were seen as holding the reins of arch-capitalism. Suppressing the truth of Andoprov's identity does more harm than good to all parties. The comments here about how this is not worth mentioning because "Jew" is not a nationality are without foundation, because Jews were indeed one of the recognized nationalities in the Communist Soviet Union, and were so identified on their identity papers. This was one of the cynical justifications Stalin gave for establishing a "Jewish Autonomous Oblast" in the Far East, when in fact it was an excuse to deport them en-masse Siberia. J.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that Wikipedia requires its content to be verifiable in reliable sources. I just did a Google book search and I could not find a single reference to Andropov having Jewish heritage other than a description of it as a rumor. That isn't good enough so I'm going to remove the info from the article pending the discovery of reliable sources that say otherwise.
Oh and just to nitpick, the Jewish Autonomous Oblast was not in Siberia, but otherwise yeah, you're exactly right about its purpose. -- Hux (talk) 09:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Intention of Stalin to deport Jews is unbased rumor.--79.111.95.54 (talk) 11:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a story that I was a petty aristocrat in Koenigsberg before I was ever conceived. Nothin' to say it weren't so. Nuttin' to say it was. But does it belong here? Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  23:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Director of the KGB[edit]

I don't believe the inclusion of the purported plot to launch a first strike on Pearl Harbor to instigate a nuclear war between Red China and the USA, should be included in the section concerning his term as KGB director.

this was proposed by

Kenneth Sewell, Clint Richmond. Red Star Rogue: The Untold Story of a Soviet Submarine's Nuclear Strike Attempt on the U.S., September 26, 2006, Pocket Star, 480. ISBN 1416527338

I doubt this is a corroborated event and this rather sounds like musings from a conspiracy theorist and not worthy to be mentioned in his biography.

Aerie124 (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hmm. I take it that A didn't get to it, otherwise I'd be ash along with the rest of the world. Conspiracy? Well, wasn't that what the KGB, CIA, MI6, etc, traded in? Mention the wretched thing, but make sure the sources are good. -- Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  23:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Disputed Accuracy' Template[edit]

There was a template at the top of the article about the content's accuracy being disputed. The template was removed earlier today without a reason, and without discussion. I figured that it shouldn't have been removed without a discussion about it first, so I went ahead and reverted the edit. The template was then removed again, with the given reason "No explanation is given for the template". I then figured that it should be discussed if the template needs to be there or not, to avoid problems. My opinion is that the template should be there until more references are put in the article to verify the contents. Opinions are open to discussion. Thanks. -- Lord Gorbachev (talk) 08:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The template states that the factual accuracy is being disputed, however no one has made any comments about what facts are deemed incorrect. Under the circumstances, I do not believe that this is an appropriate template. I see two valid options here: either an editor may replace the template and specify what facts in the article are deemed incorrect opening a discussion about this in the talk page, or an editor may choose a different template asking for additional citations for verification (e.g. BLP sources template).
In other words, the template that I removed challenges the article's neutrality ("facts disputed"), and such claim needs to be justified. Based on what you wrote, it seems that the real issue is verifiability. If such, a different template is needed. Kasatonov (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kasatonov is correct - the "accuracy disputed" template is only appropriate if there is an actual ongoing dispute at the article's talk page regarding the article's factual accuracy. In the absence of such a dispute the tag should be removed as inappropriately placed, which is exactly what happened here. Nsk92 (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked through the edit history of the page and I found that the template was placed by an IP user, without a given reason. Which I see as that being a good enough reason to remove the template. I believe you are right, that the template shouldn't be there without it being justified. My only reason earlier for leaving the template there is because I saw that there is indeed not enough sources in the article. I thought that what the template was saying about the 'content's accuracy being disputed', is that it was pointing towards the lack of sources. Which I thought slightly justified the reason for the template being present. As you said, based on what I wrote, the issue seems to be verifiability, and that requires a different template, but I thought earlier that the removed template was the one for that. And from what Nsk92 said, I now understand what the template was really for, which indeed makes that template inappropriate.
So due to this, I still say there needs to be a template about the 'verifability' and 'lack of sources', but the appropriate template of course. But no matter what, I agree, there should be a discussion to verify a template's presence. -- Lord Gorbachev (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it is agreeable that the article needs more sources for verifability, would one of these templates be appropriate?
-- Lord Gorbachev (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned earlier, I think that the most appropriate general template is Template:BLP sources. However, since the article has quite a few sources and inline references, probably the best way that would most likely lead to the effective work on the article's verifiability is placing Template:Citation needed in particular paragraphs that you deem poorly sourced.Kasatonov (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My only problem with the BLP sources template is that Andropov is not a living person, but I suppose it could be considered the most appropriate.
Nevertheless, I agree with placing the Template:Citation needed where it is needed as being the most effective way to go about improving the verifiability of the article. However, I'll have to place the templates whenever I am not on a tight schedule, as I don't have the time at the moment. -- Lord Gorbachev (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion of Afghanistan[edit]

The article says that Andropov insisted on the invasion of Afghanistan, but if you check the reference (The Protocol of the meeting of Politburo of Communist Party from 17 March 1979) it turns out he was against it. Timosha2 (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now it says he opposed the invasion. But now it also includes the strange statement:

″Andropov opposed the decision to intervene militarily in Afghanistan on 24 December 1979.[26] Among his concerns was that the international community would blame the USSR for this action.[27]"

Other countries might blame the USSR for the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan? Well...yeah. Who else would be blameworthy? Venqax (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Reagan and Andropov at National Portrait Gallery IMG 4546.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Reagan and Andropov at National Portrait Gallery IMG 4546.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • 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.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blue cast[edit]

Someone should convert the photo [10] to grayscale to get rid of the blue cast. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright problem[edit]

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Mkativerata (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments[edit]

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Yuri Andropov. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Historiographic challenge[edit]

An interesting thing about Andropov is that everyone, both Russian and non-Russian, faces a historiographic challenge in verifying which things were true about him and which ones were things that he and his Chekist colleagues encouraged the world to think were true about him. We have this on very good, Soviet-native authority, via Solovyov & Klepikova 1983 and Volkogonov 1998, among others. Solovyov & Klepikova clearly respected Medvedev's biography (Medvedev 1983) and yet also fairly pointed out that much of its information came from inside the Union and only passed outside the Kremlin in a form that the Chekists allowed to pass. An example of "true versus encouraged to believe" is that the idea that he was against intervention in Afghanistan is considered "widely known" but seems in retrospect to be something that everyone has been encouraged to believe, whereas in fact he was one of three or four Politburo members who expressed written support for the intervention during at least some phase of the time when it was being contemplated. Notwithstanding the reference cited in the article which claims to be a Politburo meeting transcript, in which Andropov is shown arguing against the intervention, there seems to be some possible revision of the full record going on. One wonders about KGB doctoring of the record in the late 1980s after the intervention had turned out to be a bad idea. The idea that he was the "liberal Chekist" is another item widely believed but not well supported by the evidence. In both of the first-mentioned books he is clearly presented as in fact thoroughly Chekist, and although it would break some Soviet hearts to hear it, Solovyov & Klepikova show how he presided over a de facto Russian empire rather than a true fraternal socialist union. Thoroughly Chekist despite not wearing a leather coat with a Mauser at his belt, as Volkogonov said. And yet more appealing than Brezhnev because at least he understood that the economy needed substantial restructuring, even if, as Volkogonov says, he was not equipped to successfully achieve it, being too much a Leninist to do anything but double down on Leninism. In future I plan to add this aspect of his identity, this historiographic challenge, to the article, citing those sources. Karmanatory (talk) 02:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth general secretary?[edit]

Where is this coming from? Stalin was the first general secretary. Then between Stalin and Brezhnev the post didn't exist. Then Brezhnev was the second general secretary. And Andropov was immediately after him. Therefore, Andropov was the third general secretary, and not the fourth! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bv36 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second Half of the Anti-Corruption Campaign Paragraph[edit]

While I agree with underlying substance, starting with "Thus there was a certain inevitable amount..." seems to veer into general commentary inappropriate for a Wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:6A44:B892:4133:F289:F7E:CC82 (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The info is all sourced in the cited biographies. I fixed the citations, last month, to make that fact clearer. I am just seeing this talk thread now. Done. Karmanatory (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yuri_Andropov&oldid=1216892286"