Talk:Sergo Ordzhonikidze

Untitled

Should we add the Georgian spelling and transcription of Orjonikidze's name?

Official Death Ruling

His death was officially ruled a heart attack, not a suicide. This is the information on the Russian wikipedia. And there is no mention of the likely theory that he was killed on the orders of Stalin. If I can find some sources I'll add this.

I'm also aware of claims that O was murdered on Stalin's orders, and it seems plausible, though probably not provable in the circumstances of Stalinist-era politics Chrismorey (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Room for Improvement

This article is ridiculous. Anyone here examine the archives? Sergo shot himself because he couldn't abide what Stalin was doing. I don't know why wiki's leftist orientation extends to pro-Stalin rumbswabbery, but this is a disgrace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.18.61 (talk) 13:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that this is a "lousy" article as Unsigned said. But there are some things that could be improved on. "Likewise there is no evidence that Ordzhonikidze had quarreled with Stalin." I don't know what the point of this statement in the article. I expect he did argue with Stalin over the phone or in person which wouldn't be recorded, if Stalin had tortured his brother as the article says. Wiki does not have a "leftist" or "pro-Stalin orientation." It is a free public source all kinds of people write on, and I like it! Rakovsky (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It may not be lousy but it's certainly sketchy for an article on a major C20 political figure, especially one from a state as controversial as USSR. Unless anyone objects, I'll beaver away at amplifying it from my somewhat limited range of sources. BTW if Krushchev's memoirs are to be believed, even senior apparatchiks didn't lightly argue with Stalin as the penalty could well be a painful death Chrismorey (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I've had another go incorporating additional material, from some oldish sources but better than none. I've also deleted some platitudes specifically including allegations that O's brothers were also repressed. As this was S.O.P. under Stalin, it isn't worth saying. I've also toned down the overtly-Stalinist POV in places (sorry Rakovsky, but this article went out of its way to exonerate - or should that be whitewash? - Stalin). This is a WIP and I plan to do more. Chrismorey (talk) 04:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

and have done so Chrismorey (talk) 08:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

and have had a further go. I feel I've done enough and agree that it needs attention from an expert. There is more on his fall and death than on his career, but he was an Old Bolshevik who specialism was revolutionary politics, on which sources are (to be polite) unreliable. As noted, his staff did the work of his department while he sat on the Politburo. Chrismorey (talk) 08:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The Politburo and Death sections can be greatly improved now by reference to Oleg Khlevniuk's 2008 authoritative work 'Master of the House: Stalin and His Inner Circle' which has clarified much about Sergo's relationship with Stalin, his political views and, now confirmed, his genuine - and fatal - conflict with Stalin over the course the repression began to take. If time allows, I'll have a go at it. Lewvalton (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Politburo member

I can't claim to be an expert but am familiar with the general area. The problems with this section seem more apparent than real, so I've tried to fix them per request. That said, any article dealing with Stalinist Russia is going to contain conjecture, and equally clearly the official reports of the time can't be relied on (cf. Kirov murder). We shall almost certainly never know and IMHO the best bet is to record the credible alternative explanations. Chrismorey (talk) 01:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Rating

Why is the subject rated High importance for Russian military history and only Medium for Soviet Union? Ordzhonikidze wasn’t Russian, had no military role and the most influential period of his life was under Soviet rule. By contrast, he was a very senior member of the Soviet government for several years, and died in disputed circumstances during that quintessential Soviet invention, the violent political purge. Surely the ratings should be reversed. Chrismorey (talk) 08:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move as unopposed. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 06:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Grigol Ordzhonikidze → Sergo Ordzhonikidze – per WP:UCN. This article has bounced around to several titles over the years but, as this Google Books ngram shows, the vast majority of sources use "Sergo Ordzhonikidze" with a few using "Grigory/-i Ordzhonikidze". The current title and a recent variant, "Grigol Orjonikidze" don't even show up at all. —  AjaxSmack  04:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sergo Ordzhonikidze. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304191218/http://interpretive.ru/dictionary/1019303/word/ordzhonikidze-grigorii-sergo-konstantinovich to http://interpretive.ru/dictionary/1019303/word/ordzhonikidze-grigorii-sergo-konstantinovich

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 20:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sergo Ordzhonikidze/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: K.e.coffman (talk · contribs) 14:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• I will be reviewing this article; will start shortly. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• I am unable to find this material in Kotkin, page 384: Immediately after Ordzhonikidze's death was announced, the cause of death was disputed. Exiled Mensheviks publicized the idea that Stalin was the reason behind the death, either directly ordering Ordzhonikidze's death, or forcing him to kill himself. Am I missing something? --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. It was on the next page (p. 385). The specific lines cited are: "But rumors spread in Moscow, picked up by the Menshevik Socialist Herald in Paris, that Stalin had either killed him or driven him to suicide." Glad to see you going over it so thoroughly. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Assessment against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Congrats

Congratulations and thanks to all of the editors who got this article to the featured article of the day. —  AjaxSmack  04:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)