Talk:Alexander Galich (writer)

Image

File:Galich lebedev.jpg is in use in this article, and an editor objected. But at File:Galich lebedev.jpg it says that use of the image:

1. To illustrate the subject in question
2. Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information
3. On the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation

is permitted. As to #1, I believe that the image does illustrate the subject (this is assuming that it's not a picture of someone else rather than Alexander Galich, and if that is the objection, then it needs to be stated more clearly). As to #3, this is the English-language Wikipedia unless I've been sadly misinformed, and is hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, again unless there's been a major change that I haven't been informed of.

As to #2, well, the man is dead, so any future pictures of him are going to look pretty unpleasant, I would say. So the question is, is there a free version photo of him taken when he was still alive knocking around somewhere? I don't know, but if there is, I haven't seen it, and the editor would be better advised to provide one rather than just deleting the image that we have here, and if he doesn't have one, maybe consider leaving well enough alone.

I certainly can't see any situation where File:Galich lebedev.jpg is permitted to exist if it's not to be used in this article, as I can't imagine any other article where it would be more appropriate to use than this one. So if the editor doesn't like the image in the article, nominating File:Galich lebedev.jpg for deletion would be the way to go, I would think. Herostratus (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Um, just reverting to your desired state with no proper explanation is not exactly what I was hoping for... Herostratus (talk) 03:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a heads up, do not re-add content that violates our WP:NFC policy until the issues have been fixed. In this case you fixed the issue after the second removal. When writing non-free rationales please ensure that you clearly state the article for which you are writing the rationale. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a heads up, do not edit war, and you know what? You could have added the the template yourself, OK? Glad I was able to jump through the hoops to your satisfaction and add redundant information that was already there in the format that you find pleasing. Hope we can get together again sometime... let me see... (checking calendar)... how about never? does never work for you? Herostratus (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

You might want to take you own advice, enforcing the WP:NFCC is exempt from 3RR. A simple solution would be to fix the problems with files before adding them back into articles. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 19:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

@Herostratus: Please be more civil. There was no need to become hostile in this interaction. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Strange revert

This edit. "YT" - are you telling about this? I think this YouTube is not an appropriate RS. Besides, how exactly this record and other quoted sources supports other claims, for example about Vysotsky? I do not see it. I do not mind adding anything here, but only if this is something reliably sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Why not an appropriate RS? It is a recorded interview with Mihail Chemiakin at the official youtube radio channel where he says that Galich died of an accident (at 43:45): "Of course, it wasn't KGB, nobody hunted him, it was simple ignorance: he bought the equipment... started messing with it without understanding anything... when he touched it, he was killed by current". Vysotsky's visit is mentioned in the 2nd interview given to Dmitry Gordon by Alena Galich-Arkhangelskaya, Galich's daughter. The info regarding this: "Galich was known to be homesick, he refused to except American citizenship and lived by his refugee travel document; thus the Soviet government was said to be planning his return to the USSR which would've hurt the reputation of the dissident movement)" was taken from the Galich's biography by Mikhail Aronov where he also discusses both KGB and CIA versions, quoting interviews, memoirs and other sources. The claims about Galich's possible return to Russia could be also found in Alena's interview to Moskovskij Komsomolets. All the claims are supported by the provided links. AveTory (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Text you restored tells two things:

1. ...that was an assassination, either by KGB or by CIA (Galich was known to be homesick, he refused to except American citizenship and lived by his refugee travel document; thus the Soviet government was said to be planning his return to the USSR which would've hurt the reputation of the dissident movement). How being homesick and reputation would be related to the alleged assassination according to the source? This is totally not clear from the text and looks like WP:OR.
2. She suspected Vladimir Vysotsky to be involved in her father's death (he supposedly visited Galich on the day of the accident). (a) Where did she said it (the source?). and (b) How exactly Vysotsky was involved? This is not at all clear from the text. My very best wishes (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, you reverted this text without even reading what it tells, and with all errors. It tells: "he refused to except" (should be: "he refused to accept"). My very best wishes (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Moreover, I just checked this interview with his daughter and she tells that Vysotsky was irrelevant (that was claim by someone else). My very best wishes (talk) 01:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Finally, if you want to include WP:FRINGE claims, like CIA involvement, you will need really good secondary sources about it, such as books, not YouTube records. There are many books about him, and none of them considers seriously such version. My very best wishes (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but did you read my answer? As I clearly stated that the CIA version and the reasons for their involvement are referenced in the book Alexander Galich. Full Biography by Mikhail Aronov. That Vysotsky's involvement is referenced in Alena's interview to Dmitry Gordon. That the youtube interview is only a reference to Mikhail Shemyakin's words about Galich's accidental death and "no other involvement". All references were placed in the text accordingly to the statements. Also there are no Wikipedia rules that forbid using Youtube as a reference. Interviews are primary sources, and this one directly deals with the subject of the article.

As for Vysotsky, Alena Galich didn't say it was irrelevant. What she says is that in 2003 some man contacted her and told that Vladimir Vysotsky visited Galich's flat with two men on the day of his death. She also says that Mikhail Shemyakin "indirectly confirmed" this version in his memoirs by stating that Vysotslky visited Paris with concerts the day before Galich's death and that he was very nervous and upset. Nowhere she says it's irrelevant - just that she has no other proofs. Thus it's only a VERSION. Just like other VERSIONS involving KGB, CIA, French police, Radio Liberty, etc. The OFFICIAL course of Galich's death is "death by an accident".

Further, I reverted the text without checking because I was the one who had added it in the first place some year ago. Before my addition there was only one unreferenced statement about "possible KGB involvement". I added references in support of this and other versions. So there was a spelling mistake which I missed. This is not a reason to delete the whole paragraph. Yet you even admit that you hadn't followed all links before deleting them (twice). This clearly qualifies as vandalism, especially since you understand Russian. Either help improving the article or stop deleting the referenced information. AveTory (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@AveTory: Since you have access to Alexander Galich. Full Biography by Mikhail Aronov, please could you provide a page number for the citation to it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, those are pages 817-818, 820-822 and 827. I can add them as soon as My very best wishes stops deleting the text. AveTory (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

So, what exactly this book tells about involvement of the CIA? Please quote it here. In addition, you did not answer my question. What is "VERSION" that involves Vysotsky? How exactly he was involved according to sources? My very best wishes (talk) 00:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

That Vysotsky worked for KGB, for the second group that supposedly killed Galich before the representative of the first group that wanted his return (journalist Leonid Kolosov) arrived. Aronov quotes Kolosov's memoirs in his book where he also talks about his flight to Paris, but says that Galich was killed by CIA since it didn't want his return to the USSR as it would've hurt the dissident movement. Aronov also quotes several publications that talk about Galich's involvement with CIA and NTS, as well as articles that talk about his last months, how he was homesick, wanted to return and thus was considered a traitor by CIA. The book also quotes Alena Galich's interview where she tells how Radio Liberty blackmailed the widow (I found a separate link). AveTory (talk) 10:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Kolosov was not a journalist, but a KGB colonel (as his page tells) responsible for disinformation. This is poorly sourced WP:FRINGE about CIA and Vysotsky which is undue on this very short page. If you want to improve something, please add more important mainstream information about the subject. Now, if you read what Alena Galich was saying, she does not blame Vysotsky of anything. Her opinion about death of Galich should be mentioned, but only very briefly to express the essence of her concerns. That is what I did in this edit. My very best wishes (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

And you still did not quote directly the book by Aronov. Does it tell that "CIA version" is nonsense no one takes seriously, just as other books on this subject tell? If so, why place it on the page? My very best wishes (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

P.S. This WP:FRINGE claim might be noted, but only if properly summarized. A correct summary would be something like "KGB (Kolosov) promoted conspiracy theories about death of Galich". But this is still undue. My very best wishes (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't have to - and I'm not going to waste my time reprinting several pages. If you are interested, feel free to find the book and read it for yourself. Aronov's opinion in this case doesn't matter, since the quoted publications are the ones referenced. Kolosov was a KGB spy AND a professional journalist. And his page doesn't tell he was responsible for disinformation, that's your OR. His opinion is just as good as the opinions of journalists who worked for Radio Liberty and Voice of America sponsored by Washington or CIA-backed books such as KGB where Galich's death was first discussed in relation to Soviet intelligence services (also mentioned in Aronov's book). Finally, he published the memoirs in 2001 aged 80, long after KGB.

Either way, Kolosov is just one of the sources from the book. There are also Alena's interviews. Nowhere I said she blamed Vysotsky. My original text was "she suspected Vladimir Vysotsky to be involved in her father's death (he supposedly visited Galich on the day of the accident)". Yes, it might be better to rephrase, but you simply deleted it without reading the interview. You also deleted her words about Galich's widow who was blackmailed by Radio Liberty executives (also quoted by Aronov). Radio Liberty is an official American propaganda media with connections to CIA. And while it's up to Aronov and other authors to voice their opinion on the matter, Wikipedia editors don't hold monopoly on deciding which version suits the article or not as long as it's well-referenced. Right now the only official version in existence is "death by an accident" voiced by French authorities. Everything else could be labeled as speculation and "conspiracy theory". AveTory (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

So, how exactly Vysotsky and CIA helped Galich to be electrocuted according to these sources? You tell: "Radio Liberty is an official American propaganda media with connections to CIA". Do you suggest that all people who appear on RFE/RL should be labeled as people with CIA connections? You tell: Right now the only official version in existence is "death by an accident" ... Everything else could be labeled as speculation and "conspiracy theory". Yes, sure. So why do you want to include this conspiracy theory in detail? It is enough to briefly mention the opinion of his daughter. My very best wishes (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I checked what Kolosov said about it. First, he tells about himself that he was a high-ranking KGB operative who used journalism as a cover and worked with Red Brigades and established contacts between KGB and Italian mafia, among other things. Second, he tells that KGB was conducting an operation to bring Galich back to Russia, and that he (Kolosov) already came to Paris to take Galich, however Galich suddenly died from the accident when Kolosov was in Paris ("я съездил в Париж, чтобы вывезти из Франции в Россию и Александра Галича, и писателя Виктора Некрасова"). Should that be somehow included? I doubt.My very best wishes (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Isn't that what I wrote? He worked both as spy and a journalist in Izvestia for 30 years, regularly publishing articles and interviews. Aronov quotes several of them among other publications on the matter of CIA/KGB involvement. His story about visiting Paris to bring Galich back is also referenced in the book and Alena's interview, so it might be a good idea to include it in the Wikipedia article - as long as all versions are covered. And since there were plenty of speculations regarding Galich's (unnatural) death since 1978, it might be a good idea.

"So, how exactly Vysotsky and CIA helped Galich to be electrocuted according to these sources?" Why asking me? You have the text of the interview where she talks only about Vysotsky's conversation with Galich, after he which he supposedly let two men in his flat and went away. She also mentions many strange things regarding his death - how somebody had already called the police by the time Galich's wife returned; how the police didn't call for intensivists, but instead contacted Radio Liberty; about the pressure from radio's executives that prevented proper investigation, etc. Such information is included in Wikipedia articles, maybe in a separate section. AveTory (talk) 10:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I am looking at this. So, she said that an unnamed person (she knows nothing about) came to her, claimed to be a high-ranking KGB or Communist Party official and said about a discussion in the Soviet politburo that Galich and Viktor Nekrasov must be either killed or brought back to the Soviet Union. He also said that they decided the latter, however two people (apparently KGB agents) came to his apartment at the day of his death and killed him ("его посетил Высоцкий, а когда дверь, выпуская гостя, открылась, в квартиру вошли двое..."). But she tells there is no any proof of that except words by that suspicious man. OK, but remember that her interview is "a primary source". Do we have any secondary RS which claim this story to actually happen rather than to be a rumor or unsubstantiated claim by unknown person who came to his daughter, possibly to plant disinformation? My very best wishes (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Without such assertions by secondary RS all claims by that unknown person should be discarded. However, that does look suspicions. I can't imagine how RF connector could be plugged into the European style electrical outlet. So, it is OK to notice that his daughter always believed that Galich was killed by the KGB and that Kolosov was in Paris at the time of his death and that he was tasked to bring Galich and Nekrasov back to the Soviet Union - based on own claims (links/sources above). Anything else looks like a speculation upon speculation. My very best wishes (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)