Talk:Alexander Kolchak

Neutrality
Per the last exchange in the edits, I surmise that if the idut comments are correct and sources don't have to be neutral then we can prolong the exchange that the source can and should be labelled for the point of view they hold. Such labeling is not partisan, it is factual and, therefore, is within the strictures and intent of the Wikipedia.Федоров (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

his surname is turkic, why?

Most of the article reads like partisan leftist spiel. The American commander and the leftist pres Woodrow Wilson didn't like him? who the hell cares? Compare any supposed atrocities by Kolchak to the known horrific atrocities by the communists. Who do you think would have been better for Russia? hmmm?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.39.157.81 (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

2001: Which supreme court?

 * "However, two rehabilitation requests have been denied, by a regional military court in 1999 and by the Supreme Court of Russia in 2001."
 * Russia has two Supreme Courts plus a Constitutional Court. I'm guessing it was the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and not the one dealing with Economics, but without a citation I can't be sure.  Can someone track this down, cite it, and fix up the Wikilink?  Thank you.   d a v i d w r 09f9(talk) 01:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Song
A Red Army marching song lampooned Kolchak (as well as the attempts of foreign nations to stop the Reds): The uniforms are British The epaulettes from France Japan sends tobacco, and Kolchak leads the dance

The uniforms are tattered The epaulettes are gone So is the tobacco, and Kolchak's day is done

What year was he born in, really?
Half the sources say 1873, another half - 1874. Many, actually say both: e.g. http://www.peoples.ru/military/admiral/kolchak/index.html (first mention is 16.11.1873, second is 16 ноября 1874. I read protocols of his interrogation in January 1920, there he answers: I was born in 1873. I'm now 46 years old. Maybe that's the truth? Panda34 19:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Romanian or Bosnian origin
The article indicates that he was of Romanian origin, however indicates no source. Other sources indicate that he was of Bosnian origin. Does anybody know where the truth lies and provide the required references?Afil (talk) 02:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That depends on how far back you want to go. Kolchak is a Turkic name, originally they were Cumans and lived in Siberia, then migrated to Europe and lived in Bosnia. Kolchak's ancestor Ilias Pasha enlisted in Turkish army and was captured by Russians. Then they lived in Poland. Under Catherine II Lucian Kolchak, Alexander's greatgrandfather, was a Cossack of the Buh host. As to Romanian origin - that probably was inserted by some nationalist (IP from Moldova). He did the same in Russian version (albeit not so categorical - it states that 'Romanians think Kolchak is Romanian on account of Kolchak is a common name in Romania.', probably because Russian version already had information on Kochak's Turkish origin). Ironically, Romanian article has nothing on it. --Panda34 (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Where do you have your information from? Kolchak is a pure Russian surname of Slavonic origin. Kolchak is a mushroom and you will also find this word in other Slavonic languages which where never influenced by Turks. See Kolczak in Polish wikipedia. Kolchak comes from proto-Slavonic Kolo (circle, ring). Voyevoda (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not a matter of etymology on which you may be right, but of genealogy. Kolchak's genealogy is fairly well-known, some you may see at (up to Ilias Pasha) Here's also a version of etymology from russian dictionary

--Panda34 (talk) 09:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If some nationalist just inserted the Romanian reference on no solid grounds, then it should be deleted. On the face of it, it doesn't make sense to say he was born in Petersburg and is of Romanian origin. As well, after he graduates, he is said to be attached to some city – but no city is named earlier, so this doesnt make sense either. This is poorly written stuff and needs some sharp editing. I don't know enough factually about the topic to do the editing, but as it stands, I would say it doesn't really meet minimum standards of clarity and coherence.

Theonemacduff (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Kolchak is not a Romanian surname, it is not common in Romania, and no Romanians believe that Admiral Kolchak was of Romanian origin--indeed, you wouldn't find one in ten, maybe not one in a hundred who have ever heard of him. This is rubbish. 169.252.4.21 (talk) 09:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Staicu

Koltchak, Admiral Koltchak as synonyms
Perhaps someone more capable than myself would like to consider making a search for "Admiral Koltchak" redirect to this page, and for "Koltchak" to be directed to the Kolchak disambiguation page. I'd only ever seen the "Koltchak" form, and it took me a little while to find this article. Regards Msdorney (talk) 02:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

RR war
Someone can explain what this is all about? Thanks.Biophys (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * reverting without explanation is against WP rules. Please respond.Biophys (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I made a few edits to NPOV this a little. Soviet propaganda sources (including Great Soviet Encyclopedia) are very unreliable, especially when they tell about enemies of the Bolshevik regime. Please use better Western sources. And please discuss your edits here.Biophys (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * So, no one wants to talk. I am telling this fourth time for a record. Why are you making this revert?. First of all, you reverted many things, not only phrase about 25,000. Second, please read the source. It tells: "Революционные выступления жестоко подавлялись: только в Екатеринбургской губернии было расстреляно свыше 25 тыс. человек." So, this is clearly about executions of rebels ("Революционные выступления жестоко подавлялись").Biophys (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not clear. If you want to include this implication, just cite this GSE entry word for word. You also deleted the Mayer reference without explanation. And now you've deleted it again. PasswordUsername (talk) 01:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I included this reference back, but it provides no factual information about repressions.Biophys (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's certainly not insignificant to the article. Unless you believe that only statistical lists are acceptable for Wikipedia entries. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I believe that factual events and data are more important that empty-worded claims (including those by Kolchak) which were never implemented.Biophys (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently, neither of you who are vandalizing and censoring this article have taken a history course. Historians do not disregard sources just because it is written by someone with a certain point of view. To the contrary, all sources from all sides are analyzed and taken into consideration. Great Soviet Encyclopedia is a scholarly source written by members of Russia's Academy of Sciences and translated by the West's leading scholars and published by Macmillan -- certainly not propaganda sources. In fact, BSE is among the most reliable sources for data and factual information about Russian history. Please cite a single scholar who says that material published by Russia's Academy of Sciences cannot be used. In all English-language scholarship I've read about Russian history, pre-1990 sources published in Moscow are cited. You cannot remove sources just because you don't like what they say, for that amounts to censorship contrary to Wikipedia rules. It's also noteworthy that BSE is cited in countless Wiki articles. With this article in particular, due to scant research by Western scholars on the topic of Kolchak, Russian sources are cited. Russian sources on Russian history, needless to say, are much better than those by western scholars. Continuing efforts to vandalize and censor this article will be resolutely combated.Kupredu (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Kupredu's comments to those reverting the cited GSE information (which notes that the source is Soviet). There is no reason to include the GSE at all, unless there is better information elsewhere. As such, I suggest the GSE material be reincluded. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This not a matter of view, but a matter of official political censorship and official disinformation along the lines of Soviet historiography.Biophys (talk) 02:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

<--- See. The GSE is fine to use as an illustration of what the Soviet POV was at a particular time. It's generally not a RS for "data and factual information" (about Russian, or other history). In some cases it may be used with attribution (as in "The Great Soviet Encyclopedia says that...") - though I think those cases need to be discussed first and probably require consensus. Also there's no presumption either way on whether western or Russian sources are better on Kolchak - it depends on the question "in what way?"radek (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Your claim that Soviet-era sources are not RS for data and factual information is incorrect. Professor Evan Mawdsley says that for the Russian Civil War, "Colonel Kakurin's two-volume kak srazhalas revoliutsiia is the best military narrative. Russian sources on Kolchak are superior by default because of the absence of works by western scholars on the subject. All work published by Russia's Academy of Sciences qualify as reliable secondary sources. I advise you to take a history course before giving lectures on what sources are reliable.Kupredu (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, Wikipedia precedent says BSE is a reliable source. Kupredu (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, first, please keep in mind the need for civility, (I'm pretty sure I've taken way more history courses in my life than you have). Second, it is not me that is claiming that the GSE is not reliable for data and factual information, but the editors at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. If you wish to challenge this, then make a request over there. Third, I was referring to GSE not Kakurin, who may or may not be reliable.radek (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia precedent established that GSE is a reliable source and Mawdsley's statement about Kakurin without a doubt confirms that material published by Russia's Academy of Sciences is reliable. There is no basis for any dispute regarding these sources Kupredu (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, no it didn't. Don't misrepresent what that discussion, GSE generally not reliable, actually says. In fact if anything it shows why GSE is not considered reliable. Also please note that the link I provided, GSE not reliable except to illustrate Soviet POV, is two years younger than your link, so EVEN IF that precedent ever existed, it got trumped since then. Kakurin maybe reliable, but GSE, not reliable, sorry.radek (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This discussion consisting of a few remarks established nothing, actually. Mawdsley's bibliography consisting of Soviet-era sources and his statement about Kakurin proves that Soviet-era scholarship is reliable. You do not qualifications to determine what sources are reliable unlike professional historians. Kupredu (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The discussion establishes the consensus as to reliability of GSE by the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. And that consensus is, "generally not reliable". We are not talking about any ol' Soviet era source but about a specific one, GSE. Furthermore, Mawdsley's statement establishes that Kakurin may be reliable for MILITARY matters (troop movements, strength, etc.). Not political or broadly historical matters. And how do you exactly know what my qualifications are?radek (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, where exactly is Kakurin being cited or where is a statement attributable to him being disputed? Is this just a red red herring?radek (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * While this back and forth provides some reading relief from other commentaries, to blanketly assert that the BSE is authoritatively correct in its content, particularly in areas addressing politically charged issues, is to be blind to the facts of history. Specifically BECAUSE it was an official publication of the Soviet Academy of Sciences EVERYTHING that it contained had to pass POLITICAL scrutiny.  Just because Soviet histories, and some western histories of the Soviet Union, chose to use a still from an Eisenstein movie to illustrate the "storming of the Winter Palace" during the night of 7-8 November 1917 does not mean that it actually occurred as depicted or as the reader is led to believe.  Similarly, with the BSE, I would agree that the BSE is authoritative in that it accurately portrayed the officially sanctioned Soviet POV on all of the subjects contained therein.  To then take the next step and say that everything contained in the BSE is accurate is not substantiated by the larger historical record.Moryak (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Place of death and a bit about Kolchak's wife - correction
No, his body was thrown into the Topka river, a small tributary to Angara. The arrest and police station where he was executed is still there and it still has the same function. The Topka is next the this building and the Angara is not.

His wife was also imprisoned, but only shortly. She survived and became a school teacher and died later of natural reasons. Stalin must have forgotten about the Kolchak family and her survival through the purges and years of terror is nothing less of a miracle.

This according to a local historian in Irkutsk, who has specialized on the history of Admiral Kolchak. As for the place of death, the local historian is backed up by Jonathan D. Smerle "Civil war in Siberia". There is a small cross in the Topka river to memorate the actual spot, where Kolchak's body was thrown into the water.

Jens Alstrup - http://www.gulag.eu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.46.196 (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Above comment regarding Kolchak's wife is incorrect. The woman referred to is Kolchak's mistress who was with him after his wife and son departed Russia for France.  The remainder of the story is correct.  My grandfather was held in the same prison and heard about the details of Kolchak's execution the morning after from one of the prison guards.Федоров (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, we may both be wrong to a degree. In the Russian movie "The Admiral", Kolchak married again on route to Irkutsk, without divorce from his former wife. What I was told refers to the fate of the mistress or (second) wife. The movie says that she were kept in camp for 35 years before release. However this movie was NOT a documentary. Jens Alstrup —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.46.196 (talk) 11:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Since my grandparents both knew Kolchak and my grandfather worked with Kolchak personally I have no reason to remotely consider that his information was incorrect. Kolchak never married his mistress.  Yes, she was arrested by the Bolsheviks.  However, since she was merely Kolchak's mistress she was of little consequence and, with time, she was released, lived out her life and died of natural causes.  And, yes, "Admiral" the movie is not a documentary and a totally accurate portrayal.Федоров (talk) 12:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not doubting your grandfather and even if Kolchak did marry again, it would not be a legal marriage as long as he was not divorced. That could explain why your grandfather was not told, if the story really is true (illegal marriages are not something you boast about if you are fighting against red infidels and Antichrist as a servant of God). Maybe the "marriage" is stated in the archives in Irkutsk as a result of a last minute accept by the Admiral because of loyalty from the mistress. We are talking about a man, who was about to be executed within hours. I am sure the historian I talked with in Irkutsk based his story on written material in books and archives. If you live in Irkutsk, you should try to get access to the local archives and look for verification or maybe the local historical museum has the material (likely, as the museum was the local revolutionary museum earlier). I will do the same, but I will not be able to go there for a long time. The life of Kolchak is a very interesting and still relatively unknown part of history. I hope you will publish what you have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JensAlstrup (talk • contribs) 12:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've actually read the transcript of Kolchak's interrogation. If I remember correctly, the only wife he mentions is the one to whom he was legally married and who emigrated from revolutionary Russia with their son.  His references to his mistress are not as to his wife.Федоров (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You might want to read - transcript of Kolchak's interrogation in Russian. Direct question "Tell us, admiral, is she [Timireva] your lawful civil wife? is answered by Kolchak "No." --Panda34 (talk) 08:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

English language Wikipedia
This is the English language version of Wikipedia and all sources should be in English and available for English readers to consult. Given that Kolchak died during the Civil War, it goes without saying that subsequent writings about him in Russia will be heavily biased and unreliable. 70 years of communism took its toll on Russian history and although they are trying to pick up some of the pieces since 1992, it will be difficult because of all of those decades of brainwashing which undoubtedly must affect the psyche and approach. Wikipedia must insist on verifyable sources *in English*. 81.131.85.152 (talk) 09:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Is this preceding comment an OFFICIAL Wikipedia pronouncement? How would we know this?  Yes, the English language Wikipedia is written in English.  I have seen NOTHING that specifies that all sources used must be English language sources or that they must be web accessible.  I was under the understanding that the purpose of Wikipedia was to arrive at the collective "truth" rather than to be limited by specific language and media sources.  There are enough participants who can read various languages and, therefore, can verify the accuracy of the content of cited sources in other languages.  As it is, Wikipedia already rather liberally uses English language sources which are less that authoritative precisely because they do not cite original language sources for particular information where the most authoritative sources are in foreign languages.Федоров (talk) 12:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but this is the English language version of Wikipedia and naturally if us English-speakers wish to check soucres being cited then we must be able to read them. Is that unreasonable? It seems to me that there is controversial and possibly biased Bolshevik propaganda here and it we cannot access the sources then it is effectively unverifyable and some comments may be removed, as "anyone can edit Wikipedia". 81.131.85.152 (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that won't wash. By the same token the American view of Japan or Nazi Germany should also be disqualified.--Galassi (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I clearly concur with the previous comment (Galassi) and equally strongly disagree with the one preceding that. As I mentioned, there obviously are contributors to this English language Wiki who can read Russian and other languages and, therefore, can assist in verifying cited sources.  If the English language Wiki, or any of the various language Wikis were solely limited to sources in that language then the very concept of a globally freely managed and edited encyclopaedia would be undermined and bankrupt.  By what reasonable logic is it justifiable to preclude the use of relevant material or to narrowly constrain knowledge to a single language?  Either Wikipedia embraces the unfettered search for truth or it risks becoming actively edited fiction and unchecked biased commentary.  To take the negative comments to their logical absurdity, I would propose removing the thousands of edits that have inserted alternate names in various languages and clarification of terms by rendering them in the original non-English language.  Were this to be done the Wikipedia in all languages would be the poorer for it.Федоров (talk) 04:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Prisoners camps in Siberia
POW camps in Siberia were built during the WWI, long before Kolchak arrived to Siberia and took power. Main population of this camps were former Austrian and German POWs, who could not return home after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk due to chaotic revolutionary conditions and breakup of transport in Russia. They were not supporters of Soviet power, imprisoned by Kolchak regime. --DonaldDuck (talk) 05:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have an RS for that?--Galassi (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * --DonaldDuck (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Soviet Sources not RS or NPOV
It ought to be obvious that Soviet Communist sources are not acceptable sources, not neutral, with regard to the White forces, especially regarding alleged atrocities, any more than White propaganda would be regarding the Red side. The Soviet "Encyclopedia" and Sovietskaya Rossiya are not RS. cwmacdougall 20:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It is certainly not obvious. The Soviet Enc. is considered reliable.--Galassi (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Considered reliable by whom? Given what we know about how the GSE operated and was structured, It makes not the slightest bit of sense that they would write neutrally about a white general. If you look at their own self-description, you will see that they make no effort to even appear objective or neutral. From The second edition: "The second edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia should elucidate widely the world-historical victories of socialism in our country, which have been attained in the U.S.S.R. in the provinces of economics, science, culture, and art. ... With exhaustive completeness it must show the superiority of socialist culture over the culture of the capitalist world. Operating on Marxist-Leninist theory, the encyclopedia should give a party criticism of contemporary bourgeois tendencies in various provinces of science and technics." Does that sound reliable?

A later foreword was even more blatant in the GSE's mission statement: "To develop in children's minds the Communist morality, ideology, and Soviet patriotism; to inspire unshakable love toward the Soviet fatherland, the Communist party, and its leaders; to propagate Bolshevik vigilance; to put an emphasis on internationalist education; to strengthen Bolshevik willpower and character, as well as courage, capacity for resisting adversity and conquering obstacles; to develop self-discipline; and to encourage physical and aesthetic culture."

According to William Benton: "It is just this simple for the Soviet board of editors. They are working under a government directive that orders them to orient their encyclopedia as sharply as a political tract. The encyclopedia was thus planned to provide the intellectual underpinning for the Soviet world offensive in the duel for men's minds. The Soviet government ordered it as a fighting propaganda weapon. And the government attaches such importance to its political role that its board of editors is chosen by and is responsible only to the high Council of Ministers itself."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Soviet_Encyclopedia

There is no basis whatsoever on which to give the GSE the benefit of the doubt when it makes an uncorroborated claim about Kolchak's troops committing a massacre, given their own admitted bias and the encyclopedia's internal workings.K15555 (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Recognition as Supreme Ruler
In the German wikipedia article is stated that Kolchak was officially recognized as supreme ruler of Russia by the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. This is a contradiction to the statement in the legacy section that he did not win any diplomatic recognition in the world. Unfortunately, the only sources given in the German article that may support this are currently offline. Maybe someone knows more? -- 46.237.240.144 (talk) 11:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Flag
For the life of me, I cannot get the Provisional All-Russian government flag working properly under his allegiance category. Can anybody give it a shot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drassow (talk • contribs) 02:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
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. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Kolchak.org.jpg

Memorial cross at Kolchak's "resting place"?
If - as the article tells us - Kolchak's body was never recovered, how could the memorial cross (which is depicted in the article) have been "placed at the resting place of Kolchak"? 92.79.101.164 (talk) 08:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

"Supreme Ruler of Russia"
Obviously this was Kolchak's official title as head of the White Army, but it's misleading not to give our readers the crucial context that he did not actually control much of Russia at any point. The previous text, in my view, was therefore insufficiently clear: I think that the current text of the body, in the sections "Russian Civil War" and "Supreme Ruler of Russia", fully supports the more qualified language I've suggested: Generalrelative (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Makes sense, though I think the majority of Russian territory (e.g. Siberia) was under the control of the Whites at its strongest point in the civil war. Mellk (talk) 12:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Cool. And true, but the Whites never controlled the Russian heartland, its major cities, or the bulk of its population. "Supreme Ruler of Russia" was an aspirational rather than a descriptive title. Generalrelative (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it refers to control over Russian territory, so perhaps there is a better way to phrase it. Maybe it is better to simply just say his control over Russia was limited, rather than just territory? Mellk (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object to his actual control over Russia was limited. Indeed, his actual control over even the territory he nominally controlled was limited, so the revision would be better on that count too. Generalrelative (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)