Talk:Zheltoqsan

Kolbin's ethnicity
I remember having read that Kolbin was chosen exactly because he wasn't Russian, but I honestly can't remember my source (I'm pretty sure it was a book, not a Web reference). Google books gives two mentions of Kolbin as Chuvash rather than Russian, although neither is my source. So, I've changed the sentence to something there is no doubts: he was from Russia, and had no tie to Kazakhstan (which was the other reason he was chosen). --Explendido Rocha 19:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but you need to provide at least one source. I typed in Kolbin on Google books and I see, , . Those are the first three results, all of which refer to him as Russian. KazakhPol 22:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I did. . I don't doubt that he was tought to be Russian (I quote "Kolbin was considered a Russian, although he was an ethnic Chuvash"), but at least those two sources claim him to be Chuvash (and it's more likely that a Chuvash will be tought as Russian than a Russian would be tought as Chuvash). I suggest a factually correct "replace by Party functionary Gennady Kolbin, from Russia, and without ties to the republic". --Explendido Rocha 00:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will include his ethnicity in the article. KazakhPol 01:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

let me say, Kolbin’s ethnicity doesn’t matter of issue, because all top and middle management in Kremlin behavioured as a Russian or at least like a Russian, it was a requirement of that time to be at the top and to have an access to the wealth. Second. The surname Kolbin and name Genadii Vasilevich itself based on Russian style traditions. It’s a pure Russian name and surname. (Колбяк(н?) м. сар. отрубок бревешка, чурбан). Also the name Vasilevich says that him father was a Russian and Russian Orthodoxy believed. And at last Chuvashians itself have slightly or semi Asiatic types of face like most of Tatars, they don’t have a Russian appearance.    That’s why, I propose removing the ethnicity or distinguish him as a Russian. Because it is completely improperly to deem him as a Chuvash.Oscar_Jet

I removed Kolbin's ethnicity at all, because I had a look at "Uneasy alliance" By Mikhail Alexandrov, who is a russian by the way. Book itself dose not contain references to official sources on biographic pages.Oscar_Jet

This source says 2nd paragraph "Gennadiy Kolbin, an ethnic Russian" I added his ethnicity as a Russian Oscar_Jet


 * Chuvashes are traditionally Christian, so it is hardly surprising that neither he nor his father hadn't a traditional Muslim name. Besides, what is a Russian appeareance? Lenin's?
 * But you are right: it is not the point. The point is that there are conficting reports to his ethnicity. Some sources claim him as Russian (probably lazily), others mention him as Chuvash (and most Western sources know next to nothing about what a Chuvash is, so it's not surprising that they lazily claim him as Russian). It is not improper to deem him a Chuvash if he was one. He might well be a "cultural Russian", but he wasn't an "ethnical Russian". --Explendido Rocha 14:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I altered own view on Kolbin’s ethnicity, “a Russian” should be distinguished, main reasons are: Given source that “he was a Chuvash” in a Russian language and the book written by Russian without references on official sources and that riot and killings was explicitly nationalistic. Also I gave a reliable link that he was Russian. Generally in such uprisings ethnicity plays an important role, that’s why info by U.S. Library of Congress is more believable and scrupulous- pretermission does not omit Oscar_Jet

Beside all factors you gave (first name, appearance) remain the main factor surname, I gave a link to reliable Russian vocabulary that proves a Russian nature of his surname. summation all factors give me a right to claim he was russsian not only by culturally also ethnically he had russian roots plus a proved source on US Library. Oscar_Jet


 * I don't think that you can imply anything from his surname: can you find a more Russian name than Konstantin Ivanov, a Chuvash poet? The president of Chuvash is Nikolay Vasilyevich Fyodorov (and, yes, he's an ethnic Chuvash); the first non-Russian cosmonaut was a Chuvash with the surname of Nikolayev. Most Chuvashes happen to have Russian names - but that doesn't make Russian of them.
 * As for the reliablity of the LoC, I don't know why you assume that the LoC is reliable on these matters: I don't even know if who wrote that study even knows what a Chuvash is.
 * With the information we have, we simply can't assume that he was ethnically Russian - some mention him as Russian, some as Chuvash, and until we find for sure, his ethnicity shouldn't be mentioned. --Explendido Rocha 18:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have at least 3 strong sources US Library Time Magazine Radio Free Europe They are English spoken reliable sources. You have only one, concerning that Russian book written by Russian (its very important point), as I said that book does not contain references. Basically 3 and 1 says he was russian plus all evidences such as names, appearance, before to have access to power to been a Russian by birth privileged status to be Russian in USSR etc.

Yes, all reliable sources say he was Russian.Oscar_Jet


 * Sorry, I was not aware that being Russian automatically disqualified someone from being a credible source, while being American made one into a credible source automatically. If you go along these lines, I guess we can't believe that Moscow is the capital of Russia unless it is stated by an American author. But actually, I pointed two sources, and one is not Russian - perhaps that's credible. I was also not aware that Stalin, Mikoyan, Schervarnadze or Pelshe were Russians.
 * I don't believe your sources are strong - if even you don't know that Chuvashes - unlike Tatars or Bashkirs - have Russian names, I don't know why Time Magazine would get that right - and you still insist that a Russian name is evidence that he was Russian, even after I presented examples of three Chuvashes with quite Russian names.
 * Notice that I'm not saying that we can be sure he was Chuvash - I'm saying we don't have enough information about his ethnicity, and twenty years later we can't be sure, since there are conflicting reports (see also: and ). The story might sound better if he was indeed Russian, but neither can we be sure of it (unless you dig the Pravda edition announcing his nomination, which certainly will state his ethnicity), nor it is the point (if Gorbachev wanted a Russian to lead the Kazakh party, he could find plenty in Kazakhstan: he wanted an outsider). --Explendido Rocha 00:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Stalin (Djugashvili), Mikoyan, Schervarnadze or Pelshe had explicitly non russian names and surnames, and you don’t presented examples of three Chuvashes with quite Russian surnames, it’s a just orally words without proves. Yes, Chuvashes may have Russian names, however their surnames should be in a Chuvashians manner that’s non convertible trough Russian manner otherwise we have a deal with Russian.

I should point Library of Congress and Time Magazine very respected sources.Oscar_Jet


 * I honestly can't see your point regarding the names: Nikolay Fyodorov: ; Andrian Nikolayev: ; Konstantin Ivanov: (and you can find more references, if you take the trouble to look for it); all Chuvashes, all with Russian names. Tatars and Bashkirs don't have Russian names, Chuvashes do. If you choose not to believe someone because he's Russian, that's your right. But you can't say that because he had a Russian name means that he was Russian, and you can't say that because the Kremlin trusted him means that he was Russian. As for the Library of Congress, I could point you some errors in their study about my country, so I've no reason to believe that they are right on this either. And I trust more a Russian author than some Time reporter sitting in some office in Moscow. --Explendido Rocha 02:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems your represented guys are chuvash. Yes I “can not say”… But US Library and Time Magazine do say, not simply Russian they bold and distinguish - "Gennadiy Kolbin, an ethnic Russian" Everyone do errors, question is – responsibility. The Time magazine faces it Oscar_Jet


 * Time and the LoC, say that he was ethnic Russian, five or six different sources say that he was Chuvash. This is a point I simply don't trust either of them to get right. In 1986, almost nobody in the US even knew what was Kazakhstan, much less Chuvashia. So, I'll repeat myself: we don't know Kolbin's nationality, we can't know it, and it should be mentioned in the article that his nationality his disputed. --Explendido Rocha 23:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Give me these reliable and trustable “five or six different sources say that he was Chuvash” in English language beside that book which does not contain references. And none has written by Russian, because it gives me a right to claiming on prejudice. We will talk --Oscar Jet 00:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Look, if you don't trust Russians, there is nothing to talk about. If you think that people in the US know more about Kazakhstan than people in Russia, there is nothing to talk about. If you think that the Library of Congress or Time get everything 100% right, there is nothing to talk about. And you think than more than 1% of people west of Grodno know what a Chuvash is, there is nothing to talk about, because you believe that Kolbin was Russian - you don't know it, you believe it-, and will automatically call not credible anyone who claims otherwise. And why is a Kazakh more trustworthy than a Russian, may I know? --Explendido Rocha 00:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Kazakhs are much smarter than Russians. It's because Russians are a very nosey people with bones in their brains and Kazakhs grow elegant beards. Whether or not he is Chuvash is really irrelevant to this article. He was perceived as Russian. Any debate over whether or not he is Chuvash should take place on Talk:Gennady Kolbin. I do believe that he is Chuvash, although I have never heard of this prior to seeing the links you provided. Regards, KazakhPol 01:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And where Chuvashes in that scale of smartness? Well, never mind. Although I tend to agree with you that whether he was Russian, Chuvash, or Tatar doesn't make any difference at all (but if I had to bet money on it, I would say he was Chuvash), it's perfectly possible that Gorbachev (wrongly) thought that a Chuvash would be less objectionable than a Russian. What is missing is the reasons why an outsider was picked (there were and are plenty of Russians in Kazakhstan). Kolbin was the only republican party leader who neither was a local nor belonged to the titular ethnicity (even Käbin, who was said not to be able to make a complete sentence in Estonian, was an ethnic Estonian). Other leaders accused of corruption, like Rashidov or Mzhavanadze, were replaced with locals. The reasons for Kunayev's replacement by an outsider are worth analyzing (and I leave that to people better informed than me), Kolbin's nationality is secondary. HOWEVER, while we aren't sure, there should be at least a footnote saying "some sources claim that Kolbin was an ethnic Chuvash". --Explendido Rocha 11:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am fine with a brief mention that states which sources say he is Chuvash. Oscarjet, is this acceptable? KazakhPol 21:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

yes it is, it seems acceptable, (after word “russian”) --Oscar Jet 23:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Causes

 * The lenght of this discussion, about a secondary detail, is fascinating, but I still think that it is missing an analysis of the reasons for Kunayev's dismissal and Kolbin's choice - the article is missing some background (and honestly, it's a bit POVish). The Kremlin had its reasons for sacking the long-standing leader of the republic and sending a total outsider into the leadership of the republic (and we all have our theories about why they did it), and they should be listed. --Explendido Rocha 00:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Theories or facts? --Oscar Jet 19:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Unless Mr. Gorbachev has a Wikipedia account, we have to settle for theories. Sourced, if possible. --Explendido Rocha 19:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Continue… a small addition, that riot has a very complicated nature, almost all proved sources locked in moscows archives --Oscar Jet 20:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm even a great outsider than Kolbin, so my theories don't carry much weight. But Gorbachev didn't wake up one day and say "let's send this guy Kolbin to Kazakhstan for no reason at all". The background for Kunayev's replacement is missing, as are the suggestions, made by several authors, that he was the main orchestrator of the protests. --Explendido Rocha 16:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Additional info on events
It is an official view 1 or 2 people were killed, that "official view" was a standard form of lie of soviet era and still in our minds, however me as an eyewitness of that riot I would say many many people were raped and killed. it is a matter of time and a matter of political will. If archives will open, no one could give a warranty and nazarbayev itself russians in Kazakstan could be in safety. thats why "2 people died" view will be in a "long live" position for many years, right up to a completely decolonization of Kazakstan.

U.S. Library of Congress says http://countrystudies.us/kazakstan/6.htm

"at least 200 people died or were summarily executed soon after. Some accounts estimate casualties at more than 1,000" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.82.26.50 (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC). Oscar_Jet

I recommend to replace the “JHeltoqsan” to Jeltoqsan.
I recommend to replace the “JHeltoqsan” to Jeltoqsan. Main cause is of pure Kazak nature of this word. Useful discuss on issue here Oscar_Jet
 * I disagree on this point. Generally Zh elicits a better pronunciation, as in Andizhan instead of Andijan. KazakhPol 20:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, nevertheless combination of “JH” itself based on Russian spelling style, at the same time the word Jeltoqsan is a Kazak word by nature, according to all conventional views should be written in an original manner. If not, at least two version of page should be represented, first is exist and 2nd could be Jeltoqsan Oscar_Jet
 * I am not sure what you mean by versions of the page... You can include the alternate transliteration of the name in the introduction - is that what you mean? If you still want to move the page to a new name, you can post a request on Requested moves. KazakhPol 20:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, yes I mean two version of page, like you mentioned in both names Andijan and Andizhan, as I saw both are available. Of course I can include the alternate transliteration of the name in the introduction, however it is not enough and dose not illuminate originality.Oscar_Jet

I paid look at this [page]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves, quite mixed section and required a few proper steps, unfortunately for now I don’t have much time to learn it. Who know and willing to do it, I’ll be appreciate to you. The main reasons are: 1) Because it's the correct Kazakh spelling and Kazakh is the only state language of Kazakhstan 2) There is no reason to keep the English transliteration of the Russian transliteration of this word – Zheltoqsan. 3) Because the word Jeltoqsan is a Kazak word by nature, according to all conventional views should be written in an original manner. Oscar_Jet

I disagree with formulation
“The political shakeup, ostensibly due to the corrupt governing of Kunayev, prompted thousands of Kazakhs to gather in Alma-ata's central square demanding Gorbachev reinstate Kunayev in an unprecedented display of ethnic nationalism and political expression for Kazakhstan.”

Firstly “It was a genuine outburst for justice and self-determination supported countrywide. There was no nationalism then. It was a response to the totalitarian system which prevailed on the territory of the USSR” this formulation is an official view of current Kazak Government Secondly according to famous phrase “RUSSIANS RULE, OTHERS FUME” which dated December 19, 1986 I would say the corrupt governing of Kunayev wasn’t a main point to spark the riot.

And if it was “an unprecedented display of ethnic nationalism” I should distinguish some points in the article, for example “many unarmed Kazakhs include women were killed and tortured by Russian OMON” Oscar_Jet

“See also” should include some related links
Vilnius_massacre Black_January Black January Black January Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956 April_9_tragedy Gorbachev