Talk:Sergei Witte
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
 |
Sergei Witte is part of the WikiProject Russian history, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian history. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the assessment scale. |
[edit] Relevant?
'Witte was transferred to the relatively powerless position of Chairman of the Committee of Ministers in 1903, a position he held until 1905. This position was also called Secretary of State in the US. '
A small point, but one which I still feels needs addressing - even if the result is no change. I would question the relevance of 'This position was also called Secretary of State in the US.' in the article - the position undoubtedly has other names in other national systems, and, whilst it may provide some sort of 'contextual placing', I am inclined to believe that it heralds too much to an American reader. Wikipedia should surely remain 'multi-national', and giving such a reference without citing other examples only detracts from this utopia. With the overall relevance doubted however, I would simply scrap the reference.
- I agree with the above Grible (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Re: This position was also called Secretary of State in the US. [1].
- Could the following be construed as plausibly relevant here?
- The article explains that Witte negotiated an end to the Russo-Japanese War. The text of the treaty which was published in the New York Times, lists the signatories and their titles in the preamble. Witte was identified as the Russian Emperor's plenipotentiary and "his Secretary of State and President of the Committee of Ministers of the Emperor of Russia" along with "Baron Roman Rosen, Master of the Imperial Court of Russia."[1]
- If the term "Secretary of State" is an error in this context, it's at least an error which we can attribute to the New York Times in 1905. Does this help, perhaps, to better focus this discussion or perhaps to move it forward constructively? --Tenmei (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't actually suggesting the statement is in error, neither I think was the first anon poster, it just didn't seem to add anything to the article. - I like the new wording that some one (you Tenmei?) did but I suggest removing the NYT bit from the main article as so *edits*. It seems more right to give the source in the reference. -Grible (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Tsar
Which Tsar did he work for, Alexander III?
-He worked for Tsar Nicholas II, it was he [Witte] that penned the October Manifesto after all.There is some more information about this here; http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSwitte.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.115.178 (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Contradiction
'Witte was transferred to the relatively powerless position of Chairman of the Committee of Ministers in 1903, a position he held until 1905.'
'Witte was brought back into the governmental decision-making process to help deal with the civil unrest following the war and Bloody Sunday. He was appointed Chairman of the Council of Ministers, the equivalent of Prime Minister, in 1905'
How can he be in the powerless position of chairman till 1905 then be appointed to the same job as a reward? These lines contradict; was he something else from 1903 to 1905? - Grible (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
