Talk:Ivan Vinogradov

Untitled

I.M. Vinogradov was a communist party functioner and a KGB proxy, obstructing the career of the Soviet scientists that were not in the favour of the KGB at the times (notably, dissident and Jewish scientists).

I'm aware of this aspect of Vinogradov, and not against it appearing in the article. On the other hand, from Wikipedia NPOV policy it should be said in a more careful way. If Vinogradov was a party member, then we can say that. That he was a KGB proxy is of course harder to justify. We can certainly say that he was widely considered to be at least partially responsible for the discrimination policy - I know that to be true.

Charles Matthews 12:02, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

First of all, I agree with the fact that the phrasing might need to be smoothened a bit — the way I put it it does sound a bit dry and harsh.

Regarding the KGB affiliation: are you able to read Russian? If yes, look at this interesting piece by S.P.Novikov http://www.mccme.ru/edu/index.php?ikey=n-rohlin and, if possible, at the book I have linked in the Aleksandr Danilovich Aleksandrov references section (I'll cite the relevant excerpts from it when I return back home towards the end of September - I'm abroad right now). Novikov gives an account of Vinogradov's persecution of Rokhlin using the KGB channels (and to the Aleksandrov's confirmation of the fact), and also says how Vinogradov tried to convince him (Novikov) to act against Jewish Soviet mathematicians. I have heard from multiple Soviet mathematicians, including Rokhlin's and Alexandrov's "descendants" in the scientific sense, that at least this account is truthful, and also about other cases like that. Please tell me if you need more facts/names. Obviously, when I am saying "KGB proxy", I don't imply him having a formal KGB agent designation (which would have been impossible to verify w/o an access to the internal FSB archives!) but rather than he was 1) executing the official KGB hardline policies against the dissidents and the Jewish scientists 2) actively using the KGB apparatus to achieve his ambitions (as proved by the Rokhlin case). I don't know, there should probably be a better phrase used in the article than "KGB proxy" to say that.

So I suggest that the text be smoothed, but not in the direction of "maybe in fact he wasn't affiliated with the KGB" — at least I myself am pretty much convinced by the facts cited above. Rather, maybe, something along the lines that back in the Stalin times, a lot of people had to compromise with their own conscience in order to gain power. The ruling elite would not tolerate anybody "clean" in a position of power, and would try to corrupt people in this or that way. People that didn't succumb to the temptation were rare, and were regarded by other scientists as near-saints (such as V.I. Smirnov). Those that did would often like a way out, but were now blackmailed by KGB to continue acting on the KGB behalf. Unfortunately, Vinogradov had too much power at the time to stay "clean".

Also, perhaps, there should be a way to integrate the two sides of Vinogradov together closer than it's now - my addition somewhat sticks out now that I look at it. I.e. some sort of intro glueing the two together — however unsurpassed some of his mathematical results were for tens of years... etc.

Not being a native English speaker, and given the delicate nature of the matter, I invite you to go ahead on the basis of all the said above. BACbKA 13:37, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So, I have a reasonable knowledge of Russian. Myself, I'm fairly convinced that he would have known all about the type of policy (which included party hacks being promoted even if their work was no good, as well as all the other things) which was basic to the way things were run in the Soviet days. Charles Matthews 14:57, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just another reference, this time in English.

Semyon Reznik (1993-04-19). "On Shafarevich And NAS: Tolerance Vs. Indifference". The Scientist (VOLUME 7, No:8). {{cite journal}}: |issue= has extra text (help): The late academician Ivan Vinogradov, the longtime director of the institute, cynically enforced a policy of squeezing all Jews out of the institute--and mathematics at large. --BACbKA 10:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Probably this article is not the place to discuss in full detail the abuses in the Soviet system - just to make the point here that Vinogradov was 'the boss' while those things happened. But, about the entrance conditions to university, there were details written in the 1990s. For example, some references are given at

http://www.livejournal.com/community/kerosinka/1633.html

and in particular the Mathematical Intelligencer articles from 1994. I haven't read these; I believe they confirm what my friends were telling me in the 1980s. Anyway, as I say, a separate article would probably be better.

Charles Matthews 06:06, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Entrance conditions isue. This is related to common misunderstanding of science/education system of the USSR, because of the coinfusing term "academy". In USSR & Russia it has a meaning different from the most of the rest of the world. Institute of Mathematics managed by Vinogradov is a part of Russian Academy of Science, which is R&D establishment and has no administrative relation with universities, and hence he was not "boss" for students. On the other hand, he was "boss" of math research, that's why I corrected the text to reflex Vinogradov's area of personal responsibility: "difficulties placed in the way of talented Jewish students wishing to continue research work after graduation", in accordance with your idea:

"not the place to discuss in full detail the abuses in the Soviet system" and with personal knowledge. Mikkalai 18:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, I now understand the point you are making. It is definitely better to have a limited number of clearer points, when approaching this type of issue. By the way, I tried this morning to start a general article about mathematics in the U.S.S.R, while the database was locked here. I think this is a very interesting topic, and not well understood in some senses. I used to read the Math. Uspekhi in English translation, and sometimes it was very interesting, for example about Luzitania. Generally it is one of the least understood parts of mathematics history of the twentieth century. Charles Matthews 20:47, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

By the way, about KGB: it was a tool of the Soviet state. Sometimes it is being turned into a sole token of all evil in the Soviet Union. In particular, in this article "pressure from KGB" is mentioned. In fact, there were much more sources of this state pressure. KGB exercised pressure in particular cases about individuals. General political pressure was from Party line and higher-level administrators, who had their own share of Party pressure, etc. Mikkalai 18:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

POV-tagged

I am unsure as to how this is POV given the absense of any reference to a different POV, but I have no problem to have it tagged so --- I'd be happy though to have the tagger use the discussion page to state their views as to why they perceive the article as POV. (Is there any source saying that Vinogradov was not an antisemitist? that he supported dissident and Jewish mathematicians and help them escape persecution by the State?) However, I do feel that there is some "systemic bias" exhibited by the article as it is now — most of V's notability comes from his being a mathematician, and, indeed, the Soviet suppressive regime aspects complicity should probably be a smaller part of the larger whole. However! this doesn't mean that we have to CUT material from the complicity section to have its relative weight decreased, rather, the math contributions section has to be expanded, and put into appropriate broader number theory context, so that its relative weight increases. --BACbKA 10:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with pretty much everything you say. I thought it unusual that an anon tagged the article without explanation (except for edit summaries which indicated s/he did not know how widespread the criticism was); however, given there is already discussion indicating improvements are needed, it does no harm to the article and only improves matters, to put an effort on cleaning up the article. And yes, there needs to be more on the mathematics, which is why I created the section heading "mathematical contributions". That should probably be the bulk of the article with bio info, with the "political aspects" (newly titled by Jitse after somebody created the ultra-weaselish "Allegations of..." heading) section coming last but before references and external links. --C S (Talk) 11:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Vinogradov was one of the pre-eminent mathematicians of the 20th century and that's the reason he's made it to Wikipedia. However, more than half of the Wikipedia article deals with allegations about his role during the Soviet era. The allegations described in the article are extremely serious but the facts mentioned to support them are manifestly vague and lacking in hard evidence. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide the reader with a minimum of, more or less generally accepted reference-style information that represents the important aspects of the subject. Controversial aspects can and must be included of course, but only when there is concrete basis for the claims and they must always be accorded emphasis proportional to other important aspects. The allegations as presented in the current version of the article don't qualify as serious, either in terms of hard evidence or the impartiality of whatever evidence is provided and therefore, I believe they shouldn't be included in the main article. For the time being they belong to the Discussion Pages! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.113.105.43 (talk • contribs) .

As you've seen above, I concur with what you say regarding the need to reverse the ratio between his math contribution and the political aspects. I do respect V's contributions in the number theory, and acknowledge him as a great mathematician. Furthermore, my 1st textbook in n.t. was a one written by V., I was able to study it back when I was 13-14 years old, and that is something I will always fondly remember (even that I do find his "profitable" antisemitism aspect disgusting). You are mostly welcome to go ahead and expand the article accordingly --- add as much on his math contributions as you can. This way, the article will read more like an article on a prominent mathematician than like an article on a prominent Soviet Communist party functioneer. BTW, I tried to find Vinogradov on the mathematics genealogy project, and he's not there --- if you're knowledgeable about him, could you submit him there? I have no idea as to what his D.Sc. thesis was about and when that was.

As to the allegations seriousness, please note that we do not do any original research in the article. A solid reference to a specific source is given. Currently, the only "allegation" is attributed to a credible (IMHO) source (academician S.P.Novikov), a living and prominent mathematician himself, and people will be able to use their own judgement whether this is serious or not. (I.e., we don't say "V. was an antisemitist etc.", but rather say that "According to S.P.N., V. was...") As you can also see above on this page, additional references are available; but the reason I didn't want to add them to the article as well is that it would even further unbalance the article with respect to the mathematician/antisemitism aspect of Vinogradov. See also my further comments on these discussion pages as to how you might further contribute to counter or diminish the weight of the allegations, if you know that they are unjust. (However, all the references I have seen so far point otherwise). I don't think the consensus now is to remove my references as at least 2 more people in this page have stated the material is notable and belongs in the article.

Thank you very much for taking the issue to the discussion pages.

--BACbKA 11:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Following the recent expansion by User:CRGreathouse I no longer feel that the imbalance of the bio+mathematical vs the political aspects warrants the POV mark any longer (previously, the former two sections bore less material than the latter!), although, certainly, further bio/mathematical expansions are welcome (and still the math section is rightfully marked as a stub). --BACbKA 07:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Translation

There are a few errors in the translation, which make the part on his political life almost unreadable. I just corrected some of the most obvious spelling errors, but I couldn't make out the sense of some parts to translate them into Spanish. Sabbut (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"nationalistic rather than communist"

Is the following original research (User:Asimsky says in the edit comments "he told me himself")?

Although he was always faithful to the official line, he was never a member of the Communist Party and his overall mindset was nationalistic rather than communist. This can at least partly be attributed to his origins: ...

I also wonder what was the reason for removing the reference to Novikov, claiming exactly the opposite:

Vinogradov began pursuing antisemitic moves in his career starting in 1950s, although having never been an antisemitist before, "while it had not been profitable", i.e., until antisemitism became a part of the Stalin terror after World War II.

I'd like to restore the previous wording, but if there is a way to substantiate the above, I guess we could integrate the two. BACbKA (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear colleage,
Thank you very much for entering this discussion.
It is indeed hard to prove now that he was not a member of the CPSU. He was our dacha neighbour, and the fact that he was not a communist was very well known. In the list of additional reading I included my own memoirs about him. The reference is called "Vinogradov in Abramtsevo, memoirs (in Russian)", please read it. From the Wikipedia perspective this is as good a source as any other including Novikov's memoir, which is also just an Internet post. Novikov was his sworn enemy and, in my view, one should be careful in quoting him verbatim. In my version I tried to describe the whole squabble around Vinogradov in objective terms, having mentioned his alleged antisemitism and also the real arguments which were used by the "opposition". The fact is that mathematicians were divided in two hostile groups of about equal sizes, and one group is now accusing another in antisemitism, at least in memoirs. At the time of events antisemitism was never mentioned in official discussions on any level. I really cannot comment on the accusation in antisemitism - I also heard it said on the level of private gossip - so I decided to mention it as an accusation, not as fact. I don't know if this is possible to find any additional hard evidence that he was not a member of the CPSU. If I find some other old man say this, this will also be called "private research". Regarding his background as a priest's son - this is mentioned in many memoirs and is easy to prove. In fact his origin as itself could be a reason for not receiving him in the CPSU - if you know the spirit of the time. I am sorry for having removed your above-quoted sentence instead of trying to integrate it. I gave it a serious thought at the time or writing, but it really did not fit a more objective Wikipedia-grade version that I was trying to make. If you browse Russian literature and Internet for sources on Vinogradov, you will find also a lot of positive opinions. So I chose to write a neutral text (which is really what we should try to do in Wikipedia) and include references to both positive and negative memoirs. I don't mind further editing and integration of different points of view, but w/o losing the overall neutral and respectful character of this part of the article, which I have somehow with some diffculty achieved. Many people of Vinogradov's scale had enemies and there is no reason to give their opinion such a weight, that the whole personality of Vinogradov would be presented in black color. The thought which was inspiring me in my writing effort was to give preference to facts, not opinions. The conflict in the Academy was real - so it should be described. The opinion of someone that he was a "bad guy" is just an opinion, not a fact, so anyone can click on a link and read it - but there is no reason to quote it directly in a serious biography. Novikov's writing is so highly opinionated, that one cannot quote his accusations as facts of Vinogradov's biography. However, his opinion can be mentioned of course. It is really difficult to keep to the right balance. Please feel free to edit my version if you are really sure that you can improve what I have written and make it more neutral and objective, or add more facts. --Asimsky (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)