From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 IPA transcription
Can someone provide an IPA transcription of his name? 188.8.131.52 23:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 The articles facts are really flawed
Currently I don't have the time to correct the mistakes, since I'm doing a major rewrite of the russian wiki article. Just like to point this out, just in case someone would like to do more research -- Sam
- Here are some mistakes. Vasilevsky was, in fact, a son of a priest and so had lots of problems with this and even had to severe contact with his father from 1926 to 1940. He, of course, didnt study in st.petersburg because his family was large (8 children) and quite poor. Aleksander's Military Law Academy is, actually, an infantry school ;) He joined the Red Army in 1919, not 1918. And so on, and so forth ... -- Sam 184.108.40.206 12:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
You are free to edit the article. Those all seem like very minor matters. Adam 13:56, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
- Who's running the show? I think it's time to politely petition the FA objectors to review the article and point out any remaining deficiencies. —Michael Z. 2006-07-19 01:38 Z
 Alexander or Aleksandr?
The article title is "Aleksandr Vasilevsky", but he is refered to as "Alexander Vasilevsky" in the article. Should the article be moved or is Aleksandr just as correct and we can just change the spelling of his name here? Shanes 00:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, if you write "Александр" in latin letters, you will precisely get "Aleksandr". However, this being an international name, some "translate" it as Alexander. This is an English way to write it, however.
- I thought this over and since there are a lot of people who are not English or American, let's keep the "Aleksandr" version.? -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 11:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Fine with me as long as it's used consistently within the article. I looked up some other Александр's in Wikipedia, and there seems to be a preference for Aleksandr. And the more famous ones (that I checked) seem to have it spelled Aleksandr (Aleksandr Pushkin and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn for instance). The exception being the russian emperors where the articles on them are under Alexander. Shanes 12:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Should this article have some kind of protection on account of the recent vandalism, until tommorow at least? The entire text is being deleted about every minute. Esn 02:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's jus the one IP address thats doing it. Block the address, problem should go away.Kaiser matias 08:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I just cleaned up some vandalism. I put the article back to how it was before but I don't know if it is correct. [rws1]
 Quelling Peasant Uprisings
From the first time I read "Delo Vsei Zhizni" (V.'s memoirs) participation in quelling peasant uprisings made A.M.V. a somewhat controversial figure. Should we point the reader to this controversy?
220.127.116.11 16:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hi. The participation of a soldier (don't forget he was just an officer by then) in a civil war action does not make him automatically controversial. Don't forget that a soldier obeys orders and as long as he does not commit certain acts, his behaviour is considered legitimate. If you take a post-WWII example, Guderian was cleared of all charges because the tribunal estimated that his behaviour was consistent with the one of a professionnal soldier.
- Besides, don't forget that one of Wikipedia's key principles is Verifiability. Therefore, you can't just say "X was controversial" just because you think so, you have to back up your claims with evidence. If you take Zhukov for example, there were some post-1991 stuff backing such an affirmation up. In the case of Vasilevsky, AFAIK, there is nothing like that. Cheers, Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 13:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 No USSR link?
Is it just me or is there not a single direct link to the Soviet Union in this entire featured article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- Actually there is, it is in the infobox, but in the article - I have not seen any using the "find in this page..." —dima/s-ko/ 18:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- I added one to the intro sentence. Picaroon9288 19:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 Good work, and question
It's a good article: nice work. Is there any indication of why Vasilevsky survived the purges, and found Stalin's favor? The article indicates that he was surprised at his promotion, and at Stalin's seeming concern with Vasilevsky's family: do any of the sources give possible reasons for this? Interesting. Antandrus (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- There are some sources (e.g. ), but all this is rather guesswork really. There are four important points though. First, he was possibly simply young enough to not represent an obstacle in Stalin's eyes. Second, he was Shaposhnikov favourite, with Shaposhnikov being close to Stalin in his turn. Third, as the source points out, he could be "blackmailed" into secrecy, although I doubt that Stalin needed blackmail to arrest someone by then. Fourth, he was known by then as a passive commander completely under the control of his superior (and ultimately Stalin). All this put together probably saved his neck (or at least his teeth and ribs like in the case of Rokossovsky) in 1937. But as I said, since the main protagonist is just not there to witness, it is highly probable we'll never know the true reasons. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 14:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 On the Main Page on his birthday
I have no problem with the fact that the day this article is on the main page is his Vasilevsky's birthday, but since this is obviously not a coincidence, I'm just curious whose idea it was. Picaroon9288 19:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)