Talk:Joseph Kobzon

message: He is long dead - the article should probably be adjusted to reflect that he is no longer "currently" performing his various roles.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:5526:1300:604E:DC4D:5DB7:400A (talk) 04:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead

message: I think the "Victory day" song by him comes to mind first. Not that the "Instants" wasn't popular too. On a side note, we could add to the article a recent controversy that surrounded Kobzon during the Ukrainian presidential election, 2004. Just a suggestion, if anyone wants to consider/do smth about this. I will unlikley do anything on this article in the next days. Cheers, --Irpen 18:59, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
: Lev Leshchenko was the first to perform Victory Day, and IMHO his version is more popular. --Ghirlandajo 07:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Best known song performance by Kobzon

message: Who made this garbage text without any sources? Frank Sinatra is American legend, who sold 200 million albums worldwide and Kobzon is a local singer who became popular because of he served to the Communist Party elite. I know it I'm Russian. --LordWeller (talk) 06:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  On top of that this section is extemely apologetic and adulating as if written by a PR agency or someone close to the subject. -- HH 92.228.50.158 (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, just leave it. This particular statement is especially hilarious: "Kobzon has since successfully sued numerous publications for propagating unsubstantiated rumours, presenting a multitude of personal and professional references from the likes of Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev, who have attested to his impeccable reputation and great honour". It says it all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.191.199.107 (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Russia's Frank Sinatra' 

message: User:Hergilei is continuously attempting to include information about Kobzon's stance on Ukraine.  The topic of Ukraine lies at the heart of highly contentious geopolitical subject with thousands of well-known commentators expressing their views and taking actions in relation thereto.  Hergilei is singling out Kobzon among many high-profile individuals and focussing on his particular stance on Ukraine, as though Kobzon is a recognised key player in the world arena or a decision-maker on the matter.  Incredibly, even the key players' pages on Wikipedia (such as Barack Obama's) mention nothing about their respective stances on Ukraine.   Yet, Hergilei feels that digging up dirt to sling at Kobzon (no matter how significant) is good for "balance".  Such an approach to editing Wiki pages, however, is in fact anything but balanced.  It is typical of character abuse employed by scandal mongering journalists who are happy to print anything negative for the sake of 'negativity' alone - no matter how relevant or significant the material actually is.  Whilst Wikipedia is not a fan page, it is neither an instrument for character assassination.  If one's stance on Ukraine has suddenly become a universally important yardstick, then it should universally be applied to all well-known individuals who are somehow connected to the topic.   Whilst one's stance on Ukraine is not considered a benchmark of any sorts, there is no basis (other than gratuitous trashing) for it to be mentioned on Kobzon's page.   Oh, and by the way... Hergilei's unfounded reference to Kobzon's "dubious awards" is either an embarrassing testament to this user's ignorance, or simply evidence for what may be an underlying bias against Kobzon.  You are not Ukrainian by any chance, Hergilei?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.248.57 (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You have failed to show that any of the well-referenced information is an attempt to "politicise" or a "character assassination". If anyone has "politicised" Kobzon, it's Kobzon himself. He chose to call Makarevich a "traitor", he chose to give a concert in support of the DPR. Kobzon is very public about his views, it's clear he doesn't consider it "tainting" his image. Furthermore, see Steven Seagal, Anna Netrebko, Anastasia Prikhodko, Oliver Stone, Andrei Makarevich, etc. Information about their involvement is not censored. In Kobzon's case, the information is especially important because his actions have led to him being given entry bans and stripped of honorary citizenship.  Hergilei (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed "[d]ue to his support of Vladimir Putin's actions in Ukraine" and added Kobzon's request. Why didn't you do that yourself instead of deleting the whole paragraph? There's no focus on Makarevich; Kobzon's quote is mentioned in one sentence. The awards are dubious because they come from extremely corrupt governments that regularly give out awards and honors to people who are also accused of corruption. Having said that, I didn't include my comment in the article. As for "For every “well referenced” piece of dirt you dug up, there is an overwhelming volume of well-referenced positive material in retort", you're continuing to ignore the fact that a large portion of the article is devoted to Kobzon's awards and honors. Also, since Kobzon himself doesn't consider his comments on Makarevich and concert in the DPR to be "dirt", why should we? Hergilei (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

text: It's one relatively short paragraph compared to a very long section on awards and honors, how many times do I have to point this out to you? The information relates specifically to Kobzon, therefore the Kobzon article is where it belongs. Just like information about Seagal, Netrebko, Prikhodko, and the others went in their specific articles. If you want to add more Kobzon comments, you're free to do so.  Hergilei (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

text: It does belong on the Kobzon page because it's material specifically relating to Kobzon. I've provided plenty of similar examples. Show me the Wiki rule which says a celebrity's comments/concerts relating to a conflict may not be mentioned on his/her page. Hergilei (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Explain how it's "disproportionate". I edited the paragraph, taking into consideration some of your comments and inviting you to add more Kobzon statements. You responded by deleting the whole paragraph yet again. You are a disruptive and aggressive editor who has no understanding of the word balance. For you, it means delete everything that you perceive to be an attack on your idol even if Kobzon himself doesn't consider it "dirt". Hergilei (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Kobzon may have great symbolism to Russians but that doesn't mean we should delete everything about his involvement in Ukraine. That's a violation of balance. Your opinion that it's "dirt" is just that, an opinion, not a verifiable fact. The European Union has now announced that they're adding Kobzon to their sanctions list because he "visited the so-called Donetsk People's Republic and during his visit made statements supporting separatists." http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/eu-adds-famous-russian-singer-and-deputy-minister-to-ukraine-sanctions-list/515978.html Therefore his actions and statements on Ukraine are not "insignificant", no matter how many times you claim they are. Hergilei (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempt to politicise 

message: Should the Joseph Kobzon page mention his entry bans and removal of honorary citizenship, and his comments/activities leading up to that?
Hergilei (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem with the fact of entry bans or honours removal being mentioned objectively (full picture).  Specific commentary on Ukrainian conflict, however, that demonstrates the individual's stance on the subject should be reserved for the page designated to commentary on the Ukrainian conflict (if considered sufficiently relevant).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeko (talk • contribs) 14:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Material like this is typically included on the particular individual's page. See Steven Seagal, Anna Netrebko, Anastasia Prikhodko, Oliver Stone, Andrei Makarevich. Explain what you would change so that the entry bans and honors are "mentioned objectively"?  Hergilei (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Objectively, you should not mention things that have been recently in the news about the subject, which are disproportionate to the overall significance of the article.  This is a Wiki editing policy, which you are breaching by 'balancing' the overall significance of Kobzon biography with controversial topics that are currently in the news.  WP:BALASPS  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.248.57 (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  The paragraph is not "disproportionate" when looking at the article as a whole. A large portion of the article lists his awards and honors. Removing the entire paragraph shows you have no respect for balance. Hergilei (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: From a biographical perspective things like Kobzon's remark about Makarevich don't sit on par with his overall legacy.   You can't draw upon minor incidents in a person's life to 'balance' major achievements.  That is disproportionate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.34.52.35 (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: He made a very bold statement about a famous Russian singer, that's not minor, and mentioning it in one sentence is not disproportionate. Hergilei (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC

message: *Yes, briefly per . One sentence or two would be okay with me. --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC Votes

message: I had to revert statements to Kobson citation about Ukraine being a "fascist state"  with the explanation of  alluding to the influence of far-right parties in Ukraine and volunteer militias fighting in the country's east. (some ref). Unless the reference provided specifically mentions Kobzon we should not put any arguments into his mouth. Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material specifically prohibits such synthesis. In fact it is highly unlikely that the opinion of Kobzon on Ukrainian government is influenced by the English-language sources, as he most probably does not have a sufficient command in this language Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with your edit but I'd also like to point out that way too much of the article concentrates on his idiotic stance on Ukraine, it creates undue weight on this silliness.Miacek  (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fascist Ukraine 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Joseph Kobzon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100602065927/http://www.iosifkobzon.com:80/ to http://www.iosifkobzon.com
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131211220229/http://rollingstone.ru/articles/music/article/3479.html to http://rollingstone.ru/articles/music/article/3479.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131213123816/http://chinovnikam.net/content/18/224/3.html to http://chinovnikam.net/content/18/224/3.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I casually browsed this page while reading Misha Glenny's book "McMafia".   Kobzon's Wikipedia entry is an embarrassing hagiography, ignoring his close associations with organised crime and gangsterism.   Editors who have sought to balance this have been attacked and demeaned.   Very disappointing quality for Wikipedia standards.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.32.239 (talk) 12:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credibility