Talk:Keke Geladze/Archive 1

Archive 1

Marriage vs. Child dates

She was born in 1860, she was married at "age 17," and she had her first child in 1876 (when she would've been 15 or 16). Was this child born out-of-wedlock? To a previous husband? Or is there a mistake in the text/sources?--Tim Thomason 03:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure she had her first son with Vissarion Dzugashvili-mart572 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.44.123 (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

death

it says in the article that she died on may 13, but on the template it says june 4, which one is true?

Writing style

This article is written more like novel than an encyclopedia...

Why is a Jew the source of all the information here? Why should I trust Montefiore or any other Jew when it comes to Russian history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.23.60.232 (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm from Russia, I met Louisa, I talked to doctors, Louisa is mother of Keke. Melania adopted Keke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.93.35.186 (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:RS and provide some sources that support your claim. Cannolis (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Apparently Louisa gave birth to Keke, and Melania adopted Keke.... but this will not be published. Oh the irony. But what should I expect, Wikipedia doesn't seek the truth anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.199.23 (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

If you could provide some sort of source other than yourself, that would be delightful. Cannolis (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Well there's that Russian witness, and we already provided a screenshot of Emily's Ancestry. But how would you purpose that we fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.199.146 (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm the cousin Emily was talking about. Are you going to tell us that you are going to believe some Jew who doesn't know what he's talking about? That's like trusting the teachers of history by Christians on the Native Americans. There's this witness that made sense to all this. She's probably in her 90s. A witness vs a book. Oh no, which one shall we believe. An anti-Stalin book or the witness. Jeez, so difficult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.199.23 (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm telling you that Wikipedia policy is to provide reliable sources for any changes. Ancestry.com is not considered to be reliable, nor is a random "witness" claiming they "met Louisa". As a counterclaim, I could as easily post from a Russian IP address and claim that Stalin is actually the spawn of a beluga whale and a rhesus monkey, both of whom were named Francois. We pick the author as he is a respected scholar in his field. Read through WP:RS, it describes how to identify reliable sources. Cannolis (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Erm, no you can't just post from a different IP address. It's based on country and service provider, which again, is based on country. But of course, let's pick a book over a logical witness. So how do you propose we fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.199.23 (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I mean it's so odd, right? That Louisa Almeda Claflin would have a big fight with her husband, and then traveling to Gerogia (the country), where she had an affair, and when the baby came, she put her up for adoption. Once that was done, she went back to the United States and pretended nothing happened. I'm not surprised, are you? We are talking about a time where a lot of people were gullible. I mean it's not like we are talking about a family who had intimacy problems and known to have affairs, oh wait! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.199.23 (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's act logical here. There's not even proof that Melania Homezurashvili even excited, beside the fact that a Russian witness came and spoke out just now. There's not even a Wikipedia page for Melania Homezurashvili, or any page for her really.

This will be my final reply if you continue to provide sources. There are things called Proxy servers with which one can rather simply use an IP address from anywhere in the world. Now, for the last time, WP policy is to use sources that are considered reliable, and Montefiore is considered to be a rather respected historian whose works are widely published and therefore subject to critical review by experts. This IP poster is not. We cannot write that Claflin was Geladze's mother and cite it to "some anonymous IP editor on Wikipedia who claims to have met Louisa". Provide proof, or otherwise further discussion is a waste of everyone's time. Cannolis (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

According to http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/185.93.35.186, the IP address is not a proxy. But since you won't accept our Ancestry, how do you propose we fix this? How do we provide "reliable sources", should we publish a book about this? That'll be a "reliable source", right? Lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.199.23 (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

She got back to me with a recording. Audio recording made by Anna Kulikova (woman of IP address 185.93.35.186) and doctor Jaroslav Kovalev. Both admitting that Louisa is the mother: www.filedropper.com/2051858 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.27.208 (talk) 09:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Wait... Louisa was born in 1837 and died in 1867. So either I talked to a ghost, or the translation was poor. Either way though, I have that recording proving the relations. So there, there's your proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.27.208 (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Funny, but it's a possibility that it was a ghost. I sure would do anything to get the truth out if someone mistaken my life, my history, or my family. But I try and reach for the most logical conclusion, and I believe it was a family member, someone related to her. Either way though, it doesn't really matter as the recording has been obtained and it proves the family relations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.27.208 (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:RS and WP:V are not optional in sources. If you would read both of these policy pages you could have avoided wasted your time making that recording. see WP:SPS, which your audio recording so obviously falls under. Cannolis (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't make the recording. But it's clear though that the recording proves the family relations. If you do not wish to consider a recording over a book, then I'm wasting my time talking to anti-truthers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.27.208 (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Ketevan "Keke" Geladze was born on February 5, 1858, in Georgia, the child of Louisa Almeda. She married Besarion Jughashvili on May 30, 1872. They had three children during their marriage. She died on June 4, 1937, in Georgia, at the age of 79, and was buried there. Am I surprised that people are now basing an anti-Stalin book as "reliable" and "trustworthy" source? No. Am I surprised that people actually believe Simon Sebag Montefiore? No. Am I surprised that Wikipedia does not wish to consider an actual recording to correct their wrongdoing on my aunt Keke? No. Am I surprised that everyone is listing the adopted mother (Melania Homezurashvili) as the mother of Keke? No I'm not. But in all fairness she was the one who took care of Keke so I understand the reasoning to not list Louisa. But this all goes to show just how unreliable and untrustworthy Wikipedia actually is. I support its abolishment.

I uploaded the recording for anyone who can now play it online: www.cl.ly/cvVb?_ga=1.118579721.1089897526.1441655493 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.27.208 (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong, eh Wikipedia? Let me just go ahead and proclaim what excuse you may try and pull on me.

"The first practical sound recording and reproduction device was the mechanical phonograph cylinder, invented by Thomas Edison in 1877 and patented in 1878."

I understand that you believe that, but this recording obviously debunks that statement. History is a gallery of pictures in which there are few originals and many copies. History is a set of lies agreed upon.

"Wealthy and powerful people tend to have first access to any technology, a President of the United States would almost certainly use it before some woman in Georgia."

Yes, they tend to have the first access to technology. But this is not always the case. History is known to be twisted, confusing, to be a lie, and to take credit away from someone else. You shouldn't be shocked that recording existed in 1858. History is a race between education and catastrophe. History is a people's memory, but whose memory and how powerful they are is what really matters when we speak of history.

So let's be honest, are you guys really going to trust an anti-Stalin book with no sources over an actual recording? Because if that's the case, it's no wonder Wikipedia's reputation is very low. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.27.208 (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am going to completely ignore your recording. It is entirely unverifiable. Historians are indeed known to lie on occasion. Fortunately, that rate is astronomically lower than the frequency that anonymous strangers lie over the internet. Cannolis (talk) 00:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad that you are going to ignore this recording over a book that cannot be verified, I can further my agenda to push for the discontinuance of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.27.208 (talk) 02:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I have found a birth record for Ketevan Geladze, and it shows her mother is Louisa Almeda Claflin. I also had a few people analyze the audio, and it turned out that it's fake. The outcome was disappointing, I enjoy correcting history when it's based on lies, and it would be pretty cool to be related to someone who pretty much invented audio, but nonetheless I was wrong regarding the recording, so I apologize.

http://s13.postimg.org/h7rg79rh2/867858943058830.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.27.208 (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

This also appears fake. Have your people analyze this as well. Cannolis (talk) 03:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not fake. Also I already did that before I published it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.27.208 (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm getting the feeling you simply want to believe that the author you approve of didn't lie or mess up. Simon Jonathan Sebag Montefiore did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.27.208 (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Or perhaps I've read WP:RS and WP:V. Also, I'm fairly certain Georgian birth certificates from 1858 were not typed up on a computer and printed out. Feel free to run that by your expert analysts. Cannolis (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Well this is the birth record. Handwritten with something. Most likely a typewriter. This is clear proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.27.208 (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

A book over a birth record? You are making yourself look stupid at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.27.208 (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll admit I was acting a bit stupid when it came to the recording, but this? This is taking stupid to the next level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.27.208 (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I would consider a birth record. But I have no reason to believe a poorly faked image is a true birth certificate. Next time maybe try actually signing for all parties by hand instead of typing names out on your computer. Cannolis (talk) 07:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Lol you're an idiot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.27.208 (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Crawl back into your rock when you came from and read some more Simon Sebag Montefiore. While you are at it, feel free to accuse more people without evidence and reason.

"You need to get your cranium checked you thinking like an alien and just ain't realistic." - Eminem — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.27.208 (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Birth record and information about Ketevan (indisputable)

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=66586220

Indisputable

I agree with the changes, the birth record clearly states the mother. Therefore, it's indisputable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.199.98 (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be based on evidence, right? The birth record showing who the mother is, but I do not understand why we have to rely on one person over a birth record. A book is not proof. There are a lot of people who do not correct the story. Anyone with a brain knows this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.27.208 (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

This findagrave website is clearly not a WP:RS. Just like Wikipedia, which we also do not consider a WP:RS, its content is user generated. Cannolis (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Wait, you are telling me that you don't even consider Wikipedia as a reliable source either? LMFAO. You must be fucking with me.

Well at least we can finally agree on something.

Yep. WP:WPNOTRS. Cannolis (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

So much for encyclopedia. And just in case if you don't know, encyclopedia means a set of >>facts<< on many subjects. This website can't even do that.

As if no one on Wikipedia has considered that. Read up on primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. clpo13_(talk) 19:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Question for 98.208.27.208: if you consider Simon Sebag Montefiore unreliable and not proof, what makes your birth record unquestionable? clpo13_(talk) 19:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

What makes a birth record unquestionable? It's a damn birth record! That's why. Not a book!

What's to say the birth record hasn't been made up out of whole cloth? Also, sign your messages, please. clpo13_(talk) 19:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

It's like if I uploaded my birth record, and somebody questions it.... Nope! Sorry bud, this is not a conspiracy forum. Take your nonsense elsewhere! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.27.208 (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's take this to an extreme: if I type up and upload a birth certificate that says I was born on Mars in the year 2301, according to your logic, you can't question my certificate's factual accuracy because I say it's real. clpo13_(talk) 19:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. We have only your word that it is the true birth certificate. Parallel example - I just found Stalin's real birth certificate. http://postimg.org/image/5gnoy53xx/ Clearly, based on this totally real birth certificate, his parents were both delicious citrus fruits. Cannolis (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thats not possible to be born Mars. We are talking about birth record over abook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.93.35.151 (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Cannolis are you serious right now the movie idiocracy comes to mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.93.35.151 (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Shrug. You simply spent much more time fabricating yours than I did. Cannolis (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's clear that you either can't or won't understand Wikipedia policy, so there's nothing more to say to you. clpo13_(talk) 19:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. IP poster lacks sufficient common sense. Or is attempting to troll. Cannolis (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, so now I fabricated the birth record? Stay classy. I bet Obama's birth certificate is fake as well! Ha! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.27.208 (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I bet there's a lot of books from a lot of stupid people, but by all means let's not question them, only the evidence against these books. This is what's wrong with the United States! There are so many stupid people who think they know what they're talking about. Ffs

Ah forget it, it's like talking to a Republican. Well look, if you want this article to be a lie, fine by me! I really could careless because anyone with a brain would do their own research and see that I'm right. So great! Leave it up! It just goes to show that this website will not last. This game can go on forever! Trust me. But the facts remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.27.208 (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with 98.208.27.208. A birth record is a birth record. It looks real, it probably is real... it surely is old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.230.226.44 (talk) 02:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Sigh.... 98.208.27.208 is more than right. The birth certificate of this Keke person shows who the mother is. (192.255.249.136 (talk) 02:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC))

Okay.... so I've been following this article for awhile, and I must agree that the document is in clear standing. It shows the mother. I mean what more do you want? It's an old document! Looks like from the church even.... Since when did Wikipedia turn into some conspiracy forum? The document is a reliable source than a book. (162.250.169.190 (talk) 02:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC))

as much as i against communism and stalin i like the book but the document is truth.... sorry (211.110.5.106 (talk) 02:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC))

Let's get something straight. you are picking a book over the document? are you fucking serious? you might as well say the stalin-bashing book is what you believe it, brainwashed cunts. (163.47.20.184 (talk) 03:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC))

אני נהנה הלחימה קורה כאן. ואני חייב לומר למרות שהמסמך הוא אמיתי, כישראלי, אני חייב לומר שהקומוניזם הוא רע. אם כל דבר, מסתכלים על הממשלה שלנו! זה המערכת הטובה ביותר. אנחנו העם הנבחר של אלוהים. אנחנו אהבה. :) (82.80.17.114 (talk) 03:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC))

^ Мирные люди? Ты - идиот. Коммунизм это будущее, это рабочий класс! Так пошел на хуй, глупый еврей. А для записи, да, документ действительно реально! (94.242.58.6 (talk) 03:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC))

Yes

Document est une preuve évidente. Please change the name, ok? Mother is clearly shown (162.250.169.175 (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC))

All in agreement

It seems we are all in agreement that the document is real, but old. So, yeah. The document is reliable! (216.75.21.34 (talk) 03:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC))

Majority rules

Ight, so since we are all in agreement, I'll be going ahead to change the names, to correct this article. (104.143.15.208 (talk) 03:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC))

Yep. Go right and head 104.143.15.208. (162.253.64.103 (talk) 03:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC))

I've been following this as well. Sorry Cannolis! I disagree with you, respectfully of course. I say aye to change the article as well! Cannot change history, you shoulda known. (198.143.1.163 (talk) 03:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC))

I already done it. Du warst zu spät! Heh. (5.230.139.94 (talk) 03:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC))

The majority of actual people here agree that this is insanity, and you are a minority of one. Stop inundating the talk page with nonsense and find something useful to do. Everyking (talk) 04:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Everyking, Wot!? Are you serious mate? The majority actually agree with the document, at least that's what I see, no? You call this insanity! Oh no! I must be anti-Jewish for agreeing with the birth document than his book. Bloody fool. (163.47.20.184 (talk) 04:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC))

Oh yeah I almost forgot to mention, I agree with the document. It's proof yeah? It's insanity to say it's not. I'm from Australia (I'm quite educated mate, unlike your American ass). I agree with 98.208.27.208. The document stumps a book every time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.47.20.184 (talk) 04:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

.... it's a document. I don't understand how we are having this conversation. (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manoth901 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Everyone calm down!!

Hey, calm down Manoth901. Dutchy rue. Not all of us Americans are stupid, ya know? The majority here agree with the document. We don't consider a book a reliable source, so yep.... book is a no go! Document? Proof. Simple as that. So I agree with you, I don't even know why we are having this conversation. (199.36.107.113 (talk) 05:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC))

Wow

Wtf? Yeah I agree with 199.36.107.113. (104.244.156.10 (talk) 05:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC))

not able to edit?

Maneira de censurar a verdade. very disappointed that you guys would ignore the truth, you ignore us, we are a majority, and yet you disable all edits. very bad!! (176.221.34.99 (talk) 05:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC))

You might want to review what Everyking has stated above. Socking/meatpuppeting won't help whatever you're trying to do here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, review WP:SPEAKENGLISH. If your English is good enough to review the article, it's good enough to participate here in English. Using other languages for insults and aspersions will result in blocks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

What??

Socking? Meatpuppeting? Lol. Ya'll paranoid?? NeilN?? Ok so let's accuse anyone as fake (including me) who disagrees with ya. Seems dead on considering the amount of stupidity that ya'll are creating.... Ha!! (216.230.226.42 (talk) 05:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC))

This IP is geolocated to Houston. And just so happens to have a Texan accent...in text. You're laying it on too hard. The page is protected because there has been a lot of disruptive editing. First, one IP editor, and now a dozen or more after the first was blocked, all within minutes and hours of each other. That's very suspicious and doesn't look like normal editing behavior. Finally, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Discussion isn't over simply because the majority leans a certain way. There's been little substantial discussion over your proposed edits, partly because you refuse to acknowledge that there are serious verifiability concerns with the birth record you've presented. I'm sorry you think we're preferring a different source over yours, but you've given us little reason to believe it's anything substantial, whereas Simon Sebag Montefiore is a historian who, presumably, does his due diligence when researching a topic. It's not as if he made everything in his books up. clpo13_(talk) 05:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's be honest!

WP:DNFTT --NeilN talk to me 22:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The engine's runnin' but ain't nobody driving. I really believe ya'll should take the birth certificate into consideration here. I mean let's face the facts, sure the document is old and I understand where ya'll are coming from, but it's a document. And like most documents from the good ole' days they can't be verified, but look at the book, how can that be verified? It can't. Regardless what ya'll say, it just can't. A document is a document. A book is a book. Now tell me boy, if I write a book correcting this, where ya'll use that as some proof for the family? If I claim Nazi Germany never got the Holocaust, hire somebody to write the book in my name, and then I have it published, does that mean that the evidence in the book talkin' about will then be considered proof or something? Of course not, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.230.226.42 (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC) If ya want to talk about the rules.... and I mean if ya'll wanna consider the book and the birth certificate as an opinion then I guess that'll do, but from the looks of it this wiki is more like a novel than actual proof (such as documents, news articles, etc). This wiki is all based on a book. I mean no disrespect but this person isn't even worthy to be in Wikipedia, she ain't famous, she ain't done anything really, from what I see she shouldn't even be on here! (216.230.226.42 (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)) For the umpteenth time, read WP:V and WP:RS. Montefiore's book is a reliable source because he is a generally well thought of historian and his books sell fairly well, therefore critics take the time to read them. If there were glaring issues with his research or accuracy, that would've come to light. As Wikipedia editors, all we have to do is notice these reviews and use them to determine reliability. The "document" that was provided does not look old, it looks poorly fabricated. If you were able to get a book about Holocaust denial published by a real publisher and critics from sources like the New York Times were to actually read and then praise how well you'd researched your book, like Montefiore has, then it could be considered a RS. Cannolis (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Also, if you wouldn't mind dropping the act of pretending to be multiple people that would be peachy. Wikipedia has policies against sockpuppeting, and from your style of writing and recurrent undertone of antisemitism, it's pretty clear it's just one person. Cannolis (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Not to mention similarly bad accents. clpo13(talk) 05:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC) I agree with (I hardly say this) that Texan. He actually makes sense. And no we are not multiple people, we just sincerely disagree with you guys. You claim the document I obtained from the church is fabricated, but it's not, I scanned it and uploaded it. Also, how dare you claim that if a book was published saying that the Holocaust never happened and then being praised by the New York Times, it then becomes evidence for Wikipedia to consider a fact. That's a very dangerous statement right there. It's no wonder this website is failing with the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.27.208 (talk) 20:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC) Also, I personally, have nothing against Jewish people. I'm only anti-Israel and hate those that support these so-called "God's chosen people", legal genocidal maniacs. I trust no religious historian, and that's not personal it's just common sense not to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.27.208 (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC) If you can find an example of a piece of nonfiction supporting Holocaust denial that is well received by reliable critics(not ridiculous blogs or other "documents") in terms like "meticulously researched, authoritative", then I will concede the the point. Cannolis (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)