Talk:Yuri Bezmenov

---

Untitled

I added a full link to the Youtube interview. There was already a link but it appears to be a shorter, edited version. I did not want to override it since I am still new with editing. If someone sees that the full interview is better quality than the previous interview link, just replace the previous one with the one I posted. Jaanuz (talk) 03:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Worked on improving grammar and adding content, and references. Thank God i can do anything. Daniel1212 (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Death?

I can't seem to find a reliable source for Bezmenov's death. Does anyone have a link to an obituary? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

This is an issue that interests me (as a non-author) too. I have tried to find him at ru.wikipedia.org (Юрий Безменов), but there is no such article. I am also not a Facebook user but see a page there at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Yuri-Bezmenov/201370736546741 . This may sound silly to 'experts', but might this really mean that he's still around? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.93.191.236 (talk) 07:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The nephew of a Russian defector that was an accquaintance with Bezmenov told me by YouTube message that Bezmenov died in a car crash in 1997. - David "hermitcleric" from YouTube —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.59.138.201 (talk) 14:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Could it be he knew a bit more - like in what region, which month of the year - this car crash happened? Then the rest could probably be found easily through police files - and the article could be closed off properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.50.207.139 (talk) 11:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Not notable?

The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded".
If presenting the Soviet methods of subversion isn't unique and notable enough for WP, then what the hell is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knutars (talk • contribs) 00:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Yuri Bezmenov. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101101152925/http://www.scribd.com:80/doc/26265794/World-Thought-Police-Yuri-Bezmenov to http://www.scribd.com/doc/26265794/World-Thought-Police-Yuri-Bezmenov

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Citation needed throughout

Is there any evidence for the claim that this man was employed by the KGB? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.68.174 (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, if you Google him you will find a CIA summary with a brief description of him.. He is referred to in the documents by his alias Schuman.Phmoreno (talk)

Here is the document that tells about him and may be useful for a source.

References

berth date of bezmenkov

you said he was born in 1939. he should be 44 years old in 1983 interview. but he is looking like 70 years old Soumen4943 (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

False news as a meme

He seems to have envisaged the "false news" thing: https://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/34-years-ago-a-kgb-defector-described-america-today?rebelltitem=3#rebelltitem3

Let us add some juicy quotes.

I wonder if he ever claimed that "false news" is false itself. Down the rabbit hole ;)... Zezen (talk) 04:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

First paragraph no sources

There are no sources provided for these statements:

- He grew to love the people and the culture of India.

- He resents KGB-sanctioned oppression of intellectuals.

- Best remembered for his anti-communist lectures.

Any suggestions where one might find backup material for these claims? Phersh (talk) 06:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

You only need to search his name on youtube to get videos of his lectures where he talks about all of the above - i'm not sure on the policy on linking to youtube videos? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.255.0.165 (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  Here you go, it literally took me all of 2 seconds. Typed in Yuri Bezmenov interview 1984 and voila.
  -https://archive.org/details/full-interview-with-yuri-bezmenov-the-four-stages-of-ideological-subversion-1984
  -https://archive.org/details/DeceptionWasMyJob/RZ+Deception.ISO
  BorderlinePathetic (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Unlikely - needs correction

The article mentions that Bezmenov's father worked with Soviet troops in Angola & Nicaragua and that he died in the 1970s. The Somoza government in pre-revolution Nicaragua (July 1979) was very anti-communist. There were no Soviet troops in Nicaragua while Bezmenov's father was alive.Eni2dad (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Bila ?

Several places : Bila. The one in Romania 🇷🇴 ? --AliceBzh (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Popularity among the alt-right

I'm suprised that there's nothing about the current popularity of Yuri Bezmenov in the alt-right circles, where his interviews are being presented in a manner very similar to the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Here's the best source I could find: Call Of Duty Trailer Recklessly Promotes Far-Right Conspiracy Theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.184.61.129 (talk) 02:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I found your source being quite a problem, I mentioned issues below;

- You linked to an opinion piece on a site with wide known questionably factual pieces.

- This article is not objective.

- The linked article does not contain sources to verify the statements made in the article.

- The article discredits a Yuri Bezmenov because he spoke with a "far-right" (which already makes the personal views of this writer shine through) journalist.

- The article shows the lack of knowledge said journalist actually has in regards of historical sayings in this example;

Quote The official Call of Duty trailer refers to Bezmenov’s claims as a “chilling warning,” and implores viewers to “know your history,” which sure feels like a tacit endorsement of the man’s :deeply flawed ideology. The writer neglects here to give any showing of knowledge in regards to the historic use of the quote "Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it." by Edmard Burke (1727-1797)

as well as neglecting to properly fully quote the trailer Know your history or be doomed to repeat it

Therefore I'd like to request the removal of this comment since it's using a subjective opinion piece article as source. BorderlinePathetic (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Possible movie credit

A Tomas Shuman is credited as a "technical assistant: Russia" for a 1980 Canadian movie called Final Assignment. It would be oddly coincidental if it wasn't Bezmenov given the plot and since the movie was filmed in Montreal. --75.88.88.253 (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Possibility of the entire backstory and teachings being a CIA fabrication

https://twitter.com/Robkearney1981/status/1287887282989490176 (archived source: https://archive.is/unI4Z)

"He was nothing more than a Ukrainian born third rate journalist for the Russian news agency, APN."

"He [] found employment with the Soviet APN news agency but was considered [] incompetent [and discharged to New Delhi]"

"He was a creation of the American Security Council and Project Aerodynamic"

"Project Aerodynamic was a CIA scheme to create anti-Russian propaganda [] by using Ukrainian and other USSR dissidents []"

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/AERODYNAMIC%20%20%20VOL.%209%20%20%28DEVELOPMENT%20AND%20PLANS%29_0002.pdf (page 3)

https://tjournal.ru/amp/119771

Yes, pretty much all the major sources about his backstory and teachings that currently are in the article are affiliated with the CIA and/or Bezmenov himself. And since it's literally CIA propaganda, it's highly unreliable (I'd say so far he seems to be as much as a KGB official as I'm a pope of Rome). UPD: found one more article skeptical of his story, which also points out that his ideas being dusted off in the current political climate is not a coincidence at all. Finstergeist (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Bezemov's ideas of ideological subversion are often used by the Alt-Right and Anti-Communists who want to allege that there is an ongoing Communist infilitration of American politics, or some grand conspiracy to establish such a thing. I think this should be mentioned in this article, as well as the above comment on his relationship with the CIA Genabab (talk) 06:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

The only source alleging that being “Les Toolish” of Quora. Quora? The infamous Chinese psyop. That’s enough for you to allege conspiracy? Have higher standards.

Trust, but verify. The only possibly useful source that makes any sense is Barsky. 39.41.145.184 (talk) 07:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

This isn't true though... The idea of "Communist infiltration into America" is indeed a conspiracy theory Genabab (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm also confused where you got Quora from Genabab (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The articles you posted as a source for the conspiracy theory section you added are very biased blogs, not reliable sources. Wikipedia isn’t supposed to be a place to promote your personal politics.Bjoh249 (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Which ones? I don't think the CIA is a blog and it certainly has no reason to be biased against Bezmenov. Furthermore, the first source isn't a blog either?

Neither is Kotaku in fact. And while it is an opinion piece, it does provide evidence for its claims. The opinion is more about why COD using Bezmenov is bad, as opposed to who Bezmenov was.

There is nothing in the edit which would suggest or entail anything about anyone's personal politics. Genabab (talk) 14:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

You do this on a lot on articles it appears. Your leftist politics have no place here. This is an encyclopedia, not David Parkman or Young Turks. Bjoh249 (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, which ones. And what is the problem with what I just said? Genabab (talk) 10:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories?

Citing obscure soviet propaganda outlets that he was not who he said he was is just edit warring, and unprofessional. Saying that his audience was Far-Right, because he gave talks to whomever invited him is disingenuous. I think during that time the majority of people were against Soviet Union, not just the Far-Right. True, most were either conservatives, center, center right, the right, and the Far Right. But it seems, in the new political era, there is the left and the Far Right, nothing in-between. Please do not smear his name just because he is becoming popular in social media with that interview where he talks about active measures/ideological subversion, which were very much real. 84.22.38.103 (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Becoming? This edit is several months old I'm pretty sure. This is nothing new.

Anyways, the CIA and a website that documents government officials in the ussr are not 'propaganda outlets'.

Unless you have evidence linked to reliable sources that contradicts what is said here, there is no reason for removal. Genabab (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Dot RU websites and the CIA are not propaganda outlets... TIL. I guess Yuri was right.209.96.220.170 (talk) 10:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The Russian website is just a site that documents who was a member of what organisation. There is no evidence to suggest it was a propaganda outlet.

As for the cia source, while the CIA does distribute propaganda, it is rarely the type of stuff to credit Left-leaning groups by condemming anti-Communists. More importantly, its an internal document, there is no reason to believe they are lying here. Genabab (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

"There is little evidence to indicate Bezmenov was a KGB officer." - There is more than enough evidence indicating that he was involved with the KGB. He provided multiple photos of him working for the Soviet Union, in which he is seen with foreigners showing them around, meeting high ranking politicians (such as Indira Gandhi and Kewal Singh) and generally being around KGB agents. The fact that the Soviets were so keen on getting him and running news stories ruining his name and reputations says a lot. Besides all of that, its no secret that security agencies such as the KGB try to keep their agents "undercover" and were notorious for spying on basically anything and everyone (such as any secret service agencies, particularly the communist ones).

"Bezmenov was not a part of the KGB First Chief Directorate’s, and thus would have had no way of knowing what he claimed to know ..." - Of course he could know if he was involved with them. If he wasnt taught by them directly he still could have observed all of that while working with or for them. The Russian website which is being referenced there has no sources whatsoever while on the other sections it does have the sources listed. This line doesnt belong in the article anyway as its just a personal assumption from your side the way I see it.

"Bezmenov's views have historically been popular with the American Far-Right, to whom he often gave speeches..." - Typical negative framing. While its true that he spoke on generally right-leaning platforms, but claiming they were all "far right" is ridiculous. The CIA document referenced to is everything but written in a neutral way, clearly biased, obviously trying to frame him negatively by quoting him out of context and putting the authors negative remarks on Bezmenov in between. Just because its from the CIA doesnt mean its true and reliable, their job is to collect information and assess it, so there are always unreliable and biased sources in between.

In his book Bezmenov claimed that he was not given a platform on left wing and generally mainstream news outlets which explains why he had to resort to right wing platforms. According to him, he was not the only KGB dissident that was denied to share his story by major outlets.

There is also an article I found focusing on the trajectory of Bezmenovs defection by the CBC through Canadian Intelligence records. It generally confirms his story so I dont think that he is a phony.

https://www.cbc.ca/newsinteractives/features/yuri-bezmenov-soviet-defector-canada

https://ia800602.us.archive.org/11/items/love-letter-america/love-letter-america.pdf Gettonderg (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gettonderg The arguments made here are very weak.

> He provided multiple photos of him working for the Soviet Union.

No one disputes this. We know that he worked for a press agency (Novosti I believe?) but at no point is evidence given that he worked for the KGB.

> in which he is seen with foreigners showing them around, meeting high ranking politicians (such as Indira Gandhi and Kewal Singh) and generally being around KGB agents.

This is not indicative of anything and using it as an argument would fall under WP:OR.

> The fact that the Soviets were so keen on getting him and running news stories ruining his name and reputations says a lot.

First of all, it would be truly very easy to argue that this is just the ussr badmouthing a defector. Not that he was a KGB officer. secondly, this too falls under WP:OR.

> Of course he could know if he was involved with them. If he wasnt taught by them directly he still could have observed all of that while working with or for them

Generally, news reporters working for the state are not informed of secret government operations. To say that this is the case would require exceptional evidence. And Bezmenov saying that he knew it, is not exceptional evidence. Evidence like, something in the opened up soviet archives that revealed what Bezmenov was talking about.

But as both of us know. This is not the case.

> but claiming they were all "far right" is ridiculous.

This is never stated.

> The CIA document referenced to is everything but written in a neutral way, clearly biased, obviously trying to frame him negatively by quoting him out of context and putting the authors negative remarks on Bezmenov in between.

I'm not sure how? I think this is an issue of personal opinion. And thus not something that should enter into the discussion.

Furthermore, the CIA has everything to gain from putting Bezmenov on a pedestal...

Finally, as for the two sources. The last one is not an independent secondary source. It is Bezmenov's own book. Useful to find out what Bezmenov is saying. But not to conclude if he was correct.

Furthermore, the CBC source not only corroborates his popularity on the right and within conspiracy theories: "Now, clips from those same videos are often re-purposed to argue COVID-19 lockdowns and vaccine mandates are signs of looming authoritarian rule."

In fact, it even states that he was "involved with the Korean anti-communist Unification Church, known as the Moonies, and the right-wing John Birch Society in Toronto, according to Lucena and intelligence records."

Finally, it doesn't provide any further evidence of him being part of the KGB. It seems only to reiterate Bezmenov's own claims Genabab (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, there is another very well-sourced Wikipedia article on the Mitrokhin Archive literally supporting many of the accusations Bezmenov made. So, how could he have known all of these things, when he apparently was not involved with the KGB or even worked for them? Keep in mind that these were revealed after Bezmenovs death. At this point this should be enough to finally delete this whole "cOnsPiRAcy" part.

I have also seen the discussion before about this being a CIA fabrication... are you serious?! And then you use some random tweet by some unknown "freelance" journalist who uses Reddit and some random opinion blogs as "sources". Come on bro. As the other guys said before, this is not a place to promote your personal ideology/beliefs. Keep your leftist views to yourself and dont subvert this platform. Gettonderg (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

>There is more than enough evidence indicating that he was involved with the KGB

add that evidence to the article then if you think that, the things you list after that are all things that a soviet journalist would do. modern american journalists do the same thing for the most part. they totally do "meet high ranking officers" in america, infact they are know to meet the president on occasion, they are even seen being "generally" around government agents.

>Soviets were so keen on getting him and running news stories ruining his name and reputations

google "gary web", google "edward snowden", point is that its totally to be expected and other countries do the same. any defector turned propaganda piece (exactly what he likely was) is going to be wanted by their original country, especially if he starts saying things that may or may not be true

>particularly the communist ones

i know you dont need to source these, but you are lying to yourself if you believe that modern so called western countries arent spying on a level that would make communists pee themselves in envoy, and its very likely that comparing 1980s communist espionage to 1980s western espionage would prove you wrong (or any similar time period)

>This line doesnt belong in the article anyway

i promise you that when i have the time to write something substantial on his kgb claims i will do so, you can remove that part if you wish

your next paragraph is purely delusional. your dreaded "negative framing" is already happening and you are supporting it. it can go both ways. adding cia documents is better than what was already there anyway. the cia also has a vested interest in making him out to be some incredibly important soviet figure that somehow managed to escape the accursed grasp of the union. saying that they are trying to discredit him (in internal documents, no less) goes against what you are trying to argue (that he isnt lying about his kgb involvement).

>not given a platform on left wing ... news

this is also to be expected, either he isnt lying and he crippled the soviets (that the left wingers so dearly love) in some capacity, or that he is lying and is just the typical grifter. surely you can see why he wouldnt be invited to share his views.

>According to him, he was not the only KGB dissident that was denied to share his story by major outlets

this is likely true in some capacity, but i would bet anything that its not to the extent he described in the context of where you got that quote from. again, read my paragraph two paragraphs up, western intelligence would love to do anything to make the soviet union look bad, even manipulate the media (as has been proven to happen, see operation mocking bird, and other examples) to show the view they want to show. its absurd to think that there is such a rich and allegedly untapped source of red scare propaganda as several high ranking soviet dissidents.

>generally confirms his story

not true. it confirms what he did *after* he made it to canada (confirms is a loose word, the article is largely outsourced). there are very few mentions of his kgb past and none say that he was a high ranking member in any sense besides the same interview ironically already linked to this wikipedia article.

>Mitrokhin Archive

i couldnt quickly find anything to confirm exactly bezmenovs role in the kgb, but i wouldnt be suprised if i missed it. however if you can find it i would be grateful if you could send it to me (and even more so if you add it to the article)

>he apparently was not involved with the KGB or even worked for them

he likely was somewhat loosely involved with the kgb in the same sense i outlined in the first paragraph here.

>should be enough to finally delete this whole "cOnsPiRAcy" part

perhaps, if you linked a relevant source, unfortunately you seem to have forgotten that part

>Keep your leftist views to yourself and dont subvert this platform

this is curious to me. you seem to care more about keeping leftist views off this platform, except that very clearly doesnt line up with wikipedia guidelines.

that is all, now keep your rightist views to yourself 106.69.214.62 (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

This whole reply is full of straw men arguments (the whole defection part for example, I never said his whole life story. Same goes with the CIA part). Your claims have no substance at all and the one reference you build this whole conspiracy section on has literally no sources and doesnt belong into this article anyway. You keep talking about "SAUCE, SAUCE PLS" while this whole segments foundation is built on sand. The pictures are literally all over his book which I linked on that reply and you can find these KGB Operations he described in the "Alleged KGB operations revealed in the files" in the Mitrokhin Archives article (All based on the records he provided).

"your dreaded "negative framing" is already happening and you are supporting it. it can go both ways. adding cia documents is better than what was already there anyway. the cia also has a vested interest in making him out to be some incredibly important soviet figure that somehow managed to escape the accursed grasp of the union. saying that they are trying to discredit him (in internal documents, no less) goes against what you are trying to argue (that he isnt lying about his kgb involvement)." - Literally never said that and it shows you have no idea about how intelligence agencies work. I already briefly mentioned that in the reply before. The CIA document you were referring to in the paragraph is "open source" meaning thats a random article of some magazine or newspaper they found might be of interest. Thats not a CIA made report.

Also funny that you put Snowden and Gary Webb in one basket. The level of CIA interest on these two was much different. Gary Webb was never "wanted" the way Snowden was and you know that. Stop twisting everything to your advantage. Propaganda? Come on, man.

As its obvious that you have some sympathies towards the Soviet Union and socialist countries. My parents are from an eastern block country and I can tell you life was everything but good. It is not that the CIA was "trying to make them look bad", it was them showing that they ARE bad. Waiting 20 years for a car, low quality food and housing, famines and the gulags are all facts and they happened. Its not because "it was not real socialism". It is because it WAS real socialism. Now cope.

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp90-00552r000605880003-3 Gettonderg (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I am beginning to suspect that you may not be as unbiased as you believe... Genabab (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Did I ever claim that I wasnt biased? Everyone is biased. Its not about me proving that he is a KGB agent, this was an assessment from my side. Its about the author of this segment proving his points he made in the segment.

First, he has to use reliable references to his "first chief directorate" claim as the website he linked isnt sourced at all on this page. I doubt that Wikipedia allows the use of such an unreliable webpage but I might be wrong. And I also doubt a claim based on such an unreliable source is allowed to stay on.

Secondly he was not the only one who claimed that he is an KGB agent, other newspaper and magazines did that too. The CBC article by Jorge Barrera says that also.

Thirdly, the far right claim should be questioned at least. I found another article also in the CIA database in which the John Birch Society says that it "doesnt claim his full allegiance" and to which Bezmenov said "I am not a member. I dont agree with everything they say." As I have seen now, clearly biased sources are allowed to be used in articles. Okay, but then this part of the before mentioned article should be added and Bezmenovs claim that other groups and mainstream media didnt give him a platform, too. I also linked an article by Big Think about Yuri and his predictions and putting it into the modern context (basically indicating that his predictions came true).

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP90-00552R000605880001-5.pdf

https://bigthink.com/the-present/yuri-bezmenov/ Gettonderg (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gettonderg It isn't really about that to begin with. Wikipedia's job is to include something, even if you disagree with it. As long as there is reason to include it.

Let's take the wiki-page for the current Hezbollah-Israel conflict. Part of the casualties lists claims made by Hezbollah of 2,000 casualties on the IDF. This is, probably, not true. But since they make the claim, we have to include it anyways. Albeit by stressing that this figure comes specifically from Hezbollah.

You may try to make an argument about if this was the case for Bezmenov or not. And I'd disagree. But that doesn't matter too much. What matters is establishing that there is a dispute on his authenticity. And thus, that such a dispute must be included.

In what way is the source unreliable? It isn't making a claim. Rather it is simply something documenting people in the soviet union who were part of this or that office.

They do not really, however. These are only sources that (in some cases anyways) breifly mention in passing his claim to be a KGB agent. There is no actual evidence provided by any of them. None of them even dwell on it.

For the point you are trying to make we would require a source that talks specifically about if Bezmenov's claims are valid. Which, all evidence points to it not being so.

You don't have to be a full fledged member of the John Birch society to still say that you are affiliated with teh Far-Right. Especially, and more importantly, when other listed sources say this about Bezmenov. It's less about what you or I think. But what the sources that mention this say. And most point in the direction of Bezmenov being affiliated with the far-right.

As stated here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_423#BigThink.com

"It appears to be the blog of Tamàs Varga, which would make it a self-published source and I can't find anything that would show they have been previously published in reliable sources. " Genabab (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I generally agree. It was premature to delete the whole section before concluding the debate. I modified the section with minor orthographic corrections and another source on his political affiliation. I guess thats fair. Gettonderg (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@GettondergI have no idea what you are talking about. At no point did I cite twitter Genabab (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I was talking about the "Possibility of the entire backstory and teachings being a CIA fabrication" sections initial comment. There was no author so I assumed thats you as you first supported including his CIA claim in this article and because there was no signature but yours. By the way, are you the IP guy? Gettonderg (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

No lol. Neither of those people are me Genabab (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Primary sources

reading the sources list the first five (as well as others down the line), and also the ones most quoted from, all seem to be primary sources. is this acceptable? i thought wikipedia was supposed to not rely so heavily on them due to how easy it is for anyone to lie about their life.

the "conspiracy theories" section also being so short indicates that these so called theories arent nearly as credible as the afore mentioned primary sources.

the article seems to be biased very heavily and (seemingly) unfoundly towards a strictly anti soviet stance again despite wikipedias goal of being a neutral source of infomation 106.69.214.62 (talk) 10:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

It is acceptable, so long as you specify that they are claims being made by the person.

An entry being short isn't reason to say that they're non-credible. What matters is the citations. Genabab (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

i further specified what he said in interviews versus what there is evidence for.

an entry being short indicates that its a fringe belief that a short list of people believe. citations do matter obviously, but in this case citations all seem to be pointing to the person the article is about. if further citations can be added to corroborate the facts stated in interviews i would have no problems. 106.69.214.62 (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Or that it is something that hasn't received that much coverage. It is a very awkward way of going about it. In the case of conspircay theories, there are a variety of people calling Bezmenov just that Genabab (talk) 09:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Bias

The weasel word "claims" has been applied 11 times in the article. There is no place for that here, as it reflects a judgment, and an opinion, on behalf of the sub. I see that one of these persons is no longer even on Wikipedia and I suspect the edits were made in a deliberate attempt to obfuscate. Factually, Bezmenov either stated, or did not state. Whether one believes him or not is a matter outside of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pzzp (talk • contribs) 18:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

since these claims are disputed and not universally accepted, that is grounds enough to keep the wording. Genabab (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)