Talk:Aleksandr Dyukov (historian)

Books and articles

I suggest someone should review the bibliography section, especially the section "Co-author of books". The electronic catalogue of the Russian National Library does not list him as a co-author of any of these books. Furthermore, these same works are listed under "Scientific articles and papers". That does not stop there. A quick search for "Другой Холокост: Историческая правда о нацистской оккупации еще ждёт своего часа" showed that the named article can hardly be viewed as scientific as it does not cite a single source. At least one other publication in online media cannot even be found online, so I am not really convinced if all these are worth a mention. I understand that this article in the translation of the Russian article which in turn is, in my humble opinion, a vain attempt of self-promotion. It has almost entirely been single-handedly written by an anonymous user. A quick IP look up, and we see that this user barely has contributed to something else apart of this article. Like I said, I wonder if this person even deserves an article. Mjbjosh (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, he is co-author of these books. I own one personally (the latest in the list). Should I mention the articles he contributed for these books? This information is available in every online bookstore like books.ru or ozon.ru. I just don't think this is really necessary. ISasha (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Collaborative authorship is something else. If these books are just collection of articles, then he is certainly not a co-author of the book, and these articles should be mentioned in the articles section. Such collections usually have one or more editors, but it is not common to refer to the authors of such articles as to "co-authors". Like I said, this bibliography was probably compiled by Dyukov himself and is a poor attempt to make himself look more significant than he actually is. Mjbjosh (talk) 07:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by that: "He is certainly not a co-author"??? Read more in Wikipedia article Collaborative writing. You were also saying something about "quick IP look up", right? I have contributed to 252 articles in Wikipedia. You may think whatever you like....ISasha (talk) 08:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If you read the article that you suggest I should read you'll see that collections of articles by different authors are not an example of Collaborative writing, it's a totally different context. Have you ever written an academic paper? If you quote such sources, they are cited as articles, not as books. So far about the bibliographic standards. Now, about the IP lookup... I was talking about the Russian version of the article. I don't know who wrote it. It may have been you or someone else who forgot to log on or didn't want to, for whatever reasons. I suspected it was an attempt of self-promotion by the protagonist of the same article. Mjbjosh (talk) 10:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I really don't care. Just do some googling - on the hardcover of the book it says "Igor Pykhanov and Alexander Dyukov". Isn't that enough for you? ISasha (talk) 11:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, I just deleted these books in "co-authorship" because the respective articles have been listed under scientific articles. BTW, the Russian article does not say he was a "co-author" of these books, he was just the editor. 87.226.4.69 (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Sorry, this is me. I wasn't logged in. Mjbjosh (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Could someone knowledgeable please take a looks at the "Articles and papers" section and narrow the list down to, say, 5 or six that are the most significant/characteristic for Dyukov's opus? I'm an academic historian, and not nearly as prolific as Dyukov, but even I cannot include everything I've ever had in print when I make grant applications, etc. A half dozen books and a half dozen articles should suffice, don't you think? We could then call the whole section "Selected works", which would signal to readers that Dyukov has indeed published more than we have listed here. —Zalktis (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

A while back I also added some title translations, those are essential as well. Also, an editor does not an author make. Nor, if contributing an essay to a larger work does that make one an author of the whole work. PetersV       TALK 14:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The citation templates don't have a field for translations. Also most of the articles lacked translations, so for simplcity's sake, I left them out for now. Whenever the list becomes a "Selected Works", I can put back the translations. —Zalktis (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, has anyone noticed before the "Material type" classification given Dyukov's Za chto... in this bibliographic record (OCLC 181139845) on OCLC's WorldCat? Maybe we need to update his infobox to reflect this genre of œuvre as well?—Zalktis (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

References

I have just removed "Stalinist" from the short bio on the person. I consider it inappropriate to cite political views in the short bio. Please feel free to create a separate section on this if you wish. ISasha (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way - http://a-dyukov.livejournal.com/105044.html - the link to an LJ post in Dyukov's blog that Martintg provided- anybody who understands Russian language can translate Dyukov's comment into English :-)) To be short he told that any liberal would consider him Stalinist! :-))) The comment "Я сталинист, а что?" in Dyukov's blog belongs to some other blogger. :-) ISasha (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

When you bio a politically active person, you mention the political views. Can you imagine George W. Bush's bio not mentioning that he's a Republican? 82.131.108.234 (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Give then a link to prove he's a Stalinist instead of this bullshit. See my comment above. Do you understand any Russian? If not - read my translation above. I don't mind you contributing the article, just stop vandalizing it.ISasha (talk) 03:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand perfectly well. Dyukov says this admiringly about Stalin: "Thanks to him, our country and our people survived - but the price was high. Not unreasonably high, no - but high. Any liberal, of course, would call me a stalinist." It is clear Dyukov is a revisionist who admires Stalin, this fact should be mentioned in the article. Martintg (talk) 04:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This is absolutely not so clear, and this is not "encyclopaedia style". Does it matter who would consider him what? Maybe let's add what he thinks democrats, republicans, communists, anarchists, monarchists, liberal democrats, pacifists etc would take him for??? Besides, you are trying to throw a strong light on the idea that he is Stalinist and "revisionist", while he in his comment told quite different things. Have you ever read what Sir Winston Churchill said about Joseph Stalin? Is he a Stalinist and revisionist too???????? ISasha (talk) 05:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Education

Dyukov graduated from The Moscow State Institute for History and Archives. However, quick look at Russian State University for the Humanities reveals that RSUH is result of a merger between The Moscow State Institute for History and Archives and some other educational organization. Therefore those name can be used (and are often used) interchangeably. One need to know that old "Soviet" educational establishments have a lot of brand recognition in Russia and if they re-brand themselves (very popular excercise post-1991, as becoming "university" or "academy" instead of "institute" had several benefits). Alumni often prefer to use "old" brands, to drive down the point that they graduated respected place and did not buy diploma rom one of gazillion "universities-by-mail", registered in Russia in 1991-2000. This is especially true for "humanitarian" diplomas. Dyukov does the same. 206.186.8.130 (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I changed the university for two reasons, (a) that is how Dyukov himself lists his education, also (b) a spot check of English-language CVs of historians who received their education at the Institute indicates that's the preferred syntax. If anything, this bit of accuracy makes Dyukov sound better, not worse so I see no issue. —PētersV (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: "I see no issue". Me neither. What's more, quick look at list of Institutes and Divisions on RSHU's site reveals that "Institute for History and Archives" is an integral part of it. I clarified to address hysterical comments about "non-existing university" repeatedly made here and here. 206.186.8.130 (talk) 13:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section

If anyone has objections to specific items in this section, please discuss. Repeated mass deletion (latest by an anon IP) is inappropriate. I see editor Beatle Fab Four has no desire to actually discuss their repeated mass deletions, their response to my inquiry being simply deleted. Don't want to discuss? Don't complain when appropriately reinserted. I'll asssume good faith and not accuse Beatle Fab Four of reverting as an anon IP here regardless that the comment left by said anon IP is strikingly similar to Beatle Fab Four's. —PētersV (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This section is completely appropriate.Biophys (talk) 03:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A possible compromise solution would be to divide this section into two parts: (1) His research and ideas, and (2) Criticism and support. This is standard.Biophys (talk) 03:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to better editorial organization, but (obviously) not deletion. Obviously Novosti (Russian government official media) supports Dyukov, they feature him as an "expert."

   Beatle Fab Four just continues to delete with "blabla" and other constructive comments. When he/she decides to participate editorially, I'll be glad to listen. Repeatedly deleting an entire section of an article while refusing to discuss to reach consensus, let alone even commenting in talk, is nothing but extremely rude WP:IDONTLIKEIT vandalism. —PētersV (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I reordered this section and made more neutral titles if that helps. It tells: However, Eesti Ekspress points out that at the time of the first deportations, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were still allies, with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact still in force.. This argument needs to be explained better. This apparently means: "it is ridiculous to blame Estonians of collaboration with Nazi, when it was actually the Soviet Union who collaborated with Nazi". However this is not quite clear.Biophys (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. 1. Vecrumba. This is my last warning. Mind your words. I'will not take your cheeky tone with threats like idontlikeit, vandalism, etc. anymore. 2. Where is OWN RESEARCH. Ok. I show you all.

Much of Dyukov's work challenges the studies by other historians, particularly those critical of Stalinist repression or the role of the USSR during World War II. REF? What exactly his work challenges? Which historians challenge the role of the USSR during World War II????

To support his argumentation, Dyukov often cites sources from the archives of the FSB,[2] to which access by researchers is restricted.[3] So what? What does this passage mean?

In his recent book, The Genocide Myth, Dyukov claims Estonia's recollection of the 1941 forced deportations to Siberia is exaggerated. Ok. Maybe it's correct claim or wrong. Definitely, citing one Estonian newspaper simply condemning him without valid arguments in not enough for serious criticism.

In regard to the 1941 deportations, he asserted that Estonians were criminals justly deported for their activities:

If only Baltic nationalists had not cooperated with German special services and had not prepared for acts of sabotage, there would have been no need for the deportation. It was the activity of nationalists and of Nazi agents that provoked the deportations — and Estonian historians prefer to keep silent about it.[4]

However, Eesti Ekspress points out that at the time of the first deportations, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were still allies, with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact still in force.[5] Ha, even Biophys is curious about this paragraph. Is this a serious argument? No.

About the boxcars used to deport people and eyewitness accounts of those dead and dying, Dyukov claims that three meals were served a day to every deportee, that trains were, instead, regular passenger coaches, and that each train had a medical car with a doctor, medical assistant, and two nurses to care for the welfare of the passengers. He asserts that "no one possibly died during the Soviet deportations". So what? You created a section in the article to critisize this one one paragraph out of his 10-15-20 books?

Next. Section Critism is about how Estonian journalist claims that "Dyukov paints a picture of Soviet political repressions as little worse than a family picnic". Oh, come on. This journalist is not even a historian. Other references? No references.

Resume. BLANK IT. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Beatle Fab Four, this is not the way to work in wikipedia. First, you fight here against consensus. Second, I just made a compromise version to account for some of your concerns. Finally, if you disagree with something, please state only one specific problem at a time, and wait for reply by all other discussion participants. But instead you deleted a sourced and relevant text. For example, the "criticism" section was clearly attributed to a publication in an Estonian newspaper per WP:Verifiability. Your argument: "Other references? No references.", and you deleted the entire thing.Biophys (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Biophys, "Much of Dyukov's work challenges the studies by other historians, particularly those critical of Stalinist repression or the role of the USSR during World War II." Is this a referenced text? Takr a look at yourself first, Biophys. Well, wikipedia is a trash, yeah, but there should be some borders.

Beatle Fab Four (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Beatle Fab Four, finally. "Last warning?" "Cheeky?" Oh, come now... this is the first time you've deigned to write little more than "blabla" as you've mass deleted the section, what is it, half a dozen times now while pointedly refusing to discuss? Is your intent above really to threaten me over your own rude editing?

   Personally I don't believe Dyukov any kind of reputable historian, but he's trucked out as such by Novosti, i.e., the Russian government, and elsewhere and so must be represented as fully and accurately as possible. The Russian foreign ministry can put out the most outrageous claims on its "news" channel with no culpability whatsoever--it's some "expert" saying it, not the Russian government. If you've got positive suggestions, let's hear them. Otherwise please leave well enough alone and we'll see to what degree the narrative improves as it gets reorganized, Biophys's suggestion is a good one.

   As for M-R pact, isn't it a problem that Dyukov says the Estonians were deported for being Nazi collaborators when it was the Soviet Union that had invaded? And there were no Nazis yet? And Hitler and Stalin were still buddies? This is classic Soviet ignore you invaded and denounce everyone you killed and deported as a Nazi historical fiction.

   Thanks for responding, I'll get to you points as I have a chance. —PētersV (talk) 19:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, who are you to tell me what to edit or not? I wonder how those who never read his books can make claims "I personally..." By the way, if you say YOU invaded, may I answer who killed all Jews in Latvia? Ok, that'a rhetorical question. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

And yes, you must be so naive if you think that Hitler and Stalin were buddies. ha ha. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Beatle Fab Four, you obviously forget that Stalin's forces transmitter radio signals to assist the Luftwaffe attack as Hitler invaded Poland, and that Moscow telegraphed Hitler to congratulate him on the fall of Warsaw (prematurely it turned out), and that after the invasion of Poland by both Hitler and Stalin was complete, more Polish territory was held by the USSR than by Germany, and that Hitler and Stalin had signed an agreement for the USSR to supply Nazi Germany with war material.

   As for your "rhetorical" Jew killing comment, your ignorance regarding Hitler and Stalin would seem to be matched only by your apparent and unfortunate lack of good manners. —PētersV (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I marked a few places in the article that definitely need improvement. Let's give PētersV a chance to improve it. The idea is to discuss and fix the problems without edit warring.Biophys (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(od) BTW, Beatle Fab Four, if you believe the article shouldn't exist in the first place, I do support mass deletion if it's the entire article. Dyukov's CV doesn't merit an article. However, as article deletion is unlikely, this will be just another necessary Wiki-evil and we will have to make do. —PētersV (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC) P.S. I've seen the Novosti interviews on TV and already read through his diatribe on Estonia and the deportations on the web long before his book was even published, he's been on my radar screen for quite a while, so I have reviewed enough of his writing to have a "personal" opinion. Don't assume what I have or haven't read. Don't mistake me for some uninformed POV-slinging idiot. —PētersV (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. That's tells a lot about Vacrumba. I hate Dyukov! Oh, you're non-neutral! Surprise, surpise. Fine. Simple solution. Due to neutrality principle, you're not a suitable editor. Just don't edit this article. It's easy. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, when did I say I hate the guy? I merely said I don't think he merits a WP article based on his credentials and accomplishments. A lot of folks run around accusing me of hating people, being a Russophobe, being angry... whatever, why? just because I stick to facts? Building a career by listing articles Dyukov merely copy edited, as currently written, is rather scraping the bottom of the barrel, no? —PētersV (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Biophys, "pretty obvious what"? Who told me 5 minutes ago that Wikipedia is not about truth, but about verifiability? It's funny to see spiders in the can, when there are no scientific sources. ;) BTW There are no sources at all. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

WHO KILLED ALL JEWS IN LATVIA? GERMANS? RUSSIANS? Beatle Fab Four (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

In Lithuania? Marsians? Beatle Fab Four (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. No consensus. No rest for POV-pushers. Break. ;) Beatle Fab Four (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, and NOW WE'RE SHOUTING. If you had read, for example, Ezergailis' book on the Holocaust (BTW, funded by the U.S. Holocaust Museum, so not some Baltic Nazi apologist), you would learn that it was imperative to Hitler that the Holocaust in Eastern Europe appear to be perpetrated by the local inhabitants with no involvement by the Germans. The dispatches back to Hitler that the Lithuanians/ Latvians/ Estonians were gleefully killing Jews, that the Germans were "horrified" by the brutality of the Lithuanians/ Latvians/ Estonians et al. (we have Poles, Ukrainians, etc. in there too) are lies. In Lithuania, the official report indicates Lithuanians slaughtered the Jews in the countryside around a particular town; a private correspondence about the same event to Hitler reads that the Lithuanians resisted participating, that a small German commando unit actually swept the countryside and killed the Jews, that if word got out it was actually the Germans, it would not look good. The Nazis also leaked false reports to sympathetic news reporters in Sweden. It's a long, long story. Unfortunately, "scholars" of the Holocaust simply read a dispatch and think it's perfectly normal that Eastern Europeans would choose not to shoot Jews but to rather bludgeon them to death, stack their bodies, sit atop the pile of still warm dead flesh, and break out into folk song. Any more uninformedness you would like to SHOUT FROM THE MOUNTAIN TOP? —PētersV (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Stalin and Hitler were buddies. Why didn't Soviets kill Jews? I like to see spiders in the can. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW Everybody says buy an elephant, BUT... WHO KILLED THEM? GERMANS? RUSSIANS? Beatle Fab Four (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and classical Baltic stupid ignore we were not Nazi collaborators, we were freedom fighters. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, two edit conflicts, you're so busy spouting your vitriolic ignorance that no one can get a word in edge-wise.

(edit conflict, about Soviets "not killing" Jews) The Soviets did kill Jews. Stalin was a rabid anti-Semite (as testified to in his memoirs by Khrushchev). When the Soviets conducted their first mass deportations from the Baltics, Jews as an ethnic group suffered proportionally more than any other. Furthermore, they had the privilege of being taken to the harshest camps in the GULAG and subjected to the worst conditions of any group. The Soviets decapitated the Jewish community in the Baltics: civic and community leaders, the merchant class,... leaving them completely unprepared to organize against the Nazis and the Holocaust when it came. That doesn't excuse the Nazis or their collaborators, but the Soviets did not "liberate" Hitler's death camps, it was more that they ran into them on the way to Berlin. The subsequent tale that Soviets were friends to and saviors of the Jews is, sadly, another myth. As for the Holocaust, it would be the Nazi Germans who organized everything, executed everything, and made sure to find some collaborators to take pictures of in the act so as to keep the Germans blameless. There are pictures of the Nazis in the act of taking those pictures. (The Nazis even staged pictures of the "perpetrators" standing over bodies who weren't even the people involved.) —PētersV (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ha-ha. To be an anti-Semite and to kill Jews - these are two big differences as the say in Odessa. Yeah, and classical Baltic ignore we were not to blame, Nazis organized everything, Soviets killed Jews(!!!), we just shepherded our lambs. I like to whatch spiders. In the can. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, they they did't "liberate" them, they just saved their lives. Funny to whatch spiders. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 23:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The Soviets and Nazis were using each other's atrocities to their advantage as soon as their cozy relationship disintegrated. You really think that after what Stalin did in the Baltics (or his personal hatred of Jews) he genuinely cared about saving Jewish lives? He was salivating over the propaganda he was getting out of exposing Nazi atrocities. Don't forget Stalin also blamed the Nazis for Soviet atrocities.

   I'm not here defending, I'm only sharing what I've found as I've researched below the surface. I didn't know about the Soviets sending radio signals to support the Luftwaffe as the Nazis invaded Poland, or that Stalin wound up with more of Poland than Hitler (51% to 49% or thereabouts of territory, but still a majority). I didn't know about Hitler's calculated and well planned program to create a "Germanless" Holocaust in Eastern Europe. I didn't know that proportionally, Stalin deported from the Latvia more Jews as a percentage of their population than any other ethnicity.

   I learned long ago that being sure of one's facts more than likely means you barely know enough to scratch the surface. I can only take your derisive and dismissive tone to indicate you don't care to hear anything that conflicts with your version of reality. Scratch at the surface all you want if it keeps you happy and content in your personal certitude. When you have something constructive to contribute, we'll talk again. —PētersV (talk) 01:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Who killed the Jews in Latvia?

Here's the answer to the question—assuming one means during the Holocaust—is that units of local auxiliaries (e.g. Sonderkommando Arājs but also the so-called Selbstschutz, and later the Schutzmannschaften), together with members of the German police, SS, and armed forces, all under the coordination of special SS plenipotentiaries (primarily the Einsatzgruppen and the HSSPFs) specifically entrusted with the tasks of murdering Jews, Roma, the mentally ill, suspected Communists, Soviet partisans, etc., murdered 90% of the Jewish population of Latvia, mostly within the first six months of the German occupation of Latvia.

There are books and articles about this, written by scholarly historians, in English, German, Hebrew, Russian, and even in Latvian.

Now here's a counter-question: if the Latvians were such a rabidly anti-Semitic nation (cf. Goldhagen) hell-bent on genocidal murder of the Jews (which I assume is the whole triumphalist, holier-than-thou point of the question "Who killed Latvia's Jews?"), why didn't they do it during the 1930s, when the "fascist" Latvian nationalist dictator Kārlis Ulmanis had complete control of the state, the political police, the army, and the paramilitary Aizsargi? Why did Ulmanis actually shut down the Pērkonkrusts party, which was the biggest anti-Semitic fascist party in the country at the time, and which has been accused of providing many of the willing executioners during the Holocaust? Why was Gustavs Celmiņš, the leader of Pērkonkrusts, first thrown in jail, and then exiled from the country? None of this makes sense if "the Latvians" longed to kill "the Jews". Why should they need German Nazis to tell them to pull the trigger?

Finally, at risk of trolling, why is any of this relevant for an article about Dyukov? —Zalktis (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. in 1905, it was the Black Hundreds who were staging anti-Jewish pogroms in the provinces of the Russian Empire congruent with the territory of the modern-day Republic of Latvia. —Zalktis (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is it relevant? Only because Dyukov toes the Russian official line that Latvians were Nazis and deserved what they got. Apparently it's not offensive on WP for editors to call the Latvian, Lithuanian, and Estonian peoples Jew killers--while I have been pilloried for far kinder comments. —PētersV (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• председателя недавно созданного фонда "Историческая память" Александра Дюкова. Этот молодой человек с завидным задором продвигает в жизнь новую вертухайскую концепцию советской истории, основанную на слепой вере в предоставленные ему документы из архива ФСБ. И либералы, возлагающие надежды на новую демократизацию во главе с президентом Медведевым. [1].Biophys (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Pavlova

Thanks to all who have worked to update her current status/whereabouts. If we are going to quote expert comments, it behooves us to briefly include credentials, suitably referenced. PetersV       TALK 18:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Her current position is pretty easy to find, and it is you who tried to push wrong information. Her works and credentials belong to elsewhere (e.g. her own article, etc), not Dyukov's page. This is so simple, A, B, C. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, her first set of credentials I located were stated by herself in correspondence, and she was with the institution I stated at the time. The next reference I found matched the first. At worst, "formerly of" would correct the issue, as opposed to your constant personal attacks alleging bad faith ("tried to push wrong information"). As I explained in my edit summary, a brief statement of credentials is required where someone is not necessarily widely known. Otherwise, as I said, it would be of equal encyclopedic value to state my (or your) evaluation of Dyukov's work. As simple as your ABC. Do try to improve your collegiality. PetersV       TALK 20:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, too many excuses, you can't distiguish between Katyn and Khatyn, then a big flop with the Soviet War Memorial in Berlin, now Pavlova, etc., etc. It's ok. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, hello, Beatle Fab Four. Glad to see you follow my edits, you may note that I do apologize when I haven't had enough caffeine, I lay no claim to perfection, nor do I stick to an editorial position when further research shows that position to be flawed.

   Exactly what is the issue with Pavlova? As for Treptower, I specifically stated in talk we should give folks a couple of weeks to get their hands on the books in question to verify. I did multiple google searches which have usually served well to reconstruct text--it's nothing that anyone else doesn't do. I also made some inquiries in DE WP but didn't make much progress there--asking questions in machine translated German doesn't always leave the best first impression, I suspect.

   So, what's your problem? Ah, sorry, anything I say is blablablablablablablablabalbla as you've indicated before. You've more than proved you have no interest in dialog other than apparently pretending to engage in a discussion just to enjoy your own diatribes. PetersV       TALK 21:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, ok, such issues (pushing (or not) wrong information in Khatyn, Soviet War Memorial in Treptower Park, A. Dyukov, etc.) could be discussed in possible future ArbComs. Let’s stick to the article content. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. But as roughly 95% of your edits are edit-warring, and the rest consists of personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, you should probably avoid future ArbComs by any means available, unless you need a really long wikibreak. Colchicum (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No problems. Just prove your words. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

All in good time. Colchicum (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Лучшие времена скоро настанут! Beatle Fab Four (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Didn't Sinatra record that? PetersV       TALK 23:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. (To Beatle Fab Four) Don't threaten me with ArbComs. PetersV       TALK 23:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No (to Vecrumba), it was either Paul McCartney or Андрей Миронов, Советский Союз. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Degree

If he graduated from the RSUH-having even written a dissertation?- how does he not have a degree? _Muffled ^Pocketed 05:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Alexander Dyukov (historian). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091228140130/http://a-dyukov.livejournal.com/profile to http://a-dyukov.livejournal.com/profile
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.russiatoday.com/Top_News/2008-04-09/Latvian_documentary_causes_controversy.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.russiatoday.com/About_Us/Programmes/Spotlight/2008-5-24/359044.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120305144844/http://www.kapo.ee/cms-data/_text/38/44/files/kapo-aastaraamat-est-v.pdf to http://www.kapo.ee/cms-data/_text/38/44/files/kapo-aastaraamat-est-v.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.historyfoundation.ru/dl.php?url=%2Fupload%2F57555abbf0a1c5636fc1350fd9c9b340.pdf&nn=
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091228140449/http://a-dyukov.livejournal.com/ to http://a-dyukov.livejournal.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)