Talk:Grigori F. Krivosheev
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
editIrpen, I respect your editing, but disagree in your evaluation of Suvorov's work as a "non-scientific sensationalist analysis" and "Suvorov's crackpot". Given that Suvorov did not ride the state machinery to work for him, his insights and statistical back-up are profound. Many mega-trends do not need detailed analysis, as is said "Large things are visible from afar", and the years of propaganda could never cloud the fact that Russia lost near-all their men and supplies in the first week of the war. This fact is no "crackpot", he broke secretiveness by fingering a naked king, and silencing the thesis of the Suvorov's book as opposed to the line of the state-supported publication does not present a balanced picture. Taking sides before independent historians canvass the problem is presumptuous, especially when the state is known to chronically manipulate scientific reports. I am saying this not to discredit Krivosheev, he has done a very important and probably good research, but to argue for a balanced picture about the controversy where Krivosheev serves to illuminate one side. Barefact 01:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Notability problems
editI checked this man in ISI citation index. His citation index is exactly zero (no one cites him). Number of hits in Google books is zero [1]. Number of hits in Google scholar is zero [2].Biophys (talk) 00:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Check this for refs. --Irpen 04:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think he is notable; I've seen his work referenced in several sources I have read over the years.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Guys, don't be ridiculously ignorant. This guy is VERY notable: he is the title author of official post-soviet account on Soviet and Russian war casualties of the XXth c. However, it doesn't alter the fact that he is a propagandist and his work is worthless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.249.229.49 (talk) 11:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Ann IP 77.249.229.49 you are correct. His work has been criticized in Russia, however reliable sources outside of Russia parrot his statistics.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)