This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Tali–Ihantala article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 60 days
![]() |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
For editors who are interested, there is an RfC over at Talk:Continuation War about which name we should use for the town of Vyborg/ Viipuri during World War II. This will affect this article, as well as quite a others on the Finnish/Soviet conflict. Some of the other articles affected include Winter War Continuation War, Battle of Tienhaara, Battle of Vyborg Bay (1944), Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive, and Baltic Sea campaigns (1939–1945). If you could comment, it would be very much appreciated. The RfC thread can be found here. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Two places where it was used it will get problematic since (especially the first one) is very widely spread (ie. in almost all) Finnish based books on the topic. Using author list will only lead on convoluted page without any gains. Some better method than author list should be applied instead if at all possible. - Wanderer602 ( talk) 06:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
...And of course we have Platonov's Bitva za Leningrad which bluntly says that Red Army failed to fulfill tasks given by STAVKA in the battles north of Viipuri. -- Whiskey ( talk) 23:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
So are you going to deny that what took place was an armistice? Because that is what all the documents state. - Wanderer602 ( talk) 06:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
(
edit conflict) Ok, so it looks like Baryshnikov has a different opinion to the other scholars mentioned here. If Baryshnikov is the only source that has a different view, then we could do something like this: "The majority of scholars say X and Y. An alternative view is provided by Baryshnikov, who says Z." What we can't do is simply state "everyone thinks X and Y" when Baryshnikov has a different opinion. Wanderer, I'm afraid you are going to have to get used to this, as it is going to happen several times in this subject area. @YMB - are there other sources that share Baryshnikov's opinion, or that differ from the opinion of the other scholars mentioned? If there are, it might affect how we should word the passage. —
Mr. Stradivarius
♫
06:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
As per what you stated regarding (amongst others) the armistice matter, it clearly is not like you describe it - not even in matters you support. However I'm willing to admit I'm wrong and attribute the comments per statement but are you? - Wanderer602 ( talk) 07:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Why are all Finnish source of this battle removed? They had been thoroughly studied by Finnish scholars ;nothing like on the Russian side so bring back those Finnish scholar fast! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.177.95.162 ( talk) 18:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
This man Nikolai Baryshnikov seems to be carrying out some sort of "crusade" on this mather http://www.ruslania.com/language-8/entity-1/context-577/author-8453.html It is good that different view points are presented but maybe it should stand something about how how this may cause to be a little biased? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.183.94 ( talk) 06:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
lol, i guess its back to the good old days for russia, lying about everything per usual. sad. maybe "ymb" is a sockpuppet for mr. baryshnikov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.36.97.64 ( talk) 23:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
"These authors further contend that substantial German aid is not mentioned or is only hinted at.[37]"
I wonder where they got this from. Because it was one of the main points in our schoolbooks that were written back in 90's and I have seen it stressed in as very important point in every documentary (which makes me assume source materials also state that) I have watched about the battle. 195.148.29.104 ( talk) 14:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
In reading through this article, I came several times across an historian named Nikolai Baryshnikov. The article never explains who he is, what credentials he has, or why we should put stock in his opinion on this battle, but he clearly has an anti-Finnish axe to grind. I see his inclusion in this article has been debated on here before, but I feel compelled to raise questions about his reputability. Specifically, if one looks at the two books of his that are cited in the bibliography, one of them is published by the "Johan Beckman Institute". If one wikis Johan Beckman, one is redirected to an article on "Johan Bäckman", a Finn who's something of a celebrity in Russia for his pro-Russian views. Among his positions, he is pro-Putin, he insists that Estonia doesn't exist as a nation, he denies that the Soviet occupation of Estonia constituted an occupation (and claims that such an assertion is racist), he supports the Russian annexation of the Crimea, and he claims that Anna Politkovskaya was likely either murdered by anti-Putin figures trying to make Putin look bad or that she put out a hit on herself (!), etc, etc.
My point in holding forth on Johan Bäckman like this is that the Johan Beckman [sic] Institute which he established in St. Petersburg in 2000 is hardly a reputable scholarly publisher. If this is where Baryshnikov has to go to publish his books, are his books really reliable sources? I seriously doubt it.
Now, I'm aware that Finland in WWII is a controversial subject and it's inevitable and necessary that different opinions will be aired on the subject and incorporated into the article. That said, the sources drawn upon should still be reputable, scholarly sources and I think you would be hard pressed to claim that something published by Johan Bäckman's press was reputable and scholarly. So I propose a reexamination of the inclusion of Baryshnikov's material in this article, with the ultimate goal (on my part, anyway) of excising it if we can reach that consensus. Tigercompanion25 ( talk) 19:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, the fringe views of a single obscure historian with a stated bias should not be given such weight. 87.115.207.105 ( talk) 15:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Remove that propaganda crap. If Baryshkin ever existed, he is only another Putin sockpuppet. -- 2003:E2:3725:3665:11F5:7CB2:EA71:8C6D ( talk) 15:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
If you look furhter up on the page you will see that the user that introduced this baryshnikov YMB29 is suspended for his misuse of sources. 78.73.47.79 ( talk) 17:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Tali–Ihantala article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 60 days
![]() |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
For editors who are interested, there is an RfC over at Talk:Continuation War about which name we should use for the town of Vyborg/ Viipuri during World War II. This will affect this article, as well as quite a others on the Finnish/Soviet conflict. Some of the other articles affected include Winter War Continuation War, Battle of Tienhaara, Battle of Vyborg Bay (1944), Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive, and Baltic Sea campaigns (1939–1945). If you could comment, it would be very much appreciated. The RfC thread can be found here. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Two places where it was used it will get problematic since (especially the first one) is very widely spread (ie. in almost all) Finnish based books on the topic. Using author list will only lead on convoluted page without any gains. Some better method than author list should be applied instead if at all possible. - Wanderer602 ( talk) 06:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
...And of course we have Platonov's Bitva za Leningrad which bluntly says that Red Army failed to fulfill tasks given by STAVKA in the battles north of Viipuri. -- Whiskey ( talk) 23:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
So are you going to deny that what took place was an armistice? Because that is what all the documents state. - Wanderer602 ( talk) 06:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
(
edit conflict) Ok, so it looks like Baryshnikov has a different opinion to the other scholars mentioned here. If Baryshnikov is the only source that has a different view, then we could do something like this: "The majority of scholars say X and Y. An alternative view is provided by Baryshnikov, who says Z." What we can't do is simply state "everyone thinks X and Y" when Baryshnikov has a different opinion. Wanderer, I'm afraid you are going to have to get used to this, as it is going to happen several times in this subject area. @YMB - are there other sources that share Baryshnikov's opinion, or that differ from the opinion of the other scholars mentioned? If there are, it might affect how we should word the passage. —
Mr. Stradivarius
♫
06:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
As per what you stated regarding (amongst others) the armistice matter, it clearly is not like you describe it - not even in matters you support. However I'm willing to admit I'm wrong and attribute the comments per statement but are you? - Wanderer602 ( talk) 07:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Why are all Finnish source of this battle removed? They had been thoroughly studied by Finnish scholars ;nothing like on the Russian side so bring back those Finnish scholar fast! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.177.95.162 ( talk) 18:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
This man Nikolai Baryshnikov seems to be carrying out some sort of "crusade" on this mather http://www.ruslania.com/language-8/entity-1/context-577/author-8453.html It is good that different view points are presented but maybe it should stand something about how how this may cause to be a little biased? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.183.94 ( talk) 06:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
lol, i guess its back to the good old days for russia, lying about everything per usual. sad. maybe "ymb" is a sockpuppet for mr. baryshnikov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.36.97.64 ( talk) 23:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
"These authors further contend that substantial German aid is not mentioned or is only hinted at.[37]"
I wonder where they got this from. Because it was one of the main points in our schoolbooks that were written back in 90's and I have seen it stressed in as very important point in every documentary (which makes me assume source materials also state that) I have watched about the battle. 195.148.29.104 ( talk) 14:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
In reading through this article, I came several times across an historian named Nikolai Baryshnikov. The article never explains who he is, what credentials he has, or why we should put stock in his opinion on this battle, but he clearly has an anti-Finnish axe to grind. I see his inclusion in this article has been debated on here before, but I feel compelled to raise questions about his reputability. Specifically, if one looks at the two books of his that are cited in the bibliography, one of them is published by the "Johan Beckman Institute". If one wikis Johan Beckman, one is redirected to an article on "Johan Bäckman", a Finn who's something of a celebrity in Russia for his pro-Russian views. Among his positions, he is pro-Putin, he insists that Estonia doesn't exist as a nation, he denies that the Soviet occupation of Estonia constituted an occupation (and claims that such an assertion is racist), he supports the Russian annexation of the Crimea, and he claims that Anna Politkovskaya was likely either murdered by anti-Putin figures trying to make Putin look bad or that she put out a hit on herself (!), etc, etc.
My point in holding forth on Johan Bäckman like this is that the Johan Beckman [sic] Institute which he established in St. Petersburg in 2000 is hardly a reputable scholarly publisher. If this is where Baryshnikov has to go to publish his books, are his books really reliable sources? I seriously doubt it.
Now, I'm aware that Finland in WWII is a controversial subject and it's inevitable and necessary that different opinions will be aired on the subject and incorporated into the article. That said, the sources drawn upon should still be reputable, scholarly sources and I think you would be hard pressed to claim that something published by Johan Bäckman's press was reputable and scholarly. So I propose a reexamination of the inclusion of Baryshnikov's material in this article, with the ultimate goal (on my part, anyway) of excising it if we can reach that consensus. Tigercompanion25 ( talk) 19:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, the fringe views of a single obscure historian with a stated bias should not be given such weight. 87.115.207.105 ( talk) 15:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Remove that propaganda crap. If Baryshkin ever existed, he is only another Putin sockpuppet. -- 2003:E2:3725:3665:11F5:7CB2:EA71:8C6D ( talk) 15:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
If you look furhter up on the page you will see that the user that introduced this baryshnikov YMB29 is suspended for his misuse of sources. 78.73.47.79 ( talk) 17:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)