![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 2 September 2016. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I placed a notability tag because there are no publications about him right now. One reference is a link to place of his work. Another reference is an interview he is giving to a correspondent of newspaper. My very best wishes ( talk) 05:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
You redirected to neo-Stalinism. What a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usr lI ( talk • contribs) 22:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Despite Zhukov's deplorable beliefs, this remains a WP:BLP. Therefore, we should attribute claims, and make sure that whatever we write is truly supported by sources used. For instance, most of the sources used to maintain that Zhukov blamed the purge upon the Jews instead presented a somewhat different argument: Zhukov argued that Stalin saved lives by removing more radical opponents.
It is possible to describe this kind of sad scholarship accurately and let readers come to their conclusions. It's also important that we don't replicate the hackwork of bad historians while describing them. - Darouet ( talk) 16:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Заимствования просталинского ревизионизма
По сравнению с примитивными фальсификациями, которые достаточно легко определяются образованным читателем, большую угрозу представляет определенная маргинализация профессиональных историков, использование ими методов и приемов, недопустимых в науке. Важным примером этого может служить концепция «ревизионистов» по поводу террора 1930-х годов и роли в нем Сталина. Концепцию эту начали выдвигать западные историки левого направления тридцать лет назад. Одним из наиболее активных ее защитников был и остается американский профессор Джон Арчибальд Гетти. В профессиональном сообществе историков эти построения не пользуются особым вниманием, они остались на периферии историографии и подвергаются критике.
Неожиданным образом много лет спустя они оказались востребованными в современной России. Московский историк Юрий Жуков взял предположения Гетти на вооружение и даже развил их. Западный ревизионизм причудливым образом оказался органичным для влиятельной сегодня тенденции ресталинизации, объявления Сталина непричастным к тем событиям, которые происходили во время его правления. Правда, современные ресталинизаторы, включая Юрия Жукова, почему-то стесняются упоминать о том, что отцами-основателями их теорий являются американские ревизионисты. Это факт, между прочим, также является нарушением научных правил, которые предусматривают ссылки на предшественников.
My very best wishes ( talk) 18:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Being described as a follower of American revisionist historian, Arch Getty,[4] Zhukov published several books that glorify Stalin, such as "Renaissance of Stalin" and "Handbook of Stalinist".[5]
and how about not following my edits to revert. This is one in long line of baseless aspersions from your. It's simply projection, if you want my opinion. I took a look at this article after I brought up Yuri Zhukov on Talk:Holodomor denial#Modern Denial in Russia. I can't help it if I find garbage edits by you on every other FSU-related page. Guccisamsclub ( talk) 19:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Borrowing Stalinist revisionismCompare to the primitive falsifications which are quite easily identifined, a greater threat for an educated reader are fringe professional historians who use methods unacceptable in science. An important example of this is the "revisionist" concept of the terror of the 1930s including the role of Stalin in it. This concept was pushed by Western leftist historians thirty years ago. One of its most active defenders was and remains an American professor John Archibald Getty. The professional community of historians consider these views fringe. They remain on the periphery of historiography and are frequently criticized.
Surprisingly, many years later, they were in demand in today's Russia. Moscow historian Yuri Zhukov took Getty assumptions adopted and even developed them. Western revisionism oddly turned organic to influential trend today re-Stalinization, Stalin ads not privy to the events that took place during his reign. However, modern restalinizatory, including Yuri Zhukov, somehow embarrassed to mention the fact that the founding fathers of the theory is the American revisionists. It is a fact, incidentally, is also a violation of scientific norms, which require proper referencing to the predecessors.
My very best wishes ( talk) 00:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
violation of scientific norms—but casually smearing your colleagues without evidence is the very essence of scientific integrity. Pure hypocrisy. Guccisamsclub ( talk) 12:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I finally understand what this argument is about. @ Guccisamsclub: your argument is that by comparing Zhukov (basically a far-right and probably racist figure) to Getty, we are slandering Getty and his work. @ My very best wishes:, you're arguing that Zhukov has been described as following in the footsteps of Getty, per the source.
I don't agree with Guccisamsclub that a one-line reference to Getty, supported by sources, is an example of WP:COATRACK. If that were the case, any unwanted or inconvenient fact could be removed from any article, and this frequently happens in the eastern European wikipedia world, through nationalist editing. On the other hand, I do agree with Guccisamsclub that we are going out on a limb describing Zhukov as "a follower" of Getty. Khlevniuk writes that Zhukov "[adopted] Getty's assumptions [and] even developed them." The revisionist camp of historians is a very large one, is mostly left, and can't be held responsible for how far-right nationalist forces use them any more than geneticists can be blamed for "scientific" racists.
If the Khlevniuk link is to kept, and that's a big "if", it should be more accurately described and properly attributed, and a word about Khlevniuk's own politics might deserve mention. - Darouet ( talk) 14:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Юрий Жуков взял предположения Гетти на вооружение и даже развил их" and (2) "
Заимствования просталинского ревизионизма." The first quote translates to "he took Getty's hypotheses and developed them"; the second part is just a section heading, which translates to "Borrowing from Pro-Stalin revisionism". What exactly he took from Getty or why Western revisionism is "pro-Stalin", is left unexplained. Now, had Khlevniuk actually explained how exactly Getty is "pro-Stalin", that would be a different story. But all you have is (2) a broad and baseless smear in some section heading (section headings are not stellar sourcing), and (1) the fact that Zhukov used Getty's research. Using this kind of sourcing to imply that Getty is "pro-Stalin" is textbook WP:LIBEL. Per WP:BLP you need infinitely better sourcing to call someone that. Guccisamsclub ( talk) 16:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
"Суть этой концепции ревизионистов и Жукова состоит в том, что Сталин не был жестоким, репрессивным диктатором, а, наоборот, являлся приверженцем демократии". Really, he can't be bothered to cite ONE revisionist before making that broad smear. Presumably, everyone from Sheila Fitzpatrick to Lynne Viola (a large group of respected and politically-moderate Western historians) was merely trying to prove that Stalin was a liberal democrat who wouldn't hurt a fly. That's the point of all their books, supposedly. Yeah right. Guccisamsclub ( talk)
I reverted Paul Keller's use of "main pathos" to "main point," because I believed that "main pathos" is a meaningless phrase, whereas "main point" is a common phrase in English. However, after some research I have realized that Paul Keller is correct: "main pathos" really is a phrase, "hauptpathos" in German, and is analogous to something like "main characteristic" or "main purpose" in English. Thanks Paul for the correction. - Darouet ( talk) 15:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Trotsky was expelled. He was murdered after many years. Xx236 ( talk) 09:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, the claim that Zhukov is an anti-Semite should probably not be made too lightly, although in context his remark is objectively anti-semitic. Timothy Snyder makes a very similar [ claim], to say nothing of Solzhenytsyn and others who are usuaklly given the benefit of doubt. Snyder's remark is arguably not objectively anti-semitic, given its context. If it is true that national minorities were overrepresented in the NKVD on the eve of the Great Terror, then it is true. The point remains that you have to read into Zhukov's remark to gauge the intent behind it. And since Zhukov has made no explicitly anti-semitic statements to my knowledge, the anti-semitic intent behind this remark can be plausibly denied. Guccisamsclub ( talk) 12:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 2 September 2016. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I placed a notability tag because there are no publications about him right now. One reference is a link to place of his work. Another reference is an interview he is giving to a correspondent of newspaper. My very best wishes ( talk) 05:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
You redirected to neo-Stalinism. What a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usr lI ( talk • contribs) 22:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Despite Zhukov's deplorable beliefs, this remains a WP:BLP. Therefore, we should attribute claims, and make sure that whatever we write is truly supported by sources used. For instance, most of the sources used to maintain that Zhukov blamed the purge upon the Jews instead presented a somewhat different argument: Zhukov argued that Stalin saved lives by removing more radical opponents.
It is possible to describe this kind of sad scholarship accurately and let readers come to their conclusions. It's also important that we don't replicate the hackwork of bad historians while describing them. - Darouet ( talk) 16:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Заимствования просталинского ревизионизма
По сравнению с примитивными фальсификациями, которые достаточно легко определяются образованным читателем, большую угрозу представляет определенная маргинализация профессиональных историков, использование ими методов и приемов, недопустимых в науке. Важным примером этого может служить концепция «ревизионистов» по поводу террора 1930-х годов и роли в нем Сталина. Концепцию эту начали выдвигать западные историки левого направления тридцать лет назад. Одним из наиболее активных ее защитников был и остается американский профессор Джон Арчибальд Гетти. В профессиональном сообществе историков эти построения не пользуются особым вниманием, они остались на периферии историографии и подвергаются критике.
Неожиданным образом много лет спустя они оказались востребованными в современной России. Московский историк Юрий Жуков взял предположения Гетти на вооружение и даже развил их. Западный ревизионизм причудливым образом оказался органичным для влиятельной сегодня тенденции ресталинизации, объявления Сталина непричастным к тем событиям, которые происходили во время его правления. Правда, современные ресталинизаторы, включая Юрия Жукова, почему-то стесняются упоминать о том, что отцами-основателями их теорий являются американские ревизионисты. Это факт, между прочим, также является нарушением научных правил, которые предусматривают ссылки на предшественников.
My very best wishes ( talk) 18:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Being described as a follower of American revisionist historian, Arch Getty,[4] Zhukov published several books that glorify Stalin, such as "Renaissance of Stalin" and "Handbook of Stalinist".[5]
and how about not following my edits to revert. This is one in long line of baseless aspersions from your. It's simply projection, if you want my opinion. I took a look at this article after I brought up Yuri Zhukov on Talk:Holodomor denial#Modern Denial in Russia. I can't help it if I find garbage edits by you on every other FSU-related page. Guccisamsclub ( talk) 19:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Borrowing Stalinist revisionismCompare to the primitive falsifications which are quite easily identifined, a greater threat for an educated reader are fringe professional historians who use methods unacceptable in science. An important example of this is the "revisionist" concept of the terror of the 1930s including the role of Stalin in it. This concept was pushed by Western leftist historians thirty years ago. One of its most active defenders was and remains an American professor John Archibald Getty. The professional community of historians consider these views fringe. They remain on the periphery of historiography and are frequently criticized.
Surprisingly, many years later, they were in demand in today's Russia. Moscow historian Yuri Zhukov took Getty assumptions adopted and even developed them. Western revisionism oddly turned organic to influential trend today re-Stalinization, Stalin ads not privy to the events that took place during his reign. However, modern restalinizatory, including Yuri Zhukov, somehow embarrassed to mention the fact that the founding fathers of the theory is the American revisionists. It is a fact, incidentally, is also a violation of scientific norms, which require proper referencing to the predecessors.
My very best wishes ( talk) 00:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
violation of scientific norms—but casually smearing your colleagues without evidence is the very essence of scientific integrity. Pure hypocrisy. Guccisamsclub ( talk) 12:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I finally understand what this argument is about. @ Guccisamsclub: your argument is that by comparing Zhukov (basically a far-right and probably racist figure) to Getty, we are slandering Getty and his work. @ My very best wishes:, you're arguing that Zhukov has been described as following in the footsteps of Getty, per the source.
I don't agree with Guccisamsclub that a one-line reference to Getty, supported by sources, is an example of WP:COATRACK. If that were the case, any unwanted or inconvenient fact could be removed from any article, and this frequently happens in the eastern European wikipedia world, through nationalist editing. On the other hand, I do agree with Guccisamsclub that we are going out on a limb describing Zhukov as "a follower" of Getty. Khlevniuk writes that Zhukov "[adopted] Getty's assumptions [and] even developed them." The revisionist camp of historians is a very large one, is mostly left, and can't be held responsible for how far-right nationalist forces use them any more than geneticists can be blamed for "scientific" racists.
If the Khlevniuk link is to kept, and that's a big "if", it should be more accurately described and properly attributed, and a word about Khlevniuk's own politics might deserve mention. - Darouet ( talk) 14:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Юрий Жуков взял предположения Гетти на вооружение и даже развил их" and (2) "
Заимствования просталинского ревизионизма." The first quote translates to "he took Getty's hypotheses and developed them"; the second part is just a section heading, which translates to "Borrowing from Pro-Stalin revisionism". What exactly he took from Getty or why Western revisionism is "pro-Stalin", is left unexplained. Now, had Khlevniuk actually explained how exactly Getty is "pro-Stalin", that would be a different story. But all you have is (2) a broad and baseless smear in some section heading (section headings are not stellar sourcing), and (1) the fact that Zhukov used Getty's research. Using this kind of sourcing to imply that Getty is "pro-Stalin" is textbook WP:LIBEL. Per WP:BLP you need infinitely better sourcing to call someone that. Guccisamsclub ( talk) 16:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
"Суть этой концепции ревизионистов и Жукова состоит в том, что Сталин не был жестоким, репрессивным диктатором, а, наоборот, являлся приверженцем демократии". Really, he can't be bothered to cite ONE revisionist before making that broad smear. Presumably, everyone from Sheila Fitzpatrick to Lynne Viola (a large group of respected and politically-moderate Western historians) was merely trying to prove that Stalin was a liberal democrat who wouldn't hurt a fly. That's the point of all their books, supposedly. Yeah right. Guccisamsclub ( talk)
I reverted Paul Keller's use of "main pathos" to "main point," because I believed that "main pathos" is a meaningless phrase, whereas "main point" is a common phrase in English. However, after some research I have realized that Paul Keller is correct: "main pathos" really is a phrase, "hauptpathos" in German, and is analogous to something like "main characteristic" or "main purpose" in English. Thanks Paul for the correction. - Darouet ( talk) 15:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Trotsky was expelled. He was murdered after many years. Xx236 ( talk) 09:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, the claim that Zhukov is an anti-Semite should probably not be made too lightly, although in context his remark is objectively anti-semitic. Timothy Snyder makes a very similar [ claim], to say nothing of Solzhenytsyn and others who are usuaklly given the benefit of doubt. Snyder's remark is arguably not objectively anti-semitic, given its context. If it is true that national minorities were overrepresented in the NKVD on the eve of the Great Terror, then it is true. The point remains that you have to read into Zhukov's remark to gauge the intent behind it. And since Zhukov has made no explicitly anti-semitic statements to my knowledge, the anti-semitic intent behind this remark can be plausibly denied. Guccisamsclub ( talk) 12:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)