Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown
Mediator(s)	BrownHornet21 ( talk · contribs)

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|]]

Request Information

Request made by: Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Where is the issue taking place?

On the article Georgy Zhukov and Talk:Georgy Zhukov

Who's involved?

• Myself, User:Grafikm_fr
• User:Legionas
• User:Kuban kazak
• User:TSO1D and User:Alex Bakharev, to a lesser extent.
• User:Ghirlandajo, not involved, but supportive of this mediation effort

What's going on?

For several months now (albeit with breaks), User:Legionas makes arbitrary additions and deletions of content. Everyone who disagrees with him gets instantly reverted and his (sourced) contributions.

User:Legionas seems to have a deep hate towards Zhukov. While it might be understandable at a personal level, Wikipedia is not a soapbox and must stick to WP:NPOV.

What is really funny is the fact that several months ago, I had a content dispute with Legionas about the fact whether Zhukov was considered as a brilliant strategist or not. Despite some obstination from his part, he finally had to give up. (see this thread). However, I would not like to repeat the same thing again, so I'm getting it up at MedCab.

What would you like to change about that?

History is a science, and therefore, it must use accurate, objective and sourced information. Treating sourced contributions as "fairytales" is at best not polite.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

No, the entire thing should be public.

Mediator response

Hi, I am the BrownHornet and I have taken this case. Let's keep the discussion on this mediation page. I have a few ground rules:

• Refrain from engaging in personal attacks;
• Always assume everyone is acting in good faith;
• No personal attacks are allowed;
• Keep an open mind and a willingness to compromise to a reasonable solution;
• Comments by any and all are welcome;
• Did I mention that no personal attacks are allowed?;
• Don't make assumptions about the person(s) on the other side of the coin, such as "I like your proposal, but the other side will reject it"; too often this starts going down the path to the Dark Side; and you may be surprised by what is an acceptable solution to the other side; and
• I reserve the right to strike out personal attacks and any other general nastiness. BrownHornet21 00:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Let me see if I can accurately summarize the scope of the dispute.

1. Legionas has made a number of edits to the Georgy Zhukov page, questioning the sources cited by other editors.

2. The most recent edits seems to debate whether P.Ya. Mezhiritzky, Reading Marshal Zhukov, (Philadelphia: Libas Consulting)(2002) is . . . a reliable source? I gather this from one of Legionas' edit summaries: "Mezhericky is not using any other documents than Zhukov's memoirs in this chapter. There are no documents confirming fairytales of Zhukov."

3. Legionas also challenged the following paragraph in mid June:

• Some historians consider Zhukov as a brilliant strategist, ^[1] and indeed many of his battles were examples of some of the most lopsided victories of the Second World War, ending with complete annihilation of his opponent. Evidence exists that Zhukov did more to prepare himself and his troops for battle than most other Soviet commanders, thus giving them more of an edge in a fight. However once the battle began, Zhukov's focus was on nothing but victory. As such, he was a typical Soviet commander. His brutality, while more publicized than most, was not at all uncommon. And many Russian historians continue to claim to this day that the outcome is all that matters.

Legionas' explanations for removing this edit on at least four occasions was: "none of these historians suport opinion that Zhukov was good strategist," "references not supporting claims removed together with unfounded claims," "Irpen's referenced sources do not confirm his claims. His references shouldn't be here," and "rv irpen. No modern historian in his references says that Zhukov was good strategist, only marshall Vasilevsky says that, who is not a modern historian." There's more, but I stopped at four.

Have I accurately summarized the dispute (or the recent disputes, at least)? BrownHornet21 01:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Compromise offers

Here is the Mediator's Proposal:

1. Since both sides cite verifiable sources, a suitable compromise would be to state that historians or strategists debate whether Zhukov was a brilliant military strategist or just the benefactor of having a much larger army. (Either that, or both sides agree to keep the issue out of the article.)

This is pretty much what TSO1D suggested initially, and after seeing each side's arguments I agree with the viewpoint that "all sides must be presented" to keep this aspect of the article in NPOV.

If you agree with the Proposal, please sign your name below. along with any thoughts or comments you may have.

1. TSO1D 00:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC) I agree with the proposal as I have from the beginning. TSO1D 00:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply

2. Sigitas 14:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC) This statement is very true. reply

3.

If you disagree with both proposals below, please sign your name below and state the reasons you disagree with the proposals.

1. Reject. WP:V states that reliable sources must be used. Suvorov for instance cannot be used as a reliable source since a) he is not a historian b) his work never went through PR. I agree on the fact that "brilliant" is a blurred notion (and I said so from the beginning), but as you won't quote a KKK guy to "justify" racism, you won't quote Suvorov to prove something. Why do both Western and Soviet historians happen to agree with each other? Surely there is a conspiracy... Sigh.. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Oh, and while I'm there, reject because Legionas should understand that "present all points of view" does not mean "present Suvorov's point of view and only his". -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC) reply

• Back on July 27 I wrote, "I welcome either side . . . to conclusively show that the other side's sources are unreliable and something akin to a crazy conspiracy theory." I haven't seen anything from anyone indicating that Mr. Suvorov's opinions on Zhukov (or anyone's opinions, for that matter) have been specifically debunked by any other historians, that he is a "maverick" whose views are unsupported by fact. You're more than welcome to show some authority on this. But I think something as subjective as this lends itself to differing viewpoints. What's wrong with stating that "historians debate whether Zhukov was a brilliant strategist . . ." -- isn't that a true statement? BrownHornet21 01:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • There are entire books dedicated to thoroughly disproving Suvorov's claims, for example "Icebreaker-2", where his "theory" is blown to pieces, as did Glantz and some others.
  • And ask yourself: if historians all over the world think one thing and just two or three guys think another, isn't there is a problem? -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 09:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

2. Wikipedia should not give coverage to pro-Nazi viewpoints. This project is not a Nazi propaganda machine. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

3.

Thanks -- BrownHornet21 18:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Suvorov's theories are generally considered to be fringe science by professional historians. See Victor Suvorov#Criticism and Support for details. In short, the majority of scholars in the field do not accept Suvorov's claims. -- int19h 08:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Discussion

I'd like to invite all the parties above to provide their thoughts and comments, especially Legionas. -- BrownHornet21 01:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I believe the most recent dispute focuses on whether it should be remarked that no documents other than Zhukov's own memoirs indicate that Zhukov had reservations regarding the immediate counter-offensive. Grafik replaced that sentence with the Mezhiritzky reference and that was removed by Legionas because he stated that the source was wholly based upon the memoirs. In my view, stating that no other documents prove that Zhukov was reluctant to sign the order is true, as I cannot see how Zhukov's doubts could have been preserved in any contemporary document. Grafik's reference was an analysis of those same memoirs, thus it cannot be viewed as proof of Zhukov's statement, and the information found in it can also be found in the Memoirs, thus the latter could just as well be used as a source there. I believe that is the reason why Legionas removed the source. Some users have remarked that Stalin was in charge, thus Zhukov could not possibly refuse the order. I don't believe that is truly what the discussion is about. Certainly, Stalin was the final judge, but the question is whose initiative the move was. Stalin always made his generals sign the orders so that he could not be held accountable. It is difficult to assess what ideas belonged to and where advocated by Stalin and which were pushed by his generals. For example, during Operation Uranus, the idea behind the plan belonged to Zhukov and Vasilevsky and they had to convince Stalin to act in this manner. In his memoirs Zhukov takes credit for the latter successful action but explains that he did not agree with the failed counter-offensive. I believe that there is insuficient evidence to permit us to evaluate these statements satisfactorily, thus all sides of the story have to be presented. TSO1D 02:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Sokolov calculates [1], that Zhukov is lying about circumstances of signing Directive No. 3. During the preparations of directive, Zhukov was in Moscow. His objections could be witnessed by many people participating in preparations: "Думаю, Жуков в очередной раз захотел выглядеть лучше, чем это было на самом деле. Он придумал, что о разработке директивы № 3 узнал лишь из разговора с Ватутиным, что высказал свои сомнения в ее целесообразности и согласился поставить свою подпись только тогда, когда услышал, что вопрос уже решен Сталиным. Хотя, согласимся, начальник Генштаба, покорно заявляющий: «Если Сталин требует под директивой мою подпись — ставьте», выглядит весьма сомнительно и с моральной точки зрения, и с точки зрения элементарного здравого смысла. Не проще ли тогда передать Иосифу Виссарионовичу [234] факсимиле своей подписи, чтобы он штамповал ее по собственному усмотрению? Дело наверняка обстояло иначе. Уже днем 22 июня, перед отлетом Жукова в Киев, вопрос о проведении контрударов был уже в принципе решен, хотя директиву и не успели подготовить. Георгий Константинович летел к Кирпоносу, чтобы руководить осуществлением контрудара на главном, юго-западном направлении. Вероятно, в случае успеха и выхода советских войск на оперативный простор он должен был сам возглавить либо Юго-Западный фронт, либо созданное вскоре Юго-Западное стратегическое направление, координирующее действия Юго-Западного и Южного фронтов.". Similar objection provides Suvorov [2] - Zhukov on June 22 was in Moscow and is responsible for damaging directives. "Zhournal of Stalin's visitors" shows that Zhukov was with Stalin until 16:00 June 1941, while Zhukov says that at 14:00 he was on his way to Ukraine. In short: Zhukov definitelly lied about circumstances of signing directive no. 3, and if he was in Moscow at the time of preparing/signing of directive, his objections could be witnessed by many people.. Sigitas 12:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I do not see the point in continuing. What is the point of attacking Suvorov when I did quote him once in the article? Pro-nazi views? I didn't notice anyone promoting National Socialism here. Sigitas 09:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

You quote Sokolov, who relies in abundance on Suvorov's "works" and ideas. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 09:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Response to accusations

My contributions are neutral and referenced, unlike the article in general which is mostly unreferenced collection of Soviet propaganda. As for "reversing referenced text", I remember few times reversing text where references provided did not support the wikipedian's claim. Problem is that opposing wikipedians sometimes add references to the sources which are not confirming text in article (e.g. case with "strategical brilliance". Many sources added simply did confirm this claim. Support of idea that Zhukov was good strategist is still a mess: Reference no.15 attributes words of Vasilevsky to Tony Le Tissier). As previously, in future I will keep ignoring accusations that I do not love Zhukov enough, or do not regard unconfirmed words of Zhukov uncritically. Let's present facts and documents, not opinions or propaganda. Topics on which Soviet machine of propaganda worked for decades require special efforts of neutral presentation. Words "History ...must use accurate, objective and sourced information" are so hypocritical when you compare my own well referenced changes with article in general, entire sections of which are unreferenced. Sigitas 13:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

To the mediator: do you see now why did I bring this case before the MedCab. All we got is nothing but accusations and phraseology about "Soviet propaganda", "brilliance" (how does one defines brilliance btw?) and so on. As for sourced, I'll write a detailed analysis later today... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Indeed, a lot of Russia-related articles are full of propaganda, courtesy to a few abusive and extremely bullyish users it seems. What a waste of an encyclopedia if this is allowed to continue. See Sortavala, a pin in a stack of hay. I am sorry if this is the wrong place, but I second the opinion of the accusations of propaganda above. 83.5.250.98 22:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Do you have something else to say, aside personal attacks? -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

In presence of no PA, only an analysis of this (and other) articles, your accusation an sich is a personal attack and will not intimidate me before making comments. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.5.250.98 ( talk • contribs)

"courtesy to a few abusive and extremely bullyish users it seems" is a comment on a contributor (several of them in fact) and is by the definition of WP:NPA, a personal attack. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Okay, okay, let's calm down. I don't read or speak Russian, so I can't verify any sources cited above. (Not sure if Babelfish will work, but that thing isn't perfect.) Unless someone can show me otherwise, I will presume everyone is correctly representing the content of the sources cited above. (Hey, that's what good faith is all about!) Let's take a timeout from calling each other out on accusations and whatnot and focus on the content of the article.

My first impression is that both sides appear to have valid arguments. I presume the sources cited in the article (historians or strategists or whoever consider Zhukov a brilliant strategist, a miltary genius, etc.) are correctly represented; if not please be as specific in possible when objecting to the source. The case can be made that Zhukov was a military genius; if I knew nothing about the guy other than he was the general who led the butt-kicking of the Germans all the way to Berlin at the end of World War II, it's hard to argue he's not a military genius. Perhaps other historians or strategists say he's not, that the results were the efforts of his subordinates and/or the incompetence of the other side. If so, I'd appreciate a source.

A commander must not necessary be a military genius if he commands 7 times more tanks and planes and many times more troops than enemy. Chief of the Red Army General Staff Zhukov prepared for a war and commanded so poorly that despite numerical and technical advantage during first 5 months USSR lost 20500 tanks, 17 900 military planes, 4 million soldiers and officers captured by germans, 20 000 cannons, and 85% military industry. It is not strategic brilliance by any understanding. Zhukov's strategic brilliance is just a product of Soviet propaganda machine. Sigitas 12:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

As far as the signing of directive no. 3, perhaps Zhukov did have reservations or objections about signing it. Perhaps he told no one else, except in his memoirs; that's a fairly smart position for someone serving under Stalin. Maybe he told others but they died in the War, died before Stalin, or just kept quiet; or maybe he told no one. Perhaps the appropriate middle ground is re-phrasing to state that "In his memoirs, Zhukov expressed regret about (or objected to) signing the directive, but some historians question whether Zhukov is simply expressing remorse years after the fact in an effort to sugarcoat his wartime deeds" or similar words.

So my first impression is: right now I'm kind of in the middle. Additional citation in support of either point of view showing that there is a consensus on either point would help. BrownHornet21 02:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I noticed that Sigitas/Legionas objected to one or more sources, e.g., "Problem is that opposing wikipedians sometimes add references to the sources which are not confirming text in article (e.g. case with "strategical brilliance". Many sources added simply did confirm this claim." Which ones did or did not confirm the claim? Out of the ones that do not support the claim, what do you claim those sources actually say? Not trying to call anyone out, just trying to get everyone to be as specific and detailed as possible. BrownHornet21 02:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Lets investigate this version [3] claiming that Zhukov was brilliant strategist. Does this referenced book [4] say, that Zhukov was brilliant strategist? No, it says, that Zhukov had "brilliant military successes". Were these the result of good strategy or something else? Author does not say. Another linked source [5] says "Brilliant and experienced Zhukov". What brilliant qualities he has in particular? Author did not say that he was a brilliant strategist. Commander may have various qualities. Sigitas 10:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Please define first what is a brilliant strategist, before considering everything else. There is no definition that I'm aware of. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 11:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Indeed it is not a term suitable for encyclopedia in most cases but some uncritical wikipedians are fighting for it bitterly. I personally would apply title "brilliant strategist" to a commander who mostly won big battles and did not suffer big defeats against the enemy with the same or larger resources. Zhukov have nothing of this. He suffered many defeats from the enemy with much smaller resources, especially in 1941, while his victories were very costly and not based on strategical thinking but blindly sending people and machines to the battle. Sigitas 11:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

First, this is a definition you invented, so it is OR and out of place. Second, if you take the battle of Moscow for instance, Zhukov managed to actually stop the offensive with fewer men than the Wehrmacht had. (at some point, the front had only 90,000 men defending Moscow). "Blindly sending people and machines to the battle" is a cliche you would want to abstain from if you write an article about WWII or a related subject, if you explore it well enough. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Please see my recent comments below. BrownHornet21 02:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Oh, btw, how about that wonderfully polite quote: "Look you trolls, none of pages quoted says that Zhukov was good strategist, except of quote of Vasilevsky. Why you keep pushing this crap?" [6] If this is a way of reaching consensus... BrownHornet21, if you say that personal attacks are not allowed, maybe you should warn Legionas against making them. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• I'm not going to chide people for comments made over a month ago - everyone starts the mediation with a blank slate. If things get out of hand here, then I'll say something. Let's stick to the content of the article. BrownHornet21 00:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

In my view the issue of whether or not Zhukov possessed "strategic brilliance" should not be a matter of dispute as stating that by itself one way or the other would violate NPOV. If that statement can be attributed to others, then the statement can be included and linked to that source, although care should be taken so that the text of the article would diverge as little as possible from the original or its general idea. Then in order to assure balance, an opposing statment can likewise be presented. TSO1D 01:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

That's another question. However, you will notice that since Legionas started it, you should ask him why he did. IMHO this notion of brilliance is complete OR and should probably replaced with something mentioning his coordination of several fronts (up to three sometimes). -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 10:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Let me insert my two cents here. It is irrelevant whether any editor thinks that Zhukov is a brilliant strategist, person, etc. We all may have our opinions, but they really don't belong on Wikipedia. If a notable source gives the opinion that Zhukov was a genius, that probably deserves a mention in the article. If an editor personally disagrees with this assessment, that is irrelevant. If that editor finds a notable source that opines that Zhukov was not a genius (but rather a lucky bastard, just threw more soldiers into the battles), then it is appropriate to state something like "Historians/commentators dispute whether Zhukov's successes in World War II were a result of strategic brilliance on his behalf or simply the benefit of heavily outnumbering the German Army" and cite both sources. But I think any editor who inserts his or her opinion on the matter without sources (or attempting to make a case without sources on the talk page) is really inserting his or her POV into the article. In short, Wikipedia doesn't really care what the editors think, it's all about what the sources say. BrownHornet21 02:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

This brute and blind method of Zhukov's warfare is not my invention, I merely quote Boris Sokolov [7]: "Вот и подошел к концу мой рассказ о Жукове. Чем же замечателен мой герой? Нельзя сказать, что он обогатил военное искусство каким-либо приемом или методом, достойным подражания. Жуковский способ наступления, когда в бой бросаются постепенно все имеющиеся резервы, пока оборона не будет прорвана или пока резервы не истощатся, не годился для западных армий. Жуков мог стать полководцем только в одной армии мира — в Красной Армии, где провозглашалось: «мы за ценой не постоим». И только для этой армии он был идеальным полководцем. Георгий Константинович не обладал солидным образованием, ни общим, ни военным. Зато обладал незаурядной волей, и это качество помогло ему стать самым выдающимся из советских маршалов.". ("I cannot say that Zhukov enriched military art by some new move or method which could be respected. Zhukov's type of attack when all reserves are sent to a battle until defence is broken or reserves end, is not suitable for Western armies. Zhukov could become commander only in one army in the world -the Red Army, where losses were unimportant. Only in this army he was ideal commander. He had no decent general or military education but he had a strong character and this quality helped him to become the biggest of Soviet Marshals"). Sigitas 10:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, the problem is that you never bother presenting other opinions. You only quote Suvorov and Sokolov (whose works, incidentally, are not recognized by most Western researchers) and don't provide an alternate opinion. This is a kind of anti-Zhukov crusade you're leading, and that's why I filed this medcab in the first place. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 11:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Other opinions are already over-represented thanks to the decades of Zhukov's personality cult building by soviet propagandists. And I'm not quoting Suvorov in the article. Sigitas 11:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

"Other opinions are already over-represented thanks to the decades of Zhukov's personality cult building by soviet propagandists." To the mediator: do you see what I mean now? -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

These are all empty accusations. I do not quote Suvorov (although I don't see nothing wrong with him). I do not remove sourced alternative opinions. I provide only referenced facts. What is your problem? Can you please be more specific and say what in particular you don't like. Sigitas 12:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I have two main problems with you. The first one is your conduct, with remarks bordering on personal attacks like "decades of Zhukov's personality cult building by soviet propagandists." and "Look you trolls, none of pages quoted says that Zhukov was good strategist, except of quote of Vasilevsky. Why you keep pushing this crap?" Such a conduct is to be avoided whenever possible.

The second problem is your unilateral representation of the events. You mention Sokolov and Suvorov (you don't quote Suvorov, it is true, however you mention him on the talk page to try and disprove my arguments) without even bothering to precise that it is only one point of view, that there exists another one, and you methodically revert any attempt to build a consensual version. And Suvorov is a highly controversial writer and his works are not recognized in the West.

Your attitude so far is to try and represent Zhukov as a complete idiot and a monster who only thought of sending troops into enemy fire. This violates WP:NPOV and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

It is not my fault that documents and facts show incompetence and sadistic nature of Zhukov. I do not invent anything. I'm not against consensus building. Quite contratry, it is Zhukov's fans who are pushing controversial claims, like that "brilliant strategist" thing. There is no consensus on strategy skills of Zhukov, so why push it? Sigitas 14:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Do not reduce the discussion to strategy skills. We argued on a number of other subjects, such as Leningrad defense, Kiev defense, and Zhukov's supposed order to kill families of captured soldiers, just to name a few. And the strategy skills thing is indeed the least controversial of them all. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I do not really see the point continuing arguing here anymore. If someone doesn't like the historical facts presented, he should look for better sources, and provide critical arguments, instead of blaming contributors for not liking their heros enough. If Grafikm is sincere in his quest for neutral presentation of all alternative views, he should get busy writing alternative, communist propaganda not affected versions of events at Leningrad, Kiev and eveythere else. But I see that he is happy with one view. Sigitas 14:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Nothing but disgusting personal attacks and ramblings about "communist propaganda". Are you capable of argumentation rather than attacks? Because trouble is, all other sources are immediately classed as "communist propaganda" and discarded, which is not a way of building a NPOV. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

It is not true, that everything is discarded as "communist propaganda", but most of information published in USSR is indeed product of professional propagandists and should be approached carefully, especially Zhukov's memoirs. Sigitas 15:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Zhukov's memoirs have been analyzed by several Western and Eastern researchers. The fact that serious researchers like Jukes use them for historical analysis proves their credibility. Futhermore, you can always get similair info from memoirs of other commanders (think Vasilevsky or Khrushchev), and unless you're talking about a cabal, this argument does not hold. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

You cannot be serious. Credible source if memoirs 14 times references sources published after the death of author? If each edition is substantially different from previous? Sigitas 15:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

What I think about this is utterly unimportant. If credible Western researches use them as references, so can Wikipedia. Using such a source is not OR. Claiming it is false without proof, on the other hand, is OR. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Do you insist that Zhukov himself cited sources published after his death? What else proof do you need? Sigitas 15:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Zhukov's memoirs were published by his daughter. In some places, it is indeed quite possible that the sourcing (as opposed to facts) was modified and that further sources were added to the notes. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm not against referencing Zhukov's memoirs if his version of events is confirmed / not contradicted by other documents. Which happens not so often. Sigitas 16:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

What "other documents"? -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Memoirs of other people, journals, orders, telegrams etc. Sigitas 16:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• I struck a lot of the above lengthy exchange because it consisted of a lot of personal attacks by both sides, but really to establish that Wikipedia doesn't care what your personal opinions are on Zhukov. Attacking the other side as a "Zhukov lover" or "Zhukov hater" undermines your credibility and arguments. Please cite sources and authority, not your personal opinions. If both sides continue with a "Zhukov lover"/"Zhukov hater" exchange, I think we will have to conclude mediation without a resolution. BrownHornet21 20:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Sigitas quotes Sokolov, a Russian historian who is critical of Zhukov's war strategy. On its face, nothing wrong with citing this as a source. Grafikm mentions that Sokolov is controversial, that his opinions have been discredited by Western historians (implying these guys are crackpots), but doesn't cite a source. Well, who says Sokolov (or the other guy) is controversial and cannot be trusted? Likewise, Grafikm relies on Zhukov's memoirs to support some of his/her points. On its face, nothing wrong with that. But Sigitas discredits the memoirs as Soviet propaganda and revisionist history, mentioning other unspecified memoirs, letters, etc. Well, says who? BrownHornet21 20:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Says Rokosovsky, for example: “I will tell you about work of Zhukov, as envoy of Stavka in Central Front. In his memoirs, he tells how he worked in our front during preparations for defensive operation. I must to announce with all responsibility, if necessary providing accounts of alive witnesses, that version presented in Zhukov’s memoirs is fully invented by him and has no relationship to reality whatsoever. Being in our HQ on the eve before enemy attack, when report general of 13th army Pukhov was received on capture of enemy personnel, suggesting particular time of enemy attack, Zhukov refused to sanction my suggestion to start artillery counter-preparations, leaving decision to me, as a commander of front. I had to decide instantly as there was no time for communications with Stavka“. ("Теперь о личной работе Г.К. Жукова как представителя Ставки на Центральном фронте. В своих воспоминаниях он широко описывает проводимую якобы им работу у нас на фронте в подготовительный период и в процессе самой оборонительной операции. Вынужден сообщить с полной ответственностью и, если нужно, с подтверждением живых еще свидетелей, что изложенное Жуковым Г.К. в этой статье не соответствует действительности и им выдумано. Находясь у нас в штабе в ночь перед началом вражеского наступления, когда было получено донесение командующего 13-й армией генерала Пухова о захвате вражеских саперов, сообщавших о предполагаемом начале немецкого наступления, Жуков Г.К. отказался даже санкционировать мое предложение о начале артиллерийской контрподготовки, предоставив решение этого вопроса мне, как командующему фронтом. Решиться на это мероприятие необходимо было немедленно, так как на запрос Ставки не оставалось времени.") ("Военно-исторический журнал" 1992 N3 С.31)" Sigitas 14:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• One other point to mention, I notice cited to someone named Jukes, could you elaborate and provide some citation/sourcing to help flesh out what Jukes says on the matter? BrownHornet21 20:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Geoffrey Jukes is an British (I think) historian, who wrote a five-volume book called The Second World War. The tome 5, which discusses the Eastern front, has Zhukov's memoires in its main bibliography. Jukes is a reputable historian who worked in the UK Ministry of Defense and so on (see here) Question: do you think such a reputable Western historian would include these memoirs if they were so controversial as Legionas claims they are? I don't think so. And it is just an example, since a lot of Western researchers use Zhukov's memoirs as an estimated treaty on the Second World War. For instance, David Glantz, another reputable American historian, quotes Zhukov in his works, see for instance here

So, a source has no credibility as is. However, when it is used by academics and quoted, it becomes a reference. That's how research works and that's how WP should work. On the other hand, claiming that something is "crap" and "BS" is not quite academic. We're not historians and are not researching, consequently we have only a limited power to judge about the text by ourselves, because it is OR.

Oh and btw, check this one out: [8]

"Regrettably, today Zhukov is being criticized by some Russian authors for frequently resorting to massed frontal attacks". This is a clear kick to Suvorov and his unrecognized criticisms of Zhukov.

The bottom line is the following: a Wikipedian has no right to deny that a text is false when it has been quoted by reputable researchers and historians. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• I think TSO1D hit the nail on the head earlier in this mediation, and there appears to be a lack of consensus on these subjects. Assuming both sides have verifiable sources to support their viewpoints (and also have their share of sources challenging the opposite viewpoint), I'm beginning to think the most reasonable solution is to either state that historians dispute these issues or (if the parties agree) to keep the issue off the page. But I welcome either side to demonstrate that the consensus of historians/strategists/sources support their respective viewpoints, or alternatively to conclusively show that the other side's sources are unreliable and something akin to a crazy conspiracy theory. BrownHornet21 20:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Impasse Declared

At this point I think I have to declare an impasse. Unless anyone objects, I will close the mediation in 48 hours. BrownHornet21 02:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Having received no response from any participant, I am closing the mediation. I still think the best solution is to present both viewpoints to achieve NPOV. If you folks can't resolve the situation I suggest you move it up the dispute resolution ladder. BrownHornet21 04:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply