User talk:Hodja Nasreddin: Difference between revisions

Hello, Hodja Nasreddin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

If you are interested in Russia-related themes, you may want to check out the Russia Portal, particularly the Portal:Russia/New article announcements and Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board. You may even want to add these boards to your watchlist.

Again, welcome! Alex Bakharev 00:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration 3RR

Hi - I thought this might be of some interest to you. One area you might want to expand is the influence of Solzhenitsyn on the Cold War (and human rights/Helsinki in general); also, the space race and scientific competition is only mentioned (Sputnik specifically, but no mention of the moon landing) - perhaps also areas you may wish to look into. Still, overall it's quite good, I think. Biruitorul ^Talk 03:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few random comments just to start from something. There are many more.Biophys (talk) 06:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I appreciate it. I'll look into the points you raised and see what I can come up with. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, on the Korea/Vietnam point, here's the situation. Plenty of sources say there was no direct military engagement. And depending on how you define that, it may be accurate. However, the Soviet role in both Korea and Vietnam was probably big enough that it merits a footnote. Here's what I found: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Would you like to use these sources to write a footnote? Something like: "While no full-blown shooting war ever took place between the superpowers, Soviet involvement in Korea and possibly Vietnam saw direct clashes with American forces. In Korea, Soviet pilots engaged in every major air battle from 1950 on and inflicted heavy casualties on US/UN air units.^[1] In Vietnam, the Soviets provided weapons, advisors and ground-based air defense personnel".^[2] (Or: "The Soviets sent around 1000 pilots and additional aviation support personnel to North Vietnam, where they often sortied against American aircraft conducting air strikes".^[3]) How does that sound? Biruitorul ^Talk 20:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should keep in mind that the involvement of Soviet air forces (actually all "Korean" air forces were Soviet) was an important factor of this war. That was the only war after WW II when US had no air superiority. The beginning of the war was ordered personally by Stalin, and the war ended the day he died. Sorry, I have an urgent work this summer, and can not do anything serious here.Biophys (talk) 04:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I'll propose it on the talk page. Biruitorul ^Talk 05:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the first time I voted to keep this article, now unfortunately I have to change my opinion, since over the time the article failed to substantiate itself as a new concept. By no means this is a disrespect to your contributions to wikipedia. A suggection for a better place for the information you collected in described in my nomination. Mukadderat (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you suggest renaming of an article, you should not nominate it for deletion.Biophys (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest splitting it into several ones. Well-knownn Chinese govt intervention in internet has little in common with alleged russian "web brigades" Mukadderat (talk) 05:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is exactly the difference? They seem to be the same, as has been confirmed by users from China during previous AfD discussion. Perhaps the inclusion of CIA was questionable, but this should be established by consensus. So far, all three people who discussed the matter had come to an agreement that, yes, they belong there, and I do not see objections at the article talk page.Biophys (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not reverting you last time. I was reverting an occasional editor who jumped into the revert war: from false accusation in his edit summary I concluded that he has no idea what's happening here. I do believe that your information is useful, but I also continue to believe that it is badly misplaced. Mukadderat (talk) 19:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise approach

I have a suggestion of a compromise solution as follows

1. The article renames into Web brigades, which is a direct translation of the russian term.
2. The major content is about Russian issues.
3. Other countries are described in a section titled as, e.g., "Similar developments outside Russia". In this way you will avoid resorting to conclusions and generalizations, just presentation of facts, hence no OR.
4. Do not use the term "web brigades" for non-russian topics.

In this way you avoid all major objections: OR, WP:SYNTH and neologism. Since the phenomenon is definitely notable and expected, I am sure sooner or later articles in academic sources will appear and probably a good term will be introduced. When this happens and many content will be available, the topic will be split into per-country sub-articles, with one summary main article. Mukadderat (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that we have a content disagreement here. This is very common situation. But such problems are not resolved by nominating an article for deletion, per WP rules. If you withdraw your AfD nomination, I am very open to discuss any issues.Biophys (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No; we have subject disagreement here. Internet brigades is your neologism. Russian term is web brigades. Your page was original synthesis from all over the world, which must be deleted. I insist the article restricted only to verified domain of the term application as supported by citations: Russia. I find it strange you don't want to start a new article strictly following wikipedia rules. Hey, you may even nominate it at WP:DYK as a new article! Mukadderat (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found this reference on the net. Did you heard or read about it ?

Also this might be useful [7] --Molobo (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! This is a good source on Internet censorship in general. I am glad that you was unblocked. Hope to see you around.Biophys (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)here.Biophys (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to rewrite the intro/lead of the Media freedom in Russia article but since I'm more interested in Ukraine my knowledge is not so big. The original lead was a bich of non-information + 1 soapboxing statment. It's hard to believe that some Russian editors believe there helping there country by downplaying things that are wrong in there country. I contected you since your edit's make sence! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		For Bravery - 3rd degree
		You are hereby awarded this Ukrainian National Award "For Bravery" for starting Media freedom in Russia and being brave enough to write/edit articles about controversial Russian subjects. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is nice to know there are Russian editors who are not constantly writing about controversial Ukrainian subjects (UPA, Golodomor) but who know there are things wrong in there own country, hence a Ukrainian award! Not everything in Ukraine is stellar too BTW :) Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Biophys; could you please look at the article rolex: it seems to be just adverticement of the company; even the note NPOV is systematically removed. dima (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dima, I think this article provides some interesting information. Why do you pay so much attention?Biophys (talk) 02:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys, thank you for the quick reply. The "Interesting information" would be how to neutralize Rolex. My colleagues and I get too many rolex messages. The antirolex sites offer the service of authomatic removal of the rolex messages from the mailboxes. For this reason I believe that the main meaning of rolex is "spam", but at least two users (one of them is admin) insist that this menaing should not appear in Wikipedia. I can easy imagine that "rolex" and "anti-rolex" sites are in the same hands. As they send the rolex messages to me, I am supposed to become the rolex specialist. I know your contributiuon as constructive, so, I communicate you. If you have no time to deal with rolex, just say, and I understand; I shall find other rolex victims. dima (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I have no idea about the rolex and anti-rolex problems, and this is very far from my interests (I may look at this later). But why should you be involved there with your background in physics? (I assume you are Dima K. who worked in Japan). Regards,Biophys (talk) 03:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From my point of view, I should not be involved at all; but distributors of rolex have opposite opinion. Would I get all the watches offered by email, I could live without to work, just selling these watches. Unfortunetely, it is only spam. dima (talk) 09:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any spam or serious WP:COI problems in article Rolex. If you wish, you might add something sourced in article E-mail spam...Biophys (talk) 02:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you have heard this, but according to this [8] (July 19, 2008) many are speculating that the FSB is "making appeals in Russian Internet forums calling for all Russian hackers to unite and launch a large-scale attack" on Ukraine the Baltics etc. Could this be used to help the article? Ostap 03:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see another article. If you can read Russian, you might also read this "Russian version of governing the history". This is not a joke and corroborated by other sources like books by Anatoliy Golitsyn. Biophys (talk) 03:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This edit of yours does not restore a citation, despite an edit summary saying that it does. It does restore an uncited quotation. Also, the first portion of it restores a sentence fragment "He conceded that". Could you please take a look and work out what you meant to do? - Jmabel | Talk 06:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This is direct citation from book by Richard Pipes Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime, Vintage books, Random House Inc., New York, 1995, ISBN 0-394-50242-6, page 259. - as indicated in the page (see the diff). Word "conceded" can be replaced by "asserted" or something else.Biophys (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! The citation should come after the quotation. It was completely confusing as it stood. I'll fix. - Jmabel | Talk 19:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for delayed response. I don't share your doubts about Zemskov'd data for two reasons: First, Zemskov used KGB's data that were intended for internal use only. So peoples who wrote those papers had no reason to conceal anything. Sometimes, they even had to exaggerate a number of prisoners: you probably know that during a 'big purge' they had a 'plan', a minimal number of people's enemies to be arrested for certain period in certain region. Of course, sometimes they, probably, had to understate those numbers, but, again, I see no reason for them do that systematically.
Second reason to believe those numbers is as follows. I looked through several research papers that criticized Getty, Ritterspoon, Zemskov's articles. I found that the major criticism was focused on conclusions they made (they tried to estimate a number of Stalin's victims based on Gulag population). And this criticism seems quite reasonable, because far not all victims were Gulag prisoners. However, as regards to the data themselves, no serious doubts in their validity were raised. Therefore, I conclude Zemskov's numbers to be trustworthy, although his conclusions drawn from them are sometimes dubious.
I agree that those numbers are lower estimate rather than a real number of victims, however, the only unbiased way to deal with it is to show those numbers and then explain concretely how many victims left unaccounted and what are the reasons for these statements. Otherwise it would be a fiction, not a Wikipedia article.
All the best--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for response. First of all, could you please provide correct citation here as I asked? Who is author and what is the title of the article (in the book by Russian Academy of Sciences)? You have inserted this segment to many WP articles. As about Zemskov data (used by many researchers), they were disputed for example by Antonov-Ovseenko. The numbers of prisoners in Gulag produced by NKVD/KGB itself is possibly 10 times lower than in reality, according to him. Soviet Union organizations are famous for producing completely bogus numbers, as can be supported by many sources. All economic production data for example are fake, and Gulag data are possibly not exception. One of problems: old Soviet military and intelligence archives are actually closed, so verification is not really possible.Biophys (talk) 12:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

You have ZERO credibility when it comes to editing Soviet related articles since you have a massive anti-Soviet POV. You only believe sources which make ridiculous claims about the USSR (such as the Guinness Book of World Records claiming that 61 million people were killed by the Soviet regime o:) :)). All you want to do is make the Soviet Union look as evil as possible, and because of that you ignore the studies of actual historians and demographers that are based on real data and not propaganda. -YMB29 (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we both have zero credibility per WP:NOR. Everything should be based on published sources. Guinness Book of World Records is a sufficently reliable source. Furthermore, what I cited was a scholarly book by a notable researcher on the subject, Yevgenia Albats who get her PhD at Harvard University. By using whatever source in her book, she actually endorses it as a reliable source. So, this is not just the "Book of records".Biophys (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Guinness Book of World Records is not a serious source when it comes to this, especially when compared to detailed studies of historians I sourced. Albats is not a historian; she might be a good journalist, but she is not an expert on this and neither is she objective when it comes to Soviet history. If you think that whatever she "endorses" is the absolute truth then there is something wrong with you... -YMB29 (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Guinness Book of World Records is not a serious source". Says who? "Albats is not a historian". Says who? She get PhD in political science in Harvard, authored several books, and has international recognition.Biophys (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being a political scientist does not make her a historian with detailed knowledge of Soviet history. International recognition might be in journalism, not history. -YMB29 (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although she is a historian (see the article), it does not really matter. Her book published at several languages qualify as a reliable secondary source. If you have concerns, please ask at WP:RS noticeboard.Biophys (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Various fictional books are also published in different languages, so what? Whatever she published should not be given precedence over detailed research by experts. Her detailed research was what? Opening the Guinness Book of World Records? -YMB29 (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Yevgenia Albats and Catherine A. Fitzpatrick. The State Within a State: The KGB and Its Hold on Russia - Past, Present, and Future, 1994. ISBN 0-374-18104-7 link. Biophys (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. ;) Beatle Fab Four (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It tells: 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. Of course it does. "Obolgannya voina", etc. But let's use talk page of the article for that.Biophys (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zemskov data, take two

Frankly, I don't understand this type arguments. Albats earned her PhD in Harvard and published several scholarly books therefore she is trustworthy. Zemskov's data, although they are being used by many researchers, are questionable because Antonov-Ovseenko raised a concern about their validity.
Many researchers and political writers like Albats, Solzhenitsyn, Mikoyan and others wrote books that contain estimations - and this was absolutely reasonable because archive data were unavailable. Oleg Khlevnyuk, Viktor Zemskov and Arsenii Roginsky provide numbers. You are scientist and I am scientist too, therefore we both understand a difference between estimations and exact numbers. Estimations are handwavings, you cannot discuss them seriously. Numbers, even when they are not correct, are something you can discuss.
For example, if I tell you I don't believe Albats, you argue she got her PhD in Harvard. If you tell me Zemskov's data are incorrect, I can ask you what are possible reasons for that? For instance, if someone argue that unexpectedly large number of prisoners was liberated from camps means nothing because in reality they were seriously ill and were expected to die in close future, therefore the real number of Stalin's victims was greater that Zemskov's data tell - I take this argument seriously. However if someone tell me that archive data are incorrect because they produced by NKVD that is known to be intrinsically malicious, probably, even towards future historians - beat me, I cannot take it seriously. By the way. Google Scholar gives 22 citations to the Getti, Ritterspoon, Zemskov's paper - and 15 to Albats' The State Within a State. More interestingly, jstor gives only 7 to 9 papers discussing Albats' book, and about 100 articles discuss Zemskov's work. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google searches do not prove anything at all. This is not a valid method to assess notability of anything. All estimates on this subject are based on unreliable sources. Therefore, they differ by at least ten times. I did not tell that researcher X is better than researcher Y (although Getty is an openly "revisionist" historian unlike Antonov-Ovseenko). I am telling that we can not represent any disputed statistics as fact, no matter if this is Zemskov, Albats, Ovseenko, or whoever else. All published alternative numbers (and yes, Ovseenko provided his numbers) must be presented per WP:NPOV.Biophys (talk) 04:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You tell: "However if someone tell me that archive data are incorrect because they produced by NKVD that is known to be intrinsically malicious, probably, even towards future historians - beat me, I cannot take it seriously.". Yes, I can not take KGB data seriously because this particular organization was caught many times while planting some professional disinformation (there are many sources). Do you regard a proven professional disinformation organization a reliable source?Biophys (talk) 05:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Добрый день, Андрей. Извините, что на русском, но так быстрее и проще.

Прежде всего хотел бы извиниться за свои может быть, не всегда корректные действия в прошлом.

Теперь о главном. Прежде всего, хотел бы уверить Вас, что наши цели и задачи в общем и целом совпадают. Также как и Вы, я хочу демократии в России, соблюдения прав и свобод гражданина, свободной прессы.

Мои действия ни в коем случае не являются своего рода идеологической войной и т.п. Однако есть один фактор, который Вы, как житель Соединенных Штатов, возможно не в полной мере представляете себе. Неверно, что любая критика состояния России приведёт к положительному результату. К положительному результату может привести только адекватная критика, неадекватная может и приводит лишь к росту паранойи и негативного имиджа Соединенных Штатов, вызывая своего рода защитную реакцию. В любом случае, должен происходить здоровый обмен мнениями, российские журналисты в целом достаточно адекватны. Вы ведь не владеете парой-тройкой нефтяных компаний, чтобы обогатиться в случае серъезного похолодания русско-американских отношений?

Надеюсь на конструктивное сотрудничество на страницах Википедии.

Евгений.

ellol (talk) 07:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]