User:MattB2/presentation data1

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)
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)
"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)
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 I do not quote Suvorov (although I don't see nothing wrong with him).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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.