Jump to content

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-19 Zhukov

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal‎ | Cases

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 83.5.250.98 (talk) at 23:00, 24 July 2006 (→‎Response to accusations). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Mediation Case: Zhukov

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.


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?
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:

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

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

Discussion

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.

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]

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.
  1. ^ see for instance:
    Tony Le Tissier, Zhukov at the Oder, p.10, Praeger/Greenwood, 1996, ISBN 0275952304.
    Amy Knight, Beria, p.128, Princeton, 1995, ISBN 0691010935
    Archer Jones, The Art of War in the Western World, p.558, University of Illinois Press, 2001, ISBN 0252069668
    Basil Henry Liddell Hart, Henry Basil, Constance Kritzberg, Larry Hancock, History of the Second World War, p.260 Da Capo Press, 1999, ISBN 0306809125
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-19_Zhukov&oldid=65646008"