User talk:Hodja Nasreddin: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:21, 1 September 2008

Welcome!

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:

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

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S%	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
RfB candidate	S	O	N	S%	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report

No RfXs since 10:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC).—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online}

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cold War

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]

Internet brigades

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

The article renames into Web brigades, which is a direct translation of the russian term.
The major content is about Russian issues.
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.
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]

The Internet in Putin’s Russia: Reinventing a Technology of Authoritarianism

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]

Media freedom in Russia

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]

Award!

		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]

rolex

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]

Web Brigades

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]

Citation?

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]

I draw your attention to the fact that Pipes is not directly quoting hitler, but quoting Rauschning allegedly quoting Hitler. Rauschning is generallly not viewed as entirely reliable. I must stress that I am in no way speaking from a revisionist viewpoint - rather the opposite - but it is fairly clear that Rauschning did not meet with Hitler to anything like the extent claimed. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is why we should use good secondary sources like this book by Pipes (see WP:Verifiability). We have no obligation to dig out hundreds of primary sources cited in a secondary source. This is work for professional historians like Pipes. Any way, this was cited from the book by Pipes, and the attribution has been provided. Nothing else is needed.Biophys (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on the article talk page. I still feel the way the quote is presented in the article article to be misleading as stands. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but let's discuss it there. I will double check.Biophys (talk) 23:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zemskov's data

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]

If you read me carefully, you probably noticed I meant Google Scholar, not Google, those two are absolutely different. Google Scholar deals with scholarly publications and the number of citations provided by Google Scholar is broadly recognized (along with the data of Thompson Institute) among scientists (at least in my area, Biophysics/Molecular Biology) a criterion of the importance of someone's work.
I admit, it might not work for historical articles. That is why I looked through Jstor, that is focused mostly on humanitarian sciences, and the difference appeared to be even more dramatic. Why don't you comment that?
Your arguments about KGB disinformation are funny. If some organization is able to carry out a disinformation campaign, than its classified data intended for internal use are even more trustworthy. KGB, as well as, CIA, for instance, were created, among other, to carry out disinformation campaigns. During a long period, whole Soviet Union was a military organization, therefore some (considerable) level of disinformation had to be present there. However, it has no relation to the validity of archive numbers.
I would like you to understand that few years ago I considered Albats and similar authors as the only reliable source of information. However, recently I found that there are many scholarly articles where other data were presented. And those data look more convincing for me because they more resemble the results of scientific research.
Best regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did not cite directly the internal KGB documents, as Albats did in her book. You cite Zemskov. This is fine. If another scholar tells that KGB/Zemskov data are disinformation, citing him is also fine per WP:NPOV. This is all. Please note that even ISI citation index is a poor measure of someone's notability, just as any other formal measure. Please, let's stop this discussion, as this is already a second circle.Biophys (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I never told Albats book contain disinformation. In contrast to you, I don't blame anybody in such intentions. I just proposed to take into account that quite different numbers are present in different sources and some of them look more convincing. If you are really a scientist, especially a Biophysicist, you probably understand that such my statement doesn't imply any of those sources to contain disinformation.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was not me who told about wrong numbers. That was Antonov-Ovseeenko, and I will provide a reference to his book as time allows.Biophys (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speech freedom in Russia -- Andrey Kuznetsov

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]

Rough translation courtesy GOOGLE TRANSLATE.

Good day, Andrew. Sorry, that the Russian, but it faster and easier.

First of all I would like to apologize for its perhaps not always correct actions in the past.

Now on the home. First of all, I would like to assure you that our goals and objectives generally coincide. Like you, I want democracy in Russia, respect the rights and freedoms of citizens, free press.

My actions in no way is a kind of ideological war, etc. But there is one factor that you, as a resident of the United States may not fully imagine. Is not true that any criticism of the state of Russia will lead to a positive outcome. By the positive result could only lead critic adequate, inadequate and can only lead to increased paranoia and the negative image of the United States, causing a kind of defensive reaction. In any case, should be a healthy exchange of views, Russian journalists generally quite adequate. You do not own a pair-troika oil companies that enriched if honest cold Russian-American relations?

I look forward to constructive cooperation on the pages of Wikipedia.

Eugene.

Please remember this is ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA Bobanni (talk) 08:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, what's the matter when it's a personal message? I do not use offensive language nor make any veiled or overt threats. Just I can more natively express my ideas speaking in Russian, I hope Biophys didn't forget that language either. ellol (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like do you know, that "Национализм" and "Nationalism" are different notions in fact? -- it's not that easy. -- sorry. ellol (talk) 08:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or like, Japanese have four different words to say "thank you" in different situations; -- language does matter, in fact. ellol (talk) 09:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a battleground. Any disputes here have nothing to do with US-Russia relations. I can not make these relations worse, just as you can not make them better. Everything in WP has been already described in other sources. None of us is doing original research or propaganda here.Biophys (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I just wanted to make it clear that in the end we stand on the common ideological ground. ellol (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I am not sure though what "ideological ground" you are talking about. As about "oil companies", it was not me who dropped down Russian stock market. That was someone else.Biophys (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is a battleground. There are plenty ways to describe the same event. For exapmle, compare these two statements: Kennedy was assassinated by Osvald. Other sources state that was done by KGB and Kennedy was assassinated by KGB. Other sources state that Osvald did that alone. Both of them are formally neutral, aren't they? And Wikipedia is becoming more and more influential, so it can do relation between countries better or worse. Otherwise, there are no reason to play this game.
Best regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the honest opinion. You just said that "Wikipedia is a battleground", and that "Otherwise, there are no reason to play this game". But I see this completely differently. Wikipedia is influential because it is a good educational site. I am working here to educate myself and others, not to play stupid edit wars or promote propaganda of any kind. Yes, one can tell that everything affects everything. For example, an WP article about Osvald or Andrei Lugovoy might infuriate Putin who will sell WMD to Iran, which will lead to WW III. This is a popular science fiction concept of course.Biophys (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S. Ossetia

What do you mean?[9] In the CNN video Medvedev says it's trying to "protect its civilians". The BBC article also quotes the Russian president. - Pieter_v (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean "its" in the phrase of Medvedev? What does it mean "ours"? It means these people (one can tell civilians) who live in South Ossetia and hold Russian passports. That is what I am trying to tell. The "citizenship" is a dubious matter. Are you sure that none of them are Georgian citizens?Biophys (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I think we mean the same stuff, I just wanted to add how this is the view point of the president of Russia, and not that of international observers per se. - Pieter_v (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curent version cites statements by the Russian and Georgian presidents. The meaning of their statements is unclear. Russian side claims to protect inhabitants of South Ossetia who hold Russian passports. This should be explained. Of course this is only a claim. Real goals could be completely different, such as keeping high oil prices, a dismissal of Medvedev by Putin, personal animosity of Putin and Saakashvilli, profits from illegal arm trade in South Ossetia extracted by certain individuals, or whatever. What I am talking about is much easier. What is the official Casus belli from the Russian side? Let's explain it.Biophys (talk) 18:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I always wonder is, why do Russians support independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, but oppose any other type of independence such as Chechnya and Kosovo. Do you know their argument? - Pieter_v (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally support independence of everyone per the Right of nations for self-determination. Russian nationalists actually do not support independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. They support these territories to be annexed by Russia (the "independence" is only a talk to achieve that goal). In fact, this goal has been already achieved: these territories and their leaders are completely controlled by the Russian leadership. In this war, Russia simply protects something that already de facto belongs to her. Being quite logical, they do not support independence Chechnya (this is a de juro Russian property), as well as Kosovo (this belongs to their Serbian slavic brother's empire).Biophys (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But what do Ossetians/Abkhazians want themselves? Do they want independence, or to be a part of the Russian Federation? Also isn't the area said to be South Ossetia quite big for such a small population? The Ossetians already expanded their territory when they ethnic cleansed the Ingush people (See the Ossetian-Ingush conflict). - Pieter_v (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And btw, did you live in the Caucasus? What republic/oblast? - Pieter_v (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had many mountaineering and hiking trips there. I know best Abkhasia and Western and Central Caucasus. Ironically, most hospitable people lived at the Kodori Gorge, a future separation line between the Abkhasia and Georgia (but I was there before the Georgian-Abkhazian conflict). I have never been in Chechnya - not recommended for tourists. My friends had serious problems there - in the old Soviet times.Biophys (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really those were still in the Soviet days? The Soviet days of the chechen-ingush assr aren't very well covered because of the censorship back then. What problems did they have, were they abducted ? ;) - Pieter_v (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, there were shooting and threats by youngsters, simply because the people were Russian tourists, but intervention of older people from a village helped to resolve the situation. Yes, that was before the Chechen independence.Biophys (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A reply to your another question... South Ossetians probably want to unite with North Ossetians, but a lot of Georgians live in South Ossetia, and they want to be in Georgia. Abkhasians want independence. But one should remember that they were only around 25% or less of population, and Georgians were ~40% of populations before the Georgian-Abkhazian conflict, and the Georgians were forcefully evicted or run away during the conflict. As about Ossetian-Ingush conflict, that is a long-term result of Stalinist national politics. The republics state lines have been intentionally created in a such way to divide people of the same ethnicity (e.g. Ossetians) and "unite" peoples whit long-term animosities (e.g. Karachaevtsy and Cherkessy).Biophys (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Fun fact btw, Stalin's ethnicy is unsure, so one can't say he's either Georgian, or Georgian-born (He's Soviet born). There's a lot of indications that Stalin was at least part Ossetian. Check some books about it. (concerning that discussion you linked) - Pieter_v (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Russia.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 02:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Hey there. One of the parties to this mediation is presently on holiday. So we'll proceed when he gets back. Thanks. —Sean Whitton / 10:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's back. Would you kindly e-mail me an e-mail address for you; I much prefer to mediate over e-mail unless you have any objections. My address is sean //AT\\ silentflame //DOT\\ com - thanks. —Sean Whitton / 10:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please use "E-mail this user" wikipedia option. I stated my position here. I will support any agreement made by other sides. If you want me to make a compromise version of the text, I would prefer to make it openly in WP.Biophys (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article about war reporting

Hallo. I'm a journalist writing for Austrian Newspaper "Falter". I'm working on a story about war reporting on Wikipedia (focused on South Ossetia War). I would like to ask you a few questions via email about this subject (concerning neutrality and propaganda on Wikipedia). I would be really pleased, if you agreed to answer my questions. If you are interested just send me a message via my Wikipedia profile Best regards, Wueddens (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please. You are very welcome to ask. Please respect my anonymity in WP however. Please use "E-mail this user" option here. I would prefer to reply at your WP talk page unless this is something really private. Biophys (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your questions:

What is your motivation to write articles on Wikipedia?

First, I wanted to write about certain physics/chemistry/biology subjects I am familiar with (you can look at the beginning of my edit history). Then, I switched to Russian history and politics. I was brainwashed in the former Soviet Union and wanted to clear up my mind. One can learn a lot here, and your efforts are usually not wasted - they remain in the internet, available for everyone. I also liked the idea of internet encyclopedia, with a lot of internal links which explain everything a reader needs to know about. Please also see here, I mostly agree with him,except that wikipedia still also works as a social networking site, which is one of the attractions, but also a major trouble. Later on, the editing here becomes an addiction, so it is very difficult to stop.Biophys (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you interested in the South Ossetian War?

No, I am not so interested in the South Ossetian War. I simply could not see how certain users insert misinformation there.Biophys (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think Wikipedia could be misused for propaganda by governmental organisations?

This depends which governments you are talking about. Just looking at the articles CIA, Lynching in the United States and Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, I can tell: this is not the work of US government. All scandals, crimes, and controversies, real or imaginable are collected there and in many other articles. As about other governments, I am not so sure. For example, I believe that many Russian government-related articles are not "misused" but simply owned by a group of users. Two examples of such articles are Russia and Putin. No one can insert any serious criticism there. Everything will be immediately deleted, no matter how well it was sourced. I have absolutely no proof if anyone was paid by the Russian government. I know however that Russian government spent billions to create a good image of Russia, and they would be fools not to do something in wikipedia. By the way, a majority of articles on Russian history in wikipedia represent position of the Soviet historiography and would be gladly approved by the Soviet Glavlit. This is my personal opinion. Biophys (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that Wikipedia is an adequate platform for war reporting?

It can be used as a platform for war reporting, but it does not replace regular reporting in newspapers. This is an encyclopedia. It is based on the regular reporting and other outside publications.Biophys (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are the advantages of Wikipedia compared to traditional news platforms like bbc.co.uk?

First and major advantage is ability to provide a lot of internal links. For example the South Ossetian War is linked to articles about Kokoity, Putin, Ossetians, Georgia, and so on. That is why electronic encyclopedia is needed. Second advantage is providing brief review articles written at a popular science/history level or slightly above (one can not find this in regular newspaper reports). Third advantage is the nature of wikipedia as an efficient electronic collaboration tool. By combining efforts of many people, it can create something that is not possible find in any other places. This is usually happens when at least one participant has a unique knowledge of the subject (if you want, I can give you some examples). Forth advantage: the content is freely reusable - no copyright problems.Biophys (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever been involved involved in an edit war? If so, why?

Yes, I did, but only in political articles. Editing natural science subjects is a very different experience: students and teachers are usually polite and nice, and they used to follow certain behavior standards which are widely accepted in the scientific community. They do not cheat and lie. A vast majority of wikipedians who edit "politics" area are also very reasonable people and ready to negotiate the disagreements. However, there are a few people who consider WP as a battleground and who are strongly influenced by different types of propaganda. Then, they simply do not want use scholarly sources in the articles, and I can not productively negotiate with them. As the most recent example, look at this article. I am trying to explain him at the talk page that statements in the article are supported by sources. I cite a Russian scholarly book that provides text of original Russian documents; I provide original Russian citation (this user is apparently a Russian); I cite an excellent Western scholarly book written by best European historians. Still, he simply reverts my edits. Note that he reverts the text to my own older version, slightly modified by him. I actually took into account the criticism of this user and the notes of another user (see talk page), but he still reverts everything back. There is a WP:Dispute resolution, but I know from my past experience that such mechanisms are not very helpful for dealing with such users, and my time is limited. This is Plague of wikipedia, please see User:Moreschi/The Plague. Biophys (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

THANKS for keeping a check on colfer's repeated obsession to prevent my edits (thrice done without valid explanation!!)..shoud we move this part to 'internation reactions article'/ '..condemning russia' article (links given in "interntl. rctn"section) after giving a one/ two line summary in the present aricle?Cityvalyu (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No way. This is the only independent estimate of the civilian casualties, it should stay and be given more weight. Colchicum (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Colchicum. A lot of propaganda is going on. I think we should remove all highly biased and unreliable at the time of war statements of combatant's media (Russian, Georgian, and Ossetian) with regard to human rights violations, and only use statements by international human rights organizations and most reputable media outlets like New York Times. Unfortunately, I will be unavailable during next few days.Biophys (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that HRW is a good source. I removed some HRW material by mistake when reverting Cityvalyu (talk · contribs). Please see Talk:2008 South Ossetia war#Human Rights Watch segregation. I explained that "there is no precedent to organize by source" in my first edit summary, by the way. -Colfer2 (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colfer2, you made seven "Undids" yesterday in this article, as one can see from your edit history. As about your "ideological objectives", they are clear from : this edit. Your involvenet is not constructive, to tell this politely.Biophys (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Illarionov. Biophys (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources

“We burned these houses. We want to make sure that they [the Georgians] can’t come back, because if they do come back, this will be a Georgian enclave again and this should not happen.” The officer went on to describe events during the fighting, including the execution of a Georgian armed man...[10]

Regarding reporting threat

RE "You violated WP:3RR rule in article 2008 South Ossetia War. Please revert yourself back or you may be reported. Thanks," The reverts in question are already awaiting administrator action, requested by Elysander. I've commented each of the reverts in discussion addressing Elysander's comments, while Elysander continued to vandalize the page. Feel free to report the issue if you feel it is necessary to address the two separately, but I feel the 3RR is tied to the other issued already raised. Anatoly.bourov (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was not a "threat" but a good faith advice (I was also blocked in the past). The choice was yours.Biophys (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work

I don't know how you can handle all the crap you get on wikipedia. Keep up the good work. Ostap 05:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can not handle the crap.Biophys (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you appear to handle it quite well. I have never seen you lose your composure on wikipedia. Ostap 00:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I think you might be dealing with a sockpuppet above. Ostap 00:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet of whom do you think?Biophys (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kostan1 is the latest of User:M.V.E.i.. The evidence is both striking and I'd say quite conclusive, indeed it is posted all over this wiki. Ostap 02:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Do you mean similar English errors and his habit to post all his "achievements" at his user page?Biophys (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is far more obvious than that. Take for instance, his first edit. this, those who have experience with him know about this.

He edits the same articles, the same subjects, has the same strong POV, and perhaps most obviously of all has all the same spelling errors. He seemed to be doing better with that early on.

And of course this pretty much makes it certain: Kostan1 "By grand-grandfather was a peasent executed by the NKVD in 1930 because of a lie of his neighbour about "anti-Soviet agitation"

MVEi. "Me whose grand-grand-father was a peasent killed in 1930 by the Cheka/NKVD for "anti-soviet agitation" (and that was alie invented by neighbours " Even his family history is the same. I tried to ignore the fact that he has returned (I am starting to feel bad for him and he is not revert warring with me at least) but if he is giving you trouble you might want to report him. Ostap 03:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ostap. I have blocked him Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I didn't really want to get him blocked. He seemed to have acted better, even learned from his past blocks. But I guess others have had more experience with him. Ostap 03:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex was right. He must be blocked per WP policies.Biophys (talk) 03:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what about User:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog? He has very similar pattern of edits as indef-blocked User:HanzoHattori (Chechnya, Caucasus, My Lai events, Ninja in popular culture, Iraq) as anyone can see - [11], [12]. Alæxis_¿question? 09:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep it is him, I have blocked Captain as well. I proposed on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Productive_socks to change the bans into the community restrictions. Please contribute Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see a checkuser report, but the patterns are indeed very similar. I am sure you both knew that the patterns are similar for a long time ago, but decided to react only now for whatever reason...Biophys (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, crap! Did I start this?! Ostap 16:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not you. Please see my last messages at talk pages.Biophys (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help

[13] --Koretek (talk) 12:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Sorry, but I can not be involved here. You have the same rights as anyone else. Please go ahead and do whatever you want to do.Biophys (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer

Yes, I knew about the editing style similarity for a few days. Since I'm not a big fan of indef blocks I did not notify any admins about it but only warned him a couple of times about his incivilty (at the Talk:2008 South Ossetia War) but this hasn't achieved anything, imho.

I've posted my message at your talk because of what I had seen there, in the very section I've posted to. It reminded me that there existed another user with the same problems. Best regards. Alæxis_¿question? 17:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Coren ^(talk) 22:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrative articles

"The absolute rejection of all scholarship not coming from authors of the same nationality that our nationalist is whitewashing." and "Removing references to peer-reviewed books by reputable academics in favor of random blogcrap off the internet". [14]

[15],

Biophys (talk) 02:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mercenaries discussion

Yesterday you took part in the mercenaries discussion. The user (Tananka) who insisted on the addition of this material was blocked for 3rr, but the discussion continues here. Would you explain to him there why these allegations should not appear in the infobox? I am getting tired of hearing the same arguments over and over. I don't know what else to say. Thanks, Ostap 04:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you and me should not discuss this matter at the user talk page. Content questions should be discussed at article talk pages.Biophys (talk) 05:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Great Game AfD

I think you should know one of the editors who argued so vigorously against the New Cold War article is now trying to do the same thing the New Great Game on AfD--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russian apartment bombings.

Hi. I am probably jumping the gun, here, so apologies if you are actually doing it as I write. That paragraph you are moving hasn't been put back in yet. Mariya - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 00:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought everyone, including you, agree that last paragraph of introduction should be moved elsewhere. Right? So, I moved this paragraph.Biophys (talk) 00:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To where? I thought you were going to put it somewhere further down in the article. Sorry if that is what you did, and I'm just too daft to notice. Mariya - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

" Prospects for future investigation" of course. Please see the diff.Biophys (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. That's cleared that up. I am daft. I need a longer screen!! I saw the -390 count, assumed you had cut the para, and were going to paste it back in later. I wondered why you didn't do it in one edit. Very sorry. I must learn not to use the assume word (except when assuming Good Faith, of course). Mariya - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC) p.s. you can delete this whole section to hide my shame, if you want ;) Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am watching with interest your current contributions. Mariya - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC) there appears to be a transcription error in the second para. please clarify.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's simply move somewhere. I do not like some of the changes but respect opinion of Colchicum. If he said: "this is not good", something must be improved. I finished this series of changes for now. Need more work later.Biophys (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right. This version is at least better than what was there before. Well done. However, the second paragraph is not the same as that agreed on the talk page. Mariya - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 01:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC). And it's not in Putin's statement. Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 01:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 01:18, 1 September 2008 edit Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk \| contribs) 704 edits →Russian apartment bombings.: Well Done. however 2nd para is different from Colchicum. ← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:21, 1 September 2008 edit undo Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk \| contribs) 704 edits →Russian apartment bombings.: not putin's statement Next edit →
Line 364:		Line 364:

	:Let's simply move somewhere. I do not like some of the changes but respect opinion of Colchicum. If he said: "this is not good", something must be improved. I finished this series of changes for now. Need more work later.[[User:Biophys\|Biophys]] ([[User talk:Biophys#top\|talk]]) 01:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)		:Let's simply move somewhere. I do not like some of the changes but respect opinion of Colchicum. If he said: "this is not good", something must be improved. I finished this series of changes for now. Need more work later.[[User:Biophys\|Biophys]] ([[User talk:Biophys#top\|talk]]) 01:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
	::You are quite right. This version is at least better than what was there before. Well done. However, the second paragraph is not the same as that agreed on the talk page. Mariya - x - [[User:Mariya Oktyabrskaya\|Mariya Oktyabrskaya]] ([[User talk:Mariya Oktyabrskaya\|talk]]) 01:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)		::You are quite right. This version is at least better than what was there before. Well done. However, the second paragraph is not the same as that agreed on the talk page. Mariya - x - [[User:Mariya Oktyabrskaya\|Mariya Oktyabrskaya]] ([[User talk:Mariya Oktyabrskaya\|talk]]) 01:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC). And it's not in Putin's statement. [[User:Mariya Oktyabrskaya\|Mariya Oktyabrskaya]] ([[User talk:Mariya Oktyabrskaya\|talk]]) 01:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)