User talk:Boris Novikov

CONTINUATION WAR

Anyone can see that I am just about the only one who really has been discussing the edits on the Continuation War talk page (with the exception of user Whiskey, a little bit) - for instance you have not.

I have brought up numerous sources and citations, asking the opponent - you - to do the same, to no prevail. Would you please also use the talk page, before doing your reverts. We'd like to see the reasoning for your removal of well sourced and true material.

Your version of the 'aims' section of the Continuation War article has waited for the "citation needed" to be filled for a long time. Please honor that request, if you insist on reverting to your claim. Your claim of "consensus" there is untrue, and therefore must be removed. Boris Novikov (talk) 02:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Please don't make controversial edits when only you agree with them and don't disregard what has been dsicussed by other users. You are misusing sources and claiming sources to be academic and reliable when they are not. Also when discussing on the talk page don't add long sections which are full of irrelevant, opinionated, and repeating statements; make it easier for people to follow what you want to say. -YMB29 (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

User YMB29, please understand that what might seem controversial to you, is not controversial to the experts reporting the findings in question. Additionally, multiple sources have been provided for several pieces of the information contributed.

Despite of requests, you have refused to answer which source do you find misused. Perhaps there is something that you had not understood. One could not possibly answer to your accusation, unless you are specific.

A few of the authors used as a source have also been used by other Wikipedia contributors in connection to this article and other related articles. Manninen - for instance - has been referred to as a source by at least the users Posse72 and Whiskey, and the use of him as a source has been backed up by user Illythr.

All of the sources given - the Finnish, Soviet/Russian and others - are widely used as sources in the related historiography.

Please take the rest of my answer under the following headlines: Boris Novikov (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

WHAT PART OF PLATONOV'S STATEMENT ISN'T "CLEAR", USER YMB29 ? A PLENTY OF SOURCES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED

(1.) General S.P. Platonov explains that the Soviets "failed" and that the Finns "repulsed all the attacks of" the Soviet troops. What does it mean to you - a Soviet victory ?

What is not "clear" about that statement to you ? How could that statement possibly be misinterpreted ?

The Soviet General's statement is exactly the kind of proof that we need. (2.) The Finnish General of Infantry Adolf Ehrnrooth who fought in the area, is another proof. (3.) The President of Finland Mauno Koivisto who fought in Ilomantsi is yet another proof (although he hasn't been used as a source for the Finnish defensive victory in the article as of yet). (4.) The findings of all the historians given are used as further proof.

What more do you want ? We have provided multiple sources in normal Wikipedia way.

Where is your proof/source which contradicts any of the information given by all these leaders and historians ? If no contradicting sources can be provided, (5.) that is yet another proof that the information is correct. Thus, please do not remove the correct info.

Please take the rest of my answer further down. Boris Novikov (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"The repeated offensive attempts by the Soviet Forces failed ... enemy succeeded ... in repulsing all the attacks of our troops ... the right flank of the Leningrad front failed to carry out the tasks assigned to them"

Does that translate to you as a Soviet victory in the time period referred to, when the determining battles were fought ? Or, do you call a Soviet victory the final battle in Ilomantsi, which happened after the time period in question ?

In Ilomantsi, two more Soviet divisions were decimated, as the Soviets were pushed back. How would that help to change Platonov's above-given statement to a Soviet victory ?

Again, please be specific - which source in your view has been "misused" ?

Is there any particular reason why you are not providing a single source of your own for your views/reverts/counter claims ? Is it because no support at all is available in historiography for your claims ?

Please take the rest of my answer below. Boris Novikov (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Are the Soviet leaders used "unreliable", user YMB29 ? Just in case, a large number of western historians has been included

Your claim that only I "agree" with the Continuation War edits in question is wrong, of course. Accordingly, highly regarded known historians have been provided to back up each piece of information, and more can be added.

Once again: You must accept the appropriately sourced information, user YMB29, unless you can provide sources of your own which would contradict the sourced information given.

The "repeating" of some information was done because of you, user YMB29, as you appear to ignore what is discussed and proved in detail by multiple sources already. Others seem to become frustrated for having to repeat each point to you over and over again:

User Wanderer602 to you: "please try even acting like you would have read my comments".

Thus - for example -, we needed to repeat to you the information relating to the statement by the Soviet Marshal Zhukov, as your claim fully contradicts the statements given by him.

Do you see the using of the Soviet/Russian sources - such as the memoirs of Marshal Zhukov or General Platonov - as inappropriate ?

Are the statements of these high ranking Soviet military leaders falsified in the Soviet publications in your view - or have these leaders simply lied ? Do you know of a statement by another Soviet leader which contradicts the statements in question ?

Are the Soviet military leaders too "unreliable" to be used as sources in your view ? How about Marshal Konev, or Stalin himself ? How about Isakov or Voroshilov ? Is every single one of these high Soviet military and/or political leaders "unreliable" in your view ?

How about the Soviet President Nikita Khrushchev and his memoirs ?

In his memoirs, President Khrushchev tells that the Soviet leaders lied to the Soviet people. Thus - in the case of this article -, I have chosen to use a number of western experts on this field as sources, in addition to the Soviet sources.

Which source in your view is reliable, user YMB29 ? Can you name one please ? Can you please provide the name of a book by a credited and known historian and the related page numbers and exact quotes which contradict the information that you keep reverting ?

Or is it only you - no known historian - that disagrees with all the sources given ? Which source used so far is "unreliable" in your view ? Boris Novikov (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

User YMB29: By continuing to remove appropriate sources, you are participating in vandalism

Please provide sources of your own, rather than simply deleting properly sourced information contributed by others. So far, I haven't seen you providing a single source (which one ?).

All the sources in question are by known and credited historians. These historians have been properly introduced on the discussion page, and Wikipedia pages and links for the authors and sources in question have been provided on the article page and/or the discussion page.

The names of the well known books used as sources are given, and the related page numbers are provided. Exact quotes from the books are provided as well. More sources can be added per request.

A number of the authors and books used as sources have been used widely as sources in this article and other related articles by other Wikipedia users as well. The Soviet/Russian books referred to should be available in the public library near you.

The use of Ohto Manninen, PhD, as a source has been supported by such active Wikipedia users on this article as Posse72, Whiskey and Illythr. Professor Mauno Jokipii is also widely used as a source in connection to the Finnish-Soviet wars, and all of the sources used are highly regarded experts on the topics they have written about.

Manninen's extensive research work on the related Soviet documents is highly valued in the academic world. A picture of a Soviet war plan can be added to the Continuation War article, per request.

If you believe that - in addition to you - any known historian claims the Soviet war plans introduced by Manninen to be controversial or the documents used not to be authentic, please bring forth such a publication for our review. Please make sure to include the page number and the related quote.

Simply for you to claim that something is controversial, is not the Wikipedia way to proceed, as this is not about your or my personal views.

Your views such as the one about Finland having "occupied" Åland - a territory which is a part of Finland - is not worth debating about in this forum, unless you provide an appropriate source from historiography to support your points (like you have been provided for each point given).

Thank you for understanding, user YMB29. Boris Novikov (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)