Talk:Yuri Zhukov (historian)

Notability

I placed a notability tag because there are no publications about him right now. One reference is a link to place of his work. Another reference is an interview he is giving to a correspondent of newspaper. My very best wishes (talk) 05:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

There was no improvement since 2012. There are actually a few sources about this person, although they are probably insufficient to establish his notability. Given that the article has no value in present state, I would rather make it a redirect. My very best wishes (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

You redirected to neo-Stalinism. What a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usr lI (talk • contribs) 22:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

This man is a notorious Neo-Stalinist [1]. Is he sufficiently notable to have a page about him? I do not think so, but you are very welcome to prove me wrong by providing more sources and improving this page. So far no one cared during four last years, which is also a clear indication that he is not notable. My very best wishes (talk) 03:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

BLP

Despite Zhukov's deplorable beliefs, this remains a WP:BLP. Therefore, we should attribute claims, and make sure that whatever we write is truly supported by sources used. For instance, most of the sources used to maintain that Zhukov blamed the purge upon the Jews instead presented a somewhat different argument: Zhukov argued that Stalin saved lives by removing more radical opponents.

It is possible to describe this kind of sad scholarship accurately and let readers come to their conclusions. It's also important that we don't replicate the hackwork of bad historians while describing them. -Darouet (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Not only practically all sources describe him as a supporter/apologist of Stalin, but Zhukov proudly calls himself a "Stalinist" (he even authored a book "Handbook of Stalinist"). Please realize that a lot of people in Russia are proud to consider themselves Stalinists. My very best wishes (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

There are even some in the States who call themselves Stalinists! I had a number as professors, who shall remain unnamed.

I agree with most of your changes, but note that these edits don't quite reproduce Zhukov's arguments. I'm expanding them slightly so that it's clear what he has argued (according to the source). -Darouet (talk) 03:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, this can be expanded more.My very best wishes (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Quotation (Getty and Zhukov)

• @Guccisamsclub. Speaking of this edit (edit summary). No, that is precisely what quoted source by Oleg Khlevniuk tells"Historical forgerie". It tells (here is Russian original, since you know Russian)

Заимствования просталинского ревизионизма

По сравнению с примитивными фальсификациями, которые достаточно легко определяются образованным читателем, большую угрозу представляет определенная маргинализация профессиональных историков, использование ими методов и приемов, недопустимых в науке. Важным примером этого может служить концепция «ревизионистов» по поводу террора 1930-х годов и роли в нем Сталина. Концепцию эту начали выдвигать западные историки левого направления тридцать лет назад. Одним из наиболее активных ее защитников был и остается американский профессор Джон Арчибальд Гетти. В профессиональном сообществе историков эти построения не пользуются особым вниманием, они остались на периферии историографии и подвергаются критике.

Неожиданным образом много лет спустя они оказались востребованными в современной России. Московский историк Юрий Жуков взял предположения Гетти на вооружение и даже развил их. Западный ревизионизм причудливым образом оказался органичным для влиятельной сегодня тенденции ресталинизации, объявления Сталина непричастным к тем событиям, которые происходили во время его правления. Правда, современные ресталинизаторы, включая Юрия Жукова, почему-то стесняются упоминать о том, что отцами-основателями их теорий являются американские ревизионисты. Это факт, между прочим, также является нарушением научных правил, которые предусматривают ссылки на предшественников.

My very best wishes (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• The edit: Being described as a follower of American revisionist historian, Arch Getty,[4] Zhukov published several books that glorify Stalin, such as "Renaissance of Stalin" and "Handbook of Stalinist".[5]

This "follower" thing is getting old—at least try to think of some other words. First came the "followers" of "Duranty and Tottle", now we find the "followers" of Mark Tauger and Arch Getty. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, and you seem to have a knack for including some pretty ridiculous and crude material. Fact is, many but not all of your attacks against Getty were removed from J. Arch Getty as undue sensationalism, having little to do with what Getty actually wrote (with the possible exception of a few questionable theses from the 1980's) or what most scholars think of his work. Trying to include these attacks outside the main article is simply tendentious coatracking. If such attacks are included at all, they should be included in the relevant article where they can be given appropriate weight, and they should invariably come from notable sources that discuss Getty at length (like Conquest). Your source mentions Getty only twice : the first bit says that Getty and the revisionists are allegedly wrong in diminishing the role of Stalin; the second bit says that Zhukov took some of Getty's research and ran with it. Big deal. Your insinuation that both Getty and Zhukov share a fondness for Stalin is a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, and your sourcing for it is utterly inadequate. Making such a weakly-supported insinuation about a living person is WP:LIBEL. If you still want this text, we'll have to ask what the editors watching J. Arch Getty think, and the chance of them agreeing with you on this issue is pretty slim. Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

and how about not following my edits to revert. This is one in long line of baseless aspersions from your. It's simply projection, if you want my opinion. I took a look at this article after I brought up Yuri Zhukov on Talk:Holodomor denial#Modern Denial in Russia. I can't help it if I find garbage edits by you on every other FSU-related page. Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• That was correct summary of the source (making Google translation is not a problem). If you think it was not, then let's quote this source more directly. Google translation:

Borrowing Stalinist revisionism

Compare to the primitive falsifications which are quite easily identifined, a greater threat for an educated reader are fringe professional historians who use methods unacceptable in science. An important example of this is the "revisionist" concept of the terror of the 1930s including the role of Stalin in it. This concept was pushed by Western leftist historians thirty years ago. One of its most active defenders was and remains an American professor John Archibald Getty. The professional community of historians consider these views fringe. They remain on the periphery of historiography and are frequently criticized.

Surprisingly, many years later, they were in demand in today's Russia. Moscow historian Yuri Zhukov took Getty assumptions adopted and even developed them. Western revisionism oddly turned organic to influential trend today re-Stalinization, Stalin ads not privy to the events that took place during his reign. However, modern restalinizatory, including Yuri Zhukov, somehow embarrassed to mention the fact that the founding fathers of the theory is the American revisionists. It is a fact, incidentally, is also a violation of scientific norms, which require proper referencing to the predecessors.

My very best wishes (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

1. The first paragraph says Getty was part of the Western "revisionist" school of historians. It also says, in passing, that these revisionists disputed the precise role of Stalin in the purges, and that they were wrong. It mentions Getty's name as an example of this school. This info has no place in this article because it;s clear POV-COATRACKING.
2. The second paragraph says Zhukov took some of Getty's research and ran with it. It also says that Zhukov does not always properly attribute the revisionists he borrows from.What it boils down to is that Zhukov allegedly plagiarized somebody's research. Again, big fucking deal.
3. So that's all the source actually says. Here's what your source does not argue outright (because that would be an laughable smear): that Getty is a Stalin-lover akin to Zhukov. All your source does is try to imply something along those lines, using guilt by association and an inflammatory section heading ("Borrowing Stalinist revisionism"). Your edit simply takes this extremely slippery hint, and distills it down to a full-on smear, one that should be dismissed out of hand as patently nonsensical and libelous. Guccisamsclub (talk) 12:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
4. Supposedly, lack of proper referencing is a violation of scientific norms—but casually smearing your colleagues without evidence is the very essence of scientific integrity. Pure hypocrisy. Guccisamsclub (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I finally understand what this argument is about. @Guccisamsclub: your argument is that by comparing Zhukov (basically a far-right and probably racist figure) to Getty, we are slandering Getty and his work. @My very best wishes:, you're arguing that Zhukov has been described as following in the footsteps of Getty, per the source.

I don't agree with Guccisamsclub that a one-line reference to Getty, supported by sources, is an example of WP:COATRACK. If that were the case, any unwanted or inconvenient fact could be removed from any article, and this frequently happens in the eastern European wikipedia world, through nationalist editing. On the other hand, I do agree with Guccisamsclub that we are going out on a limb describing Zhukov as "a follower" of Getty. Khlevniuk writes that Zhukov "[adopted] Getty's assumptions [and] even developed them." The revisionist camp of historians is a very large one, is mostly left, and can't be held responsible for how far-right nationalist forces use them any more than geneticists can be blamed for "scientific" racists.

If the Khlevniuk link is to kept, and that's a big "if", it should be more accurately described and properly attributed, and a word about Khlevniuk's own politics might deserve mention. -Darouet (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oleg Khlevniuk is a reputable "mainstream" historian. The quotation of Khlevnuk is not a cherry-picked negative opinion because all other 3rd party sources about Zhukov tell that he is a fringe Stalinist writer. If anyone thinks this is not the case, please bring sources that tell something different. Yes, rephrasing is fine, but it should be done closer to the source. My very best wishes (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note MVBW that the issue isn't how we're treating Zhukov, it's how we're presenting Getty. -Darouet (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• You got it just about right, but I still think wishes' edit was coatracking, given the space of the article. If the edit was just saying that Zhukov allegedly borrowed some research from the Getty, it would have been a point hardly worth making in an article of this size. Zhukov uses plenty of sources, his apparent favourite being the authoritative Viktor Zemskov (who incidentally co-wrote some papers with Getty). So what? If you read that sentence as a whole, together with the cited source, it is clear that's not the whole point. The point was to single out Getty as a major influence on Zhukov's Stalinophilia, distilling the casual guilt by association smear contained in the source. I want to stress that calling someone pro-Stalin is not something to be done casually. But again, this brief article is certainly not the proper forum for any swipes at Getty, casual or otherwise. Either way it's coatracking, the only question is whether it's pov-coatracking with a blp-vio mixed in. Wishes has made it clear numerous times he thinks Getty is a fringe Stalinist and that all articles should reflect that opinion whenever possible. I've routinely seen him try to discredit various academic sources that he fancies deleting from some other page, using anything that will or won't stick . So to me, the nature of this cotracking is pretty obvious.
• Regarding, Khlevniuk's politics, there's not much to say—and saying anything about him here will probably just exacerbate the coatracking inherent in the original edit. Getty's is probably on the Left—but, if you'll excuse my digression, I don't get any left-wing vibes from his scholarship at all. His research mainly tries to drive home the point that everyone in the Bolshevik party was thoroughly complicit in the terror, with Stalin being the CEO of the criminal enterprise. That's 180 degrees apart from people like Isaac Deutscher, Stephen F. Cohen or Nikita Khrushchev, all of whom saw Stalinism as being a disgusting detour from the original revolutionary project. His analysis probably closer to Solzhenitsyn and Arthur Koestler (see Darkness at Noon) than to anyone on the Left. The fact Stalin-apologists often cite him is only indicative of their own stupidity. The fact that liberals and right-wingers see Getty as a "Stalinist" is indicative of same. Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• Source does not tell that Zhukov was a follower of Zemskov or Koestler. This is WP:OR. It tells that Zhukov was a follower of Arch Getty and belongs to his "revisionist" school. It also explains what the concept of the school was about ("Суть этой концепции ревизионистов и Жукова состоит в том, что Сталин не был жестоким, репрессивным диктатором, а, наоборот, являлся приверженцем демократии"). Obviously, this should be said. My very best wishes (talk) 16:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hold on @My very best wishes: the source doesn't say Zhukov is a follower of Getty, it says that Zhukov and others like him borrow from Getty and the historical revisionists. Those are two very different scenarios. -Darouet (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

To be more precise, he tells that Zhukov is a follower of the Western revisionist school exemplified by Getty, rather than a follower of Getty. My very best wishes (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• I was obviously not proposing that Zemskov or Koesler be added to the article—I am simply discussing the topic. The source does not say he was a "follower" (this is just a favorite word of yours): (1)"Юрий Жуков взял предположения Гетти на вооружение и даже развил их" and (2) "Заимствования просталинского ревизионизма." The first quote translates to "he took Getty's hypotheses and developed them"; the second part is just a section heading, which translates to "Borrowing from Pro-Stalin revisionism". What exactly he took from Getty or why Western revisionism is "pro-Stalin", is left unexplained. Now, had Khlevniuk actually explained how exactly Getty is "pro-Stalin", that would be a different story. But all you have is (2) a broad and baseless smear in some section heading (section headings are not stellar sourcing), and (1) the fact that Zhukov used Getty's research. Using this kind of sourcing to imply that Getty is "pro-Stalin" is textbook WP:LIBEL. Per WP:BLP you need infinitely better sourcing to call someone that.Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
• "Суть этой концепции ревизионистов и Жукова состоит в том, что Сталин не был жестоким, репрессивным диктатором, а, наоборот, являлся приверженцем демократии". Really, he can't be bothered to cite ONE revisionist before making that broad smear. Presumably, everyone from Sheila Fitzpatrick to Lynne Viola (a large group of respected and politically-moderate Western historians) was merely trying to prove that Stalin was a liberal democrat who wouldn't hurt a fly. That's the point of all their books, supposedly. Yeah right. Guccisamsclub (talk)

Translation: point and pathos

I reverted Paul Keller's use of "main pathos" to "main point," because I believed that "main pathos" is a meaningless phrase, whereas "main point" is a common phrase in English. However, after some research I have realized that Paul Keller is correct: "main pathos" really is a phrase, "hauptpathos" in German, and is analogous to something like "main characteristic" or "main purpose" in English. Thanks Paul for the correction. -Darouet (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

"Main pathos ... aimed at" is indeed far from standard comprehensible English—that's why you had to research the etymology. In Russian in means something like "emotional appeal/purpose", "mission"and "pretense", all rolled into one. It's doesn't necessarily evoke tragedy or sadness, as in English. You don't "aim" sadness at something. I don't really care, but I wonder if most readers will get what he's talking about. Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Guccisamsclub: whatever, I'm cool with either option. Volunteer Marek is saying that Paul Keller is a sock, so I'm going to move on from their various efforts here. -Darouet (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

It would be somewhat odd to discard a relatively new user just because "Volunteer Marek is saying that he is a sock". Now, if something doesn't collocate well in English then the way to improve the situation would be to turn the direct quote into a summary of the statement, removing the quotation marks. It simply doesn't look good to reword it like that [2] and give it for a translation. Nevertheless I am satisfied that the information has been kept in all recent versions, despite the disputed status of the article.Paul Keller (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

by executing them before

Trotsky was expelled. He was murdered after many years.Xx236 (talk) 09:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

This is just what sources say he's argued. I can go check soon to make sure we're getting things right. -Darouet (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I mean that a reader should be warned that the statement is unprecise.Xx236 (talk) 05:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

You'll need to find a reliable source that contests Zhukov's claim, if you want to do that. There are many reliable sources that impugn Zhukov's scholarship generally, but there may not be one that contests this specific point of his. The reason is that among non-Stalinist historians of the Soviet Union, the claim will appear absurd enough that no refutation is necessary. I'm happy if you can find a source, but it's not our job to shepherd readers. -Darouet (talk) 13:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Zhukov is on the edge of one spectrum of beliefs about the Soviet Union. If this was instead our article on the history of the Soviet Union, I would agree that we would need to make sure we accurately present the history. However, this is Zhukov's bio, and here our job is to accurately present Zhukov's beliefs with attribution. -Darouet (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Zhukov and anti-semitism

FWIW, the claim that Zhukov is an anti-Semite should probably not be made too lightly, although in context his remark is objectively anti-semitic. Timothy Snyder makes a very similar [claim], to say nothing of Solzhenytsyn and others who are usuaklly given the benefit of doubt. Snyder's remark is arguably not objectively anti-semitic, given its context. If it is true that national minorities were overrepresented in the NKVD on the eve of the Great Terror, then it is true. The point remains that you have to read into Zhukov's remark to gauge the intent behind it. And since Zhukov has made no explicitly anti-semitic statements to my knowledge, the anti-semitic intent behind this remark can be plausibly denied. Guccisamsclub (talk) 12:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)