User talk:Beenhj

Graph proposal

The proposal is mine, the graph is not. I asked for a graph, someone else made one. If you actually look at the posts I made, I have many of the same concerns as you. Esn 21:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Your assertion that only English sources must be used on the English wikipedia is not true. Quoting WP:Sources:

"Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal calibre. However, do give references in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it."

Esn 00:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Josef Stalin

Regarding this paragraph which you have re-added twice:

"Until the last moment, Stalin had sought to avoid any obvious defensive preparation which might provoke German attack, in the hope of buying time to modernize and strengthen his military forces, even after the attack commenced. A myth is that Stalin appeared unwilling to accept the fact and, according to some historians, was too stunned to react appropriately for a number of days. And this myth is dispelled by people who have looked into the Soviet Archives after the fall of the Soviet Union. Both Richard Overy [14] and Simon Sebag Montefiore [15] have showed that he held at least 8 major meetings the same day as the invasion. Stalin ignored much intelligence warning of a German attack.[17]"

The paragraph is poorly written and the content is contained elsewehre in the article. It adds nothing to the article while making it longer and harder to read. Can you please visit and comment in the relevent talk section before re-adding it? Thanks! --C33 03:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That is not what was added to the text and proves that you did not read the paragraph perhaps reading it will help, perhaps not.

Stalin had ignored numerous intelligence warnings of a German attack.[1]. He also sought to avoid any obvious defensive preparation which might provoke a German attack, in the hope of buying time to modernize and strengthen his military forces. A myth is that Stalin appeared unwilling to accept the fact and, according to some historians, was too stunned to react appropriately for a number of days. And this myth is dispelled by people who have looked into the Soviet Archives after the fall of the Soviet Union. Both Richard Overy and Simon Sebag Montefiore have showed that he held at least 8 major meetings the same day as the invasion.

Beenhj 12:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, that's an improvement. Perhaps you should read the entire WWII section in the article and consider how your edits have affected the article. You're basically duplicating existing information. I'll summarize for you:

Here is what you have been adding:

"Stalin had ignored numerous intelligence warnings of a German attack.[2]. He also sought to avoid any obvious defensive preparation which might provoke a German attack, in the hope of buying time to modernize and strengthen his military forces. A myth is that Stalin appeared unwilling to accept the fact and, according to some historians, was too stunned to react appropriately for a number of days. And this myth is dispelled by people who have looked into the Soviet Archives after the fall of the Soviet Union. Both Richard Overy and Simon Sebag Montefiore have showed that he held at least 8 major meetings the same day as the invasion."

Please compare that to what is already in the article two paragraphs later:

"Even though Stalin received intelligence warnings of a German attack[21], he sought to avoid any obvious defensive preparation which might further provoke the Germans, in the hope of buying time to modernize and strengthen his military forces. In the initial hours after the German attack commenced, Stalin hesitated, wanting to ensure that the German attack was sanctioned by Hitler, rather than the unauthorized action of a rogue general.[25]"

The only content difference is that the latter paragraph doesn't contain the UNCITED myth and explains why Stalin hesitated. If you want to include your version, you need to remove the existing paragraph, as well as provide a citation for the original "myth". Stylistically, I believe the existing paragraph is more concise, provides more information as it explains why Stalin appeared to hesitate, and fits within the flow of the article better in its current location, but I realize that is opinion. If you insist on adding content, PLEASE make sure that it isn't repeating content that already exists in the article. It's a blight on the article to have both in there. This article concerns one of the most prominent figures of the 20th century and deserves better treatment than to have information repeated every other paragraph.

--C33 01:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Myths

You said,

"Some myths have become facts over the period of time and that is why you need to prove them wrong. I have no clue about the Origin of the myth just that it is cemented into the public minds and that is why it needs to be proven wrong."

That may or may not be the case, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that requires, notable, cited material. It is not an arena for proving things wright or wrong. There are also various myths that Stalin is Homosexual and Jewish, but they don't appear in the article either. Without a citation, the myth doesn't belong.

You also said,

"Also one needs to mention that he did not make any obvious defensive preparation which might provoke a German attack, in the hope of buying time to modernize and strengthen his military forces."

That is already mentioned clearly in the article, which is also quoted above for your convenience.

--C33 00:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)