Two birds one stone  Dear  I have been quite content to leave Dyukov described as a historian Novosti the state news agency trots out to dispute Baltic lies about history One of several of my edits deleted each replaced by a more strident defense of Dyukovs credentials Given Dyukovs command of basic facts is worse than the factual improprieties he alleges in the film he already commands far too much space devoted to his views However since Englishspeaking viewersto whom this encyclopedia is targetedget to see Dyukov quite often on Russia Today Novostis version of CNN or the BBC News Im supportive of leaving his commentary in other editors have mass deleted it Dyukovs spokesmanship as a historian specializing in Soviet history and in debunking in particular Baltic myths he uses stronger words in his Novosti interviews is notable whether I like it or not However his POV and role in the official Russian not independent media must remain in the article for his presence in the article to be understood and defended    As for my principles they are to representing the parties and their relationships to their establishments accurately Its obviously simpler to delete undiscussed POV anonymous IP edits as vandalism if they have no reasonable basis in actuality But whether you register or not whether you choose to reveal yourself or not any edit that portrays Dyukov as a reputable historian and ignores his incestuous relationship with the Russian state media agency will continue to be deleted as totally POV    Your tone of questions communicates to me a wish to be blunt Ill be happy to oblige Writing that Dyukov is a professional historian here and that he isnt should be discussed elsewhere amounts to nothing but asking the editors here to ignore facts and to lie under the pretext of NPOV