Talk:Douglas Tottle

message: Well maybe not a stub. but definitely a collecton of curses. No constructive discussion of what's correct, what's wrong in his works. 
If you read this article, honestly, can you answer these two questions essential in any research? Those who say he's wrong, because he's a bastard, can discuss something else. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a venue for original research, so we cannot make up stuff that is not found in reliable sources. We can only state what others have said about Tottle's work in published sources. Unless you can find an alternative view of Tottle's work in reliable sources, I don't know what your POV issue is here. Seems to me it is more of a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Martintg (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hehe. This just tells that some editors collected curses, not arguments. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

text:  Moreover, I can decribe the procedure of making SYN and OR. They open google.book. Type "Douglas Tottle is a bastard". Find books. Don't bother to read them. Then just include links into article. Soviet War Memorial was a brilliant example, haha. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can not provide an alternate viewpoint of Tottle's work in published sources to balance the article, then this is not a POV dispute, and the tag will be removed. Martintg (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Weeeellll, do you understand, that I included a tag, because it is currently indeed POV? Any editor is welcome to improve the article. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you cannot even cite an alternate viewpoint of Tottle's work, how do you know the article is POV? WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT? Martintg (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I vaguely remember, exactly the same thing happened initially at Treptower Park. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No alternate viewpoint on Tottle's work then? Martintg (talk) 01:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Inclusion of POV tag doesn't imply that I must immediately go and find whatever you want or don't want. These are basics. I presented my arguments, you expressed your personal opinion. There is no reason to continue this pointless talk. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not presented any arguments at all. A POV tag implies there are other viewpoints not reflected in the article. You are unable to articulate what that other view point may be when challenged. In the absence of concrete discussion regarding what alternate points of view need to be expressed in the article, the conclusion must be that this tagging is purely disruptive. Martintg (talk) 01:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: It certainly seems easier to find critics of Tottle, than it is to find defenders. In order to balance out the lead, we need to present the other side. I've tried to provide a positive assessment, but I'd much rather prefer a scholarly, rather than a political source. Anyone able to find one? —Zalktis (talk) 07:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why to balance something unbalanced? Xx236 (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defenders of Tottle 

message: Is the Schmaltz source a WP:RS? It looks self-published to me. Or is is a reprint from another publication? —Zalktis (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: InfoUkes website (I quoted their Disclaimer in my edit summary) and a mailing list archive do not fulfil the criteria of WP:RS, either, in my opinion. Has Serbyn published his piece in a WP:RS that we can quote from instead? —Zalktis (talk) 08:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see now that the Serbyn piece is a reprint from The Ukrainian Canadian. This source should thus be quoted in the reference, even if the URL goes to InfoUkes. Use a ref template like Template:cite journal; it's easy!. —Zalktis (talk) 09:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Eric J. Schmaltz is Assistant Professor of History, Department of Social Sciences, Northwestern Oklahoma State University. He seems to be a widely published expert on ethnic issues of the former Soviet Union. The paper was published by the German Russian Heritage Society. They have a journal which is controlled by a publication committee and they hold conferences. They seem to be working in conjunction with North Dakota State University. Therefore the GRHS appears to be a scholarly society, so it doesn't appear to be a self published paper. Martintg (talk) 12:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schmaltz 

message: The book is of little value, doesn't deserve the place. How to write a book about Soviet Ukraine in  Canada without entering any archive or talking to a victim?Xx236 (talk) 13:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Much as I respect your point of view, XXx236, how can modern historians who are only privy to documentation that was not destroyed - and modern incredulity at how horrendous the Stalinist state, and have never spoken to escapees from what was Ukraine; the Polish recollection of trying to get supplies through to the starving at a heavily fortified army based at all transport routes from Poland into Ukraine. I don't know whose narrative is more truthful, the Russian and Chinese condoned versions after so much time for the KGB and NKVD to clean house. The truth has always be a political football, and expedient demographic groups go back have existed further back in time than when they were illustrated by Thucydides. To the victor/the power go the spoils. Apologies for using the talk page as a soap box, but I actually don't know where the truth lies. I know you're talking about Holodomor (trendy name - we grew up calling it the Great Famine like the rest of the Soviet Union - and democide gone mad after all of the horrors inflicted by empires had addled individuals minds in Eastern Europe rings loudly as an alternative bell. Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Douglas Tottle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041204224314/http://www.ioir.se/ukrfamine.htm to http://www.ioir.se/ukrfamine.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This putz denies Ukrainian collaboration with the Nazis, and has done so for decades, as noted by Simon Wiesenthal in the 1980s. The fact that he's so closely aligned with the "Ukrainian World Congress" which to this day denies Ukrainian involvement in the Holocaust should raise some serious red flags with any fair-minded person. I don't give a flying Christ what universities saw fit to pay him for his fascist lies, though it should be noted that the ref used here was not in fact an academic work, only an opinion piece. Not a reliable source. Period. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:952F:D8B:A097:F042 (talk) 02:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: any evidence for that? Genabab (talk) 09:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Serbyn