Talk:Battle of Tali–Ihantala

message: For editors who are interested, there is an RfC over at Talk:Continuation War about which name we should use for the town of Vyborg/Viipuri during World War II. This will affect this article, as well as quite a others on the Finnish/Soviet conflict. Some of the other articles affected include Winter War Continuation War, Battle of Tienhaara, Battle of Vyborg Bay (1944), Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive, and Baltic Sea campaigns (1939–1945). If you could comment, it would be very much appreciated. The RfC thread can be found here. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viipuri/Vyborg naming RfC 

message: This man Nikolai Baryshnikov seems to be carrying out some sort of "crusade" on this mather http://www.ruslania.com/language-8/entity-1/context-577/author-8453.html
It is good that different view points are presented but maybe it should stand something about how how this may cause to be a little biased?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.183.94 (talk) 06:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Baryshnikov represents a new phase of Russian propaganda against Finland - nothing else.Nor1980 (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nikolai Baryshnikov? 

message: "These authors further contend that substantial German aid is not mentioned or is only hinted at.[37]" 
I wonder where they got this from. Because it was one of the main points in our schoolbooks that were written back in 90's and I have seen it stressed in as very important point in every documentary (which makes me assume source materials also state that) I have watched about the battle. 195.148.29.104 (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last sentence of the Impact section 

message: In reading through this article, I came several times across an historian named Nikolai Baryshnikov. The article never explains who he is, what credentials he has, or why we should put stock in his opinion on this battle, but he clearly has an anti-Finnish axe to grind. I see his inclusion in this article has been debated on here before, but I feel compelled to raise questions about his reputability. Specifically, if one looks at the two books of his that are cited in the bibliography, one of them is published by the "Johan Beckman Institute". If one wikis Johan Beckman, one is redirected to an article on "Johan Bäckman", a Finn who's something of a celebrity in Russia for his pro-Russian views. Among his positions, he is pro-Putin, he insists that Estonia doesn't exist as a nation, he denies that the Soviet occupation of Estonia constituted an occupation (and claims that such an assertion is racist), he supports the Russian annexation of the Crimea, and he claims that Anna Politkovskaya was likely either murdered by anti-Putin figures trying to make Putin look bad or that she put out a hit on herself (!), etc, etc.
My point in holding forth on Johan Bäckman like this is that the Johan Beckman [sic] Institute which he established in St. Petersburg in 2000 is hardly a reputable scholarly publisher. If this is where Baryshnikov has to go to publish his books, are his books really reliable sources? I seriously doubt it.
Now, I'm aware that Finland in WWII is a controversial subject and it's inevitable and necessary that different opinions will be aired on the subject and incorporated into the article. That said, the sources drawn upon should still be reputable, scholarly sources and I think you would be hard pressed to claim that something published by Johan Bäckman's press was reputable and scholarly. So I propose a reexamination of the inclusion of Baryshnikov's material in this article, with the ultimate goal (on my part, anyway) of excising it if we can reach that consensus. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support scrapping the paragraph altogether.65.209.62.115 (talk) 04:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviving the vexed question of Nikolai Baryshnikov.