Talk:Mikhail Meltyukhov

message: Is it possible his name can be spelled differently in English? There is only one publication reffering to him in print , and what's more suprising I found no hits on Google Scholar (I'd expect his publications would be at least reviewed few times - many journales review notable non-English publications).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This person has not yet been acknowledged by Western readers. Alternative spellings are Meltiukhov, Meltjukhov... but these don't hit either.--Constanz - Talk 06:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a very few german hits by meltjuchow.--Constanz - Talk 10:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Meltiukhov. the form with i in the middle is used.--Constanz - Talk 13:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling

message: No article on ru wiki?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there is no article about him in Russian Wiki. However, he is notable enough to be invited for interview to Radio Free Europe in Moscow.Biophys 04:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ru?

message: Last statement in this article is actually not supported. Please provide exact reference. To the contrary, Meltukov is usually criticized by Stalinist "historians" for supporting (at least partialy) Suvorov.Biophys 04:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call, Biophys -- the statement you deleted was unreadable, I just didn't know what to make of it.  Now at least it looks coherent.  But I agree, it would be good to clarify the relationship between Meltyukhov and Suvorov -- after all, they treat more-or-less the same subject, from a somewhat similar angle.  Is there a point of disagreement between them, and if so, what exactly? Turgidson 04:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suvorov

message: Oleg Nikolaevich Ken a Russian scholar( Ph.D., historian, scientific secretary of European University, St.-Petersbourg and other positions) made a review regarding the state of modern research on Poland's history in XX century in Russian historiography. He identifies key events and their treatment by Russian scholars. Melthyukhov's works are presented by him as reaction to modern reseach in Russia exposing Nazi-Soviet collaboration and soviet crimes. His work is according to Oleg Ken based on 'neo-imperialism', and used by Melthyukhov to conceal uncomfortable facts of Soviet history and to whitewash Soviet crimes. He notices that such line of history teaching is now becoming standard in Putin's Russia.
The review is titled " Co chcą wiedzieć o Polsce XX wieku współcześni historycy rosyjscy?" it was presented at Kraków conference of foreign historians researching Polish history and re-published in monthly publication called Arcana 5 (83) 2008 .
Oleg Ken published several works on Soviet history and relation to Poland. However he sadly will not contribute further to review of Polish-Russian history as he was found dead in his home apartment.--Molobo (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, can we stub article about Dr. Ken? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  04:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the article is certainly needed, go ahead. Very notable historian. Colchicum (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I think this is simply waste of time. This Meltyukhov proposed no interesting concepts, he made no discoveries. Would you read the History of Communist Party by Ponomarev? I would not. This man does not deserve a minute of our time.Biophys (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, there's an editor who would like to reference much of P-R history and relations based on MM's POV... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  04:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Oleg Nikolaevich Ken about Mikhail Meltyukhov in review of Russian historiography

message: This article seems to reflect one point of view or in other words, to give too much weight to arguments of one side. The criticism section - unduly bulky - relies heavily on just two reviews. Curiously enough, in Cheremushkin's article only one paragraph is dedicated to criticism of a book by Meltyukhov. Now, the author(s) of the criticism section here has/have for some reason regarded it necessary to copy this whole paragraph into the footnote here. The same trick has been done with the second source (Andrej Nowak). Nowak has written a critical paragraph on Meltyukhov and the whole paragraph has diligently been copied here. A false impression may arise that Meltyukhov's work is reviewed thoroughly by the two historians, but this is not the case. It seems to me that someone has just been furthering a cause of Melytukhov criticism here. 
We shouldn't discard works of a serious historian just for his biases in one book, considering that (as Biophys has emphasized) such views are mainstream in Russia. His other works have great merits.  --Miacek (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nowak has two works where he discusses MM works in more details, and the second of them devotes several pages to critique of his work.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  20:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would make sense to summarize those other sources in the criticism section. And I do suggest shortening the present section. --Miacek (talk) 07:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

text: As the Polish sources provided in the article also indicate, the objectivity and neutrality of Meltyukhov's newer publications seems to have constantly decreased after 2000. As pointed out in Russian forums, Meltyukhov's revised edition of Stalin's Missed Chance (2008) shows an alignment with official Soviet/Russian myths. What used to be 'Soviet aggression against its Western neighbours' in the year 2000 edition, has now been revised into 'enlargement of the territory of the USSR' etc. Such 'revising' goes even so far that he has replaced some Khruschov-era Soviet titles with similar titles from Stalin era, e.g. "Агрессия фашистской Германии в Европе. 1933-1939". М.,1963 has now been replaced with "Империалистическая агрессия против Польши в 1939 году", М., 1952 with citations concerned thus accordingly 'refined'. This is funny and sad at the same time... --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 10:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV?

message: For this article statement, attributed to Andrej Nowak: "In another example, he [i.e. Meltyukhov] claims that 60,000 Soviet POWs died in Polish camps during the Polish-Soviet war, and all Polish POWs were returned safely — ignoring the recent finding of both Polish and Russian historians..."
Nowak's book was published in 2004 (Amazon gives month as January), as was the joint PL-Russian publication  (month not given). I see the assertion that M. continued to promulgate the higher number of POW casualties after the commission's findings as a serious BLP matter. Please support this with a direct quote from the book. Novickas (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Publication dates indeed suggest he might not have been aware of the new findings. However, it would be interesting to see if those claims are repeated or corrected in any new works/editions. Till somebody can confirm either with the source, I support rewording (and have in fact reworded the text to clarify the issue). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  20:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Better, thanks. Novickas (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Quote request

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mikhail Meltyukhov. 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/20070927203511/http://publicist.n1.by/articles/1941/1941_reviz_meltuhov.html to http://publicist.n1.by/articles/1941/1941_reviz_meltuhov.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)