Talk:Mark Solonin
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Solonin is a publicist, not a historian, which is a big difference edit
The Russian page quotes opinions of Russian historians - some accept his texts, some don't, some accuse him to be a liar.Xx236 (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Where is the WP:RS for his being a 'publicist'? Note, also, that the opening sentence of the lead makes it clear that he is an
"an aviation engineer by training."
I agree that the article needs better sourcing, and to be brought in line with a neutral tone, but there's nothing untoward about how he is represented unless further sourcing is integrated, and the article better formatted. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)- The title comes from March the 7th edit by an IP. Xx236 (talk) 05:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. The edit summary was inappropriate, but the changes made were correct. He isn't a scholar in the sense of having studied that aspect of the discipline, but it does not make him a 'publicist'. The theme of Russian scholarship - as opposed to global scholarship - is worthy of development elsewhere. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- The title comes from March the 7th edit by an IP. Xx236 (talk) 05:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Xx236:You write: The Russian page quotes opinions of Russian historians ... some accuse him to be a liar.
Please note that Russian official historians (i.e. those who hold Soviet or Russian diploma and government paid jobs) are not scientist strictly speaking but propagandists. Their job is not to search for the truth but to support so called skrepy, i.e. bonds of the society and people of Russia as the current government sees it, of which the main one is Pobeda (The Victory). Please note that from recently it is a criminal offence in Russia "To question the role of the USSR in the victory over Nazy Germany". And this is what Solonin does in his books: he digs too deep for Russian "historians" and their bosses in the Kremlin to be comfortable of. It is not for nothing that Solonin who is +60 has moved out of Russia.
As for the formal recognition of his professionalism as a historian I hope Latvian / Polish / Finnish Academies of Science would not make him wait for long time. After that we could site excellent books of Mark Solonin throughout Wikipedia including the Russian one. Axlesaery (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
He's a regular pseudohistorian that has no academic recognition or any other scientific recognition and his ideas are not supported by scientific consensus in history field. He is not a historian. --85.206.100.239 (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
[1] - No, this is a questionable/poor source that makes contentious claims if not outright personal threats [2]. This is poor source, etc. Next time I may ask an opinion of administrators. My very best wishes (talk) 02:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)