Talk:Mark Solonin

Solonin is a publicist, not a historian, which is a big difference

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)

@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)

A degree in history means very little, when it comes to specific questions of Russian/Soviet military history. Solonin graduated with a golden medal (cum laude) from high school and studied a serious STEM subject in college. Plenty of Western academic historians who have written extensively on World War II understand little to no Russian (e.g. Richard Overy) and this alone is more of an obstacle. They usually just dismiss Suvorov's theories in one or two sentences without even bothering to really treat them. They've never read the documents published by Russians in 1990s (during the relatively liberal Yeltsin period) and thus don't even try to treat the matters. Basically most of the stuff published by the Western esteemed historians in 1990s and early 2000s is obsolete when it comes to German-Soviet War. Frankofiil (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

"scientific consensus" is oxymoronic combination. With scientifical consensus we would have cosmological model, where Sun is revolving around Earth and there would be no major scientifical breakthroughs that were not part of "scientific consensus". Science is not democratic. 80.40.90.100 (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:BLP

- No, this is a questionable/poor source that makes contentious claims if not outright personal threats . 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)

Fixed again. My very best wishes (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)