Talk:Tatiana Solomakha

Neutrality Issues
Given that the article is citing a Soviet source from the 1930s and it referred to World War I as a "imperialist war" which is a communist buzzword; I think its fair to say that it might not be 100% neutral.--Catlemur (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Judging by what you call this "First World War" is most likely a bourgeois buzzword. I think its fair to say that it might not be 100% neutral. Gnosandes (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Why don't you restore this version of your userpage? I think other editors deserve to know that you are a modern day Stalin apologist and moreover you barely speak English. If your English is so rudimentary why are you even here? Based on your userpage and this article, you are most likely here to push fringe Stalin-era theories which have long been rejected by both Russian and foreign historiography.--Catlemur (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What makes you think that I'm an apologist for Stalin at all? From the quotes that I wrote for the sake of interest? If so, then you are truly a genius. During this time, I can change my mind many times. They are rejected by politically engaged people, but this has nothing to do with science. And may I ask you to be less aggressive. As far as I know, Wikipedia retells the sources, and does not create any new vision or theory. Therefore, one source believes that this is an imperialist war. Gnosandes (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You are ironically calling me a genius and mocking my first comment, while telling to be less aggressive; the pot calling the kettle black. Here you are calling the victims of the Great Purge criminals while simultaneously trying to downplay the number of people who fell victim to it. So you are quoting Stalin on your userpage and trying to whitewash the Great Purge, but you are not a Stalin apologist? Sureee. Wikipedia relies on neutral and reliable sources as outlined here WP:RS, a Stalin era publication that uses the term imperialist war which is only used by publications with a far left bias is neither of those. I bet there are plenty of more neutral sources on Solomakha's life but you insist on using this one. You claim that you are acting in good faith? I am not buying it.--Catlemur (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I called you a genius calmly. And I didn't make fun of your comment. Did you come up with this yourself? Because it is obvious that they are criminals, for they are condemned by the court. Among them, of course, there are innocent people, but this does not overturn the verdict of the court, but I cannot do anything about it. I did not underestimate the number of victims, I gave a real figure, which is in the work of Zemskov according to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the KGB of the USSR. I don’t understand at all how Stalin is connected with the Great Purge that Yezhov organized in order to sow confusion and overthrow Stalin from his place? If I am interested in this era, it does not mean that I am an apologist for Stalin. You are wrong here. I've always wondered how you define neutral and reliable sources. Can you tell us about this method? Because I'm not far away from a beginner here. But judging by the fact that I read the rules, I was convinced that there is no method, but there are political assessments that do not allow using other sources. Maybe I'm wrong. So far, I see only a far right bias. Alas, there are no other sources about the life of this girl who was killed by the fiends. I don't insist on using it. You just changed the words of the source. If I'm wrong about something, you can explain it to me without aggression. Gnosandes (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)