User talk:Brildanz

The sources you cite for the 150,000 Axis figure must be substantiated further. The citation of a secondary source - work by Bergstrom, Dikov, and Antipov - is not valid proof for the accuracy of the casualty figures that these authors list. What are the authors' estimates/calculations of the casualties based on? What evidence do they use? Not every source, even if cited, is reliable or conclusive. I suggest that you either remove the 150,000 figure or place several Axis casualty estimates besides each other, stating that the numbers are disputed. This is sometimes done in other Wikipedia articles.

Stalingrad
I have noticed you added 850,000 to the German casualty list. This must be sourced. Unreferenced material can be removed arbitrarily. Dapi89 (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

They use primary sources. Bergstrom uses the Military archive at Freiburg for the German fugures, while Bergstrom, through his Russian contacts, has gained access to Soviet archives, particularly the TsAMO military archive at Podolsk, the Russian State Military Archive RGVA, Moscow - and many more. Dapi89 (talk) 23:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The figures you put in have been reverted as they completely contradict the above, and the National Russian Aviation Research Trust, the Russian Central Military Archive in Moscow. These are primary sources. You can't claim used Krivosheyev used archival sources if he doesn't give the exact documents name. Any author can claim to have based their research on "primary sources". But these totally contradict the research dne by Bergstrom, Dikov, and Antipov - and they cite the exact documents.  Dapi89 (talk) 12:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the fact that one researcher contradicts another does not prove that either one of them is right. Since you have not seen the archival documents cited by Bergstrom, Dikov, and Antipov, you cannot argue that this evidence is accurate. Nor do I claim that Krivosheev is necessarily right. Mind you, I have not deleted your citation from Bergstrom et al. for the aircraft losses: rather, I added Krivosheev's data as an _ALTERNATIVE_ estimate of these losses. The issue of aircraft losses is a disputed one, and it is better to acknowledge this than to claim the truth in the last instance. It is not persuasive to assume the position of absolute authority, in this or any other issue.


 * Since you have not seen the archival documents cited by Bergstrom, Dikov, and Antipov, you cannot argue that this evidence is accurate: Of course I can, don't be absurd. This is how historians work.

Your missing the point. FOUR researches, using PRIMARY sources have stated this. And they cite the exact documents they have included. What is most important about this is that Russian historians have been involved, and this rules out bias. Your information has again been removed. At best it should be moved to a footnote, as a claim by an author who has not cited primary sources and is likely to have used second had tertiary sources. If it appears inthe lead again I will get an admin involed as I am not going to edit war over this. Dapi89 (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No, you cannot argue that this evidence is accurate. And believe me, as a professional historian, I know how historians work. Neither the number of researchers involved, nor their nationality, nor even the availability of citations from primary sources guarantee the accuracy of evidence. To be able to judge about the accuracy of cited evidence, you need to see the evidence yourself. You also need to approach this evidence (as well as the manner in which it is cited) critically rather than taking it at face value. Please do get the administrator involved, as I would love to discuss this issue. Also, while we are on it, do not delete my comments from the discussion post, either. This is meant to be a discussion. If you have arguments, argue, but do not resort to computer tricks.


 * Your comments are very stupid. So I don't believe you are a proffessional historian. You are relying on an old source, these guys use primary sources. If you are entering into an arguement denying that primary sources are not the truth, how can you possibly argue in favour of secondary sources that borrow from those that do use primary sources in the first place?!! Thats a "no brainer".

I didn't remove your comments from the discussion post. I moved them down to where they should be, see here, in date order. If you bothered to look you would see they are still there. But since you duplicated it again, I have removed it again. A proffesional Historian should be able to do his research a little better without resorting to erroneous assertions. Dapi89 (talk) 10:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I have already stated the case on the talk page - as of yesterday. Dapi89 (talk) 11:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank you for starting the case and for not deleting my postings. As for your comments about 'the truth,' as well as your doubts of my qualifications: one difference between a professional historian and an amateur is that a professional realizes that any historian's work is the expression of an opinion, and nothing more. Professional historians rarely claim possessing the truth, but amateurs often do. The situation with primary sources, especially something like TsAMO, which is hard to access and not easily verifiable, is really more complicated than how you imagine it. I do not want to be aggressive in these postings, so I will limit my comment to this, for now. But I would ask you also to refrain from impolite remarks about your opponent's intelligence - they only reveal yours. On that point as well, it would be wonderful if you learned to spell 'professional' and 'argument.' I hope our conversation could continue on a more informed basis.

Again, your comments serve to reinforce this belief. Using primary sources is the way to prove facts, and to avoid attack. Citing documentation negates opinion. I can't believe that someone claiming to be a historian doesn't understand that. And those were typos, not spelling mistakes, use your brain. I expect an apology for your false accusation. I would also ask you to sign your comments, like a "professional". Dapi89 (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, typos they may be. But more importantly, on your point regarding documentation. Citing documentation does not negate opinion. Documents, their citations, and other use by researchers, need to be interpreted and analyzed critically. The purpose of historical analysis is interpretation, rather than laying monopolistic claims to possessing the truth. I regret to have to explain this fairly basic point here, but perhaps this is necessary. I do not wish to continue this discussion with you without references to specific and substantive evidence. About the signature: I am new to the wiki discussions, therefore I simply did not know how to sign the posts. Hopefully, I am doing it correctly this time. Brildanz (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does. Simply stating loss figures does not need critical analysis in this instance. War diaries and official military records list the basic information. Furthermore you will not find many serious editors who would agree with your assertions, and you will certainly come into conflict with them if you continue to employ these illogical "arguments", and I use that word lossely. May I also remind you wikipedia does not tolerate orginal research.

For the last time, evidence has already been submitted, and its primary evidence, so don't give that trash about not providing "substantive evidence", what a joke. To point out the only basic point that needs explaining here, is that primary sources carry more weight than second hand ones not less. I should not have to explain that to a historian. Anyway, I'm finished here. Good day. Dapi89 (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sir, your disrespectful tone only reveals your lack of manners and your inability to argue your point by any other means than dispensing insults. I do not need your explanations about primary sources being more important than secondary sources: a) I know that; and b) my point was about something else, which you may notice if you re-read my postings. However, since you consistently deny using the faculty of reason, our conversation here is over. As for the general discussion, we will see. Yours sincerely, Brildanz (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)