Talk:Grigori F. Krivosheev

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Military history: Biography / Historiography / Russian & Soviet

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	Military historiography task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force

Untitled[edit]

Irpen, I respect your editing, but disagree in your evaluation of Suvorov's work as a "non-scientific sensationalist analysis" and "Suvorov's crackpot". Given that Suvorov did not ride the state machinery to work for him, his insights and statistical back-up are profound. Many mega-trends do not need detailed analysis, as is said "Large things are visible from afar", and the years of propaganda could never cloud the fact that Russia lost near-all their men and supplies in the first week of the war. This fact is no "crackpot", he broke secretiveness by fingering a naked king, and silencing the thesis of the Suvorov's book as opposed to the line of the state-supported publication does not present a balanced picture. Taking sides before independent historians canvass the problem is presumptuous, especially when the state is known to chronically manipulate scientific reports. I am saying this not to discredit Krivosheev, he has done a very important and probably good research, but to argue for a balanced picture about the controversy where Krivosheev serves to illuminate one side. Barefact 01:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability problems[edit]

I checked this man in ISI citation index. His citation index is exactly zero (no one cites him). Number of hits in Google books is zero [1]. Number of hits in Google scholar is zero [2].Biophys (talk) 00:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check this for refs. --Irpen 04:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he is notable; I've seen his work referenced in several sources I have read over the years.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, don't be ridiculously ignorant. This guy is VERY notable: he is the title author of official post-soviet account on Soviet and Russian war casualties of the XXth c. However, it doesn't alter the fact that he is a propagandist and his work is worthless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.249.229.49 (talk) 11:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ann IP 77.249.229.49 you are correct. His work has been criticized in Russia, however reliable sources outside of Russia parrot his statistics.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]