File talk:Nakaz 0078-42 (1944).jpg

False information

Stalin, Zhukov, Beria are NOT authors of this image. Chuev's book is NOT source of this image. As we can see, this image is copy of page from book by Yuri Mikolski. So, license of file is incorrect too. --KVK2005 (talk) 07:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Please stop anonymous vandalism. --KVK2005 (talk) 13:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Again. --KVK2005 (talk) 09:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Licensing seems suspect to me - see here --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• For User:Jarekt, again: Stalin, Zhukov, Beria are NOT authors of this image. Chuev's book is NOT source of this image. As anybody can see, this image is copy of page from unidentified book by Yuri Mikolski (who is it? Don't ask me, please). --KVK2005 (talk) 11:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that what metadata was claiming is that it is reprint of a document authored by "Stalin, Zhukov & Beria" which was also reprinted in Chuev's book, but this particular copy came from Yuri Mikolski book. Someone listed "Stalin, Zhukov & Beria" as authors because they supposedly wrote the text and signed it (although I do not see Stalin's name on the document, only Zhukov, Beria & "Fyodorov"). As for text of the document it is a standard practice to type in text visible in the images like in here and many other places. So which part of this image is controversial: is it authenticity of the document? If document is authentic (and I do not claim to know anything about it) than who scanned it and from which reprint it come from is totally irrelevant. As with famous photographs: it does not matter what book you scanned it from or online source you used. It only matters who were the original authors. Although it is good to list all the publications where some photograph or document was included, see for example here. --Jarekt (talk) 12:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Most likely, "Nakaz" is falsified by propaganda agencies of Nazi Germany, so it's authorship is at least very doubtful (see w:ru:Приказ о депортации украинцев в 1944 году, w:uk:Таємний наказ про депортацію українців). "Nakaz" is the subject of much political speculations, and the publication of the Mikolski is no exception. Mikolski combines both reduced text from Chuev's book and archival details of German propaganda leaflet, and they contain textual differences (ibid.). So 1) Chuev's Empire soldiers can not be source of this image, 2) attributing the authorship of the document to Stalin, Zhukov, Beria, or Fyodorov, is incorrect and biased, and 3) page from unidentified book can not be regarded as a document at all. --KVK2005 (talk) 08:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The best way to illustrate the issues with this "document" would be to scan or find existing scans of "Nakaz" from other sources. Ideally original documents (I know - wishful thinking) or at least documents scanned from known source. are any of those available? --Jarekt (talk) 12:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

This is unnecessary, I think. Irrelevancy of attribution sited by anonymous is obvious. --KVK2005 (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Это не документ, а дешёвая подделка

Данная бумажка не имеет никакого отношения ни к Г.К. Жукову, ни к Л. Берия, ни к документам. Не понятно, почему его тут разместили. Больше подойдёт для иллюстрирования статьи о фальсификациях. Alexander (talk) 09:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Я годами об этом пишу что здесь, что в ру- и укрвики. --KVK2005 (talk) 14:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)