"

 Two birds, one stone 
Dear 206.186.8.130... I have been quite content to leave Dyukov described as a historian Novosti, the state news agency, trots out to dispute Baltic lies about history. (One of several of my edits deleted, each replaced by a more strident defense of Dyukov's credentials.) Given Dyukov's command of basic facts is worse than the factual improprieties he alleges in the film, he already commands far too much space devoted to his views. However, since English-speaking viewersto whom this encyclopedia is targetedget to see Dyukov quite often on ""Russia Today"" (Novosti's version of CNN or the BBC News), I'm supportive of leaving his commentary in (other editors have mass deleted it). Dyukov's spokesmanship as a historian ""specializing"" in Soviet history and in debunking, in particular, Baltic ""myths"" (he uses stronger words in his Novosti interviews) is notable whether I like it or not. However, his POV and role in the official Russian (not independent) media must remain in the article for his presence in the article to be understood and defended.
   As for my ""principles"", they are to representing the parties and their relationships to their establishments accurately. It's obviously simpler to delete undiscussed POV anonymous IP edits as vandalism if they have no reasonable basis in actuality. But whether you register or not, whether you choose to reveal yourself or not, any edit that portrays Dyukov as a reputable historian and ignores his incestuous relationship with the Russian state media agency will continue to be deleted as totally POV.
   Your tone of questions communicates to me a wish to be blunt. I'll be happy to oblige. Writing that Dyukov is a ""professional historian"" here and that he isn't should be discussed elsewhere amounts to nothing but asking the editors here to ignore facts and to lie under the pretext of ""NPOV."" —  "