Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:48, 19 May 2008

Welcome!

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

For logical positivists
Logical positivism asserts that only statements about empirical observations are meaningful, effectively asserting that all metaphysical statements are meaningless.

Unfortunately, this fundamental tenet of logical positivism belongs to the family of statements that it asserts to be meaningless. As a result, the entire edifice of logical positivism vanishes in a puff of logic.

This insight appears not to have occurred to the logical positivist school of philosophers.

Archives
Archive 1 (2006-2007)
Archive 2 (1-15 Jan 2008)
Archive 3 (16-30 Jan 2008)
Archive 4 (1 - 28 Feb 2008)
Archive 5 (2 - 15 March 2008)

Causes of Misplaced Pages erosion

1. Good-faith change of referenced information (or even direct quotations) by subsequent editors who don't read the sources
2. Partial change of values in lists, tables and the like, while the rest is not updated, rendering the whole structure misleading.
3. Suppression of referenced information some users dislike, sometimes citing WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:BLP etc.

User:Colchicum

Thank you for editing on the UK keyboard

Thanks for your message with above heading on 29Feb - haven't seen messages for a while. Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

7 Indian Division

Let me explain the principle I'm working by. In both the land forces located in Ukraine in 1991 and with Pakistan in 1947, there was no change to the actual HQs, units etc on the ground. Their higher HQs and allegiances changed over the top of them, and later change occurred to them; but not at the time. 7th Division, located in what became Pakistan, did not disband. It stayed in existence, as the text you quote says: "By August 1947, the 7th Division (located in Rawalpindi with two brigades) was the Pakistan Army's only division." The question of official tracing which formation is entitled to the lineages of which preexisting formation when the country changed we can debate - I don't know the answers. But the records says the previous Indian Army formations did not disband and have personnel and equipment dispersed - they stayed in existence. They just woke up on the morning of 16 August and found themselves reporting to a new capital. Again, I take your point on official lineages - they're debatable, but my point is that the formations did not disband and reform -they continued. This is to a great degree about definitions, so I wanted to make clear what precisely I have been meaning. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Your point, is your POV! In this case I suppose you have a source that says the British Army did not disband the 7th Indian Infantry Division? If you fail to supply this source, I expect you to revert my edits. If you refuse to supply one, I will contact British Army Archives for your benefit. English being the official language of Pakistan, you can also get the official word from them.

I will get to Ukrainian units later. I'd love to get official confirmation of lineage transfer, because Russian media will have a riot when they find this out, and some people in Kiev will have very red faces.

Yes, Misplaced Pages can make a difference and educate the World...mostly how not to lie.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying not to use strong language(!) Please, I'm trying to make myself understood. I'm not worried about lineages, as I said. When you contact the British Army archives, ask them also what's their record of what happened at HQ 7 Div on 16 August 1947 at Rawalphindi. My understandin from the sentence above you found was, about that time, it probably lost one of its three brigades, as it had only two brigades. But the Div HQ didn't cease to exist, did it? Your opinion is that it could not transfer its lineage, and when you talk to the Br Army archives/Pak Army, whoever, you may find yourself right, sure! But the Div HQ continued in service into the new Pakistan Army, did it not? Can you find a source saying the Div HQ disbanded, then was reformed a day afterwards in the same place? Regards - and best wishes with your archive search; also might be good to talk to Ravi Rikhye, but I don't hear from him very often now. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind if you use strong language as long as its sourced ;o)

I hear from Ravi occasionally.

The HQ 7 Indian Infantry Div ceased to exist. See here on departure of its British units, and here on status of British officers employed on contract. You can also consult the Sections 11 and 12 here for the actual removal of His Majesty's authority under the (British) Army Act.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course the British units left - the division lost a brigade, though 7 Div is not mentioned in either of your references. But the Div HQ stayed in existence - whether it formally changed its name or not (and nowhere have you cited anything that said 'HQ 7 Ind Inf Div disbanded'). Let's try and be clear on this - you say that the lineage could not be inherited. Quite possible. But the people, (the GOC of the Pakistan Army remained a British officer, so I see no reason why the division GOC would have changed, but I don't know) buildings, furniture etc of Div HQ remained under the title 7 Division, though the army in which they served changed. That is the only point I'm making. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Bucksot06, break, break, break...give me a break!!! The question is: What nation did the unit known to history as 7th Indian Infantry Division belong to? What happened to the desks and empty filing cabinets of its HQ is of no consequence. How many newly independent Pakistanis served in the HQ? Maybe 10% of the junior officers and NCOs. However, even this is of no consequences. The division, according to the Act of Parliament of United Kingdom, no longer fell under the authority of the Army Act, and therefore itself. The King could no longer appoint its commanding officer to the said HQ, or even order the said furniture changed. Stationary had to be changed also. The physical division may have been transferred, but the 'spiritual' division went with its British personnel to Far East, or UK, or Malaya. After 1947 the unit in question did not exist in the British Army. It did not exist in the Pakistani Army either (Period)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The GOC and hundreds of other British officers and some NCOs remained on contract to Pakistan's Army, not in commission of King George VI. They could not over-ride an Act of Parliament to keep a British unit in the field while the King already declared it outside of his authority (the Act covred all forces) as this would constitute mutiny.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Good. It's clear that we're discussing two different things. You're talking about what you just called 'spiritual'. I don't know about what happened to the 'spiritual' division and for that you may be right (I'm not sure where you'd get a authoritative answer through - lots of seeing various historical officials in MOD Main Building or in New Delhi, maybe.) As I've repeatedly said, I'm talking about the 'physical' division - it seems it retained a British commander, an MG Loftus-Tottenham. As I said at the very start, we only have to define our terms correctly, and the disagreement disappears. Cheers (and how are you going on finding sources for the Sov 8th Army, by the way?) Buckshot06 (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Surely you do not suggest the division retained its lineage based on equipment and a contract British officer?

For the 82nd time, I'm not arguing over lineage! The ONLY thing I say is that the physical division HQ, offices, commander, personnel etc didn't change.

Does the Pakistani division also claim campaign history and awards? Are you saying the article should be 7th Indian Infantry Division (Pakistan)?

I don't know - ask them. As for the article name, of course not!!

Ok, replace 'spiritual' with administrative. Although British officers and NCOs remained, as did the British way of doing things, the authority and administration of the Pakistani Army changed. Along with it changed the name of the division to 7th Infantry Division of Pakistan's National Army. You may be interested to know that the first Israeli units were numbered after US, British and Soviet units depending on were the commanding officers came from, although that eventually changed to a different, and even less comprehensible for most military historians system which is unique.

Indeed, things slowly did change, no doubt. However I've never seen any sources anywhere which seem to be certain on titles. Do the Pakistani Army today use the term 'Infantry Division' or just 'Division' (and by the way, I've never heard of 'Pakistan National Army). Anyway, glad we sorted that out.

I need to finish an article on the Shyaulyay operation first, and then fix up the Bagramyan article a bit. Then back to the missing 1941 Armies without which I can't do border operations. You can just leave unreferenced templates for now if you like.

What unreferenced templates? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

As the articles build up, so will sources.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

So why on earth did you undo my edits on disbandment of the British Indian Army?!!!!

I gather then that you support retention of the article with a move to 7th Indian Infantry Division (United Kingdom)?

Pakistan uses division only for infantry I think, and Armoured Division for tanks. I'm busy reinstalling MS Office now, so can't look it up.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Because they physically split - as the footnote I inserted would tell you. The units were physically partitioned - as we've just established above. I've never said anything about what name the article should have apart from what I earlier said at the AfD (everything in the existing two articles should be at 7th Infantry Division (Pakistan) with a redirect from 7th Indian Infantry Division). PS when I open your talk page it says it's 209 K - you may want to archive. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, what happened physically is immaterial. If you have read anything about the partition, you will know what went on there. The fact is that all British Army units in India were disbanded, finished, ended, no more, ok? So why the redirect?! The two units had nothing in common other then assets. However, if a typewriter from 213 field battery artillery unit was used, does that make the HQ 7 Pakistani div 0.01% 213 field artillery also? These were just things. All that needs to be done is add it to 7th Infantry Division disambig list if its not there already.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You see, that's the difference in opinion between us. I believe since 7 Div existed before and after 15 Aug 47 with no physical change, it inherits the history - physically on the ground, they were not 'disbanded, finished, ended, no more, ok' - they continued in the service of their new armies - 7 Div on the Pakistani side and all the divs that went to India on the other. You believe that physical situation is immaterial, and go on the nationstates' whole armies' history. Fair enough other point of view. By the way, you do not seem to have read my edit summary - that revert is for the point of a balanced discussion - people can see what it was originally. After the AfD no doubt it will change in accordance with the AfD decision. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not read the edit summary.

I do not express my points of view here. Everything I say is true. Any military unit in the world can only be created by an internationally recognised national state authority. If it is not, it has the status of mercenary. Its basic international military law. I don't know one instance where there was a transfer of formations and units from one independent state to another (well, I do know one, which confirms the rule about exceptions). Equipment transfers happen all the time. You are working on Turkish Army. How many German brigades and US divisions does it have?

Every time you start a sentence with "I believe..." I skip to next sentence. What you believe is between you and God. I'm not interested (for the purpose of Misplaced Pages).

Within three years all physical vestiges of the British unit were gone except insignia which was retained because it could not be produced locally, and cost too much to have it made overseas. US insignia was used throughout the post-WWII World for decades due to existing wartime stock. US equipment completely replaced everything by the time the last British officer left. Maybe it came from the US 7th Infantry Division. Maybe the 77th ID. Are you going to change designation again? Its just nonsense. Did the RNZAF retain squadron designation when it purchased Australian A-4s? Please don't reply unless you have some hard, sourced facts. I had enough for one week with Jassy-Kishinev tank you very much --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to say Mrg I'm repeatedly annoyed by how simply rude and ill-mannered you are (Can't do me the courtesy of reading what I say?). As I said, I disagree with you. The division insignia remained the same, and as Ceriy and I say in the case of Ukraine, we believe the history continues. I'm sure you understand what I'm saying, and I doubt you disagee about what actually happened between 13-18 August 1947 at 7 Div HQ in Rawalphindi. As you put it, it's about 'physically' versus 'spiritually'. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't rude, I just have no stomach for intellectual dishonesty.

Wat happened is that a British division was disbanded and its assets and some personnel were uused to create divisions of newly independent states. Same thing that happened in Ukraine.

If you base unit lineage on unit insignia while ignoring at least three Acts of Parliament, then I have nothing else to say to you.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

For god's sake man - I've admitted that there may be no lineage link, and you've said nothing may have physically changed those few days at 7 Div HQ, and you call that 'intellectual dishonesty'? What is dishonest? I do not understand. As for the Acts, I've just taken a look at Wikisource on the 1947 Indian Independence Act, and there's nothing in the text about disbandment of formations. Please tell me the clause and I'll take another look... Buckshot06 (talk) 06:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

===> Hello you 2 co-editors :) - I am an absoulute Wiki-newbie - the first thing i have learned was to go in my sandbox - this discussion is longer than the article - what a waste of time - cool down and have a nice day --Dan Wesson (talk) 06:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Fourteenth Army reverts

Hi. You've actually now made 3 reverts on Fourteenth Army (United Kingdom) now. Can you leave the links in place until discussion is complete please? Leithp 10:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Research

Hi Mrg3105, my reluctance to join the discussion was mainly because of other demands on my time. I looked the discussion over and thought it best to not get involved as this week was quite busy. As to your question, no, I'm not in the U.K. I'll always consider a research request as long as it isn't a large amount of work so feel free to ask. That said, if the research requires access to W.O. archives, then I'm not the best positioned for that kind of work. Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Eastern Front

Hi, you might be interested to know that I've now created the Vilnius Offensive Operation article and have substantially updated the existing article on the East Pomeranian Offensive with a lot more information (I realise that this was in fact a strategic offensive containing several more limited operations, but need to do a bit more work in this regard). Anyway, I hope these help with the GPW project.

My next task will be to do something with the "Silesian Offensives" article, which is little more than a stub (as well as being incorrectly titled) and expand the Vistula-Oder Offensive....Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 08:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't noticed. Just got home. I have the German OOB by Hogg, so might see what I can add--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Commonwealth regiments

From your comments on the Talk:British Divisions in World War II I think you have little understanding of just how important regimental history is to Commonwealth armies. The disadvantages of deployment is considered more than outweighed by the fighting cohesion it brings to the men in a regiment. This difference was highlighted during the Cold War in Berlin, each day American planes arrived and left with men rotating through the units in Berlin while for the British a battalion would arrive and leave together en-mass. From an administrative point of view the American system is much more efficient.

I was going to write more, but the Regiment#Commonwealth army article is a good place to start. I think the article explains why at independence the Indian and Pakistani armies would have wished their inherited regiments to keep their regimental histories, because if they needed to go to war (as it turned out against each other) then given the military tradition they had inherited the regiments needed their histories. For example have you ever wondered why the Gurkha and Gorkha regiments are known as rifle regiments? They are known as rifle regiments because the 60th Rifles fought along side Gurkhas in defence of Hindu Rao's House, and the 60th were so impressed with the Gurkhas they campaigned for them to become a riflemen instead of sepoys. Why a rifle regiment? Because the 60th were a rifle regiment who along with the 95th won great renown during the Napoleonic wars.

Some of the honours are strange and not intuitive. For example before during and after the Napoleonic wars line regiments were numbered. The older the regiment the lower the number, and at the end of a war the higher numbers were disbanded because the size of the British Army was reduced. So far so good! But the 95th had proved so useful that the Army did not want to disband the regiment, so they took it out of the line and gave them a separate status. So today we have the situation that there is competition between regiments to be top of the list (oldest and most respected) and bottom of the list (elite). Hence at bottom of the infantry list are the Gurkha, Rifles and SAS! (see: British Army order of precedence). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration request

Please take a look at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Lir. Thanks. --Editorofthewiki 01:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Irkutsk Military District

Спасибо, но поскольку я человек сугубо мирный, вопросы территориального деления занимают меня только в гражданском аспекте :) Однако, ссылка может оказаться интересной участнику Buckshot06, который специализируется как раз по вопросам военных округов. Я передам.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Это не столько вопрос территориального деления, сколько вопрос истории войсковой администрации в России. Buckshot06 не знает Русского, и больше интересуется современностью. Я думаю ему не по силу такое. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Хм, я не знал, что он не знает русского :( Жаль, не хотелось бы пропускать такой источник. Просто дела войсковых администраций меня лично интересуют постольку-поскольку и в основном применительно к организации территорий вообще. В общем, to put it bluntly, не специалист я в военном вопросе...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Mrg. As I said to Ezhiki, I'll gladly help with minor details, as you wish, if you want to do the main translation, and I can follow up looking for English-language sources. Regards from the other side of the Tasman, Buckshot06 (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Apostrophes

Romanization of Ukrainian names is covered by WP:UKR, romanization of Russian names—by WP:RUS. Both guidelines omit apostrophes. We don't use ISO because it does not work well for our purposes. Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Debrecen

I have no objection to it being renamed, but Battle of Debrecen should remain as a redirect. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

km or kms

Please refer to Talk:Battle of Białystok-Minsk#km or kms.

Tabletop (talk) 06:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Armies of the Bear

You are correct, but I think you will see at the bottom of the main DSU article where you got the text originally, a full citation - I was using a cut-down cite semi-a-la Harvard.

While I'm doing that, would you mind inserting the <references/> tag at the bottom, after you insert references in the middle of the article, so that people don't have to come after you and do it? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The citation may be fine in the main DSU article, but needs to be added in every article itis used in Sources.

I was under impression that {{reflist}} was sufficient--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the point would be, you added that cite into the new 80th Division article. References? Either reflist or /references, doesn't matter which, please insert them! I had to do it. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sorry I thought I did!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

However, there is an existing section of text which can be used as a basis. If/when you're keen to work on that, I'd suggest starting by expanding and adding references to that section of text, until the article size limit tag starts appearing at Division (military)#Infantry, which is where everyone will be looking for it, and then consider creating a new article. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you know there is not even an article on Arms of Service and Service Corps?!

Ok, I'll do the Red Army if you do these

Officers of O.K.H and O.K.W.

War academy (Kriegsakademie)

veterinary officers and NCOs

veterinary troops

Artillery regiments

mounted artillery units

artillery observation units

artillery training units

artillery observation training units

experimental command Hillersleben

experimental command Kummersdorf

army map and military survey

army group command

general command

infantry divisional staff

infantry regiments

garrison battalion Vienna

machine gun battalions

motorcycle-units

mortar battalions

army AA units

infantry training regiments

staff military Authority of the Reichsprotektor

War college

cavalry units

reconaissance mounted

motorcycle units

light division staff

signals units

fortress signals

signals training regiment

army school of dog and pigeon service

reconnaissance motorized

motorcycle units

general armored commands

armoured division staff

rifle brigade staff

armoured units

anti tank units

armoured trains

motorcycle units

armoured training regiments

army school of motoring

motor maintenance troops

mountain troop divisional staff

rifle and mountaineering units

motorcycle units

armoured infantry units

smoke units

smoke training units

military justice units

medical officers and NCO

medical troops

medical training units

supply officers

transport units

transport training units

transport supply officer

pioneer battalions

fortress pioneers

railway pioneers

pioneer training battalions

railway pioneer training companies

technical officers

armoured engineer companies

recruiting personnel

military police

specialist officers

army propaganda troops

for Wehrmacht Heer ;O)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

PS. I took all the training establishments out for now

Most of these are being done at the individual state level; for example, the Royal New Zealand Corps of Signals and the Jordanian Royal Maintenance Corps (Jordan). See also for example Sri Lanka Army#Regiments. Systematic treatment on branches of service like that is something I've seen in Soviet/Russian sources, but less for English-speaking nations - we tend to focus on the individual corps. But also check things like Military police or artillery (and the War template at Artillery, listing a number of arms of service) - I think you'll find a number of existing articles. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I know they are there. However, I need these for Eastern Front. Its a huge amount of work.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I cannot spare you the discussion Mrg. That huge list simply does not belong in the middle of a textual description of the Red Army - it looks ugly, surely you can see that. With your agreement, I'll split it to a Arms and Services of the Red Army page, where it can be properly developed as soon as someone can find a sourced list of them in WW2 - one of the Colossus series? Buckshot06 (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Further, on the images, you'll see I carefully inserted a decoration for the Taman Division. What I objected to was inserting them when they appeared to have no direct relevance - even when the formation in question had not been awarded the Red Banner. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Space Forces

There's a question over at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history/Russian and Soviet military history task force about the Cyrillic abbreviation ~~MOM~~ (This is me trying to render it in Arabic characters) that you might be able to answer. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Operation Barbarossa

Hi, I myself believe that it was the largest in history, but a citation is needed per Misplaced Pages: Cite sources and we cannot claim the figure the "largest" simply because there is no larger one available.

The closest it has ever come to: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/operation_barbarossa.htm

"Barbarossa the largest military attack of World War Two"

But I see no source online for worldwide comparison. 219.79.27.59 (talk) 11:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the numbers, it becomes readily apparent, so I would not think a source is required. Its just an accepted fact. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikicitation rules clearly state you must source anything that a fellow editor asks for a source for. Please be polite and insert one. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you asking, because the other is an IP and not a fellow editor.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Everybody that edits is an editor. If you wish, please consider that every source request from a numbered IP address comes from me. Misplaced Pages:Cite sources allows nothing less. By the way, are you happy with a separate. linked, page for Arms & Services? There's certainly enough potential for a separate page there. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not happy by either of these--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Prague Offensive

Hi, even occupied there existed a government in exile. It is usually reffered to the Czechoslovak army forces as from Czechoslovakia or with Czechoslovakian allegiance, remember Ludvik Svoboda's army group. In those days there even France didn't exist, Belgium, Denmark etc ... ≈Tulkolahten≈ 12:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot that the Czechoslovak government was recognised by the USSR, and that there was a Corps serving with the Red Army. In any case, that's fixed now, somewhat. At least the article is there. Do you have a few images to add to it?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Georgiu-Dez/Georgiu-Dej

Moredn name is Liski, HTH. Cheers, --Irpen 04:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Brody (1941)

Ironically, I went to an old, large atlas to check your addition of Radekhov, thinking you had confused it with Radivlov (Chervonoarmeysk). I found a handmade overlay comparing Budyenny's campaign to the towns mentioned in Red Cavalry (I must have made it in the early '90s). And sure enough, Radekhov and Sokal are marked, strung along the road from Brody to (disaster at) Zamoste. That road has seen more than its share of soldiers. Jd2718 (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That is interesting. I had trouble finding them first because I didn't have a good map handy, but after I looked it up on a topographical map it was no problem.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Improve English

Because I'm continually worried at the level of the english you use. I read 'The article informs about' and was, frankly, flabbergasted. Surely you know that it would be 'This article covers..' or 'This article .. whatever, but not 'The article informs'. Maybe in a bibliography 'Subject XYZ.' 'This article informs citizens about the invasion of ..' but even that, frankly, is terribly wooden english. I hate having to criticise you on your english, but you did ask... Buckshot06 (talk) 06:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is not a movie script Buckshot06. People read reference works to be informed and not entertained! 'Wooden' is fine as long as it is informative--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you're not annoyed to see improvements so that a better form of English is used. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Buckshot, why pick on me? There are 64K articles in the MilHist project alone. Do go any see how other articles start, and if you find that I violated some rule after surveying 51% of them I will gladly submit to your better knowledge of English. Frankly though most people looking for information on the subject of the article are unlikely to reject it from the first few words because they may seem 'wooden' to them....you think?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Why pick on you? I don't follow Malian military articles, nor those of Paraguay. I follow Sov/Russian ones... and thus I see the errors that are there. For heaven's sake, don't take it personally... I've just corrected some minor english-isms at a South African constitutional article. I'm only trying to improve the encyclopaedia, and I only responded to your query on the subject. I'm quite happy to stop discussing the subject now. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys, let's avoid criticizing anyone's English. -Irpen

Izluchina

Mrg, re your question, my best guess is Dnieper Lowland. More at my talk. Cheers, --Irpen 05:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Um sorry to intrude, but I've been following this, and the 'Dniepr Bend' is often used in English language histories of the Eastern Front. From my perspective, it might be better to keep the phrase 'Dniepr Bend,' but just define it clearly. Regards to all Buckshot06 (talk) 08:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, the Lowland is more of a name from Physical Geography (as this course was called in school) or even, perhaps, Geology. Not my cup of tea although I had top grades in school :). --Irpen 08:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think when it gets written, it may need a redirect because as Buckshot06 points out, the Dniepr Bend is used everywhere in military history sources.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

SRF and Russian Navy

Hi Mrg, good work on adding the official formation dates (and in one case the actual number of the decree) for these two organisations. Can you also indicate a web-link so they're sourced? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 08:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I forgot again. I thin it was actually from the RF MoD site, will have a look. Did you notice only two of the three Forces in the current OOB share the date?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, was just about to say, that's great for the 2001 date, but the 1959 date was the one I was looking for a reference for. Did you find anywhere - Ru or Eng - the actual text of the decree? Cheers and thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 08:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks fro that. I assume it's the list of the ceremonial/celebratory 'Days' for each branch - that's what it look like - correct? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Type and Branch. You know this I think, right? Tip and Rod.

There is a longer list that includes battles and civil professions, but I think you will have too many problems with it--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mrg. That's nice, but don't spend too much time chasing down decrees if it's not easy. The main thing I was looking for was the site where you got the 1959 date from. Cheers & thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 09:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the text Mrg. Maybe I'm not making myself clear. What I wanted was to add a footnote with a web address, as a citation, to the SRF article. So the question is, what is the web address of the webpage you got this from? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 09:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Its there!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, just as I was about to say that I'd seen you put it in, you added the two words above, and we had an edit conflict... Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Squadron naming conventions

Hey Mrg, appreciate the work you're doing with article names, but the naming convention for Old Commonwealth aircraft squadrons is (No.) X Squadron (AF abbreviation) - thus No. 75 Squadron RNZAF, or No. 1 Squadron SAAF. As has been repeated many times, the (Country) at the end is only necessary if there are two units with the same name. If you wish to change the policy so that every unit gets the (Country) suffix, it might be better to raise it at WT:MILHIST rather than just doing it without consultation. ..My 2 cents. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There are a bunch of (sometimes 40-series) Royal Tank Regiment articles. I would say they should all be merged into the main RTR article until they get to more than 2-sentance status. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, no one has done so until now, so why tell me the Soviet Rifle Divisions that are twice the size and are likely to have at least one reference will be deleted?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Right. Sorry. I'm now going to have to seriously argue with you. The Civil War regiments almost never had the word 'Infantry' in their titles. You are now creating non-historical wikinames for the sake of consistency (and we've fought this before and been corrected - ref all the discussions over the name of The Old Guard). Please stop renaming the US civil war regiments until you have a determination from someone who knows about this that these regiments really had the description 'Infantry' in their titles. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but before I started, I had looked in the category and found that more had the Arm of Service in the title then not. Moreover several historical reenactor groups also use them in the title, and they are usually fairly reliable for accuracy. I have now moved a good dozen or more articles, and not one person had contacted me in the last few days, except yourself. If you feel that I am wrong, please bring it up in the ACW task force talk page--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

In this case its not the country that is the issue. The use of abbreviations in title is not encourages, but spelling out the whole is also counter to the historical practice you pointed out. So, the full and historical use is in the article, but the article title is only that, the article title name for Misplaced Pages use. Seems to me a fair compromise--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No. We work on the title of the unit, not what we might want it to be. Stop creating invented titles for units whose traditions you're, with all due respect, not particularly an expert on. Please wait - and discuss with others - until you check with someone who knows. Surely the YAssy-Kishinev experience has taught you the value of standing back and waiting for others' opinions a little? Buckshot06 (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Better than that, I've just brought it up on the main talk page, because it covers more than the ACW. Would you mind please putting that particular focus of yours on the back-burner while the discussion is underway? Buckshot06 (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Divisions of the Soviet Union

I very much mind, and will revert you if you try. Please have the basic courtesy to ask, rather than inform, when specific users have been heavily involved with articles. W.B. Wilson said himself that the good thing about that list was that it was in one place. As you pointed out yourself, it needs to be separated by branch, and that I would have no disagreement with - the infantry one's already done. But there is no need to hurry - it can be done when there is information enough to fill out branch-specific articles. (And, incidentially, what would you call each breakdown of 10 articles each? I can't imagine!) Buckshot06 (talk) 09:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, not articles of 10, just sections of 10 in the list. I am getting a bit sick of having to scroll down pages and pages just to insert one bit of info--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree with the proposal to break this list up. I think that it's a great resource and works just fine. It's only 46 Kb long, which isn't too bad, especially given the amount of topics the article needs to cover. Any discussion to split the article should only be done after a consensus to do so is reached. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Nick, you are looking at the wrong list. This page, see my last contribution, is This page is 108 kilobytes long. Then again, maybe the sections made it that long?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, serves me right for butting into some-one elses' conversation! I agree that Infantry divisions of the Soviet Union 1917–1957 is rather long, but am not convinced that an outright split is the best option. How about converting it to just a straight list of the names of the divisions and then create sub-lists (blocks of 10 seems much too small - how about blocks of 100 or 50? - these wouldn't be particularly long lists) with the key stats and a very short summary of each division. Longer articles on the individual divisions can then be created at a later stage. I'd also suggest that the sub-lists be set up as tables - this is common for featured lists and seems to be best-practice so you may as well do it when setting up any new large lists with lots of information. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, not a bad suggestion. I don't mind scrolling through 50 divisions, but not 450.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I will happily modify the page with 100-division blocks along the lines Nick suggests (however, as Kirill suggested, with lists, I think) but that doesn't stop you copying the data and rearranging it, Mrg, any way you wish - please, go ahead, copy the data, and reorganise it by military district at another, new, page. I believe List of German divisions in World War II and Formations of the United States Army during World War II gives enough of a precedent for this page remaining much as it is. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ignorance does not qualify for precedence! The US Army had recruiting districts (aha!) (as part of the Region Recruiting Commands), and Germany had Wehrkreis. So why the linear thinking?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Says who - you only, just because you disagree with it? And what have military districts got to do with it (Corps areas or the postwar US field armies are better fits for the USA, I think) Take the information - no problem, rewrite it as you wish - the Soviet Armed Forces are big enough to deserve multiple ways of interpreting the data.. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point - a numerical list is NOT one of the "ways of interpreting the data". There is an informal convention in Logic that a discussion of any subject benefits from beginning at the start. Most US divisions did start somewhere, so why start with their Corps areas or the post-war US field armies locations?! The history for these units starts in Continental USA.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

re: FA?

Admins don't reclassify FAs: such reassessments are dont through a Featured article review, which you can initiate. You can also delist GAs yourself by following the procedure at Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment, but this should not be done without a discussion on the articles' talk pages, especially as they're FAs. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I had never done either of those before, so will have a look at the process.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Be Amazed?

Um, not sure what you're talking about here Mrg - can you explain? Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 08:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Structure of the Soviet Army

Hi Mrg. I'm a bit torn here. We're both interested in the same subject and our collaberation could be really fruitful (you could say it already is) but we keep on having these massive arguments on presentation. Would an olive branch from me help? I think SoLando's idea of a Structure of the Soviet Army, to match Structure of the British Army, Structure of the Australian Army, etc, is a great idea - much better than our existing Formations of the Soviet Army, which as you rightly say, doesn't cover arms and services. Would you like to move Formations of the Soviet Army to that title - or start off a new one, laying out the structure and contents, and I can help fill in the sections? Buckshot06 (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Buckshot06, in case you need reminding, I was the one who proposed cooperation when I first returned to editing last year. The problem I have, and not doubt you do also, is that there is so much to do and so little time.

Structure of the Soviet Army would be great, but you had not done that in the articles you edited, and given your emphasis on units and formations, and the sheer volume of work you and Mr Wilson had done, and still have to do, I had not suggested it. The greatest issue I have is that the all the articles and categories are lacking in project coordination. This is funny because I'm currently doing PM associate certification, so I should be able to do the job!

Essentially the Structure of the Soviet Army is predicated on the Structure of the Imperial Russian Army legacy and Structure of the Army of the Russian Federation descendent. So, unlike our peers in the British and US articles, we are (ideally) working on three nations, and not one. This may not be readily apparent in terms of unit lineage, but it is when considering Forces doctrine for which these units and formations were developed. I have grappled with how to approach this best, and obviously have not been successful. On top of this, there is the issue of Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front. It is not as complete in Misplaced Pages as one may have wished. Typically there are lots of people editing the technology articles, but not the many other articles, some of this just don't exist. Compare Wehrmacht with Structure of the British Army, and you will see that this also needs development, and that makes four.

So, my project goal is to describe Operations on the Eastern Front - both Axis and Soviet. To achieve this goal I need to achieve several objectives within the project scope

• G0. Describe Imperial Russian Army - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles)
• G1. Trace development of the Red Army from Imperial Army
• G2. Trace development of the Wehrmacht from Reichswehr
• G3. Describe Red Army - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles)
• G4. Describe Wehrmacht - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles)
• G5. Describe Operations on the Eastern Front

Now, your project goal, as I understand it, consists of the following objectives within the project scope

• C1. Trace development of the Soviet Army from Red Army
• C2. Describe Soviet Army - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles)
• C3. Trace transition of the Soviet Army into post-USSR forces of the Former Soviet Union states.

Do I have this correct?

As I see it the objective C1 can not be achieved without the G5, but it would be pointless for me to produce G5 if nothing could be derived in terms of how they influenced C1

I need to go, but if we can agree on the goals and objectives, maybe we can get to cooperate from there in deciding which articles need to be done, in which priority and to what degree of urgency.

I will be tagging articles for use with Igor, and I suggest you also download it. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

My project goals could well be described as C1, C2 and C3 above, but I'm not particularly interested in the technology, which is already well served - only the technology as it affects the force (which is probably what you mean). I'm incorporating bits of G5 as they become available.

I think, as you've laid out, that our goals are separate but related. Why don't you lay out your list of priority articles - my only real one, really long since discarded, was to promote Red Army to FA. However I think a Structure of the Soviet Army (Ground Forces) would be really good, but it would have to take in ~45 years of history. Maybe a Structure of the Red Army would be better first. Also I'd like to move Army (Soviet Army) upwards as well. Articles for the 10th and 14th Armies would be good too. I'm now looking more closely at African armies and USAF MAJCOM wings. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Further Project expansion

However, you must agree that technology is explicitly interdependent with other aspects of the subject area. It is not possible to write about the Eastern Front without mentioning the T-34 and Il-2, and it is not possible to discuss the Soviet Army without considering the lessons it derived from the war.

Nor is it possible to isolate the Soviet Army from other Types and Branches, particularly Air Force.

So really it should be

• G01. Describe Imperial Russian Army - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles)
  • Grand Strategy
  • Tactics
• G02. Describe Imperial Russian Navy - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles)
  • Grand Strategy
  • Tactics
• G02GS Describe Imperial Russian General Staff
  • Strategy
• G12GS Describe Soviet General Staff
  • Strategy
• G1A. Trace development of the Red Army from Imperial Army (Revolution and Russian Civil War)
  • Operational art
  • Tactics
• G1N. Trace development of the Red Navy from Imperial Navy (Revolution and Russian Civil War)
  • Operational art
  • Tactics
• G1AF. Trace development of the Red Air Force from Imperial Army Air Service (Revolution and Russian Civil War)
  • Operational art
  • Tactics

• G2. Trace development of the Wehrmacht from Reichswehr (Wehrmacht was all Service inclusive) I'm hoping to find someone else who can do that
  • Strategy
  • Operational art
  • Tactics

• G3A. Describe Red Army - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles) technology would be part of doctrinal development; most of the articles are there
  • Strategy
  • Operational art
  • Tactics
• G3N. Describe Red Navy - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles) technology would be part of doctrinal development; most of the articles are not there
  • Strategy
  • Operational art
  • Tactics
• G3AF. Describe Red Air Force - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles) technology would be part of doctrinal development; most of the articles are there
  • Strategy
  • Operational art
  • Tactics

• G4. Describe Wehrmacht - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles) I'm hoping to find someone else who can do that
  • Strategy
  • Operational art
  • Tactics

• G5. Describe Operations on the Eastern Front (putting it all together)
  • Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II (Western Front) (because there were no solely Navy or Air Force operations of any significance) actually the three Strategic Directions
  • Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II (Far Eastern Front) (because there were no solely Navy or Air Force operations of any significance)
  • Strategic operations of the Wehrmacht in World War II (Eastern Front)

Now, your project goal, as I understand it, consists of the following objectives within the project scope

• C12GS Describe Soviet General Staff development
  • Strategy
• C1A. Trace development of the Soviet Army from Red Army
  • Operational art
  • Tactics
  • 1st of period (June 1945 - May 1957) - the reduction of the formations of rifle troops with a simultaneous qualitative improvement in their organizational and manning structure and extent of outfitting taking into account realties of the begun “Cold War”;
  • Operational art
  • Tactics
  • 2nd of period (June 1957 - December 1964) the -transition actually of all formations of infantry in the rank of those motorized, a short-term notable increase in their number with the subsequent reduction in the favour of political ambitions;
  • Operational art
  • Tactics
  • 3rd of period (January 1965 - December 1985) - restoration and further increase in the number of formations of the motor rifle troops with the relatively clear priorities in their further development, methods of application, possibilities of their use, etc;
  • Operational art
  • Tactics
  • 4th period (January 1986 - December 1991) - an attempt at the realization of all dogmas of the 3rd period with the subsequent conducting of the “new thinking” policy and indiscriminate reduction of the formations of the motor rifle troops with simultaneous reduction in their qualitative parameters derived from this.
  • Operational art
  • Tactics

• C1N. Trace development of the Soviet Navy from Red Navy
  • Strategy
  • Operational art
  • Tactics
  • periods in Navy were somewhat different
• C1AF. Trace development of the Soviet Air Force from Red Air Force
  • Strategy
  • Operational art
  • Tactics
  • periods in the Air Force were somewhat different
• C2A. Describe Soviet Army - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles) technology would be part of doctrinal development; most of the articles are there
  • Strategic operations of the Soviet Army in the Cold War (Western Front)
  • Strategic operations of the Soviet Army in the Cold War (Central Asian Front) (because there were no solely Air Force operations of any significance)
  • Strategy
  • Operational art
  • Tactics
• C2N. Describe Soviet Navy - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles) technology would be part of doctrinal development; most of the articles are there
  • Strategy
  • Operational art
  • Tactics
• C2AF. Describe Soviet Air Force - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles) technology would be part of doctrinal development; most of the articles are there
  • Strategic operations of the Soviet Air Force in the Cold War (Far Eastern Front) (64th Air Defense Corps, and Vietnam War participation
  • Strategy
  • Operational art
  • Tactics
• C2MF. Describe Soviet Missile Forces - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles) technology would be part of doctrinal development; most of the articles are not there?
  • Strategic operations of the Soviet Missile Forces in the Cold War (North American Front) (Cuban Missile Crisis)
  • Strategy
  • Operational art
  • Tactics
• C2SF. Describe Soviet Space Forces - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles) technology would be part of doctrinal development; most of the articles are not there?
  • Strategy
  • Operational art
  • Tactics

• C3. Trace transition of the Soviet Forces into post-USSR forces of the Former Soviet Union states.

• C5. Russian Federation
• C5A. Describe Russian Federation Army - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles) technology would be part of doctrinal development; most of the articles are there
  • Strategy
  • Operational art
  • Tactics
• C5N. Describe Russian Federation Navy - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles) technology would be part of doctrinal development; most of the articles are there
  • Strategy
  • Operational art
  • Tactics
• C5AF. Describe Russian Federation Air Force - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles) technology would be part of doctrinal development; most of the articles are there
  • Strategy
  • Operational art
  • Tactics
• C5MF. Describe Russian Federation Missile Forces - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles) technology would be part of doctrinal development; most of the articles are not there?
  • Strategy
  • Operational art
  • Tactics
• C5SF. Describe Russian Federation Space Forces - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles) technology would be part of doctrinal development; most of the articles are not there?
  • Strategy
  • Operational art
  • Tactics

repeat for the rest

• C5. Belarus
• C5. Ukraine
• C5. Moldova
• C5. Georgia (country)
• C5. Armenia
• C5. Azerbaijan
• C5. Kazakhstan
• C5. Uzbekistan
• C5. Turkmenistan
• C5. Kyrgyzstan
• C5. Tajikistan
• C5. Estonia
• C5. Lithuania
• C5. Latvia

How does this look? I know it looks complex, but the reality is that this is what you are dealing with now anyway when you link between categories, but just not in a structured way.

This may look daunting, however, firstly consider it as something to put on your resume (research project team member), and secondly consider the publication possibilities without which you will not get noticed. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this points out a key difference in our approaches. You like to lay out long-term plans, while I focus on improving or creating specific articles. First, yes, we're saying the same thing about technology different ways. Second, I am only interested in the Red Army Ground Forces (actually don't think that was a term) and Soviet Army Ground Forces - maybe I should have been clearer about that earlier. I think we can put aside the Russian Federation for the moment and leave it to later; it's not within our collaberative area (the Ground Forces, my specific area, is already partially covered by the FA I wrote, Russian Ground Forces). So, considering all that, I am only worried about C1A and C2A - once those are fully written in near-complete detail, only then would I be interested in looking at the C-category ones. That does not preclude looking at G-category ones first, such as the one I'd be most interested in, the sub-G3A, Structure of the Red Army. (My publication priorities are completely elsewhere, as I cannot read Russian; the land forces of Liberia and the DR Congo). Buckshot06 (talk) 04:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You are researching to publish on Liberia and the DR Congo?

Yes - already have actually, with an article in the Jul/Aug 2006 New Zealand International Review

Ok, I think we have a different philosophical approach. You like to focus on a single article and build it up to FA quality. I on the other hand would rather see a broad coverage of the entire category, if only with stubs, because that offers more sources of reference to prospective readers. In other words, while you "fish the whale" I "fish the sardines" ;o) Of course in time I hope to get all my "sardines" to somewhere around marlin size, but that is another story ;o)

Indeed, that's been evident for some time.

Do you have plans to learn Russian?

No. French.

It is difficult for me to understand how we can collaborate because we are working in different conceptual environments.

Name your proposed highest priority article within the area that our interests coincided, and we can both work on it.

I don't mind helping you with specific articles, but as it stands the structure of categories and existing articles does not exactly fit in with the outline of the project above as I'm sure you appreciate.

Railways are a good example. Railway use by military on both sides during the GPW was huge. It defined strategy and operational capabilities. Many people have written books on the success of blitzkrieg having never looked at the map of USSR. All panzer group operations essentially moved along the major rail lines. Where there were none running West to East, as in southern Ukraine (from Romanian border), the advance stagnated. Caucasus was approached via Kiev and Kharkov and not the shortest route along the Black Sea shore for logistic reasons. This defined the Soviet strategy during the war, and epitomised the importance of the military railway troops. In all the great strategic operations of the war the element of surprise was gained by the ability to rapidly move troops from place to place, largely by rail. And yet I find there is not even a general article on the use of railways by the military, never mind Red and Soviet Army railway troops. Etc, etc, etc. There is so much to do.

Yes, I've had a look at your sandbox article.

In any case, it is not that I am not unappreciative of your work, or others, but what has happened is that lots of editors covered the 'sexy' subjects, but the overall theme of military forces within the area broadly defines as Russia in the modern period are not coordinated and only patchy. This is the big picture view.

Now, if you can suggest how you see C1A, C2A and the sub-G3A, Structure of the Red Army being developed, please tell me. As for myself, I only see the Ground Forces of Red Army and Ground Forces of Soviet Army as two parts of a whole that commenced in 1918.

Agree totally.

The people that shaped the Red Army of GPW were all FWW/Civil War veterans. Evolution of doctrine and formations structure (or are you just interested in the OOB?) were defined by personal and not theoretical experiences. It is wrong to think that what was written by Uborevich, Tukhachevsky and others was theory. The Soviet Army was created from, and largely existed as an inheritor of very same experiential application well into the Cold War despite the 1956 realisation by the General Staff, better known as the T-55. So you tell me what you want to do, since now you know where I'm going.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Two alternatives, I think. Firstly, I think merging Formations of the Soviet Army into a broader Structure of the Red Army would be good, with maybe a 1945 onwards article on the Sov Army GF structure later. I think this covers both our interests, especially your specific requirement to describe how Red Army rifle units and formations were organised. Secondly, if you have another priority within that coinciding area, speak up.... Buckshot06 (talk) 05:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Structure of the Soviet Ground Forces

Well, no. Anything from Army up formations can include Air Force and Naval units that are operationally assigned to the Army command. However, the "formations" part does not really apply to anything above a Front at best. Theatres and strategic directions really belong to the Soviet General Staff article. In reality they are parts of the Command structure.

The articles on the British, Australian and American Armies really do not deal with all three dimensions. Structure usually relates to the decision (i.e. command) functions of the forces (strategy), organisation relates to the combination of units and formations under various (strategic) Command HQs for execution of expected missions (operational level), and doctrinal explains how these combinations are used in the execution of the missions (tactics). Note that strategy may not apply only to the national military strategy, but strategy in general, like Army training strategy, or budgeting, providing direction to industry for technology development, etc.

There is a great degree of confusion from article to article because they were not coordinated. The Structure of the French Army shows the organisational OOB, but not the command and doctrinal aspects. The Structure of the British Army is largely its OOB, and those parts of the Army which relate to the administration of training, the Arms and Services Corps. It is the Land Command article that deals with the stricture of the British Army since it is there that decisions are taken on the organisation and doctrinal use of the units. I didn't see anything that would explain the doctrine which guides the organisation of the British Army except for the lone generic link to the Battlegroup (army). The United States Army is better, but also does not explain why it has the organisation that it does because the there is not mention of the operational or tactical doctrine, but only why the Army is operationally divided" into units, and what they are as sub-parts of organisational administration.

So, if you want to build up the Structure of the Soviet Ground Forces (Sukhoputniye Sily), I will help you, because it is in my own interest, but it is likely to be a very different article to the others due to it being three rather then two-dimensional. I would go to FA with that..or die trying ;o)

SGF

My proposal would be to call it simply Soviet Ground Forces. The Red Army structurally was a part of the Soviet Union after all, so it would not be that wrong.

Wasn't this Structure of the Soviet Ground Forces? Buckshot06 (talk) 11:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but struktura in Russian has a defined meaning unlike its application in English. I'll explain tomorrow--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

(i)Within the article I would start with a short introduction, giving an overview of the major trials, tribulations and conflicts, followed by the the main body of the article. The main body needs to acknowledge the legacy of the Imperial Russian Army and the First World War experience that created the Soviet Union, the Civil War, and war with Poland of course. These would represent the introduction to why and how the Red Army was created. (ii) I'd suggest the article needs to have a brief historical overview of the development of the Ground Forces through its significant periods: formative (1925 - 1936), combat (1936 - 1946), transformative (1947 - 1961), consolidating (1962 - 1984), and final (1985 - 1993), and explain what happened for them to deserve these appellations (ok, not those actual words - I just used one word for what would be a sentence).

(iii) Then go to the Structure and say how decisions were taken at strategic level, including the link to the Politburo, (iv) then the section on the organisation, and how that relates to the operational art as a doctrine. (v) Finally, the OOB and how and why the Ground Forces were organised, stationed and equipped in the way that they were. (vi) Lastly, you can include a section on "Suvorov" and his views as criticisms, something other articles on Armies lack completely as if no one has ever criticises then.

How does this sound?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting your thoughts. Do you know who started and wrote most of the Land Command article? Yes, yours truely. The difficulty from a Western perspective on this is that we don't do the 'military-scientific' very well. (i) is fine, though it would not be more than three or four big paragraphs. Same with (ii). (iii) would be quite short, just outlining the chain of command mostly - one or two paragraphs. (iv) What do you mean by organisation? Rifle Corps/Rifle Div/Rifle Bde/Bn descriptions etc, same for artillery, tank forces, etc? Long section. (v) A full OOB would be several separate articles, listing ~500++ divs in midwar, plus mech/tank corps, ~300(?) odd divs in 1946-7, and 200 odd divs in 1960s-80s. What exactly do you mean? (vi) Descriptions of how/why etc would be good though, but where would you source it from?, and maybe more importantly, at what period? !930s? 1946? 1960s-89? We'd need reasonably solid English-language sources if we are both to work on this. (vii) Sure, but 'Inside the Soviet Army' mostly praised the arrangements, if I remember rightly. Be interested to hear your thoughts. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 10:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, sorry for the criticism, but IMHO you went the wrong way! The Land Command article repeats the OOB! Instead it should go to Ministry of Defence and higher. This is why there is nothing to link to in the Category:Commands of the British Army!

From a British Army point of view, this is incorrect. Command (military formation)s in the British Army were functional or regional organisations theoretically of a four-star status, which could contain several field armies (only actual example was the BEF in the first world war). They had field formations subordinate to them. (Depending on how big it was though, it could be as small as a Colonel's command - our NZ Army Central Command at Trentham immediately after WW2) They were not administrative, and definitely not part of the War Office or, now, Ministry of Defence. They were just the largest type of formation subordinate to it. They were often regional, such as Malaya Command or Middle East Command. This lists some , but others included GHQ Home Forces etc. This lists most of them at Army level (whether they were Army, Army Group, or lower, depended on the numbers and size of field formations subordinate to them.) I've been thinking to start writing on some of them, but it would be long and not very relevant.

Your characterisation of 'Command' may be correct for the USSR/Russia etc, but is not for the United Kingdom. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to explain more because its late and I don't feel like doing British research. Are you saying that the Land Command is not responsible to the Defence Council?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Chain runs - Defence Council - Army Board - CGS - Commands. (British Army, A Pocket Guide, 97/98) All Commands of the British Army report to the Chief of General Staff's staff - whether earlier called the War Office, now called MOD (Army). One could compare the CGS to a battalion commander, who in World War II would have had over 15 companies in various parts of the world. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• (i) is fine, though it would not be more than three or four big paragraphs. - yes, sure
• (ii) Same.
• (iii) would be quite short, just outlining the chain of command mostly - one or two paragraphs. - I would be surprised if you can do it in one/two even large (3-4 sentence) paragraphs, but I'm prepared to be proven wrong.
• (iv) What do you mean by organisation? Rifle Corps/Rifle Div/Rifle Bde/Bn descriptions etc, same for artillery, tank forces, etc? Long section. - yes, organisation is organisation for combat; troop types and branches are administrative, so part of the structure

So where are the troops types and branches (often very different from the West) dealt with? Buckshot06 (talk) 11:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• (v) A full OOB would be several separate articles, listing ~500++ divs in midwar, plus mech/tank corps, ~300(?) odd divs in 1946-7, and 200 odd divs in 1960s-80s. What exactly do you mean? - The OOB is dealt with paragraphs with Main article redirects.
• (vi)Descriptions of how/why etc would be good though, but where would you source it from?, and maybe more importantly, at what period? !930s? 1946? 1960s-89? We'd need reasonably solid English-language sources if we are both to work on this. There are good sources, primarily Simpkin and Glantz again (his job for US Army was in Soviet doctrine, not history).

Do you mean Race to the Swift? And which Glantz books? Buckshot06 (talk) 11:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the late Brigadier wrote several books on the operational art, and was an expert on the Soviet doctrine bar none in terms of published material.

Glantz wrote Soviet Military Operational Art - In pursuit of deep battle which is not on his article. I would highly recommend it as it recapitulates the Simpkin research, and adds to it in a relatively slim volume. Somewhat more readable also because Simpkin wrote not only in the British style, but one from another era ;o)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• (vii) Sure, but 'Inside the Soviet Army' mostly praised the arrangements, if I remember rightly. - well, I just thought it would be something to "bounce" the rest of the content off. He wrote other books you know ;o).

I know well, his rubbish on Stalin's 'plans', but I never look at those books. As far as I'm concern Glantz's Colossus series demolishes his books on that subject very well. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I feel that some other-then-technical perspective needs to be included on the evaluation of the Ground Forces....maybe a Culture section? It was not a monolithic series of unit designations and troop directorates. It had a good and bad about it as a state body, as any armed forces of any nation do. I think this is lacking in the other "Structure of..." articles. You know the saying, "see the man behind the face"?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That's why this proposed article is Structure of the Soviet Ground Forces. It'd be great to have Personnel of the Soviet Ground Forces - dedoshchina, officers' path, soldiers, conscripts, praposhniks (sorry about my spelling) etc. (See Russian Ground Forces#Personnel) This is structure and it's dry - but it's worth writing. The human element is in other articles, not dry structural details. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose you are right. However like in all armies there were generational cultural influences that shaped the struktura and the organizatziya and the doktrina, so I wanted to reflect that. In any case, can talk about it when we get to it. I know I have seen you write some content on it somewhere already. Good night.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Structure

This is an English article & encyclopedia; we should use English terms, and this is the correct one. Structure in English covers both administrative (arms and branches of service) and operational (divisions, brigades etc). If you want to insert a Russian article name which does or does not use a word that sounds vaguely the same, that's fine in either case. If there is a need to link it eventually to a Russian article with a different name, that's fine too. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused! Are you confirming that there is no rule which says the article must be named Structure of...? It seems to me it is precisely because "Structure in English covers both administrative (arms and branches of service) and operational (divisions, brigades etc)" that the word should not be use as a means of disambiguation.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you mention disambiguation at all. What we are trying to do, I thought, is detail the specific Red/Soviet Armies details of both administrative and operational organisation - surely the word Structure is appropriate. Otherwise we would have to completely replan it, as 'Soviet Army Ground Forces' would cover, from 45-91, history, operations, organisation, personnel & training, mobilisation & war plans, and equipment, etc - not just structure. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, sorry, but we had an edit conflict and I had to undo your edits (not on purpose) because mine were all over the place and I had been editing for like 30 minutes.

Speaking of which, not sure why you decided to remove the section on the formation of Imperial Russian naval infantry.

Also, the Russian Navy is not the same as the Military Naval Fleet of the Russian Federation.

I'll relink it to the 1991- section further down. Well spotted. As far as I know, I didn't remove anything, rather added the intro. During edit conflicts, are you aware of the second box at the very bottom of the page which has your edits, which you can copy/paste and thus add without trouble? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes we did agree on detailing the specific Red/Soviet Armies details of both administrative and operational organisation, but Structure of refers only to the Command (administrative) part of that.

Yes, but only for Russian speakers reading in English (not our primary audience). 'Structure,' in the sense of this proposed and the other en-wiki land forces articles, refers to 'the manner of building or construction; the way in which an ediface, machine, etc is made or put together' (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Clarendon, Oxford, 1973, p.2156). You are trying to justify an article title in the English section on the basis of what the word means in Russian. For the English section, this is illogical. As I said, we can link the various sections to the appropriate, potentially differently named, parts in different Ru-wiki articles if necessary. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

So naming the entire article in this way will only confuse because it will also be one of the names of the sections.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but this means you would call the section on struktura what? I'm perfectly happy to just name it Soviet Armed Forces, and use structure for the section dealing with it where it will be used consistently with the Russian and English meanings.

At this time I would not want to think about creating separate articles.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Administrative structure, with the other being operational structure. An alternative to Administrative structure would be Branches of Service. 'Branches' is an often used term for these arms and services - see Category:Branches of the United States Army. I thought we were proposing to do the Structure of the Soviet Ground Forces, so it would deal with all the branch organisations - those rifle company/battalion/regiment/brigade/division/corps and others - artillery, tank forces etc - and the formations and the operational organisation - imported, for the ground-forces appropriate section, from Formations of the Soviet Army. This is much less all-covering than Soviet Armed Forces, for which we have an article on anyway. Unfortunately, if you write 'Structure' in the English article, meaning 'strucktura,' you will have English speaking readers asking 'where's the rest of the structure' - meaning the admin organisation. 'Struktura' and 'Structure' do not mean the same thing, in this context, and are not consistent. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, do you want to start a sandbox and see how we go?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Later. Need dinner now. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, mine is almost ready, just waiting on the bread to finish baking--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, set up. It's accessible through the top of my userpage - feel free to start adding material and references. I think I need to get a copy of Colossus 1/2/3 ..Buckshot06 (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't get anything yet. I'll make comments in the sanbox talk first.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we've moved our clocks back early this morning. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, just synchronising our watches ;o)

So you are going to move content over first and then do some preliminary writing/editing?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes - I am already, mostly fitting the existing text to the new article structure. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you direct me to english-language sources talking about the five periods of Ground Forces's history (eg 1947-61 transformative)? Or, if not, can you add the link to the Ru-language source/s? Buckshot06 (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've got Excel. Do you not have a spreadsheet package? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I have. I was just looking at your edits with the Arms and Services and though its easier to do with a spreadsheet.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the significance of January 17, 1992 for the RF Navy. The text lists something like June or July 22, 1992. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The St Andrew's ensign was reinstated in the Fleet.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Structure of the Soviet Ground Forces (II)

Mrg, can you find - or even add to Misplaced Pages - an orbat for the Imperial Russian Army in its last days? It'd be much easier to build up the initial history of the Red Army structure if I knew which Imperial Russian forces were where. Thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 02:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I am a bit ahead of you here. Its almost finished, the reason for taking so long is because I have had to piece it from several sources. I will be using the 1917 version, in part from ru-Wiki because it provides the second and third wave regiments. However, as you may appreciate there is a bit of formatting to do. I will add in the next few days.

Hey, weren't you going to help me with this article? Would appreciate you adding text and references if you could, especially with the Politburo/higher command section... Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought a better process would be to let you finish as much as you can edit, and then I will edit and we can work on that. Editing over each other is unproductive in terms of either clarity or system viability due to there being constant edit conflicts since we are in the same time zone. Just buzz me when you are done, although I am watching your edits. Don't be concerned about my temporary foray into religious articles. I need to get off the subject from time to time to renew my inspiration. "A man does not edit by Eastern Front alone" ;o). However, I am still gathering data off-wiki. I will also be doing an FA article for someone in England in the next few weeks, nothing big, so that may take my attention off our project very temporarily. I don't usually like doing FA from scratch, but its a good cause. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think I'm just about done for my first wave on this. Do you want to make some edits for a few days...? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll start tomorrow, but will probably not be able to put much substantial editing until weekend

On a related subject, it seems that our OB for the Sov invasion of Poland in 1939 on-wiki here is pretty bad. Do you have a well-sourced order of battle somewhere for the operation? Buckshot06 (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Not immediately to hand, but I will have a look. It had never been of interest to me so I haven't even read the article, though I should--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I fixed up the OOB. There is also a link to a Russian (recent) work in the sources section on the campaign which has lots more information.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits Mrg. Unfortunately, in doing so, you've changed the links for most of the armies from 'Xth Army (Soviet Union)' to 'Xth Army (Union)' and thus broken most of the links. Would you mind reestablishing them? Also, your note on ranks would probably be more informative actually on the page itself, rather than on the talk page. Cheers & thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Wehrkreise.jpg

Hi, I have cleaned up the image for you and removed the photocopy marks. Next time you need an image cleaned up, there is now the Photo cleanup repair section of the new military logistics department where you list it. Woody (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

military categories

I'm not so sure that'd be an obvious win; Category:Military conflict (it'd have to be lower case 'c') would certainly include Category:War, but not necessarily Category:Military as such, at least in its entirity. It's not an area I'm hugely familiar with, however. The "permanent" categories don't really have a working group or centralised coordination in the way that stub types do, so you're probably best bringing it up at MILHIST, and/or the talk pages of those categories, prior to carting it off to CFR. Hope that helps somewhat. Alai (talk) 00:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Not so flaming obvious?

The year was, in context. For the rest, see its talk page. Trekphiler (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Answered. Hope I'm clear. Since you appear to have the sources at hand, I'll leave you to rewrite, unless you want me to make a pass. And not that I mind, but you might just quote, next time. It makes finding & answering your points easier. (For everybody...) And saves you signing so often.... Trekphiler (talk) 05:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Prophecy

Hi! I noticed you made a number of changes to Prophecy and added a notice at the top saying the article is protected. It isn't, just putting a notice up doesn't protect an article, so I removed the notice. In all honesty it isn't entirely clear to me why an article with a general title of "prophecy" should discuss only the experience of prophecy as distinct from beliefs and other perspectives about it. In any event Misplaced Pages's consensus policy says the basic approach and content of articles is a matter for discussion with other editors. Could you do us a favor and add an entry to the article's talk page (Talk:Prophecy) explaining why you believe the article should take the "experience" approach? If you make good arguments you might be able to persuade me and the other editors. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You'll need to ask another admin to protect the page. Page protection is reserved for heavily trafficed pages that get vandalized hourly or more, this article doesn't seem to be vandalized that often. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I see, so there is no daily vandalized rate protection! Hmmm...how sick does one have to be before seeing a doctor?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The protection policy treats it as an extradinary intervention -- more like putting someone on life support than simply seeing a doctor. Doable, but only when at the edge of death. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

re: Operation Koltso

I've edited Operation Koltso so that it now points to Battle of Stalingrad. Hope that helps. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't work Nick--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It was my fault because I moved the original WWII article without realising there was the 1991 operation, and the redirect worked in automatically. Sorry--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Prophecy II

Substituted a {{fact}} template for the statements you added that there are no sources on contemporary prophecy in the modern church. Suggest using the {{fact}} template (which becomes ) rather than making a statement that "there are no sources". A claim that "there are no sources" is itself original research. It's a statement about the outside world (the state of current research) that people would be likely to regard as controversial. So it has to be verified! It can be challenged, and removed if it remains unsourced. The {{fact}} tag, which simply notes that no source has currently been supplied to Misplaced Pages, avoids this. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

defeat in the field

Do you mean like the end of the Army of Northern Virginia and the way the German Armies of World War I were saved from total defeat in the field by the civilian collapse in morale which lead to a request for an armistice? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, kind of. In this case the claim is that the Talk:Army Group Courland was never defeated in the field (see talk). I tried to point out that it had been as Army Group North, and that, confined to the peninsular s it was, it had few chances to challenge the near 0.5 million Red Army force that was blockading it, but I do not want to get into an edit war in this ridiculous suggestion that the AG was "undefeated in the field" as it surrendered on 8 May 1945. I did find one American definition from First World War, but was wondering if you may have a second definition. Strategically it was a "defeat in detail". Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We had an edit clash.

Thinking about it a little more, the French defeat in the field lead to their defeat in Vietnam, the Americans were never defeated in the field during the Vietnam War but they lost the war because of the civilian collapse in morale. Was Dien Bien Phu a siege ... --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well it would have been chewed up just like Army Group Centre was if it had not surrendered immediately so as you say it is an irrelevant statement. I'll take a look. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Philip, I'm not the one arguing with you here. This is the case of "legendary" performance by a Latvian SS division that was never defeated...according to the Latvian Encyclopaedia. And then these people tell me that Soviet encyclopaedias are not to be trusted!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

USAF Squadron & Wing Naming Conventions

Do you really have to rename the squadrons and wings to show that they are part of the United States? It's not like there are any other countries with wing or squadron names that could somehow be confused with the American units. Those said units usually begin with "RAF" or "RAAF." Show me a few units that could be confused and i'll back down but otherwise I don't think that these units should be renamed just for the sake of it. The miitary naming conventions indicate that this probably doesn't need to be done. Kevin Rutherford 01:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

An article named (for example) 101st Airlift Squadron is just too generic.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you consider everything else too generic? Kevin Rutherford 01:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Waht do you mean by "everything else"?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Military organization

good point, and since I'd forgotten that the Army section goes down to fire team as its smallest unit, it's probably fair enough, so I've self-reverted. David Underdown (talk) 10:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to expand though. For example your edit makes it obvious that the subject of the article is not well defined.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sephardim and Oriental Communities

Pretty much all the information is on the Knesset website, e.g. Personally I'm not a believer in referencing stuff which is obvious and uncontroversial, but you're welcome to do so. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a hint; when you reference articles, please do so like this (i.e. showing the web page title and the site name, rather than this, which doesn't show the references properly. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

39th Rifle Division and 8th Cavalry Corps

I've got groupings of information for these two formations at Far Eastern Military District and 4th Army (Soviet Union) respectively, but I'd like to upgrade them to full articles. Can you point me toward some more sources? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The Far Eastern Military District and 4th Army (Soviet Union) could use a bit of addition also.

You don't mean 39th Guards Rifle Division?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No, you'll see under 130th Machine-Gun Artillery Division, in brackets, it says 'originally 39th Rifle Division' formed before 1941. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Also I'm trying to translate this text on the 99th RD: '05.1942 Has got in an environment under Барвенковым from which send(have left) 1067 person of staff. 08 - 15.06.1942 It is deduced(removed) from structure YUF and from area Redkovskie Sand it is directed for доукомплектования in Балашов to structure of 6th Reserve Army. From 10.07.1942 It is transferred to the 8th Reserve Army. By 10.03.1943 In structure of 62nd Army (Soviet Union) has plunged on item Паньшино and it is sent in order ЮЗФ (item Two-river)'. The original text is at http://www.rkka.ru/handbook/guard/88gvsd.htm - can you straighten out the untranslated bits and the 'item Two-River'? Thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You realise its for the 88th Guards Rifle division and not the 99th Rifle?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the page. It covers the history of the 99th RD (I Formation) and the 88th GRD, which it became after being renamed. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I got confused looking in Poirier and Conner--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

So these are the words I need translated: Барвенковым, 'send(have left) 1067 person of staff -what does that mean?, доукомплектования in Balashov, and 'has plunged on item Паньшино and it is sent in order ЮЗФ (item Two-river)'. Shouldn't be too hard. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• попала в окружение под Барвенковым, из которого вышли 1067 человек личного состава

Was surrounded at Barvenkovo (place), with only 1067 of unit personnel managing to evade capture

• 08 - 15.06.1942 выведена из состава ЮФ и из района Редьковские Пески направлена для доукомплектования в Балашов в состав 6-й рез.А

During this period was removed from the complement of the Southern Front, and from the area of Redkovskiye Peski (place) sent for reorganisation to Balashov (place) in the dispositions of the 6th Reserve Army

• к 10.03.1943 в составе 62-й А погрузилась на ст. Паньшино и отправлена в распоряжение ЮЗФ (ст. Двуречная)

as part of the 62nd Army were loaded on a train at station Panshino and sent to the dispositions of the Soutwestern Front (YZF) as station Dvurechnaya (literally two-rivers)

(sorry for delay, I was going to translate the whole thing but the online translation site I use is down)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I try to be careful when I'm dealing with units that became Guards at one point or another. Still for the 99th, I understand all this passage following except the reference to 'a boiler' which is how the machine translation does it - can you help?: попадает в окружение под Уманью, где большая часть дивизи погибла или попала в плен, удалось избежать окружения только части артиллерии и тылов; всего из Уманского котла вышло - около 2-х тысяч бойцов, при этом удалось сохранить знамена дивизии и полков.. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I use machine trans. to same time, but don't really need it. The site is down for the first time ever.

Boiler is actually a reference to the German kessel, cauldron in which one boils ;o)

• The division was caught in a "boiler" encirclement at Uman, where a large part of it died or was taken prisoner. The only parts of the division to escape were the artillery and elements of the tyl (service support); in all 2,000 soldiers escaped the Uman cauldron, managing to save the standards of the division and the regiments.

I have the 39th Rifle Division, but there is not much. Poirier and Conner have it at Kursk in 1943, but I can't find confirmation for this. They also have it in Transcaucasian MD from 22 March 1946 which I don't see how. They also have it awarded Order of Kutuzov which I can't confirm. Where do you want it?

You'll see I have most of the at Far Eastern Military District#Current Order of Battle, including the note that it may have been at Kursk in '43. WHat I was looking for was Russian internet data - divisional association page, if it existed, or whatever. Can you find any of that? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No. I may have to go to regimental level, but not now--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

National units/Structure of the Soviet GF

Maybe, but I do not remember. I would much rather you worked on the missing sections of the 'Structure of the Soviet Ground Forces' page. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 06:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Who said I'm not?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I was looking at your contributions, and you seemed to be doing mostly partisans and religious things. You're doing it off-wiki? Buckshot06 (talk) 06:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes mostly. I find it difficult to work in sandboxes because I tend to write/translate/do course/ eat/speak to people on the phone and forget that I'm in edit and when I get back to the sandbox I'm told the session data was lost. So I have to go Back and cut and paste, etc. Its a pain since I can spend an hour looking for stuff online or in the books, so while I search for what I want I also participate in other stuff. For example the thing with dragons was most useful in learning something about tables and images.

Partisans was kind of related, but mostly its about putting things right.

Same with religion. It amuses me how much myth and ignorance there is on the subject. I became interested in comparative religions about 7 years ago, and started learning about Judaism since as a good historian I go to the sources. I wasn't brought up in a religious family so learned a lot. Most of all I don't like people making untrue or even misleading statements.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If you've got extra text off-wiki, would you please add it in (or place it in the talk page and I can work it in - whatever suits you best). I would like to take it live soon. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Its not in English yet. What's the hurry? I'm done with religious topics for a while I think, and my diversion into the AK article seems to be winding up, so I'll be back to SA now.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As you saw with the USAF wings article, I don't run sandbox articles for months and months. I write them, ready them, and place them in mainspace so that others can help as well. What I intend to do with the Structure of the SGF article is to go live with the sections that are written, and then the unwritten sections like Politburo/MOD interactions (which, actually now I think of it, may have some of its text better placed at the Sov MOD article - bit high-echelon for Ground Forces) and criticism to be added later. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, didn't realise this was your intent. I don't track what you do. I just had a look the other day t see if you were online by your history before contacting and say "USAF". I will focus on the SGF.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Hmmm...

Hey. Sarcasm is almost extinct, as it soon being called as "personal attack" by some. Sad but true. All the best, M.K. (talk) 10:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

In case you missed this. it seems that your content opponents are desperate. M.K. (talk) 09:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: deleted orphaned redirect talk pages

Hi, Mrg3105! I'm using a robot to delete these pages; 35000 deletions straight probably wouldn't be too good for my mental health. :-) Thanks for the heads-up anyway. east.718 at 12:25, April 13, 2008

First, I had a friend with access to the toolserver generate a list of all redirect talk pages for me. When I run the bot, it systematically goes through the list of pages, testing each to see whether it has no history, no incoming links, and is more than a week old. If all of these criteria are met, the page gets deleted, otherwise, nothing happens. east.718 at 12:33, April 13, 2008

Documentary Hypothesis in Elohim

First off, I didn't add that material to the article from scratch, but re-added it after someone else deleted it, because -- as I said in my edit summary -- the Documentary Hypothesis (whether you love it or hate it) has been a very strong influence on Old Testament scholarly studies for more than a century. Secondly, I personally definitely do not greatly admire Julius Wellhausen. However, that's irrelevant to the subject immediately at hand, and this is not really the place to discuss the Documentary Hypothesis. However, I will observe that although the Documentary Hypothesis in its original form is by no means universally accepted currently, most serious scholars do still accept the distinctness of the "D" source, and recognize that that the Documentary Hypothesis succeeeded in raising serious issues which will have to be dealt with in any serious philological study of certain Hebrew Bible passages... AnonMoos (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have a look at this edit, you will see that a single name for lifetime is not the ancient practice in Israel. In fact many individuals in Jewish literature acquired several names, and even today there is a practice of adding a name to the seriously ill. The simple explanation, and I'm not sure why this was never considered, is that in each of the cases God played a different role, and therefore showed a different "facet" as it were, represented by that name. Had Julius Wellhausen asked Jews when he was postulating his hypothesis, he would have been undoubtedly surprised to find out that God in Hebrew has many names, some the pronunciation of which is believed to have been lost, such as the 42, 62 and 72 letter-long names. There are however 10 names that are commonly used in prayer on daily basis. In any case, I guess some academics also need to eat, and therefore publish ;o)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for dropping by my talk page. My user page was basically copied from my page on the Simple English Misplaced Pages, so the definitions are 'simplified'... but I never heard the definition you provided. I'd be interested in some more detail. What brought you to my talk page? It's good to meet you, and I look forward to working with you. Thanks for your contributions to this project, feel free to stay in touch or ask for help or anything like that. User:Pedant (talk) 11:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That text you asked about is a quote from Jimbo Wales User:Pedant (talk) 11:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I really appreciate your generous, scholarly, and thorough explanation. Over the years I've 'banned' editors from my talk page. You however have a standing invitation to drop in any time. I'm very pleased to meet you. Please clarify: the "-et", is similar to the English expression "A-Z" in the usage you describe? Let me know if I can ever be of any help to you whatsoever. User:Pedant (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Let us work together

Dear Mrg3105, our discussion at AK was not the best example of collaboration out there. But I am sure you, just as I, want to improve this project and the articles. Please, help me by suggesting some compromise.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by compromise?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS covers its pretty well. How would you like the text to read? What sources would you use to reference your version? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe in consensus without establishing facts. If facts are established, there is no need for consensus. In any case, that is a guideline in constant development.

I have no problem in the article stating that the AK had a large membership, maybe as large as 400,000, but was poorly equipped which limited its effectiveness though it still achieved much. If you insist on stating this in a comparative way, then please use professor Cienciala's suggestion, and that of Cleo as a qualifiers that AK was the largest outside of the Soviet partisan movement until 1943, as Cleo suggested, when it was overtaken in both membership and capability by the better supplied Soviet partisans. I think it is important to show that large memberships do not necessarily translate into capability due to lack of arms, but that is also an argument that AK did contribute significantly to combat German forces despite this handicap.

I would discourage you from using the statement that Soviet partisans fought AK more then the Germans. Aside from the physical impossibility of this having transpired, most of Soviet partisan activity was directed to the East in cooperating with their Army and Front "handlers", so if any clashes did occur, they would have occurred in the immediate period before Bagration, and for a political reason we are all aware of. Other then that the Soviet partisans were just as short resources within the context of their operations as AK was, and probably saw the German forces in Poland as something out of their hands until Spring of 1944.

Cleo provided more English language sources, and if you are stuck for anything, just bring it up in talk.

So far as the various other forces AK interacted with, I really don't like using global identifiers like "Poles", or "Americans", or "whites", etc. I think you know what I mean. Please identify which groups AK dealt with because I think you can.

Just a note on the issue of structure, I find that the table of organisation is quite large, and breaks up the narrative of the article. You may want to consider inserting it after the epilogue, which is where I suggested the "after" section is moved to. It really is more natural to read the after-part after all the information you are presenting about the wartime events. This is how all the books I have do it.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Professor Cienciala's in her email to me withdrew her qualification in light of the numbers I presented on our talk. Clio's not clear on which was the largest; I've asked her to clarify her position on that. I would agree that Soviets were likely better armed, although this should be clearly referenced. But if you want to claim they were the largest, we need to find a reference that states it clearly. This is demanded by our policies - WP:V and WP:OR (we cannot base a claim on our synthesis and worse, extrapolations, of several sources which are not clear).

As you will note, the claim that Soviets fought AK more often than the Germans does not appear in any lead; nor it should. It was the case limited to only part of Soviet partisans territory, as well as limited in time. That said there are plenty of sources that note that Soviet partisans decicated considerable effort to engaging the Polish ones in the disputed territories (Kresy). See also Soviet partisans in Poland.

AK dealt with too many groups. As I've noted, Jews, for example - it dealt with Jewish civilians and resistance. The heading "Interactions with Jewish civilians and resistance" in unwieldy. "Interactions with Jews" is better, and the word Jew is hardly an insult (just as the word Pole or an American isn't).

I see the epilogue argument, but I also would like to keep the history together (and in the opening section). If majority of editors would prefer your layout, I will not oppose it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I would really like us to finish collaborating on AK with a good feeling. It is my experience that often much good content and wikiunderstanding comes out from what have begun as less then perfect collaboration. Thus, I would like to ask - are you satisfied with current wording of the article w/ regards to AK size? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

23rd Motor Rifle Division

Hi Mrg, great additions for the last days of this formation. Reading through what you wrote however I'm still not completely clear what happened - just tricks of expressing oneself no doubt. Do you mean that the divisional commander decided to comply with the demands of the Ganja city people, but was stopped in doing so by the actions of some of his officers? Or some of the military equipment was given up but other equipment evacuted? Just wanted to get the sequence of events clear. Thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 09:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually expected you to ask this ;o)

The answer is that I'm still a bit confused myself, but could not spend more time on it. I have fallen behind a bit in the course I'm doing, so will not be in Misplaced Pages as much.

What I understand happened is that the Division, in fact all of the 4th Army, were ordered out. However, this was not a 100% strong division, and when it tried to leave the barracks at Ganja (second largest city), it was not allowed because the moves for independence were already in the air if you know what I mean. The division's and Army's staff continuously requested direction from MD and higher for weeks, and nothing happened. The city people were actually what soon became the national guard of Azerbaijan, and they took over the 4th Army although they had almost no qualified personnel, particularly officers. Some Russian officers stayed, but most non-Azerbaijani service personnel up and left when Soviet Union broke up. The division was supposed to proceed from its barracks to the train where it was expected to load. Most of it never made it. I have seen recollections of an engineer who was sent in by the MD to account for the engineering equipment in the division (each arm sent an officer from MD HQ), and the divisional chief engineer just waved his arms. In any case, soon it was completely out of everyone's hands after the Tbilisi agreement was signed, but fighting already started by then.

I'm a little confused about the officers I mentioned also. I think the author where I got this from was also confused. I can't see a colonel commanding a division unless he was a chief of staff or something, or deputy CO, but it is clear that the divisional CO (second mentioned) was very distressed; he had suggested that his officers were prepared to issue orders to fire on the crowd IF he received authorisation to do so from higher echelon, which he did not.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. Two things- can you put the links to the websites here, so I can follow up with machine translation, and secondly, would you please add the book and publication date to 'Isby p.15' in the Suvorov article - right now it's not clear which book. Cheers and thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your comment

May I ask what is so fascinating about it? It is Alden Jones who pointed my attention to the article, most probably because he's not a fluent user of the English language nad Piotrus was an involved party. With regard to your comment I feel obliged to ask whether you have a problem with my actions or if I would attempt to mediate the dispute? Миша13 18:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Numbers

Hi, Mrg3105 (that's so impersonal!) I've made a final statement on this subject on the AK talk page. Regards, Anastasia, aka Clio the Muse (talk) 23:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Soviet operations

Great. Please list both variations when you make the changes; we're not trying to impose one view of history, we're trying to improve accessibility, so people searching for both things will find them. Something along the lines of me leaving the term 'Balaton Offensive Operation' but putting Spring Awankening (sp I know) right next to it. How's your sections for the structure of the Ground Forces going? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, lets take each operation case as it comes up. I just moved the Battle of Velikiye Luki to Battle for Velikiye Luki (1943) given the first battle is not even covered by any English source.

I hadn't done anything this morning if that is what you are asking. Just go to my emails, and...

I did look at the Red Army article which will be merged into the SGF? The task is daunting, and I can certainly feel for David Isby when he wrote his book in the 80s. I have it somewhere, and may have to get it out.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be an EXTREMELY good book to get out; I've got the companion book on NATO, which has served me very well indeed. Using Scott & Scott as well as Isby would provide very good sources. My policy with the Red Army article versus a putative 'Soviet Army Ground Forces' or some such article is that when we get enough written, we can split 1917-45 and 1945-91. As soon as the Structure of the Soviet Ground Forces is ready, we take out the main link under Organisation to 'Formations of the Soviet Army' and substitute the Structure article, which will be more-embracing. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually if you have Isby you've practically got the article already -just write up two sentances on each branch from his material and insert a redlink to a future detailed article. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want my 2 cents, the Structure of the Sov GF is far more important; you've already got at 90% good listing of operations already - you could forget the final tinkering for a while. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Its in one of the boxes in the garage, and will have to wait until Tuesday :o\--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Mrg, just wanted to say, suggest you leave off making any more edits to Str SGF until you've managed to retrieve the Isby book - it'll make it a million times easier. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 08:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

An RfC you might be interested in

Hello. You dropped by my talk page a while back and commented on some of my observations on my user page, so I wanted to let you know that an RfC has been filed on me. Please feel free to drop by and comment, if you're interested, one way or the other. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 04:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Military Reserves

I know we had our disagreements on the 7th Infantry Division discussion. But I have admired your contribution to military articles and was wondering if you would be interested in this

http://en.wikipedia.org/Military_reserve_force

I have added to it. Would love to have your imput. I feel that the articles on "military basics" such as the linked one are in need of improvement.58.65.163.248 (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I can only contribute as far as Australia and Soviet Union are concerned, and since Australia is already covered, I will add this to the Second World War/Soviet Ground Forces project. Soviet Union made the largest use of reserves during the Second World War, having separate and distinct reserve formations that included not only conscription reserves, but also the reserve Armies and even a Front that constituted the reserve of the reserve if this can be framed in this way.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your additions to the military reserves force page (http://en.wikipedia.org/Military_reserve_force). I feel that

i) Military reserve force should be one page and lists of reserves a different page.

ii) more work needs to be done wrt to the paragraphs on sources, employment advantages and disadvantages.

also I have rewritten the page on military reserve (the ones who are held back from a battle) here (http://en.wikipedia.org/Military_reserve). Your input would be very valuable. 58.65.163.248 (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Military district

See ]; I'm surprised you don't remember that you removed them yourself, in what I thought was an ill-judged action. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither. The U.S. U-2s mounted air reconnaissance missions over Cuba to look at the missiles, or to gather intelligence on the missiles, with the first being better. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

So "air reconnaissance over Paris"? However, this seemed nonsensical to me since obviously an air reconnaissance mission would be 'over' the target of the mission! I found this also in one of the books (Help from above - first one I grabbed), so just put it down to bad editing.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought I'd told you already I had a copy of the Spravchik (forgive my spelling) book in .rtf form (and emailed it to you). If it's that version, no I don't need it. If it's any other version, yes please send it to me. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 08:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If I give you a list of all the fortified regions for 1941 (in Russian), would you be able to add them to the relevant military districts?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

PS. In fact I have enough material now to start an article Fortified Regions and just need to find out what categories to put it under. There would be 132 articles in all linked to it, and some would be linked to the Armies articles.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You'd want to call it Fortified Region, as it would be a specific type of military unit, rather than 'Regions', and thus it would go under Category:Military units and formations of the Soviet Union. It would be linked in the articles as 998th Dresden Fortified Region, until articles on individual FRs get created. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, right. Do you want to add this to your Soviet Army template? I have enough for stubs of some of the more engaged URs, but these are all from GPW and not the Cold War. I think there are also fortification categories that apply--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I would not want to add 132 more links to what is already a crowded template, and there are not Armies, though they may be equal in status to them. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The thing is that some Armies were created from URs. What would you suggest?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Which ones? As far as I know, they were all created from operational groups or corps - so which armies were created from URs? What would I suggest? When you've created (a) the main Fortified Region article, and (b) 10+ articles on individual fortified regions, and (c) know that you're going to be steadily creating more new ones that are more than two sentences long, create a new template of your own specifically for the fortified regions. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have to get back to the course now, but will keep you posted. Have to dig up all the information again on the Army/URs relationships. I will not be steadily creating articles, but will try to write the main article as an initial effort--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

30th Guards Rifle Corps

(od) Do you have any history on 30th Guards Rifle Corps, later 30th Guards Army Corps? Buckshot06 (talk) 11:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean after the war?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No, primarily which Rifle Corps it was re-named from (the link I inserted in 23rd Army may help - it may have been formed new without having an existing Rifle Corps being raised to Guards status), combat actions, divisions assigned, etc, plus any postwar service. It was disbanded finally in 1997-8. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Armed Forces of Belarus

That's interesting; I had most of the OB but the badges are new. The key missing facts about Belarus are about the territorial troops/militia - can you find out anything about them? That would really be groundbreaking.. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 11:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any clue what they are called in Belarussian? Not only have the designations changed, but my Belorussian is not that good either.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No. However all the English references - Main 2003 from the CSRC, see the ref at the page - have used the term 'territorial defence forces.' Buckshot06 (talk) 11:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Its on the same site http://mod.mil.by/statyter.html but it doesn't say much. The term used is Territorial Defence Forces. They are formed primarily from economic considerations, and as I understand are voluntary, and based on the existing rayon administration because the missions are mostly logistic, civil defence and communications security. The first unit formed was apparently a cossack one! I'm loging off for tonight, cheers --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

For example the Vitebsk rayon is - район территориальной обороны №4 (Витебский район) http://www.gorod.vitebsk.by/youth/polojenie.htm as detailed in the city ordnance ПОЛОЖЕНИЕ

об отделе по делам молодежи и оборонно-мобилизационной работе Витебского городского исполнительного комитета which looks after the "concerns of youths and defence-mobilisation work"! Seems like civil defence to me.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

BSSA

Surely you remember the history of that article? A quick check of the history confirms what I thought: it was user:W. B. Wilson who added the whole Sov OB section and has a hardcopy of BSSA. Did you forget that it was he who added it, or are you just thinking his referencing was incomplete? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but he had neglected to properly reference the OOB, and you had pointed to it without so much as looking to see what the reference actually says, and it does not. As it happens the 42nd was not involved directly, but its subunits were, so I will reference the OOB, and then the units that took part.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I did check to say what the reference actually said, and only because I remembered that W.B. Wilson was the contributor did I do as I did. I trust his edits and his sources. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That may be, but his OOB is for March, and only for major units present in the operation. I had added the 42nd Army BECAUSE the tank battalions allocated to it were used with the 30th Guards Rifle Corps you had asked me to research. So in effect the 42nd Army CO was involved via his subunits even if his major formations were not. The two RCs which come up as separate were in fact under 42nd Army command, but not in March, later. I will try to find the reference for that. Do not misinterpret my inclusion of the 42nd Army in the OOB as some sort of insult to Mr. Wilson! I'm sure it was just an oversight on his part to fully reference the entry; no big deal. I do not view referencing in every case as an absolute necessity as you do, and judge each case on the merits. In the case of an OOB entry, it is obvious that Mr.Wilson did not invent it, and that I am not maliciously adding the 42nd Army because I feel like it--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Some name changed

Nusche? This is a German rendering of a town somewhere in the Brody area.

What was the Soviet time name for Horokhiv?

What is the current name for Druzhkopil (Zhuravnyky)? What was it in 1944?

Can you help?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, here are some answers.

• Druzhkopil's modern name seems to be Zhuravnyky. In English WW2 books (as well as at times of the Ru-Empire), it was referred to as Druzhkopol' (see Glantz), the name that you can find even in Brochkaus.
  • Zhuravnyky is now in Horohivsky Raion (see uk:Горохівський район) but some sources mention it may have been in the now non-existing raion of Berestechko. Either it is a mistake or Berestechko used to be a raion center before. Would need to check, if this is important.
• Horokhiv, or, if transliterated from Russian Gorohov does not seem to ever have changed names. Glantz uses "Gorokhuv" Obviously Horokhiv and Gorokhov are not different names but one and the same name of the same place transliterated from different languages. The choice for Misplaced Pages should be defined by context. B&E also have an article on it:
• Still no idea about Nusche. Tried various spelling and came up with nothing. --Irpen 00:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

A contentious issue

You reverted the addition of the German operational name in place of "effort". Do you think it contentious that the name was given to the operation?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The contentious nature of the revision is that any major change should be discussed on the talk page especially concerning a long-standing history of stability concerning the lead. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC).

In that case it seems to me a long standing public exhibition of bias!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Narva-Pskov direction

You have a point there. Yes, I can make out the different dashes now. If you intend it to become a separate article eventually, perhaps it would make sense to turn it into a red link, to avoid further confusion? Narva is not mentioned anywhere else in the article, so it's a prime candidate for wikilinking by well-meaning passers by. --Illythr (talk) 09:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you know, I thought about that...and decided it was a prime candidate for correction by someone who thought that I didn't link correctly. I decided to leave it unlinked hoping it will be ignored, but alas ;O) I think a footnote needs to be inserted with the explanation I left for you. Do you mind doing that?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, why not redlink it to Narva-Pskov line? This would definitely eliminate confusion. --Illythr (talk) 10:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Renaming

I doubt you're going to get through there. The policy is to use the common names, because those are the names the average user we all so love to refer to is going to search for. This one is also against you. --Illythr (talk) 10:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Not true. I can understand where there are two names that reflect the same idea, that choosing the more common name would be ok, but in the case w common name in no way conveys the idea of the subject of the article the "common name" does not apply for reason of logic. In any case, the "average reader" will still find the article through inclusion of the "common name" in the lead as the "commonly misnamed" name. The dictionaries also suck. A specialist dictionary will always prevail over crap like Shorter Oxford. Few people know that much of Oxford Dictionary was destroyed in the Blitz, and has been rewritten, with considerable bias, since--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with insulting anyone or "dumbing down" - a common name is just that, one of the available names that is known to the largest group of people. An good (if done to death) example is the correct, official long name for the United Kingdom, which is "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland": it can be argued that "United Kingdom" is too imprecise and can be applied to a number of sovereign entities led by a monarch. Nonetheless, all but the most pedantic will look for the short name everyone knows and associates with it. As for bias, note that these operations are listed under their short name in Soviet/Russian encyclopediae as well, see, for example, the Great Soviet Encyclopedia article on the Prague offensive, Battle of Kursk, etc. --Illythr (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And? After all, you do know that the correct name for UK (the most common name used) is "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", so one of your sources of reference didn't take the short-cut. As for operations, the Soviet Military Encyclopaedic Dictionary on two pages used Prague offensive and Prague offensive operation (for the map). However, the similar VOV work which devoted two columns rather then a 1/4 column says Prague offensive 1945 strategic offensive operation of troops of the etc. These are printed works that also have to have editors thinking about which words are absolutely necessary to use given the space. Worlds in Russian that are dedicated to the operations use the full names as derived from archives. In an online reference work there is less pressure in this respect. The "common" name still gets included in the lead, and the redirect in case of a move, so no problem finding it, and the reader can say, aha! everyone thinks the "Battle of..." but the real name is...next time this person, having learned something will recommend Misplaced Pages.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 16:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, UK (as well as USSR, US, PRoC...) is an abbreviation, and using one for an article name about a country is a no-no. As for the rest - note the trend: the GSE, a "general" encyclopedia uses the common name, whereas the SMED, a "specialist" dictionary, uses the long one. This is probably the main point of contention here - Misplaced Pages is "generalist", that is, it aims for the broadest range of readers possible, and thus prefers popular names to "specialist" ones, even is the latter are more precise. Your last sentence applies 100% to the situation when common names are used as article names as well, as long as the full name used by specialists is mentioned in the first sentence of the lead section. --Illythr (talk) 00:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

that would be a great argument

Well, that would be a great argument if Misplaced Pages was a "general" reference work. As it happens it covers everything, and to any degree of depth the editors can take it. Besides that, being a "specialist" has noting to do with the ability to read operation name in full. Anyone who does look up the Eastern Front is probably aware that English was not one of the languages spoken by combatants,and probably expects to find German and Russian terms, right? Its like when you go into a restaurant which serves recopies from another country; you expect to have to order while struggling to get the name right. We can always use numbers though - operation No. 38b (Belgorod-Kharkov Offensive operation).

It seems that while you, and others emphasise Misplaced Pages being a "general reference work", I tend to look further and consider "Critics of Misplaced Pages (who) target its systematic bias and inconsistencies and its policy of favouring consensus over credentials in its editorial process" and particularly Reliability of Misplaced Pages. I can refer you to a participating Misplaced Pages editor who is also a teaching academic, and who, in her field of studies, has advised students not to use Misplaced Pages because of unreliable content.

So I quote for you the entirety of the introduction to article naming in full with my comments in italics

• Naming conventions are a list of guidelines on how to create and name pages. These are conventions, not rules carved in stone. As Misplaced Pages grows and changes, some conventions that once made sense may become outdated or otherwise inappropriate. When in doubt, follow convention.

This part is using circular illogic. Although "As Misplaced Pages grows and changes, some conventions that once made sense may become outdated or otherwise inappropriate" -> "When in doubt, follow convention." meaning that "some conventions that once made sense may become outdated" will never happen!

If however the premise that "some conventions that once made sense may become outdated" is true, then the statement "some article names that once made sense may become outdated" also makes sense.

• Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers to most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

The ability for "the greatest number of English speakers to most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity" relies on the premise that "the greatest number of English speakers would be interested in, the greatest number of English articles with same level of interest" to enable them to "most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity" the widest range of titles in Misplaced Pages. We are statistically talking about at least 51% of the English speaking population recognising correct titles of at least 51% of Misplaced Pages articles. However, we know that is untrue, and impossible, because even editors generally edit in their selected fields of knowledge. It is therefore safe to assume that "the greatest number of English speakers would not most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity" the greatest number of articles. In fact, the reason "the greatest number of English speakers" would use a reference work is because they are lacking in specialist knowledge of a subject, i.e. they are experiencing a degree of ambiguity rated from mild, to complete lack of knowledge.

So, is "This is justified by the following principle":

• The names of Misplaced Pages articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.

It is a mostly misunderstood principle that "articles should be optimized for readers over editors" really means the article should be written as if the reader is not an expert in the subject, and not as if the reader is an autistic savant. It means the writer, having specialist knowledge in the subject, needs to start with the most basic concepts, and explain every ambiguous or unfamiliar term used in the article on the assumption that the reader does want to know as much about the subject as the editor does. This is because, although individual articles DO need to deal only with the subject of the article, the links to other articles can, and do provide for a collection of articles that may eventually combine, if presented in printed form, into a small book depending on the availability of interest from authors and editors.

Writing "for a general audience over specialists" does not mean we are editing a work intended for teenagers with passing, homework-inspired needs, but that we are editing a work which includes a cross-section of any given English-speaking society which includes (roughly) 15% of individuals under 18 years old, and 20% of individuals over 64 years old, and is 98% literate, with an average of 20-30% having completed after-high school education, with some 60-70% having read at least one book a month. This is the mythical "general Misplaced Pages reader". The cross-section of individuals who read on the subject of military history is however somewhat different. Many are former or serving members of armed forces. Other have a general interest in history. Other still are people who play the various forms of wargames, whether computer, boardgames or tabletop. While some who read the articles on the Western Front of the Second World War may be researching the lives of their relatives, those reading about the Eastern Front in English do so out of pure interest for the subject. Interest tends to overcome fear of the unknown, such as unusual and difficult to pronounce words and terms.

• Following linking conventions as well as naming conventions is more likely to produce working links to the article expected. A redirect should be created for articles that may reasonably be found under two or more names (such as different spellings or former names). Conversely, a term that may be used to describe several different search terms may require a disambiguation page.

The beauty of being an online reference work is that Misplaced Pages can use technology to allow the reader to find the right article on the subject even if the reader is not aware of the correct subject name! It is not necessary to have the name "the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize" as long as all names are included to enable the search engine in Misplaced Pages to deliver. It is a common misunderstanding that the title of the article needs to be one "speakers would most easily recognize" since in most cases it is not the name they are looking for, what not being a specialist on the subject. This is simple logic that often eludes people in discussions such as this. If readers already know the correct name of the subject they are searching for, they probably have above-average knowledge of the subject because they are able to recognise the title!

• If an article has been named inappropriately, it can be renamed by moving the article to a more appropriate title.

Hey presto! The actual conversation we are having is about "If an article has been named inappropriately", and not about what readers would recognise, because this is not a printed reference work, but an online one. What constitutes for an "appropriate" article name? It does not only mean that inappropriate emotive words should not be used, but also this

• "Please, do not write or put an article on a page with an ambiguously named title as though that title had no other meanings. If all possible words have multiple meanings, go with the rule of thumb of naming guidelines and use the more popular term."

Here we have another Misplaced Pages beauty for logical cross-circuitry. Do not use "ambiguously named title" that may have "other meanings", but "go with the rule of thumb of naming guidelines and use the more popular term" which may be the "ambiguously named title"!

Is "Battle of..." ambiguous? Yes. Are the Soviet assigned names for operations less ambiguous? Another Yes. Is the "general English speaking reader" interested in the Eastern Front going to have a preferences for the later? Yes. Will the complete novice still find the article if the ambiguous title is not used? Yes. Is my time being wasted? Definitely.

Can you really blame me for not wanting to bother with policy and guidelines? I have already witnessed several skillful or less so uses of similar circuitous, or maybe circus-like logic to argue all manner of silliness the "greatest number of English speakers would most easily"...find ridiculous.

All I get out of this is wasting editing time, like now, writing this to you. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I must say, the amount of time you are willing to waste on this is most impressive. I can't believe I actually read all this either.

Two points: 1) Soviet encyclopedia of a similar scope also use short, common names. Your jesting suggestion to use numbers for operation names actually highlights the problem of your own point by taking it to the extreme: sure, a number is the most precise, correct and unambiguous name possible (if provided with scope). Unfortunately, it is known to but a handful of military historians (and doesn't sound very interesting either). 2) The whole point of the debate is whether to use "X Offensive (or Battle of X) (full name: X strategic fensive operation)" or "X strategic offensive operation (commonly known as X Offensive (or Battle of X))," with the article named accordingly. Not a bit of information is lost using either form. None of them insult the reader's intelligence or presume and "autistic savant" reader, as you suggest the former form does. It merely makes use of that "commonly". That is all.

PS:What is that academic's field of study? I myself usually say that Misplaced Pages is unreliable when dealing with politics, history, and basically anything dealing with contesting POVs. --Illythr (talk) 09:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion of numbers was a sarcastic point in view of the restaurants who add numbers on the menu for patrons who are unable or unwilling to pronounce the dish names.

I don't see a debate. The "Battle of..." names were for the most part inventions for the book titles, particularly before the names of the operations were known in the west. They are pure fiction that in most cases does nothing to inform. We don't have this problem, do we?

The academic field of study, not my own, is...English history/literature. I feel I'm not doing to badly with Russian history on reflection ;o)

However I agree that I am wasting time on this. Philip seems to do nothing, but argue. I had not previously considered to look at his contributions, and only accepted his clarity of thought as something to admire. However, I see that he only puts this to use in defending his POV, and policies/guidelines, and doesn't actually produce articles. My respect for him has somewhat waned regretfully since I had valued his advice and support before. I feel about same in regards to Buckshot06 who had been at the same time extremely helpful, and extremely frustrating in his attitude to me. Given I don't need any more frustration in my life, I will try to avoid him as long as he stops stalking me.

I will continue to persist with public forum advocacy of greater quality standards for Misplaced Pages while I focus on my own project. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Very well. I think this is a good point to agree to disagree and focus on more productive things. --Illythr (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Civility

I was dismayed to read that you intended to insult your fellow editors in the increasingly unpleasant discussion at WT:MILHIST#Operation naming (cont.). I expect editors to remain civil and to assume good faith at all times as policy requires. At the moment, this remains an informal request. --ROGER DAVIES  10:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Kabbalah

You wrote:

Hi. You reverted my edits, and I would like to ask what your reason was--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I had intended to add an edit summery: WP:WEASEL. It was a change that was particularly problematic in the first sentence of the introduction. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? Kabbalah does not represent only mysticism, but is believed by many to be only that, and the article intro does nothing to dispel this perception, I fail to see what was so WP:WEASEL about the edit--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain a little more what you mean? If your objection it to the word 'mysticism', I would tend to agree....but it is difficult to find another word to replace it. A change someone made to the article just before your edit added a wikilink for "mysticism" which I will probably remove because the mysticism article discusses nothing that is helpful for understanding Kabbalah. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember adding mysticism. I don't know quite what mysticism means, but I know its not kabbalah. Quite simply kaballah, in the simple meaning of the word, and in ritual application, has nothing mysterious about it. However, for the wrong or right reasons it is perceived in popular culture as a solely mysticism-based concept by most people, maybe due to lack of understanding. Few people get to a level of understanding that allows them to understand the deeper concepts, and maybe that is the reason, but it seems to me that the perception of the wider public needs to be reflected in the lead since it is significant to why people may want to read the article--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I still have no idea what your point is. If you want, we can discuss it further on the article's talk page. Are you sure you editing the correct article? It is possible you are thinking of Hermetic Qabalah, which is quite a different subject, and which has its own article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Biblical inspiration

I noticed you tagged this article for POV, but I cannot find your concerns listed on the Talk page. Was this tag in error? Or did you forget to outline the dispute? Faith (talk) 08:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, LOL at "tag for Template:Extreme bias". Secondly, I wasn't disagreeing, but rather sussing out why you placed it there because it's difficult to respond to a POV tag without talk text stating why it was placed. If you have time, you might want to outline some of these perceived problems, even if it only solicits "me too" replies at first. Faith (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you can do me a favour and copy/paste what I said on your talk (inc. my sig.) to the talk page. Don't bother with the Hebrew because that would be screamed at as OR since Greeks refuse to accept that for 700 years they were borrowing words from Israel (and elsewhere) until they were eventually given an alphabet of their own. It also tends to demolish the IET so linguists tend to view such proposals as heresy and a direct personal assault on their careers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Erich Hartmann

Yes, please do get a copy of the German sources. If you like I can scan the text for you. Of course I do understand that German sources could be biased towards stating that he was falsely convicted. Nevertheless I am of the strong opinion that the sources are correct. Why else would the Russian government, as a legal successor to the Soviet Union, have exonerated Hartmann in January 1997, by admitting that his conviction for war crimes was unlawful? This is documented in many books including

• Günther Wagenlehner: Die russischen Bemühungen um die Rehabilitierung der 1941–1956 verfolgten deutschen Staatsbürger – Dokumentation und Wegweiser. Bonn 1999, ISBN 3-86077-855-2, p. 36

MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Why else would the Russian government, as a legal successor to the Soviet Union, have exonerated Hartmann in January 1997, by admitting that his conviction for war crimes was unlawful? = politics He was a die heart Nazi who, though in the position to stop fighting still flew combat missions on the 8 May--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the text seems to be here , and although it does say that Hartmann protested his innocence, it does not say he was rehabilitated after 1991 by the Russian government. However, consider who were the other troops still fighting on 8 May 1945. All Waffen-SS in Prague or Berlin, executing any German who so much as suggested surrender, and Hartmann could have flown out and surrendered any time. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't be stupid. What do you base your absurd assertions on? You don't like Hartmann because he was successful, even less so because he successful against the Soviet Union, your birth country. Would you make the same accusations against British or Soviet pilots in the years of 1940, 1941 or 1942, when the war seemed lost? Would your refer to them as "die hard" democrats or Communists? Of course not. It is about a sense of duty to one's nation. You think that is a qualified reason for calling him a die hard Nazi? Rubbish. I thought you were a sensible level headed editor who was unlikely to buy into Soviet post-war propaganda. Misterbee 1966 is too accommodating. It should be made clear wikipedia needs to be protected from biased and absurd claims like this. Explain why on earth, specifically, the Russian government would overturn this conviction. "Politics" is no where near good enough. I am appalled that such an experienced editor could make such an accusation, though wikipedia's eastern front editors are full of pro-Soviet sympathisers. I would be most interested to see if this German source is trustworthy. I wonder, when it was claimed, who by, and if it was made, by a then, Eastern German "historian", or anyone else tainted by Communism. Please respond to my talk page. Dapi89 (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with my political persuasion or outlook. I will reply later with some statistics and comments on technique so you may understand something about combat flying during Second World War, and how the Luftwaffe created its "aces". And why Hartmann was a Nazi--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

In light of your comments about Hartmann,and some othe discussions we have had concerning the Luftwaffe in world war two, I doubt there is much you could teach me in this regard. I have seen most of the Soviet sources, particularly Dimitri Khazanov, and his "official" history, claiming Hartmann shot down 80 Soviet aircraft, and it is complete bullshit. Some other editors, as I would have done, have pointed out that if indeed Hartmann had not shot down the 352 aircraft why was he charged with the destruction of them at his "war crimes" trial. You really think the Soviets needed a reason for keeping a prisoner for ten years, in that system under, Joseph Stalin? If so, then you really are mad. As far as being a Nazi is concerned, and this myth that German pilots were made into aces due to other reasons, I would demand sources of none Eastern European origin. Soviet and Russian "sources" were never trustworthy, and they still are not. What has really changed in Russia, or the Ukraine for that matter, to compel them to tell the truth? Nothing. They still find propaganda value in denying the truth.

Further to the coments made about the 8 May sortie: Simple, poor communication. Noone had any idea in Hartmann's unit that surrender was imminent. Besides, his last sortie was a recon mission. It just so happened he ran into soviet fighters. You wouldn't go into hostile airspace unarmed would you?

Ask your self some basic questions. If a nation is at war for six years, it is of a total nature, and they are outnumbered all the time, is it not possible that a significant percentage would amass (provided they stayed alive) big scores? Considering the shear numbers being deployed against the Luftwaffe it makes it certain, not unlikely that there would be such aces. Dapi89 (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not butting in around here, after reviewing this conversation it's obvious that neither of you are going to quite see eye-to-eye on this :) Perhaps I can offer my services as a neutral editor in the matter? I have some tim free and in the next few weeks I could look over the article and some sources to review the matter of his kills. Would that be an offer you'd both accept? Skinny87 (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to do that. The crux of the matter here is the questioning of Hartmann's humanity and his honesty, that not surprisingly come from Soviet/Russian historians. I respect mrg3105 in general, but on this particular issue I feel he has crossed the line. Western historians have not found any reason to doubt Hartmann's claims or hs political views are suspect.

I also believe that Soviet records are not to be trusted, and any sources that are presented will be falsified to that extent. All the accusations made against him by the Soviets at his trial indicate his kill count was correct. Now it seems (because he is dead, and the Russians have no need for "evidence" for "war crimes" charges anymore) that they have suddenly decided most of his kills were false.

I don't "buy" any of it. Dapi89 (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Thankyou for the advice, but don't blame me for the quality of List of military engagements of World War II I'm only 15 years of age, besides I was only trying to expand it. I will try to work on the list more and use more of your structure. Cheers EZ1234 (talk) 07:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
By the way, where abouts in Australia do you live?

Ribbon of Saint George

Thankyou. What's the occasion? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Victory Day..we may have our disagreements, but you have done a lot for educating about the Eastern Front--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, was planning to say something to you today, on the 63rd anniversary of that day.. Best regards from over the ditch! Buckshot06 (talk) 06:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...my mum and uncle were recollecting the day for me today--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

In memoriam mortii. Thus we never forget! --Whiskey (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

CGS/Minister conflict

Is there one? Sources please; be interested. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Mrg, while you're on Air Armies do you feel like translating the Ru-lang piece on the 8th Air Army, linked through the cool page you've just set up? Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 01:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Its gone--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Ru-wiki doesn't appear to use redirects - helpful of them. It's now at ru:8-я воздушная армия (СССР) and there are also articles for the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th on that pattern and the 18th without the (CCCP). Buckshot06(prof) 03:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Elisha Ben Abuya article

Hey, could you explain why you reverted the edits about the Hellenistic orchard today, or explain on the talk page or something, since they weren't in your edit summary? ThanksLamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Courland Pocket

I have removed the incomplete reference, "p. 171, Dunnigan", apparently added to the article Courland Pocket by you on 16 April, as per the relevant discussion at Talk:Courland Pocket. Urgings to fill out the reference went unheeded, and it thus detracted from the article, rather than enhanced it. If you disagree, please put it back, but this time with a fuller citation. —Zalktis (talk) 08:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Battle of the Atlantic

I've reverted a change you made here recently; I've posted it for discussion here. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Insulting people

I'm sorry Mrg, I've absolutely had enough. Your comment on 'making things up' to Biru is just about the last straw. If you insult anyone again, I will initiate the formal redress procedure - and I've already been encouraged to request Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#General restriction 'with extreme prejudice' against you. Please do not insult people in the course of improving WP. Buckshot06(prof) 22:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, David Irving made things up, and all Biru, and yourself are doing is supporting that discredited source. You find that insulting, stop supporting a know fraud. PS. How would demanding a reliable source be subject to Digwuren#General restriction?! At least you can come up with some other reason for the alleged insulting behaviour on my part. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Re

The whole article is virtually unrefrenced! How can you replace my "unreferenced" info with the old unreferenced info and call it Wiki policy?! The only point that's really in dispute here is the joint operation business. Since I do have some corroboration of my edits, I wonder where you find the nerve to replace it with your own totally unreferenced version of a solely Red Army operation. All references in the article at this time state that the operation was one in which the Red Army participated, not commanded. The involved Partisan forces were at no time removed from Tito and the Partisan high command, the moment you have a reliable, unbiased, and preferably English source that says otherwise I will agree with you. You can't just remove things you do not like. --DIREKTOR 00:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You are funny! Did you even look at my edit prior to yours? Did you think I could undertake such an extensive edit without any research? Did you look at my record of editing in the field of military history, or articles I created? You, an editor of 1 month, just dove in there "fixing" the article with NO references at all aside for a wholly unsourced online site. You have no corroboration for your edits until I see something acceptable in the Reference or Sources sections, and until something appears I can do as anyone would in removing what constitutes for Original Research. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Um... I started editing as DIREKTOR on January 7, 2007. You appear to have joined almost a year later. The difference may be that I do not boast with my edits, nor try to use them to act all "high and mighty" with other editors. I will keep this simple: if you have sources where are they!? can I see them, please!? Or am I to suppose your mysterious Russian book "source" now has a specific citation countering my position? --DIREKTOR 02:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of military history your edits are very recent. I have other priorities and you will not dictate to me what I need to do. I accept that I have not added references, but my editing was not challenged by others, and I am challenging your editing, so the onus is on you to provide your reasons for me being wrong. So far I have realised that you do not understand what was going on in the operation.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Ps. most of my sources are in English, a few in German--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If you accept that you have not added references, I wonder if you will accept that I have ? Please curb your arrogant tone of voice. Once again I'd like to offer a "cease fire" (even though my knowledge on ceasefires cannot be compared to yours), I can't remember how this escalated from the use of "Soviet" all the way to a contest of sorts... --DIREKTOR 02:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a contest. You just need to understand terminology, the meaning of words and what constitutes a good source and how to reference. I only sound arrogant because you are unhappy with my opposing your edits. Please, do me a favour. Go and read the article BEFORE I had edited it. You will see that I did not get the contents out of my head. However, assembling references for a large article is more difficult then for small articles, and this is a large article. I was not prepared at that time to finish the job. Please note, the only thing in a reference article that ultimately counts is the quality of its sources.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not criticizing your editing skills, I'm merely saying that the article needed a grammar fix, and was one-sided, much as you yourself admitted. I fixed some grammar and familiar Slavic sentence structure, and tried to balance it by removing some of the emphasis on Red Army units, without removing any information (if you remember I said the info you added, though unsourced, appears to be realistic). The "one-sidedness" of the article manifested itself in the omition of the fact that this was (at least officially) a joint operation due to strong political reasons.
I've read the articles you listed on your page quite a while ago, and am familiar with Wiki policy and guidelines. While aware of its shortcomings, I listed vojska.net as a usually acceptable (and frequently cited) source in these matters, but I naturally had to look for better references when insisted upon. --DIREKTOR 03:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, do me a favour. You just said "this was (at least officially) a joint operation". You go and find who, when and where made this official, and preferably the document that said so. Ok? This is called research, and good sources. Meanwhile I will contact Mr Glantz for further guidance on this and the other matters.

Forget moving stuff in the article. I will revert eventually anyway when I get a chance. you do not understand the operational role of the 4MC. As it happens it cam from the "back" as it were. When I am done with that article it will be twice the size with at least 5-10 published sources, so don't worry about grammar and all that. The version I left was far from finished and I said so in the summary edit. You can help, but right now you are just not really doing anything but shuffling words around. I do not have a political perspective although I have been accused of being pro-Soviet of all things.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Pro-Soviet! You! couldn't be! ;) Look, I respect your work and commitment, but you must understand one thing: this is not just another eastern front article, and Yugoslavs are not Romanians or Bulgarians, but a far larger and more independent force with significant backing of the western Allies. I say this because you have to keep that in mind during article expansion. As for my source, it is very reliable and clearly states that the operation was conducted by a joint military force, you should not delete it, as its supposed insignificance is based only on your own "interpretation". --DIREKTOR 03:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's the thing: I'm not just some Balkans freak annoying you out of some insignificant sense of patriotism. I'm a Balkans freak annoying you because I have real historic information that needs to be taken into consideration. In a few words this is what I'm trying to tell you: the Yugoslav Partisans are a special case in WW2 Europe. Why? Because it was a strategically significant force (800,000 men, 4 field armies), that appeared on its own and was very protective of its independence. The Red Army could not simply take control of their army as it did with Bulgaria and Romania, because they would not let them, and they had the backing of the west in their independence. Indeed Yugoslavia was not liberated by the Red Army, but liberated itself (a rather unique case). All I'm saying is that you should take that into consideration that you're in the Balkans now, and that nothing is as simple as it seems. --DIREKTOR 03:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I am just a military historian. I have absolutely no interest in politics, despite my academic degree, outside of their influence on military operations. Had you contacted me, I would have explained that the operations in the Balkans outside of Red Army operations are outside of the scope of my project. What happened to the Yugoslav resistance prior to 1944 is out of my sphere of interest right now. However, since you went and created the articles for the Yugoslav units, I will advise you that they will need to be renamed because they are not named according to the convention on nit naming accepted in the project. You will also fin me questioning your redirects to Yugoslav Partisans title at a later stage.

If you are unsure as to what "joint operations" mean, please ask. If you feel I ma not the right person to ask, you can ask Buckshot06 who is probably more then capable of explaining the concept. For the record, Stalin did not conduct joint operations with anyone. My interpretations of Joint Operations come from the NATO manual.

You are, judging from your last reply, confused. You can not separate the concept of political independence of the Yugoslav forces, and their operational subordination to the 3rd Ukrainian Front. However, if you are confused, that means others will be also, so I will endeavour to put together additional data on this aspect of the operation in future.

Self-liberation of Yugoslavia is a myth--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not confused. I thought I explained earlier that the unique political independence of the Yugoslav forces was such that it caused their strategic independence in 1944 operations. I maintain that the Yugoslav forces were strategically under the command of Marshal Tito and their own Supreme HQ, while only coordinating their efforts with the Soviet forces. You have still not given me any reason whatsoever to believe otherwise besides your word.
Despite my deep interest in WW2 history (military and otherwise), I am not a historian, but a mere medical student. If you are a historian (which I do not doubt) your knowledge certainly surpasses mine in military history, but I shall be so bold as to contradict you firmly in this matter: the liberation of Belgrade was not an operation solely under the command of the Soviet Red Army. If you do posses information that states otherwise, please share it so that I may understand the foundation of your firm position here. I admit that I may be wrong here, but I also hope you may admit the same.
Furthermore, may I suggest that we use the current version of the introduction text as a compromise? It is reliably referenced and does not contradict with your position or mine. --DIREKTOR 04:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Strategic independence of Yugoslavia was not really something Tito could assure without Stalin's support despite cooperation with Western Allies. However, strategic independence of Yugoslav forces is not questioned in the article! Did you notice that only one of the four Yugoslav Armies actually took part in this operation? This is besides the fact that the 1st Yugoslav Army Group was a severely weakened formation by Red Army standards, lacking in artillery, armour and above all air support. The Yugoslav Army (as opposed to the army) simply could not operate independently even against the comparatively weak German Army Groups. It may be that Tito was in control of the Yugoslav Armies strategically, but operationally, and this is what I'm talking about in the article, there was no chance of Yugoslav troops operating on their own outside of 3UF operational planning protocols. If you understood as much about military operations as much as you may understand about surgical operations, you would realise the impossibility of your earlier statements. And despite that you took a butcher's knife to the article like you were doing an autopsy! Anyone who knows about urban assault combined operations will not even question that the assault on Belgrade was under total Red Army control. These are among the most complex of operations at the best of times without semi-irregular Yugoslav forces participating in one. To put it into medical terms, an urban joint operation is a brain surgery where one surgeon is a neurologist an the other a family doctor. Please don't take this with disrespect, but the Red Army had by this stage 3 years of city fighting experience while the Yugoslav troops had just emerged from their areas of control. I do not know what you call reliably referenced since I have not seen the latest reference you added, but it had better be a sources that explicitly states the degree and nature of "jointness" between the two forces. I will contribute references when I am ready. I can tell you now that you will need to take a ticket since others are ahead of you on these requests.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(Oh LoL, can we forget my studies? I do know a few things about military history, believe me :) My apologies, I expressed myself incorrectly. What I mean was that the liberation of Belgrade was not an operation solely under the command of the Soviet Red Army, and that involved Partisan forces were not under overall Soviet, but Partisan command. Now, I harbor no illusions about the capabilities of the Partisans, and I am not saying that they were capable of pulling off this particular operation on their own. Besides the sources I listed, the reason for my conviction lays also in the tremendous fanfare that was raised about this issue in Yugoslavia. This relatively small point was emphasized over and over again by Yugoslav media and history books. --DIREKTOR 05:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC) All in all, I suggest we use the current wording and leave this dispute be. I dare say it has already sapped far too much of our combined time and typing energy. --DIREKTOR 05:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you will not like the answer, but I can not accept any wording, indeed any word in the article that does not reflect or is reflected in sources. Would any of your patients be happy with an almost successful operation?

I care even less about the Yugoslav Media then I do about Yugoslav politics. It may not be what you want to hear either. All I can do is repeat that there is no way in this world that the Yugoslav troops were operating under independent command during this offensive. Its is just laughable even if I had no way to substantiate what I said. Journalists may write what they want, but ask any military officer and he/she will tell you its inconceivable for the size of the op.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, ok, you maintain that my position is "laughable", I understood as much. I shall have to demand real evidence to that effect, that's all I'm saying. However, please note that the sentence:
"...an offensive military operation conducted by a joint Partisan-Soviet force."
is properly referenced in accordance with Wiki policy. It may not be altered at will. --DIREKTOR 11:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

My site

My articles get update when I have free time which is unfortunately very little at the moment so many old articles are still in broken English lacking specific reference while others have more details then history books, not to mention I have acquired so many books that I don't know where to start each time I want to fix/update/add something! :-) Hopefully my new Content management system will be completed soon which will allow me to work a lot faster.

I think you missed the point with Google, not linking to my website while using it as source would be really unfair, its not linking that kills my ranking its wikipedia itself since Google has given Misplaced Pages Page Rank of massive 9/10 which then spreads to all its article even if they are stubs and as Google also considers wiki to be trusted website it gives it even more unnatural boost in search results, you could create blank pages with title of all article from my website and they would remove me from first place despite the fact that my articles actually have text while wiki articles are blank! :-/

To make matters worse wiki decided in order to discourage spammers to place nofollow tag on external links which prevents Misplaced Pages to spread its Page Rank to other website including sources in other words wikipedia takes without giving anything back (from personal experience I rarely click on source links at wiki and traffic I get from wiki is far from comparable to Google), end result is I get drop in traffic and lose valuable feedback from visitors (since I have submission form which is easy to use even to most inexperienced surfers) which helped me to improve many of my articles not to mention drop in ads earnings which pays for hosting and allowed me to purchase some really expensive books which otherwise I would never buy since price tag of over $100 is little too much for hobby website.

That is why I'm regularly patrolling wiki since there have been many cases (especially on Croatian, Bosnian and Serbian wiki) in which users simply copy/pasted my website content and I got penalized by Google as duplicate content and removed from search results. I have similar problems with many other website all over internet where the owner rips me off and plays dumb, this also partially killed my enthusiasm to work on my website or wiki since I have to spend more time on protecting my work then creating it. :-( --Ivan Bajlo (talk) 11:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, well, I certainly did not use any material from your site when I edited the article Belgrade Offensive. I also don't think that DIREKTOR has since he mostly rearranged what I have written. I was going to use your site to fix the names of the Yugoslav formation and unit commanders, but without references all I could do is use the bibliography which I have saved on my own pc. I have no problem linking to your articles if they were referenced to Wiki standards, but would not plagiarise. However, if you would like to collaborate on the article, that would be great since the Yugoslav troops are a weak point in my own library. Unfortunately I don't know what to suggest about protecting your work --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of the stuff from vojska.net contradicts your edits to some degree. If you remember, however, I said that your info, though unsourced, appears fine and realistic. This is why I did not remove it outright, but asked you to provide a real source for all of it, so that we mere mortals may see which is correct. Once again, I ask you not to twist words or try to demean my good faith edits. I did not "reshuffle" or "rearrange" your text, I cleaned it up (fixed spelling and Slavic sentence construction). I dare say any impartial observer will find the text of much higher quality far easier to read now. (As an example of what I mean, I provide a single kilometer-long sentence from your text:

"Belgrade Strategic Offensive Operation (14 September 1944 - 24 November 1944) was a military operation by the armed forces of the 2nd and 3rd Ukrainian Fronts (including the 2nd Bulgarian Army), in coordination with the People's Liberation Army of Yugoslavia (NOAYU) against Nazi Germany and its Croatian and the Serbian and Chetniks during the Great Patriotic War, to destroy the forces of German Army Group E in the Suva Planina region, and Army Group F east of Morova river, and ultimately the liberation of Belgrade." This, of course, is probably only the best example.)

Gospodine Bajlo, I also would greatly appreciate it if you could lend us a hand with this article. I admit I'm probably not a match for the all-knowing mrg here, and any assistance would be invaluable for the creation of a more balanced (Soviet/Yugoslav) article. --DIREKTOR 13:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately since currently I'm trying to start a small business which will hopefully be able to support my hobbies besides me I'm unable to do lot of work but I'll try to do some updates at my website. There is also another problem of WP:COI which certain people already used against me for adding links to my website in some articles (I'm in open war with admins at Croatian wiki) plus big part of my work would fall into category WP:NOR so I decided to limit myself to adding interwiki links at Misplaced Pages and stick to my own website for articles to avoid problems. Hopefully I'll find some free time in the near future and maybe make a book out of my website. ;-) --Ivan Bajlo (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Will buy :), see you around. --DIREKTOR 16:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, there is no limit to sentence length outside of the reasonable in Misplaced Pages.

The sentence you find exceedingly long actually is the shortest posible:

• 1. the name - "Belgrade Strategic Offensive Operation
• 2. when - (14 September 1944 - 24 November 1944)
• 3. What is it - was a military operation by the armed forces of the
• 4. who was in it - 2nd and 3rd Ukrainian Fronts (including the 2nd Bulgarian Army), in coordination with the People's Liberation Army of Yugoslavia (NOAYU) against Nazi Germany and its Croatian and the Serbian and Chetniks
• 5. context - during the Great Patriotic War,
• 6. purpose - to destroy the forces of German Army Group E in the Suva Planina region, and Army Group F east of Morova river, and ultimately the liberation of Belgrade."

"Most of the stuff from vojska.net contradicts your edits to some degree" - this is temporary due to the unfinished nature of the article, as I said in the edit summary. However, inevitably there will be contradictions in operational accounts where two, or more in this case, forces participate, and is to be expected. It is dealt with by producing references to support statements.

"good faith edits" - these are only good if backed up by references. I don't care if you completely rewrite what I wrote as long as you back it up with references of your own, and to sources that actually deal with the subject matter, and not use country data from the Library of Congress to try and convince me there was combined operational command on this sector of the Eastern Front.

"fixed spelling and Slavic sentence construction" - you fixed some Yugoslavian spelling, which is great, but as to my sentence construction, it was just fine. You did however rearrange it to give greater prominence to the Yugoslavian forces in the operation, and that is not fine without references. In one case you had reversed the roles of the Yugoslavian leg infantry and the 4th Mech Corps in the role of assaulting Belgrade which clearly showed that you did not understand the role of either in terms of operational use, or the capabilities of the formations involved, what with the Yugoslav troops moving at the speed of their horse-based rear services. This is not on.

"the all-knowing mrg" - actually I have clearly stated several times I am not all knowing, but nor do I diminish my level of knowledge gained over decades

"creation of a more balanced (Soviet/Yugoslav) article" - in Misplaced Pages as in any reference work we do not "create" articles, but research, write and edit them based on sources.

Ivan, if I may suggest, you could avoid WP:COI by collaborating with other editors on the articles. You can also avoid WP:NOR by getting published in publications such as THE JOURNAL OF SLAVIC MILITARY STUDIES where the editor is a very prominent military historian Mr. David Glantz. Should you decide to do so, I can put you in touch with him.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again, the text was nigh illegible. I'm not criticizing the actual length of the sentence but its lack of structure and cohesion, not to mention the fact that parts of it were incorrect: The Chetniks, for example did not participate in the battle itself, and they certainly are not the Croatian Home Guard, which is the article their wikilink led to. Also, I do not need references if I do not add any info. On the contrary, you need sources to prove something before it can be included (such as Chetnik participation). Are you really saying that the text didn't need a grammar cleanup?! --DIREKTOR 22:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

My information suggests that the Chetniks were in the area of operation during the conduct of the offensive. What their role was, I have not yet determined.

The Croatian Home Guard were certainly in the German retreat according to German sources. If I linked them to the wrong Misplaced Pages article, it was not intentional

As for grammar, I find that fairly subjective in case of English as a language.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on! just read the article ffs: it was completely written in what I like to call "Slavic English", a coarse translation of Slavic text into English without the accompanying changes in sentence structure. Sentences written in "Slavic English" are very awkward at best, and unintelligible at worst. The former versions of the article had both examples.
The Chetniks were in the "area" (eastern Yugoslavia), but, though they were quislings, I seriously doubt they participated in the operation side by side with the "Nedićevci" and the Ustaše.
The NDH forces were certaibly in the area (Yugoslavia), holding the line against the Allies, but once again I doubt they were involved in the actual defense of the Serbian capital (being rabidly anti-Serb and all). All in all, WW2 Yugoslavia is a very complicated political theater, with each side having its own bitter enemies and allies. --DIREKTOR 23:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I will review the grammar, and no doubt Buckshot06 will also.

"I seriously doubt they participated", "once again I doubt they were involved" - when in doubt, cite sources. Just saying that I did not cite sources so its not true is not the right thing because I explicitly said in the edit summary that the article is NOT finished.

"WW2 Yugoslavia is a very complicated political theater" - what does this have to do with the Belgrade Offensive? --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The grammar has been corrected. If you think parts of it were POV, I won't object to a limited correction (I am certainly not trying to diminish the importance of the Red Army here), but don't undo the whole thing without grounds. Keep in mind that the overwhelming emphasis on Soviet units has been lessened (withou removal of info!) in the pursuit of a more balanced non-Russian article, partly even due to your own objections (I read the discussion before editing).
Perhaps this is your problem. Your knowledge on Red Army operations certainly appears very well founded, but I dare say you're treading in somewhat unfamiliar waters here. The general political situation, and the alliances and enmities herein play an extremely significant role when discussing the Yugoslav front.
One final, rather significant, matter: you cannot ask people to prove a negative. You can't write something like "The Chetniks participated in the operation." and then ask someone to prove that you're wrong. Rather, you must first prove your point before it is even included. Do you get my point? --DIREKTOR 23:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are not going to get me to start a review of the article which I am not prepared for right now. I work at my own pace and to my own wants. However, if you think the article is unbalanced, you can write the article on the Yugoslav Army Belgrade Offensive.

Even a cursory perusal of Misplaced Pages articles will tell you that proving the negative is just part of editing here, so get used to it. That is why I keep asking for references--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"Get use to it"?! I certainly won't, reference your claims.
I'm not trying to get you to do anything. I don't think the article is unbalanced now, but it obviously had an over-emphasis on Soviet advances and movements. A perfectly understandable fact considering the text was originally Russian. You yourself even agreed to this, but are now apparently contradicting me for the sake of it. --DIREKTOR 23:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, I can't imagine what manner of sources you will find that will allow you to rewrite the article while ignoring the fact that the operation was conducted by a joint force (unless that is fully refuted, of course). I must ask you to treat Red Army and Partisan troops as equally as possible, as the latter by no means played a secondary role in the offensive. There really is no need for this continued enmity, ffs, we're all Allies here ;). --DIREKTOR 00:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, what you are suggesting is WP:OR. I have no evidence that the Belgrade Offensive operation, an operation planned and executed by the Red Army, ever included the Yugoslav forces as a significant factor in planning. You may not like it, but that is how it is. As I understand it, most of the objectives of the operation were secured by the Red Army without any significant Yugoslav participation, or with minor support until the final phase. The 4GMC was tailored for operations in the depth of enemy rear, so the encounter of Yugoslav troops was welcome, but not necessary. Hence the obvious emphasis on Red Army in the article. I can not possibly treat the operations of the two Red Army Fronts as equals with the 1st Yugoslav Army, and not only for the rather obvious reasons of size and composition. The two forces had entirely different operational methods, objectives and command staffs. Its Apples and oranges stuff! I have no idea where you get this "enmity" or us being "allies". As I said before, I have no dispute with anyone who can provide valid sources for their statements. IF you can prove that the two Red Army Fronts and the 1st Yugoslav Army operated as a "joint force" from MILITARY HISTORY sources, more the power to you because I have never seen this suggested although I admit to not being an expert in the area. However, I can ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE that no General of the Army in the Red Army would have ever accepted a Yugoslav Major General as an equal, never mind being subordinated to one. This is probably true for any army in the World. In any case, you know where I stand. When I have all my sources together I will return to the article.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Now we're entering the realm of speculation. Exactly how significant were the actions and objectives of the Red Army in comparison to those of the Yugoslav Partisans? This is where POVs has a tremendous effect. Would the Red Army be capable of liberating the city on their own? Would the Partisans be able to liberate the city on their own (eventually)? You do not know, you can only suppose, and that is not what an article should be like. I cannot imagine what source you will find that will corroborate speculation.
It is highly disputable which side exactly is in a majority, or on the whole more significant (in Yugoslavia), and if you include all the 3rd and 4th Fronts, we must include the entirety of the 800,000-strong Partisans. I can ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE that no officer of the Yugoslav Partisans would take orders from the Red Army. What I propose is that we stay well out of all that. I propose we simply treat both of these forces completely equally. Since neither the Soviets nor the Yugoslavs were under the command of one another. (As for your baseless criticism of all sources that happen to contradict you, I will not discuss it anymore. If you remove the source I'm getting an RfC to see just how many people think that the US Library of Congress is an unreliable source.) --DIREKTOR 10:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I will point out once more that the international status of the Yugoslav Partisans (and Yugoslavia itself) was very different from that of the Bulgarian or Romanian Army. Why? 1) they had significant backing from London, 2) they were far more militarily significant, being both stronger in overall military power, well experienced, and able to withstand vastly superior forces on their own ground (perhaps even the Red Army for a time), 3) they were never part of the Axis, and were formed completely on their own, starting to fight on the same day as the Soviet Union. --DIREKTOR 10:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at AN/I

Hi Mrg3105,

Just to inform you that a discussion has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#mrg3105_incivility_at_Talk:Belgrade_Offensive regarding the tone of your remarks and their inherent incivility. Do please read the discussion and contribute to it if you would like to. Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Editing restriction reminder

Mrg3105, after looking through your recent contributions, I feel I have to remind you about the editing restrictions listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#General restriction. You are already aware of this as of this this warning and this block. I wish to strongly remind you that incivility and tendentious editing including edit warring and blind reverting will not be tolerated. If you continue this behaviour then I will have to enforce the remedy again.

Also, before trying to remind others of editing guidelines, you might wish to re-read them. The thing about Misplaced Pages is that we prefer to do our own research rather then rely on other reference works! This is against the core policy of WP:OR. Woody (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

1. http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query2/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+yu0031)