Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:11, 13 June 2013

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Aviation / European / German / Russian & Soviet / World War II This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force European military history task force German military history task force Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force World War II task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia: History / Military Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.

	Guild of Copy Editors
This article was copy edited by Diannaa, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on April 10, 2010.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on August 23, 2012.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Time to split?

This article is at 65K of text already and still has significant lacunae. Perhaps it's time to split the article along traditional western historiography of the Battle of Kursk, the Orel counter-attack (whatever its Soviet codename was) and 4th Kharkov covering the battle for that city in August. Thoughts?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The article is getting pretty bulky. We are currently at 154 kilobytes of text. The intention is that articles should be readable in a single sitting, which the administrators believe is probably 35 to 50 kilobytes in length, with a strong indication to split if the article surpasses 100 kilobytes of text. We could trim down a bit of the supposition, quotes of questionable value (do we really need to know that Stavka wanted to bleed 'em dry?) and general verbage, but a split is needed if we are to get back into the article guidelines. Gunbirddriver (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

PS Should Stavka be italicised in every mention, or ever? And does it seem the article makes excessive use of wiki-links? Thanks. Gunbirddriver (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I think "Stavka" is now popularly recognized by WWII history audience. Many WWII history books published in the past 7 years don't italicize the term anymore. The same goes for "Wehrmacht". EyeTruth (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Sturmvogel 66's suggestion. I think Citadel should just be summarized in this article, just like Kutuzov and Commander Rumyantsev. The Battle of Kursk can then focus on all the preparations made for all three campaigns with a good summary of the campaigns. Then a new article focusing on just the battles of Citadel will be created (articles for Kutuzov and Commander Rumyantsev already exist). Everything from the beginning of the Prelude section up to the end of the Termination of Operation Citadel section in the Battle of Kursk article would be exported to the new article. This would not only help the size issue, but will also help establish a very neutral perspective of the Battle of Kursk (Citadel ended long before the fighting in the Kursk sector ended). Then the Battle of Kursk article can reduced as shown below. Any thought?

EyeTruth (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the Battle of Kursk article as you outlined it is really necessary as that's mostly only relevant to Citadel and much less so to the other two subsequent operations, especially Rumyantsev which doesn't even happen until August. (There's a reason that the Germans call it 4th Kharkov.) Each of the subsequent operation articles would need their own lengthy introductory paragraphs to set the stage.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

What I'm suggesting is that the Battle of Kursk article should only briefly summarize the three operations that constitute the battle. Then any detailed exposition of the combat phase of the operations should go in their own unique articles. Currently the Battle of Kursk article is almost only relevant to Citadel, but it shouldn't be. Although it seems majority of the editors have more interest in the German perspective, that is not the case with many credible books on the battle out there. Also, the background section of the articles for each of the operations don't need to be another wall of words (Operation Typhoon article is a good example). Also, the operations could all be introduced as "part of the battle of Kursk.... starting XX Month 1943" to point the reader back to Battle of Kursk for a complete view of the big picture if needed. Or we can simply do this to help keep the backgrounds short:

EyeTruth (talk) 07:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Operation Citadel currently redirects to this page, with the disambiguation page stating Operation Citadel refers to The Battle of Kursk, July and August 1943 (World War II). I believe most understand Operation Citadel and the Battle of Kursk to be interchangeably referring to the German summer offensive of 1943, but do not include the Russian offensive and the Russian capture of Kharkov that followed. I believe this page should focus on the German offensive, and the following Russian offensive should be moved off to its own article and briefly summarized here. Gunbirddriver (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

"I believe most understand Operation Citadel and the Battle of Kursk to be ... but do not include the Russian offensive and the Russian capture of Kharkov that followed." Many authors will not completely agree with you. Kutuzov and Commander Rumyantsev, just like Uranus and Little Saturn in literature on the battle of Stalingrad, are usually covered as part of the battle of Kursk; or at least, as the payoff of the battle. In some books, the number of pages devoted to the Soviet counteroffensives can be as much as a third of that devoted to Citadel. After all, Kutuzov started before Citadel was called off and was directed against the rear of the 9th Army. But indeed many associate the battle more with Citadel than with Kutuzov or Commander Rumyantsev. I see the sense in leaving Operation Citadel to redirect to this article.

Then maybe we can make new articles that each cover the two sectors of the Citadel offensives. Check the revised sample structure for this article above. That should cut off many paragraphs from the Battle of Kursk article. I don't know if you guys have any other ideas that can significantly slash the size of this article. EyeTruth (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Correct. Since the battle of Kursk was won by the Soviets, it is more correct to use Soviet name and Soviet time frame. However, it is true that many Cold war era western sources, which were written based on easily available German data, and, therefore, viewed the events mostly from the German perspective, preferred to use Zitadelle, not "Battle of Kursk". Fortunately, now we have an opportunity to fix this bias.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The victor is irrelevant, the name belongs to the side that started the offensive, just like Case Blue. I'm still going to use Operation Goodwood, even it was a British defeat.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The article is currently just over 158 kilobytes. I do not believe it is helpful to be thinking the article should cover everything, as that is an impossibility. As editors we need to improve the article, and in this instance that means picking and choosing what should be included to cover the event adequately and still have a readable article. References are provided, and they both show where the information came from and allow the reader to search further if they so choose. As stated above, we are way over the guidelines for length. Sturmvogel 66's recommendation at the top of this thread was a good one, but that was given back when the article was at some 66 kilobytes. Someone is going to have to go in and do a lot of editing (cutting) of what is in this article if it is to approach the goal. Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with Sturmvogel 66's suggestion. The article still has significant lacunae; as in very plenty. Even if all the aspects that are yet to be covered are stripped of all secondary details and then added, this article will still hit 150 K.

There are just so many crucial aspects that have not yet been covered or even mentioned. Nothing has been mentioned about the severe lack of infantry in the Wehrmacht (besides the brief mention in Zhukov's quote) and Model's ceaseless call for "more infantry", and its subsequent decisive effects (like having to divert mechanized and armoured formations to screen flanks simply because there weren't enough infantry formations to spare for the job); nor anything on the Luftwaffe's intentional plan to maintain air superiority by forming an air wall over there ground forces instead of trying to destroy the Red Air Force on the ground at the start of the campaign just like in their past offensives; nor is there any mention of Operation Habicht and Operation Panther; nor is there any mention of the effects the several postponements had on the Soviet commanders and forces, and the temptation (and serious plans) to attack in June. The air war over the salient has barely been touched. Nothing has been mentioned about the massive battles that played out on the far right flank of Manstein's main force (4th Panzer Army), which was one of the factors that turned Prokhorovka into a useless German victory (if it is even worth calling a victory). Everyone of these are covered by at least two of the four books I've digested on Kursk. And these are just some of the major topics not yet covered that are essential to providing the complete picture of the Battle of Kursk. And yes, even if lacking extensive details, a complete picture of the battle is the ultimate goal of this article. EyeTruth (talk) 02:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not going to be workable. See:

• A rule of thumb
• Readability issues

Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

That is why I said it must be divided. Also, as I already pointed out, this article as it is quite unbalanced. The battle of Kursk goes from 4/5 June to 23 July, and for some, as far as 23 August. But Citadel, for all practicality, ended on 12 July (the extra four days was just for jokes). Yet this article is virtually just Operation Citadel. I understand that is the way it is popularly understood, so I'm not gonna push against it yet. Anyways, as for the major issue at hand, this article has to be sliced up, as that is the primary step in reducing the size of this article. Once that is done, then this article can be succinctly summarized. We should start thinking of how the article will be cut up, and the subsequent trimming. (I feel like we are all saying the same thing but for some reason can't get the thing moving). EyeTruth (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

We are not saying the same thing, though there are some things that we agree on. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the goal of the article is to give a complete picture of the battle, and after going from 66K to 158K, you have added perhaps half of what you think should be added in order to give what you believe would be the complete picture. I am saying that completeness is not the goal. It is intended to be an encyclopedia, not an exhaustive treatise. Therefore care must be used in deciding what should be said and what should be left out. For example, in the section on Termination of Operation Citadel, which should be a brief statement on the German decision to halt, we now have a section titled Reasons for the failure of Citadel, with five experts listed, each of whom are used to provide multiple reasons for the failure of the operation, for a total of 6,770 bytes of text. That information should not be under the heading Termination of Operation Citadel, but would be better placed in a summary on the battle. Furthermore, the information should be reduced in size greatly, with the sources provided, of course, as a reference and guide to further reading.

I do not want to just go back and forth. I perceive we have a significant difference in view in what should be included, and I think we need other editors involved to provide some balance as to how best to improve the article. Gunbirddriver (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

This article should give a complete picture but not necessarily with exhaustive exposition. And by complete picture, I don't mean "an exhaustive treatise" (don't put words in my mouth) nor should it have everything that is associated with the battle. Rather, any factor, aspect, or event that is crucial to the development and outcome of the battle should be a candidate for inclusion. To summarize my view on this: I'm confident that simply cutting off whole passages or paragraphs will leave nothing but a half-baked article and will not even reduce the size significantly compared to slicing it up into new articles. And here is why.

As of 16 April 2013, before I started expanding the article, it was at ~108 kB (~105 KB) and was virtually an empty chest. Even Sturmvogel 66 recognized that, and since then it has only improved slightly and now stands at ~158 kB (~155 KB). A rough estimate of my net addition would be 25-30 KB, and that accounts for at least 5 KB of false (and uncited) material I cleaned out. And most of my edits, except for the Operation at the southern face section, was simply adding citation to already existing text and polishing it to mirror the message of the cited source (and you can attest to that as we've disputed over whether strictly preserving the message of the source matters or not). Currently, only a few sections (and subsections) are decently in order: 1.2, 2, 4, 8, 9; and I've never edited the last two. The rest are in an abysmal state, cluttered with uncited material, misinformation, false data, lacunae and poor prose. So go figure.

But I must confess that the Operation at the southern face section is very large and maybe too detailed for this article, all thanks to my edits. The whole section amounts to ~32 kB (and my edit will be estimated at 15-20 kB) and that is the reason I paused with adding or removing anything until a decision is reached regarding how to resolve the size issue. Sincerely, my intentions for this article is to fill in all notable lacunae, preserve adherence to the source and make it readable. I don't think it deserves to be antagonized, and I believe it can be accomplished. I also want to size down the article to make it readable just as much as you want to. What we need right now is to get more people, more ideas and work on it. EyeTruth (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay. We'll wait for further comments. Gunbirddriver (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure. But we should actually work to get this rolling, and not sit back and watch. We won't be waiting for eternity. EyeTruth (talk) 05:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

That would mean I should start reducing the size of the article by cutting down the text. I am ready to begin the project, but it would seem best to wait, otherwise there will certainly be an editing conflict. Gunbirddriver (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm also ready to start slicing up the article into new articles, and also join you in reducing the size of the current article by cutting down the text. But more importantly, we should actually work to get this rolling; as in, get more people and ideas involved. EyeTruth (talk) 23:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

PS. I will follow up with Sturmvogel 66. I'm guessing you brought in Paul Siebert; follow up too. EyeTruth (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

What I suggest is that we split the article into three parts now, Kursk, Kutuzov, and Rumyantsev, and see how it looks, saving the cutting of text until we've got a better handle on sizes, etc. We have plenty of time to further split these core three articles further as needed. I'd envision that each of the main three can be semi-standardized as EyeTruth outlined his concept above for the main Battle of Kursk article with preparations and opposing forces sections, etc. That will hardest to do with Kutuzov, but there we can talk about Soviet committment of their reserves, German lack thereof after Model's failure, etc. Thoughts?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

So, we would write a brief summary of the section to be moved off, then request an administrator to split the article, or just go ahead and make the split? Do we not need to show some consensus on the decision to split up the article? What is our best first step for the reduction? Gunbirddriver (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Depends what's currently at the destination articles, I think. If they're redirects then it shouldn't be any problem to copy past over the redirect, AFAIK. If there's something else then we'd have to call in an admin. Let's wait for comments from EyeTruth and Paul Siebert as we've got a consensus that something needs to be done, but still have differences about article titles, etc. My preferences are Operation Citadel, Operation Kutuzov and Operation Rumyantsev and I don't see any need as of yet for an overarching article as EyeTruth seems to prefer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. I took the liberty of doing a clean up of the Operation Kutuzov article in preparation for the transfer. I could write a summary paragraph for consideration, then we could shift the material over. These events are the key events in the East during the summer of 43, but I agree that they are fine as stand alone articles with summaries and links to show how they tie together. Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with your decisions: Operation Citadel, Operation Kutuzov and Operation Rumyantsev. On a side note, I'm not aiming for an exhaustive exposition of every aspect of the battle, instead a brief summary of every important aspect of the campaign will suffice. Each point would be no bigger than a paragraph of about two to three sentences. But if such a far-reaching summary still stretches the size of the various articles, then by all means they will need to be cut down. EyeTruth (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I've pinged Paul Siebert to see if he has any concerns about the split. There are existing articles on Operation Polkovodets Rumyantsev, Belgorod-Khar'kov Offensive Operation and Operation Kutuzov as well as the redirect from Operation Citadel. I can merge the second article into the first one without any problems and don't see any other significant issues. So I propose that we do this is several steps once we've gotten agreement that this is a workable plan. If Paul doesn't comment in a couple of days then we can proceed without him.

• I'll merge the two articles as mentioned above.
• You guys copy and integrate the appropriate text from this article into those articles without removing anything from this article, yet.
• Draft and post here brief summaries of those two operations for comments.

Summaries for subsequent offensives

Here is the summary for Operation Kutsov:

The Soviets had offensive operations of their own planned for the summer of 1943, one of which, Operation Kutusov, was launched 12 July against the German forces in the Orel salient north of Kursk. This offensive was launched against the German Army Group Center, and pushed off before the German attack on Kursk had concluded. Two Soviet Fronts, the Bryansk Front under the command of Markian Popov and the Western Front commanded by Vasily Sokolovsky, attacked the eastern and northern faces of the Orel salient respectively, which was defended by the 2nd Panzer Army. The southern face of the salient was also attacked, and German forces were withdrawn from the Kursk offensive to meet Operation Kutuzov.

Operation Kutuzov was successful in diverting German reserves earmarked for Operation Citadel. In addition, the Soviets reduced the Orel salient and inflicted substantial losses on the German army, setting the stage for the liberation of Smolensk. Though Soviet losses in the operation were heavy, they were better able to replace them. Operation Kutuzov allowed the Soviets to seize the strategic initiative, which they held through the remainder of the war.

1. Frieser 2007, p. 188. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrieser2007 (help)
2. Glantz & House 1995, p. 297. sfn error: no target: CITEREFGlantzHouse1995 (help)

I may have gotten ahead of myself, as I earlier parked the summary at the top of the subsection on Operation Kutusov. The remainder of that subsection could be exported to the main article on Operation Kutusov if the summary above looks acceptable. Comments? Gunbirddriver (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Just be sure to transfer the appropriate books from the bibliography as well so the notes make sense to readers. --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Once people have had a chance to comment on those summaries, replace the existing text on those operations with the summaries.
• Pause to see what shape/size this article is before moving it to Operation Citadel over the redirect, which shouldn't be a problem.
• There's no need to rush or feel any sense of urgency about this so let's take our time and give people a chance to respond/react, although I'll probably do the merge shortly since there's been a outstanding merge request for the last two years. Thoughts, comments?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I've just looked over the Operation Polkovodets Rumyantsev article and it has two out of three subarticles, covering the individual phases of the battle, already written, albeit badly. It's a brief stub right now, but perhaps we should expand it with the general material from the Battle of Kursk article rather than merge the sub articles back into it. I'm content with the existing structure, although it and its sub articles need a lot of TLC. What do y'all think?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we should flesh out the subarticles for Operation Polkovodets Rumyantsev with the material from Battle of Kursk instead of merging anything. I agree with every other point Gunbirddriver and Sturmvogel 66 has raised. EyeTruth (talk) 21:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, why don't you write up a summary of Rumyantsev and post it here before continuing to expand the current 84K of prose?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha. I will do that soon, once I'm in the mood to write on a Soviet offensive. EyeTruth (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Operation Polkovodets Rumyantsev:

After the heavy losses sustained by the Voronezh Front during Operation Citadel, the Soviets needed time to regroup and refit and therefore could not launch Operation Polkovodets Rumyantsev until 3 August. The operation was intended to be the major Soviet summer offensive with the aim of destroying the 4th Panzer Army and Army Detachment Kempf and eventually the southern wing of Army Group South as well. Before the operation was launched, however, the Soviets launched diversionary attacks across the Donets and Mius Rivers into the Donets Basin using the Southern and the Southwestern Fronts on 17 July. These attacks, intentionally designed to be spotted by the Germans, achieved their desired effect of diverting the few German reserves and some of the forces that took part in Citadel. These redeployed German forces successfully defeated the attacking Soviet armies by the end of July, but at the expense of weakening the defenses in the path of the main blow. The main offensive, which was primarily directed against Army Group South's northern wing, was initiated by the Voronezh and Steppe Fronts. On 5 August the Soviets took Belgorod and by the 12th had reached Kharkov, which eventually fell on 23 August at the end of the Fourth Battle of Kharkov.

Thoughts? EyeTruth (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it has promise. If Operation Rumyantsev was intended as the major Soviet offensive for 1943 than that is what I would say first, then I would comment that it began later than hoped for due to the need to replace losses. Less info on the diversion efforts would be better in this summary, as that would be covered best in the main article on Rumyantsev, and then details on the counterattack by Das Reich and Totenkopf seems appropriate, as I believe that was central to bringing the offensive to an end. Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Rewrote it a bit. The SS divisions were still fighting along the Mius on 15 August, so that offensive took quite a while to defeat, although that's not really pertinent here. The names of the armies involved aren't really pertinent here either. Do we want to use the name of 4th Kharkov as opposed to saying that it simply fell on 23 August?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

You have a good point Gunbirddriver. The simple format I followed was: condition of attacking forces; the diversionary attack that eventually made Rumyantsev far more successful than it would have ever been; the attacking forces; and final outcome. You can rework it as needed. Frankly, for now I have little enthusiasm for the Soviet offensives. Those have their days. For the paragraph I did, I pretty much squeezed it out from these two pages: (1) http://postimg.org/image/9n7yvb8m1/ (2) the link below. Those can be condensed and reworded in a thousand ways.

Sturmvogel 66, if the II SS Panzer Corps was still fighting along the Mius on 15 August it would be only elements from its divisions, because by 9 August the bulk of Das Reich and Totenkpf had returned to face off the Rumyantsev offensive. The Soviet offensives on Izium and Mius Front ended on 27 July and 3 August respectively, long after they had actually crumpled. Here is a fair-use excerpt http://postimg.org/image/nfmdqxzdl/ (Glantz & House, 2004) EyeTruth (talk) 03:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

You're half right. Totenkopf was still down on the Mius throughout August while Das Reich returns to the Kharkov area. I'll think over the summary some more and possibly tweak it some more as it sounds like you're done with it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Elements of Totenkopf were fighting near Kharkov on 12-13 August (if it was also at Mius, it would have only been a portion of it). http://postimg.org/image/fyngm81d9/ (hopefully this one more won't take a bite from Glantz's pocket :p) EyeTruth (talk) 06:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. I saw maps showing both battalions of the panzer regiment and the reconnaissance battalion down on the Mius. I'll further into it to see where the rest of the division is. I have two or more histories of the division, I just need to spend a little time looking through them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

If possible, check to see where the Assault Gun Battalion and the Panzergrenadier Regiments were. Those are formidable units that can leave a presence. Glantz never really clarified if the whole division returned or not, in fact it sounds a lot like he was saying only part of the division was fighting near Kharkov. EyeTruth (talk) 07:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, I should have time tomorrow. Shouldn't be hard, possibly just time consuming. There isn't squat on either of these diversionary offensives. I should look to see if they're actually recognized offensives with names.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

You're right, EyeTruth, all of Totenkopf went north; I misread the area that the maps were showing. Made some more tweaks to Eyetruth's proposal, incorporating some of Gunbirddriver's ideas.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I might word it something like this:

Operation Polkovodets Rumyantsev was intended as the main Soviet offensive for the summer of 1943. It's aim was to degrade the German 4th Panzer Army and cut off the extended southern portion of Army Group South. After the heavy losses sustained by the Voronezh Front during Operation Citadel, the Soviets needed time to regroup and refit, delaying the start of the offensive until 3 August. Diversionary attacks launched two weeks earlier across the Donets and Mius Rivers into the Donets Basin diverted German reserves and thinned the defending forces in the path of the main blow. The offensive was initiated by the Voronezh Front and Steppe Fronts against the northern wing of Army Group South. They drove through the German positions and made broad, deep penetrations past their lines. By 5 August the Soviets took Belgorod, and by the 12th had reached the outskirts of Kharkov. The advance was finally checked by a counter attack on 12 August by the 2nd SS "Das Reich" and 3rd SS  "Totenkopf" divisions. In the ensuing tank battles the Soviet armies were checked, suffering heavy losses in their armor. After this setback the Soviet troops focused on Kharkov and captured it after heavy fighting on 23 August. The battle is usually referred to as the Fourth Battle of Kharkov by the Germans and the Belgorod–Kharkov offensive operation by the Soviets.

I'm certainly not in love with it, so carve away or disregard as you wish. Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

This is much better. I'm in love with it. love EyeTruth (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

They're both fine. What do you think, Sturmvogel 66, this one or the one above? Either one is good with me. Gunbirddriver (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I little rewording. Reworded: "German reserves and weakened the defenders in..." to "German reserves and thinned the defending forces in..." EyeTruth (talk) 06:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

That's good EyeTruth. Sturmvogel 66 is an editor in high demand. Let's go with it, and we can always change it if he has objections. Meanwhile, I will move off the excess material and scrub it for transfer to the Operation Polkovodets Rumyantsev article. Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Quotation not found as is in citation

The quote below doesn't exist, as quoted below, in the cited source:

According to the situation of the Soviet-German front, the enemy will attempt to cut off the Kursk salient, encircle and destroy the Soviet forces of Central Front and Voronezh Front deployed here. At the moment, both fronts only have 15 tank divisions, meanwhile the German forces at Belgorod – Kharkov direction have alreadly gathered 17 tank divisions, most of them include the new types of tanks such as Tiger I, improvised Panther, Jagdpanzer IV and some kinds of tank destroyers such as Marder II, Marder III.

It's easy to locate where in the text it was lifted from. The overall message matches that from the Google translation of the text, but some of the numbers and names are completely manufactured, or at least nonexistent in the translation. EyeTruth (talk) 05:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I translated it using several online translators, to at least get a good idea of what it was saying, and also identified the relevant portion of it. I then checked Google Books for any English version of Zhukov's memoirs. I searched for "Belgorod-Kharkov " which is the one phrase in the relevant portion that would remain the same in any English rendition of the original text. I got what was needed.EyeTruth (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

More is not better

We continue to have problems with this article expanding. It is growing to the point of becoming unreadable. A number of style problems are creeping in as well. Wiki links should be limited to the first mention of the person or topic. A second link would be acceptable if there was a significant space between the two mentions, and with an article now at 164 kilobytes I suppose that is a distinct possibility. We also should be more guarded in the language we are using. However the primary problem in this article, from my perspective, is that it is trying to include too much, and needs to be substantially paired back. Gunbirddriver (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The readable prose is around 95 KB, which is still within the tolerable range, albeit barely. Once the walls of essay for the three Operations are exported to their new articles, the size of this article will drop enormously. Besides, half of the recent edits was just addition of more citations, which doesn't noticeably affect readability. Also, two of the three subsections of the "Background" were virtually stubs, and one of those two subsections yet remains a stub. Any recent edits that involved addition of new info has been strictly restricted to the "Background" and "Prelude" sections, which are the sections that would stay intact during the splitting, and hence it makes sense to flesh out the stubs. Also the "Prelude" section and "Soviet preparation" subsections have outlined almost every essential information, so those shouldn't significantly expand further in the near future. EyeTruth (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Update: the German preparation subsection has outlined most of the essential information. EyeTruth (talk) 09:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

In your last major addition to German plans and preparations, you wiki linked to Walther Model three times in the space of 1,000 kilobytes. Why did you do that? Gunbirddriver (talk) 15:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I link a term only once in a paragraph, preferably in its first occurrence, unless for a short paragraph for which a wikilink of the term already appears in the preceding paragraph; any thing else is a mistake. Besides, that issue actually has less to do with readability and more to do with article size. Going back through our past discussions, I've come to understand that you are wrongfully equating the article size to the readability of the article. Citations, wikilinks and footnotes/endnotes have very negligible effect on readability, and tables or pictures even enhance it. And as for article size, wikipedia can handle whatever you've got unless it messes with readability or causes technical issues. EyeTruth (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The standard for linking is once in the infobox and once in the main body with perhaps once in the lede. Once per paragraph is ludicrous. Yes, Gunbirddriver was getting mixed up between total article length and prose length, which was about 65K before any text was split off, IIRC. Long, but acceptable as the 100k standard is for prose length.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Not just simply once per paragraph, but more like once per long paragraph. When I do it right, it should amount to once per section most of the times. But I often get carried away when doing the initial typing, as it can be onerous to keep track of it. I come around some times to do some cleanup, and by all means, anyone can help in the cleanup if they wish. EyeTruth (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

EyeTruth, I appreciate your reading, your enthusiasm for the topic, and your desire to improve the article, but you were just advised what the wikipedia standards are for wiki links, and your response is "Not just simply once per paragraph, but more like once per long paragraph. When I do it right, it should amount to once per section most of the times." When you do it right? EyeTruth, you are not doing it right. That is what is being said. At 20:09 you wiki linked to rasputitsa for the third time. That is, after I mentioned that we had a problem with multiple wiki links, and Sturmvogel at 19:03 clarified for you what the standard was, you still went ahead and wiki linked rasputitsa for the third time. I am having a hard time understanding that, and I have to say it makes it challenging to be having this much trouble communicating. Gunbirddriver (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if the wikilink for rasputitsa caused a problem. It was a new section and it made sense to link it again since it is not uncommon for a reader to just read a section of interest in an article and move on. Do you disagree? But as for doing the linking right, IIRC, the rule for linking in English Misplaced Pages has always been that the link should be helpful to the reader and not get in the way or cause confusion, which is fairly subjective. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that because I know that was the standing consensus among editors when I first started editing on here, before taking some break. EyeTruth (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

PS. I think you're the only one having much trouble communicating, although I can't exactly speak for Sturmvogel 66. I think I'm reasonably considerate when it comes to accommodating the opinions of others, and I'm often more than willing to compromise if they are sensible. EyeTruth (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's step back a bit; what we have here is not a failure to communicate (cue Cool Hand Luke reference), but rather, I think, a difference in standards. Gunbirddriver and I prefer to minimize links, lest we see an ocean of blue in the text, and also, at least for me, as I tend to see it as kind of insulting as it implies that I can't remember what I just referenced 5 minutes ago. I understand that's my idiosyncratic reaction, and certainly not intended to be read as such by editors who have a different philosophy about links. At any rate, here's the policy from WP:OVERLINK: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." I've found this script useful to identify overlinking during my GANs and FACs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66, thanks for your input which is a lot more helpful. I think I've read that article you linked above (or probably another similar one) some time ago, and that has since guided my approach to linking, even after my recent return to Misplaced Pages-editing. I'm certain in the past the consensus was something along the lines of one wikilink for a term in one section, although I currently can't see any guideline like that in the article. But don't you think it makes sense to link a term again in a new section since it is not uncommon for a reader to just read a section of interest in an article and move on? EyeTruth (talk) 02:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. I read the article carefully, and found the thing about linking in new sections. It is apparently still the same old guidelines, and there is nothing wrong with linking a term again in a new section. But yes, it seems I'm short of the standards in a few ways. I will tighten up. EyeTruth (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point, but you seem to be defining section very literally. I could see multiple linking if one usage was at the very beginning of the article and 60K later it's used again, but many of the sections here are not very big. I'm sure some readers do dip in and out of articles only reading sections that interest them or strike their fancy, but I'm not sure that's true of even most readers. I've seen some things that suggest most readers only read the lede and maybe the rest of their first screen before moving on. I'd like to get this article into shape for a good article nomination over the summer and that means that we'll have to meet MOS standards like the one that I referenced above. Same thing with converting measurements, standardizing our cite formats, etc.

I hope that you'll be in the mood to write about Rumyantsev sometime soon as I'd like to get a better idea of where we stand with the main article. 80K+ is still bigger than ideal so we may need to break out some of those subarticles like north and south offensives, etc., sooner than I'd expected.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Beautiful. My unspoken intention has always been to get this article (and possibly all three subarticles) to A-class, in addition to being very informative and still readable, by the end of this summer. I'm happy to know that another active editor shares my intention. Yes, as I already stated above, I need to tighten up on linking, and I will soon get to work on Rumyantsev. EyeTruth (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Why stop at A class? If it's good enough for that, it's only a little step further to FAC! I'm glad to hear that this is also a goal of yours as well as it will make more tolerable the tedious business bring every little thing up to MOS standards. I'd prefer to have the article about half this size whenever we decide to go for a GAN and further as that would be much more manageable. I'm also rethinking about moving this article to Operation Citadel as Battle of Kursk is the more common name.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

One step at a time, and it is only a matter of time to get the article to that class. Operation Citadel is the Battle of Kursk, and so is Kutuzov and Rumyantsev. This is just akin to Blue and Stalindrad. IIRC, initially Operation Blue redirected to the Battle of Stalingrad article, until it made enough sense to editors that the redirection was fundamentally flawed although reasonable. I would support splitting Citadel from this article, but as I already stated earlier, I wouldn't push for it yet (or never) as the current redirection is with a good reason (although flawed). EyeTruth (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Article length and copyedits

I've just spent the last three days copyediting this monster of an article, but I only succeeded in trimming about 5k from it. It's still over 150k long and crying out for splitting up into I would think at least three parts, if not more, to satisfy MoS guidelines. I tried to make things a bit easier for myself by changing a few things to British English (I'm a Limey, but the first Brit/Am Eng I came to was British - honest!) We had the rather sorry state of British English and American English and don't get me started on the excessive linking! Navigating round this hodge-podge is a bit of a nightmare.

Looking at the talk page, just about everyone is agreed that this page is far too long and that something should be done. But when is the 'great division' going to start? RASAM (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

We have already performed the split offs that we discussed. Both the sections on Operation Polkovodets Rumyantsev and Operation Kutuzov have been cut down to summary paragraphs and the bulk of what was here (about 9,000 bytes) was transferred to the corresponding sub-articles. It's the readable prose that count in terms of content, and we are right around 100 kilobytes, despite the reductions. We need to work on it a bit more. I believe the intention of EyeTruth and Sturmvogel 66 is to get in what might be valuable and then cut back down. We would welcome the help, though. Gunbirddriver (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Changing the subject slightly, I've put a few comments here, simply because there is not enough room in the edit box:
1. Where possible, I've briefly introduced a few individuals/formations and so on, e.g. 'General von Kleinschmidt, the commander of 1,000 Panzer Division' or 'the 1,000 Panzer Division in Bolton' or whatever.
2. Picture captions required a little TLC.
3. I've also changed a few ampersands (&) to 'and' (per MoS).

There are many more edits that are still needed, I'm sure.

RASAM (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I've never heard of General von Kleinschmidt and the 1,000 Panzer Division. Are you sure you're on solid ground there? If you can source it that's fine. The rest of it sounds good to me. Gunbirddriver (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that the next stage is to transfer all the material on the actual conduct of the German attack to the Operation Citadel (currently a redirect, IIRC) in the hopes of getting this monster down to about 50K of readable prose, from the current 90K and summarize the details of the northern and southern attacks. Other things that we can do is trim many of the quotes which really only add flavor rather than solid info. Stuff like Hitler's attack order, etc. We also need to start prepping this article for a run at GA status later this summer, maybe August?, and providing conversions for every measurement on first use, adding page numbers to cites where necessary, adding cites, or cutting text that cannot be cited, etc. Thoughts, comments?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The existing northern and southern face sections are 11K and 23K of prose respectively. Summarizing them will go a long way to reducing the main article to our goal of 50K.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66, I'm in support of all your suggestions. So are we exporting southern and northern Citadel, each to their own new article or both to a new article (Operation Citadel)? I don't mind whichever you all decide on. The only problem with the former option is that I'm not certain if each sector of Citadel had any prominent official names (whether Soviet or German), unless the ones given in this article can be verified or unless we go with non-official names. (talk) 23:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Since there are no codenames for the northern and southern attacks, I think that we just stick with a single article for now as that will be less than 50K before we start adding details. We can always split them out if we absolutely half to. What I envision for the Operation Citadel article is minimal setting of the stage, just enough to orient a reader, before we start on the nitty gritty of the actual combat. We'll need to copy and cut down the Battle of Kursk infobox to just the Citadel info as well as references, etc and add links back to this article. Feel free to post draft summaries of the sections anytime, there's no hurry.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. We will also trim out Prokhorovka, even in the new article, since it already has its own article. 5KB of prose is too much for the summary of a battle. EyeTruth (talk) 04:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I will start with the easier one. Here is a very rough draft for the northern side:

Structure: intro (units involved), 5-7 July (cracking and mopping up the 1st belt), 8-11 July (as good as dead), 12 July onward (Kutuzov).

The main attack of Model's 9th Army was delivered by XLVII Panzer Corps, to which was also attached 45 Tigers of the 505 Heavy Tank Battalion, and supported on its flanks by the XLVI Panzer Corps, XLI Panzer Corps and XXIII Army Corps. Model had decided not to employ his armoured formations at the start of the offensive in order to prevent them from being worn out while breaking the Soviet defences and ending up unable to exploit any breakthrough. As the German preliminary bombardment on the early morning of 5 July ended, the 9th Army attacked the Soviet defences manned by the 70th and 13th Armies of the Central Front. By the end of the first day, the XLVII Panzer Corps had breached the Soviet first defensive belt. In the opening hours of 6 July Konstantin Rokossovsky responded with an armoured counterattack using the 2nd Tank Army. By mid-morning the counterattack had been checked by the Germans and the Soviet tank formations were forced unto the defensive, but the massive tank battle raged on for another four days. The counterattack had succeeded in delaying the 9th Army's own attack which eventually commenced by early-afternoon. 7 July saw fierce fighting in the heavily fortified defences around Ponyri. From 8–12 July Model's forces were dead in the water and had nothing dramatic to write home about. (Ignore that last sentence, I will expand that summary later. This is based from memory and the article, so I can't vouch for its complete accuracy until I double check with secondary sources. I will do that soon). EyeTruth (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Blunders in the article

Gunbirddriver, I must applaud your efforts on trimming this article. Overall, I think you've done an outstanding job here. However, I can't figure out what you're ultimately trying to achieve in your edits when you do stuff like taking uncited material and injecting them into cited ones (without providing any extra citation as supprort). Presenting information with citation, while preserving the message of the source, is the ultimate goal here. It's better to provide no information than to provide a distorted one or one unsupported by the cited source. Don't you agree? Even without access to the cited source, it is very possible to discern the key message, and then any rewording/rephrasing can be applied accordingly. Well, I'm taking note of them and when I have enough time I will clean them up (and as usual, update you on whatever major changes I make). But seriously, it will be much better if you try to be more cautious about preserving the key message of the source when you are rephrasing or rewording, because so far you seem to have little regards for adherence to cited works. EyeTruth (talk) 23:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The ultimate goal is to describe the events of the Battle of Kursk in a manner that is understandable and supported by available resources. Not all material in those resources need to be included in the article, as excessive or repetitive descriptions actually impede the readers understanding. We have been talking about reducing the size of the article fo quite some time, and as a goal it has been set out that the article should be about half the size that it currently is. A great deal of reduction will need to occur for that goal to be reached. Therefore, we need not quote Hitler on what he pronounced in his Order No. 6, nor do we need to belabor the fact that Soviet deception efforts were effective. Describing that air attacks on bogus command posts were unproductive repeats the idea that the deceptions were effective, and we need to stop repeating ourselves and quoting unneccessarily. The material removed I believed to be unnecessarily wordy, and did not improve the article. The things I added were cited. The point is to improve the article, and as has been agreed the article needs to be reduced. It is improved, but still has a long way to go. There is no sense in telling me you "need" to come behind and "fix" my edits. It would be helpful if you learned to reduce the wordiness in your writing, and were a little less presumptiuous towards your fellow editors. Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You got it all wrong. Don't presume that I'm talking about the stuff you cut out, for which I'm actually impressed on how much you managed to trim very well (even though I have a few objections). So read my last post again carefully. I'm talking about the stuff you added, or more correctly how you altered the stuff that was already there. Just one example is how you reworded: "it was the most impressive fleet of German armour yet amassed for a single offensive" to "it was the largest assemblage of German armour yet brought together for a single offensive." That is patently incorrect and it doesn't take much to discern the huge difference between the two statements. In fact, it doesn't take much knowledge of the Eastern Front to know that Barbarossa had a larger assemblage of armour. For that statement, Glantz was speaking of the combined value of quality and quantity, in which case Citadel takes the crown. I know such mistakes might be unintentional, but that is why I advised you to pay more attention to stuff like this in my last post. I will eventually go around and fix them later, but at least try not to accumulate more. (You can call that presumptuous or whatever you feel like calling it). EyeTruth (talk) 02:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

No, you've got it wrong. Barbarossa was not a battle. That would be like comparing the forces involved in Fall Gelb with those involved in the Battle of Arras. You are having trouble seeing the forest from the trees. Now here is what I am more interested in eliminating. You had the article stating: Manstein persuaded Field Marshal Günther von Kluge (commander of Army Group Centre), to immediately attack the Central Front which was holding the northern face of the salient. Kluge refused, insisting that his forces were too weak to launch such an attack. The first sentence is directly contradicted by the following sentence. If Manstein persuaded Kluge, than Kluge would not have refused. Manstein may have tried to persuade him, but one cannot asssert that he did persuade him and then come back in the next sentence and say Kluge refused. That's not good. That kind of error is confusing and muddles the article. Furthermore, the kind of independence of action the statement suggests was not the manner in which Germany fought the war. My guess is the source is both misquoted by you, and wrong on its assertion.

The other point I find troubling is this kind of comment: I think you've done an outstanding job here. However, I can't figure out what you're ultimately trying to achieve. Right, love what your doing but it makes no sense. Probably have to come back through and change it all back. Do you realize that I only trimmed some 3,000 bytes off this bloated article and you cannot help but put your foot in it? Do me a favor, don't tell people you love their edits and then go on to say they make no sense. It's pandering, offensive, and liable to irritate. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You've got it more wrong. Citadel is not a battle. It is an offensive or an operation, and so is Barbarossa. Battles are usually given their names after the event, operations already have their name before the event. Big difference. And on topic, the cited source never called it the "largest assemblage of German armour." As I already pointed out, if you're going to insert a new information, then provide a supporting citation. Please don't waste your time defending this lost cause. As for the other issue you pointed out, I mistakenly omitted "tried to". The correct statement used in the source is "Manstein tried to persuade von Kluge". Thank you for pointing that out.

It is up to you to interpret what I post here the way you want. I think you've put the most effort in trimming this article in the past few days, but your amazing job is not without its flaws. And it is not like I'm saying they are "your" flaws – no body is above mistakes (assuming they are indeed mistakes). Now, you can read any meaning you want into this post as well and cause unnecessary irritation for yourself. Seriously, I don't know how I end up stepping on your toes even when I try so hard not to, or do you really loathe constructive criticism so much? EyeTruth (talk) 04:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

To be frank, what I have been pointing out to you is that you have not been offering constructive criticism. As I have said before, you are not listening to the editors that are working on the project. As to your particular point that you seem to be focused on, allow me to point out that the title of this article is "The Battle of Kursk". That is what we have been working on. So this is considered one battle fought on the Eastern front. It is all in a continuum, so to be pedantic about whether or not more armoured vehicles were used in the intial invasion verses those involved in this one German offensive is not being constructive. Hope you find that helpful. As to errors, the one I pointed out above was a gross one (a very bad one), and it stems from not understanding what is being said in the source text. Here is another. You had:

"Hitler and OKW (German Supreme Headquarters), were confident that the offensive would revitalize German strategic fortunes in the East."

followed four paragraphs later with

"Anticipating the possibility that the German offensive might fail, Alfred Jodl (OKW Operations Chief), instructed the armed forces propaganda office to portray Citadel as a limited counteroffensive."

Jodl was Chief of Staff for the OKW. If Jodl was anticipating that the offensive might fail, then clearly he was not confident that it would succeed. One portion of the article was in direct contradiction with a following paragraph. That's not good. My guess is that you are taking statements right out of a source without thinking about whether or not they reflect the truth. The truth here was that Hitler and the German high command were desperately hopeful, but certainly not confident. For the Germans, Hitler was too inflexible to consider other options or to direct his attention to political solutions, even though political maneuvers had been his strong suite. At this point he was no longer thinking of politics.

Perhaps the root of the problem is that you are not entirely comfortable working in English, I am not sure, but my intention is to improve the article, and I am not content to be lectured about a shade of grey, while having to correct these types of unnecessary errors that have been inserted into a text that is too long anyway. Gunbirddriver (talk) 20:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

And which editors have I not been listening to? You, trying to convince me that your original research is more correct than the words of a respected historian is what you expect me to listen to? It seems that as I suspected your blunder about quantity of German armour was indeed intentional. The worse part is that you're now trying to say it was no big deal inserting original research under the pretext of cited material. This is absolutely ridiculous. You will only make this quagmire worse for yourself if you keep trying to defend it. And on a side note, Kursk was not just a battle. It was a battle about three offensives with strategic goals (at least, initially). Barbarossa, Blue and Citadel all belong to one family of German operations – strategic operations, at least initially.

And yes, "Hitler and OKW (German Supreme Headquarters), were confident that the offensive would revitalize German strategic fortunes in the East." And also, "anticipating the possibility that the German offensive might fail, Alfred Jodl (OKW Operations Chief), instructed the armed forces propaganda office to portray Citadel as a limited counteroffensive." Do you know who else was so excited for the offensive, only to object against it weeks later? Manstein. Hopes were high across the ranks in April but that wasn't so by June. The two passages are paragraphs apart for a reason, unless you've misplace them by putting them next to each other. The paragraphs in between sets up the context for the latter paragraph. That subsection followed a nearly chronological order.

If you see anything else suspected to be a mistake please don't hesitate to point it out so it can be fixed if need be. Most of my edits come in huge chunks, so typos and grammatical errors are bound to be present, and I don't bother to thoroughly proofread them since I simply end up reading what I already have in my memory. Besides, I'm no English prof. EyeTruth (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You do not listen to any of the editors. Look how much ink it took to get you to realize that you should not wiki link a topic in every paragraph. And you have Sturmvogel 66 telling you so. That is a very experienced editor. He says something to me, I try and do it. As to the charge of original research, I resent you making the accusation. Prove it or move off. Now read closely: placing statements in the article like "Hitler and OKW (German Supreme Headquarters), were confident" followed by the Guderian quote where Hitler tells him the idea of it gives him a tummy ache is contradictory and confusing to the reader. If Hitler and the German officers are of two minds before the offensive, then they are not confident. It would be best not to make either statement than to waste text contradicting yourself and confusing the readers. That's pretty straightforward, but I doubt you will see any validity to it, as you continue to argue that you have made no mistake, and who needs to proof read anyway. Well, I'm sorry but that doesn't cut it. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

My standards for wikilink is still what it has always been and it is in accordance with the rule. One wikilink per long paragraph (and not for short paragraphs), which essentially amounts to one wikilink per section (unless a short section). And I already made it clear that anything else is me getting carried away when doing the initial typing, as it can be onerous to keep track of the old and newer wikilinks. Stop distorting past discussions, it is all up there. And did you say I've not been listening?

• You (and another editor) complained about the size of the article, and I agreed that it was getting oversize.
• You suggested that we put much more emphasis on just trimming it down. I refused, citing that deletion of content alone would do little for this article.
• Eventually, splitting became recognized as a viable option. I agreed.
• You objected against this article covering everything. I insisted that it should at least touch all the important aspects.
• You (and supported by another editor) complained about overlinking, citing that there should be only one wikilink of a term in the article. I disagreed, and stood by one wikilink per section, which is not against the wiki guidelines. But I also accepted my mistake of overlinking.
• You pointed out some other critical errors that distorted the meaning of the affected passages, I agreed and encouraged you to go on and fix them. I will eventually do it myself if you don't.
• SUMMARY: It is only in your delusion that I have not been listening to any editors.

An opinion that is unsupported by a source is an original research. Hence, your blunder about German armour (which is just one blunder among others) is an original research, and worse of all, you have also given the impression that it was not a mistake. And Gunbirddriver, Hitler and OKW were confident in Citadel just after the operational order was issued, but their optimism didn't last. That piece of info makes full sense and is fully supported by a credible source. Is this seriously too complex for you to comprehend? This is why that section nearly followed a chronological order, until you reshuffled the whole thing. We now have April coming after May and then May coming again. Of course in such order, things will become misplaced. When I get notified of my errors, I take the correction. You should do the same.

I finally took a much closer look at what you did in this article. THE END: a more compact article. THE MEANS: merciless butchery. Reading the lead, I saw an outstanding job but as I went down...! I think we need to bring in other editors on these recent cleanup of yours to save us both an unnecessarily deadlock. You're refusing to comprehend simple explanation and at the same time insisting on the credibility of your original research. EyeTruth (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits to the infobox figures

(PING! User:Choy4311)

Using "semi-official" Soviet figures for German strength and casualties is not the best approach, especially when better options are available. It makes sense to use figures extracted from German archives for their strength and casualties displayed in the infobox and then discuss any other blind or rough estimates made by their opponents in the article. Same goes for the Soviet figures, although they're still lacking enough "true" primary sources for now (since a good number of them are still locked up or have only just become accessible). Other comments, thoughts? EyeTruth (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Also some of the changes you applied are straight out wrong. For example, some of the figures you moved to new subheadings do not belong there. Most of these figures are different because of their different contexts, which is not just always a difference in the time periods they refer to. EyeTruth (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

1. ^ Glantz & House 2004, p. 241. sfn error: no target: CITEREFGlantzHouse2004 (help)
2. ^ Glantz & House 2004, p. 245. sfn error: no target: CITEREFGlantzHouse2004 (help)
3. Frieser 2007, p. 196. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFrieser2007 (help)
4. Glantz & House 2004, p. 249. sfn error: no target: CITEREFGlantzHouse2004 (help)
5. Glantz & House 1995, p. 70. sfn error: no target: CITEREFGlantzHouse1995 (help)
6. Жуков Георгий Константинович "Воспоминания и размышления" – Глава 17. Разгром фашистских войск на Курской дуге С. 130.

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class military aviation articles
• Military aviation task force articles
• Start-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• Start-Class German military history articles
• German military history task force articles
• Start-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
• Start-Class World War II articles
• World War II task force articles
• C-Class Russia articles
• Top-importance Russia articles
• Top-importance C-Class Russia articles
• C-Class Russia (history) articles
• History of Russia task force articles
• C-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• WikiProject Russia articles
• Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors
• Selected anniversaries (August 2012)