Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:10, 1 March 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Tali–Ihantala article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Tali–Ihantala article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 2 months

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

Military history: European / German / Nordic / 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 met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  European military history task force German military history task force Nordic 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 Low‑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 Low This article has been rated as Low-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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Soviet Union Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Finland High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Finland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FinlandWikipedia:WikiProject FinlandTemplate:WikiProject FinlandFinland High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Further input/suggestions from concerned Wiki reader

Hi Mr. Stradivarius and thanks for the reply, your information, AND the links, which I've been studying. I have since been reading your mediation cabal page for this article and found your defined issues and the discussion. On looking back at the history of this article, I believe now it HAS evolved in some positive ways CONTENT-wise (e.g., factually correct BUT NOW OVERSTATED emphasis on German participation) and gone DOWNHILL in other ways, mainly the at-first creeping and eventually strangling Soviet bias. Form-wise, the prose has become convoluted, apparently from strongly disagreeing authors trying to write a single article, e.g., in several places, you've got factual info, but then Baryshnikov says something contradictory. Or vise verse. I'd like to make two points if I may relating to the current mediation: 1. I hope when it comes time to resolve issue 6, if Wiki rules allow it, that you will CONSIDER the contemporary-to-that-period Soviet history all-around Finland AND TOWARDS FINLAND just a few years before (the puppet Kuusinen government at Viborg). There is a huge effort by certain groups in Russia today to rehabilitate Stalin and his era, led in large part by Prime Minister Putin. I think it would come as a big surprise to readers of this article in the West that the Soviets did NOT intend to take over Finland. I learned of it the first time myself form YMB. Puppet governments WERE THE MECHANICS, largely, of the Warsaw Pact. I guess the credibility of Baryshnikov is on your list of issues to resolve, at least sorta'. IF you find him a CREDIBLE source, does he have some compelling explanation as to why Finland was different from EVERY OTHER OF THE 24 or so other countries that the Soviets swallowed up (or "liberated," I guess, based on one's point of view) as Soviet "republics" or sister states in the Warsaw Pact? The other thing, concerning issue 1, I would only like to mention that "Vyborg" is a POOR transliteration of the Russian Выборг (in case the decision will be to identify the city by its PRESENT-DAY name as is being discussed). It should be Viborg or Veeborg (Actually with a miniature w right after the V. As a language teacher yourself, you'd you'd no doubt be an authority on this subject. I can't think offhand of any consistent examples of English y making an i (ee) sound in the first syllable. (Unlike English, Finnish is totally phonetic (which I realize is irrelevant to this point) and Russian is a lot closer to Finnish in that way than to English. the closest we've got in English to Ы is i or ee, wouldn't you agree? Thanks for your consideration. Paavo273 (talk) 08:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

User request to participate in the dispute

Can I post directly on the mediation site without having been named a party to it? If not, I'd like to be added. Is that possible? Paavo273 (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I would first wait for mediator's opinion on this matter. However regardless of his decision it might be helpful for you to read the rules of the mediation. If you do not find them acceptable then there is little reason for you to even apply to the mediation. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

@Paavo273 - You would need to agree to the ground rules, yes. But also, seeing as you were not initially involved in the dispute, and we have also been in mediation for some time now, I think we should get the agreement of the other three participants first. We have to strike a balance between inclusion and exclusion of editors. On the one hand, including editors will help make the final decision more well-thought-out and longer-lasting, but on the other hand, including editors who are less involved may slow the mediation process down and may not make much difference if they do not have a strong interest in the final outcome. If the other three parties are ok with your participation after considering it further, then I think you can join in. Please be aware, however, that we won't go over ground that we have already covered, and you will definitely have to stop using bold in your posts. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius 13:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Rel what the Russian name is and was for Viipuri AND any authority cited by British sources is suspect

English was never widely used in the Soviet Union in the Soviet years. Because it was a closed off society, Russian English teachers in the Soviet Union didn't have a great grasp on practical English. The use of English wasn't encouraged by the authorities, because it might lead to Soviet citizens learning from foreigners what the outside world was like. About Vyborg, that was not the Russian name. Выборг was. Someone obviously just BUNGLED it when they tried to translate it into Roman characters. It's not like Munich vs. Muenchen. Vyborg is obviously an attempt at transliteration/transcription--just a really bad one.

Finally, any British literature cited as authority for Vyborg should be disregarded or at least asterisked, since Britain had declared war on Finland and had a vested interest in a pro-Soviet outcome. Paavo273 (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

What English was in Soviet Union during Soviet years is not relevant to the mediation. What is relevant to the first issue in the mediation is the name used in the English language sources of the event, since this is an English language wikipedia. You can go through the naming guidelines to see what exactly has been discussed regarding the first issue of the mediation - Misplaced Pages:NCGN (same as Misplaced Pages:PLACE). Also Vyborg is the generally accepted transliteration of the Cyrillic version of the town name in Russian which in turn comes either from Swedish Viborg or from German Wiborg - however while some of this might be relevant as to how the town is referred to in articles discussing the town in certain historical context it is not relevant to the name of the town in the time period defined in the article or the mediation - unless of course you can prove it via the guidelines given at Misplaced Pages:PLACE. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - I couldn't have put it better myself. — Mr. Stradivarius 13:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, as was subsequently much discussed in the rfc, what is Russian and not Russian is quite relevant to Latin/Roman-alphabet Vyborg's national or linguistic origin as a name. I don't think any evidence was ever offered by Wanderer602 or anyone else that "Vyborg is the generally accepted transliteration of the Cyrillic version of the town name in Russian..." Other contributors and I provided evidence to the contrary in the rfc, though. In fact the still unproven idea that Vyborg is a Russian name seems to be the main underpinning of Wanderer602's argument with YMB29 in their exchange on issue 1 on 8-9 November. Unless we are all to just accept this unsupported (and I think unsupportable) assertion, it seems to me Wanderer602's argument about the "modern local historical name" falls apart. Paavo273 (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Viipuri/Vyborg naming RfC

For editors who are interested, there is an RfC over at Talk:Continuation War about which name we should use for the town of Vyborg/Viipuri during World War II. This will affect this article, as well as quite a others on the Finnish/Soviet conflict. Some of the other articles affected include Winter War Continuation War, Battle of Tienhaara, Battle of Vyborg Bay (1944), Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive, and Baltic Sea campaigns (1939–1945). If you could comment, it would be very much appreciated. The RfC thread can be found here. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius 15:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Attributing comments

Two places where it was used it will get problematic since (especially the first one) is very widely spread (ie. in almost all) Finnish based books on the topic. Using author list will only lead on convoluted page without any gains. Some better method than author list should be applied instead if at all possible. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this viewpoint a general consensus among all scholars, Finnish, Russian, and otherwise? If so, then we can include it without attribution. If there is any significant disagreement on this from other scholars, then we have to attribute it to someone. Is anyone aware of sources with differing views? — Mr. Stradivarius 09:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

That is part of the issue in a way (related to mediation), Soviet/Russian historiography generally states that the whole offensive (for Leningrad Front) ended already on June 20 (while in reality it continued at least to July 12) and downplays every and all of the events which followed that date - which include this particular battle. Even against existing evidence like orders from STAVKA or Soviet archival data. So i doubt very much that Russian scholars, with possible exception of some of the latests scholars agree with that. It is however prevalent view amongst Finnish scholars (with same view reflected in just about everywhere) - however if you start listing the authors who consider it as being key event then you better prepare a very, very long list. - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok so let's see the list with quotes...

Consensus in Finland does not mean consensus around the world.

In the mediation it was decided that all the sources used in the article should be considered reliable. As you said yourself, it is only your opinion that the Russian source is fringe.

So provide evidence that the Soviet/Russian view is fringe, otherwise it remains your opinion. -YMB29 (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Lets go with google books:

• 500 Days: The War in Eastern Europe, 1944-1945 - By Sean M. Mcateer, p. 184 This Battle of Tali-Ihantala probably convinced Stalin that conquering Finland was not worth the cost.
• Finland at War 1939-45 - By Philip Jowett, Philip S. Jowett, Brent Snodgrass, p. 13-15 Had the Soviet 21st Army been victorious it could have continued north to take Helsinki, and whole of the Finland would have been occupied. The Finnish victory here... (under entry Battle of Tali-Ihantala)

Just couple of examples for starters, and no one has even started adding Finnish books to the list. If this (attribution) is insisted it should be realized that it will not improve the article in any manner, only convolute it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

So that proves that the Russian view is fringe?

Battle of Tali-Ihantala probably convinced Stalin... Probably is not certainly as you state in the article.

If there is a lot of Finnish authors then you can just say "according to Finnish historians...". -YMB29 (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Grasping at such straws is hardly beneficial in any kind of discussion - so war we have plenty of non-Finnish sources and whole lot of Finnish sources which state that the battle was key event in 'convincing' Stalin. So stating 'according to Finnish historians' is not even near the truth nor is it accurate expression. So far the 'Russian view' has actually been just Baryshnikov alone. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Non-Finnish historians don't care to write much about the Soviet-Finnish front and there are of course many Finnish authors who do, but that is not a reason to take the Finnish view as fact.

Again, your opinion about Baryshnikov is irrelevant here.

The claims made in your paragraph should be backed up by exactly what the sources say and not your interpretation of what they say, so the "probably" makes a difference. -YMB29 (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This unyielding attitude of yours is exactly the reason why there were edit wars and problems leading to outside mediation. Keep in mind that all criticism you apply against Finnish source also works directly against Baryshnikov. What is clear is that neither 'Finnish authors' (since it is not true) or list of authors (since it would very long) works in this case, so I ask, what would be your suggestion to resolve the issue? - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Well if you don't like how the statements were attributed, that is not a reason for you to make a revert and have the views be presented as facts again.

I think that attributing the statements to the sources cited for them is good enough. It does not mean that only those sources support the statements, as you seem to think. -YMB29 (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I brought it up in order to have a constructive discussion on the matter instead of having either side resorting into similar actions as seen prior to mediation. So far you have been offering the just one and the same option (with two different flavors) without any attempt to achieve a compromise even though it has been pointed out that the specific solution you offered is not particularly suitable under the circumstances. How exactly do you believe such an 'example' of constructive work will help apart from yet again polarizing the discussion and editing? - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You did not just bring up a discussion, you reverted when you knew this is going against WP:ASF. This is what is not helpful. Come up with a better formulation if the one I made does not suit you. -YMB29 (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm merely trying to keep editing and discussion civil. Already in WP:ASF there is a note against deliberate misuse of the 'opinion concept' which it seems to me is the case in the first of the two places your edit altered. I do not have clear solution to the issue - if i had i would have already done something about it - but that does change the fact that inserting there the whole list of those who support that opinion is not practical nor beneficial to the article. Outside - and out of the box - opinions on the matter are welcome of course. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no misuse; you can only say that if you prove that Baryshnikov is fringe.

Once again, if you list two authors that does not mean that the two are the only ones who support the view. -YMB29 (talk) 19:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

...And of course we have Platonov's Bitva za Leningrad which bluntly says that Red Army failed to fulfill tasks given by STAVKA in the battles north of Viipuri. --Whiskey (talk) 23:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

And what does this have to do with what we are talking about? Nowhere in that book does it say that the battle was a great Finnish victory that saved them from occupation... -YMB29 (talk) 01:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

As said initially the whole problem derives from Soviet habit of hiding some their operations, often the unsuccessful ones, from history books (if you are interested on the topic, see David M. Glantz essay The Soviet-German War, 1941-1945: Myths and Realities). Which makes balanced observation of the operation very difficult. Just as an example of how difficult the matter is to handle, the Soviet/Russian books still maintain that Leningrad Front's offensive lasted until 20 June, while in reality active operations did not end until mid July (at Vuosalmi). - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

That is the Vyborg offensive. Anyway, this has little to do with what we are talking about. -YMB29 (talk) 19:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Not really, even the quotes you referred to state that capturing Viipuri was the final goal of the operation (which it wasn't) and keep mentions how 'successful' offensive was (even though it never reached its stated goals). So the 'myths and realities' of the Eastern Front are important when handling issues such as this. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The main objective was Vyborg and the greater strategic goal was Finland's surrender, so that is why the offensive is described as successful. This is not a myth and can't be used by you to discredit Soviet/Russian sources. -YMB29 (talk) 04:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ok, so it looks like Baryshnikov has a different opinion to the other scholars mentioned here. If Baryshnikov is the only source that has a different view, then we could do something like this: "The majority of scholars say X and Y. An alternative view is provided by Baryshnikov, who says Z." What we can't do is simply state "everyone thinks X and Y" when Baryshnikov has a different opinion. Wanderer, I'm afraid you are going to have to get used to this, as it is going to happen several times in this subject area. @YMB - are there other sources that share Baryshnikov's opinion, or that differ from the opinion of the other scholars mentioned? If there are, it might affect how we should word the passage. — Mr. Stradivarius 06:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as Baryshnikov's general view about this issue - that the goal of the Soviet offensive was Finland's exit from the war and not occupation, it is supported by many Russian and English language sources (I listed some of them before: ). So it can't be said that his view is in the minority. Baryshnikov is important because he is very detailed; he mentions this battle and analyzes the arguments of the Finnish side. -YMB29 (talk) 19:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The comments you quoted become extraordinarily hilarious when you keep in mind that both Leningrad Front and Karelian Front offensives had been stopped dead (with exception of Ilomantsi) around mid-July and that as per STAVKA orders the offensive was not intended to stall after reaching Vyborg - again interestingly STAVKA orders were utilized by non-Russian sources to reveal the actual Soviet intent. Also for that matter, to equal the nitpicking which was utilized earlier, none of the quotes listed deny the attempt to conquer Finland, and actually one of them even agrees that Soviet intent was to occupy (conquer) Finland. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Well if you fail to see what has been marked in bold for you, I can't help you... The quotes clearly state the Soviet strategic goals, and contradict the views you consider to be facts. You continue to cling to secondary tactical goals that were not achieved. We have been through this countless times... -YMB29 (talk) 04:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• C-Class German military history articles
• German military history task force articles
• C-Class Nordic military history articles
• Nordic military history task force articles
• C-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
• C-Class World War II articles
• World War II task force articles
• C-Class Russia articles
• Low-importance Russia articles
• Low-importance C-Class Russia articles
• C-Class Russia (history) articles
• History of Russia task force articles
• WikiProject Russia articles
• C-Class Soviet Union articles
• Low-importance Soviet Union articles
• WikiProject Soviet Union articles
• B-Class Finland articles
• High-importance Finland articles
• All WikiProject Finland pages