Talk:Battle of the Dnieper

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Did You Know An entry from Battle of the Dnieper appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 25 April 2006.
Wikipedia
WPMILHIST 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces...
 World War II task force

Archives: - 1 - 2

Okay, the V1 of this page is finally there. It can and should be improved: To do:

  • Proofread!!! (you can help!!!)
  • The article's connexions with other parts of WW2 series is unclear. 1943 battle of ukraine does not even exist and battle of Kiev is a little more than a stub based on a video game (!!!). Ultimately, I shall expand both, but it will take some time.
  • The attack map is under construction, but it will take me some time to finish it. Found an OK one on the web...

So I put the article in Wikipedia anyway, especially since it's a little more than a stub anyway, even as of now ... ^_^ Grafikm_fr 00:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Discussion at Village pump (policy)

see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#NPOV vs "mainstream".


[edit] Remove protection?

This article has been fully protected for about seven weeks, extremely long for wikipedia standards. No progress has been made in the discussion for the last two weeks. Are the parties moving toward mediation or some other form of dispute resolution? If not, then I will formally request unprotection. Calwatch 23:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

There was a failed arbitration attempt on top of it as well (recentely turned down [1]). Personally I would not mind it being unlocked provided that a certain user would not continue to destroy the page' history with reinserting tags again and again. --Kuban Cossack 00:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll unprotect this. There's no sense in protecting articles for months on end. What's the point of having a wiki and then stopping people from editing it? --Tony Sidaway 06:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation?

A have already proposed to request mediation concerning the use of the word "liberate", but very few people agreed to participate. With the hope that people change their opinion and are ready to resolve the dispute according to WP:DR instead of by removing the tag and edding warring, I propose the mediation once more. Please add your username below, if you are agree to participate.--AndriyK 07:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I would like to resolve the dispute and I will participate in the mediation process

  1. AndriyK 07:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. I hesitate, but I would like to try. Don't expect too many people on this list though, as in this dispute there are two sides and apparently the other one does not consider it a problem at all - nor is able to understand why is it a problem to the other side... //Halibutt 09:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Count me in, it will provide some fun and I need it... :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 09:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Not very enthusiastic, but if that's what will take to put these svidomy losers out of their misery, fair enough. --Kuban Cossack 16:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
    --- Please stop making personal attacks, Kuban Kazak. heqs 03:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. tufkaa 16:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. PatrickFisher 21:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To those, who do not like to follow WP:DR

Please do not remove the tag. It is not a legal way to resolve disputes.--AndriyK 08:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Being POV as you are is not a legal way to resolve disputes either, yet you're using it... <_< -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 09:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Are you going to participate in the mediation "for fun", or to resolve the dispute? The purpose of the tag is to attract the attention of the community to the dispute. This is supposed to help to resolve the dispute. Please keep the tag if you sincerely wish to resolve the dispute.--AndriyK 10:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not the tag that bothers me the most, it's the "reason" you provide, precisely because it implies that you're already sure of the mediation's result. A POV tag alone could do. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 10:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The tag implies nothing but the ongoing dispute and explains the disagreement.--AndriyK 10:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's the way you phrase that disagreement that is not quite neutral, which is kinda bad for a POV tag. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 10:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
This means we are in dispute. I consider your version of the article to be not neutral and you consider my tag to be not neutral. Let's resolve the dispute. Then we'll have a neutral version of the article and we'll need the tag anymore.
Until this is done I propose to keep the article in the form you prefer and keep the tag in the form I prefer. (Or it can be done vice versa, if you like).--AndriyK 10:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Grafikm, this is not constructive. Why not present your case, instead of making personal attacks? It only makes your position look weak when you must resort to ad hominem attacks. As for AndriyK, I assume good faith, and his civility reinforces that. If he's pro-Ukrainian, well, so what? That's ok, as long as his edits are appropriate, and from what I've seen, they are. - PatrickFisher 21:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Because I can't assume good faith about someone who got pinned by the ArbCom as an "aggressive Ukrainian nationalist", who used sock- and meatpupetry to bend votes in his favor, who abused the Wikimedia software features to prevent reverting moves and so on. It is difficult to AGF in this case. A judge will consider a witness more or less seriously depending on a few things, for instance. Same applies here. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dreadful L-word (Liberation)

I have removed the dreadful Liberation word. Those who care are looking for the possibilities to work on the articles, those to care to stop works are putting tags. abakharev 12:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Nicely said. //Halibutt 13:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
You will see that it will not still be enough for AndriyK... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 13:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the article is okay with its new wording. Perhaps (as I suggested during his arbitration request) AndriyK has a case for adding "liberation" to Words to avoid. --Tony Sidaway 13:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Would be a safe choice if you asked me. As I already pointed out, either we allow the usage in all cases where it's used in literature, or we prefer safer, more neutral wording in all cases. That's a fair solution to me. //Halibutt 16:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
In other words, it is a choice to make. And by definition of choice it has to be collective - so it won't be up to you-know-who to decide... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Alex labeled the event as the Recovering of Kiev in the body of the article. Why was this wording removed from the intro and replaced with "liberated"? Is this an honest attempt at reconciliation?--tufkaa 17:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It was not removed since it never was there. Alex replaced it in a section but not in the intro... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 17:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Which does not answer the question of why was it removed... //Halibutt 19:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
That I don't know. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 19:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I reestablished Battle of Kiev as Alex put it, too. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 18:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My old edit and proposed move

A while back I made a rather extensive edit,[2] that was reverted at first but I believe Grafik ended up saying he would integrate it with some more sources (see here). I would like to see this happen now that the article is unprotected. Also, I still feel strongly that the article should be redirected to Battle of the Dnieper, as we discussed extensively. heqs 03:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

As answered previously, no problem with the move for me (although I would rather suggest Battle of Dnieper for a title) As for other mods, well, I guess we'll have to wait until all the POV-pushing about "vile stalinist occupation" will be over, by a mean or another... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure "Battle of the Dnieper" is more correct gramatically, whatever its other qualities. Kirill Lokshin 22:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Battle of the Dnieper it is then :) However, as you can guess, it is only a minor problem, and there's a bigger one to be dealt first... <_< -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 22:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
No it's "plus les choses changent, plus elles restent les mêmes!"... :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, time for the move redirect then. Hopefully the pointless liberate revert wars are over. I will take care of it later today if no one else does. Cheers, heqs 14:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, an admin will have to move it, because the redirect at Battle of the Dnieper already exists (Mzajac created it just a few hours ago - strange timing!) . Any admins around, or should I file a Requested Move? We should move rather than copy+paste to save edit history, right? heqs 14:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You can move over a redirect if the redirect has no edit history, so it should be OK. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Update: I moved it. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, cool, I didn't know that. heqs 18:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protected again

I have to protect the article again. It is really a shame that such a fine article should be a subject of the revert war due to such a minor matter. Please find a compromise on the talk page. As for me all the variants are acceptable including the total exclusion of the dreadful L word abakharev 21:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What you will notice, Alex, is that the current protected version was corrected. "L*** of Kiev" in a section was replaced with "Battle of Kiev", a precision was added: "Liberation from Nazi occupation" and so on. Therefore, attempts were made to make this dispute to an end. However, that's what defines POV-pushers: a complete lack of negociation and dispute resolution. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

I filed a Mediation Cabal file to see if consensus can be reached with people able to do so... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


I've offered to mediate this. I have some knowledge of the battle but no POV on it at all. I take it this is a matter of semantics regarding the status of people/places after troop movements. Contact me via the mediation pahe or my talk page. Art. Arthur Ellis 01:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

{{RFMF}}

[edit] Unprotecting

As the article has been protected for weeks and the mediation request was rejected and there seems to be no ongoing discussion, I'm unprotecting this article. --Tony Sidaway 22:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "left" and "right" banks

Could we not use "East" and "West" to describe river banks such as that of the Dnieper rather than "left" and "right"? "Left" and "right" depend entirely on which way the observer is facing. If one was at the Dnieper facing upstream (North) the left bank would be the west bank and the right bank would be the east bank, but if facing downstream (South) then they would be reversed. I'm sure there are conventions for this sort of thing but I'm sure not everyone is aware of them and perhaps they are not universal so I think it would be better to be unambiguous and use "East" and "West" rather than "Left" and "Right". Booshank 02:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Universally, left and right banks are defined when facing the sense of the flowing water. Since Dnieper flows from north to south, the left bank is the eastern one and the right is western.
At least that's how it is defined for Russian rivers... I guess it's the same way for Dniper too... :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 14:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Given that none of that is explained in the article, nor is the casual reader likely to know which way the water is flowing, it simply appears silly in the intro and requires an explanation. There isn't even a single decent map of the battlefield that would demonstrate what is being discussed. The descriptions in the article as is are useless.Michael DoroshTalk 19:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Best" men

Aside from a lack of footnotes in the article, I'm a bit disturbed by the statement that Germany lost their 'best' men at Stalingrad. This is POV and unprovable. Did they keep statistics or have report cards? There's no way to compare or justify this statement so I've removed it.Michael DoroshTalk 19:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course there is a way to prove it. If you send experienced troops into battle and lose a quarter of them at Stalingrad, and then draft youngsters from Germany like it was done starting from January 1943, you get a lesser level of combat experience and thus combat performance. Unless 14-year-old adolescents fighting with Panzerfausts in Berlin are about as efficient as elite Waffen-SS troops (and I'm quite sure they're not), I find your point quite strange.
For instance, it is clearly written in Zaloga's "Operation Bagration": "The quality of German infantry troops had declined steadily through the war, due to enormous casualties". And the Wehrmacht lost about one quarter of their forces near or in Stalingrad. From both qualitative and quantitative point of view, they never recovered from Stalingrad. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 19:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
"Best" is a POV word that is meaningless. Best at what? Best rifle shots? Smartest? Most experienced? Best physical condition? I think it is far more accurate to simply report that many experienced leaders and soldiers were lost at Stalingrad. There is no tangible evidence that small unit performance suffered dramatically after Stalingrad. The operational tempo certainly changed, and the strategic situation changed, but were infantry platoons in June 1943 really less able to conduct their business any less effectively than in November 1942? And if so, how do we know that? Were direct comparisons ever done? It's subjective, sweeping, and over-generalized. But at least that is consistent with the rest of the article. :-) Michael DoroshTalk 19:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/t/Talk%7EBattle_of_the_Dnieper_78bd.html"