Talk:Stanislav Petrov

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

	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.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): Russian and Soviet military history task force

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stanislav Petrov article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 My 2 cents, may be a longer article 2 Too praiseful? 3 Clarification 4 npov 5 all-out 6 $1000 Award 7 Junior Officer 8 YTMND link 9 Attribution? 10 Image copyright info? 11 Change from Cyrillic Script to Cyrillic type 12 Disputed tag 13 Noncompliant 14 Corrected Italics 15 Splitting the Article? 16 Minuteman image 17 Noncompliant tag

[edit] My 2 cents, may be a longer article

The first time that I heard about this story, the "missles" turned out to be the blows of solar wind, wrongly detected as "multiple missles" by the Soviet's satellite system. Some one is welcomed to find more facts behind this interesting story. -- Anonymous 12:55, 17 April 2006

[edit] Too praiseful?

I find this article a bit too praiseful of Petrov. He had the common sense to realize that Soviet technology was poorly designed and error-prone, and that it was a bad idea to stake the future of civilization on it. I imagine the machine gave false alarms quite often. Certainly he deserves credit for this, but I don't know that he's the world's greatest hero: his achievement is a negative one. --Shibboleth 01:16, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What part of "saved the world" do you not understand? -- Thanks, The Mgmt.

There's a heck of a lot of people in the military who see obeying orders as the be all and end all, even if it means the end of the world. Thankfully for us, not all military people are that stupid.

I agree, how can we be too praiseful to someone who offered his career to safe the world but please keep your comments free of bad words Mgmt. :) 200.2.168.129

Please read Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, which all articles must follow. Wikipedia is a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia; it is not a place to argue a particular point of view. Thank you. Wizardry Dragon 23:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I must agree, he did save MANY lives. He didn't build the technology, and for all we know, we could've built the same thing, and had the same mistake. It's just his intuition that saved us. His achievement is not a negative one. If it was negative, then in reality, that WOULD mean that it was nukes coming to russia, and hey! Kaboom.

Agreed. Most of us wouldn't be here if Stanislav Petrov hadn't disobeyed his orders and listened to his inner judgement instead of military protocol. He may not be THE greatest hero of all time, but I am damn well grateful anyway. --TheOtherStephan 22:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Petrov did help design the system, which is why he was able to make his own judgement about its accuracy that day. --Dhartung | Talk 06:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Tjis article does seem a little too fawning. If Petrov had relayed the warning the U.S.S.R. might have retilate (in which case we'd probally all be dead), but this seems extremly unlikely. These systeems often had errors and would not be trusted enough to launch a retaliation. The soviets had real second strike capability, so they weren't in danger of losing retaliation capability. In that situation I kind imagine a massive attack without more information. -Jones89

10/3/06

[edit] Clarification

The first sentence of the current article (9/25/04) is somewhat misleading: "Stanislav Petrov...refused to launch Soviet intercontinental ballistic missiles on September 26, 1983..."

This wording implies that Stanislav Petrov, as an individual, was in a position to "push the button" that would have launched the Soviet missile arsenal, unleashing World War III. This assumption is not true. Clearly, the actions of Stanislav Petrov were heroic, but not in the way many people assume.

Stanislav Petrov's duty that day was to monitor satellite surveillance equipment and report any missile attack warnings up the chain-of-command where, ultimately, the top Soviet leadership would decide whether to launch a "retaliatory" attack against the West.

Whether to launch an attack was not Stanislav Petrov's decision to make. His role, however, was crucial in the process of making that decision. If he had declared the attack warnings valid, as his computers indicated, the Soviet leadership likely would have taken his decision as fact and immediately ordered an all-out "retaliatory" nuclear attack against the West. The West, in turn, would almost certainly have responded with its own "retaliatory" attack against the Soviet Union.

For clarification, click the "History" tab for this article and see this account: 01:31, 20 Jul 2004 Wikipedia1 (this version was overridden by a subsequent user)

Also, Web site www.brightstarsound.com has links to sources that describe in more detail Stanislav Petrov's role and actions.

Because of the bitter relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union at the time of this disturbing incident, Stanislav Petrov's actions almost certainly prevented what could have resulted in a worldwide nuclear war. By using his intelligence and intuition in declaring a false alarm, he prevented any chance of an accidental nuclear war from even beginning to occur that day. There is no question he deserves the gratitude of everyone on the planet.

All this talk about him single-handedly preventing WWIII relies on the assumption that Soviet leadership would have immediatly pushed the button had he reported the incident. I think it's more likely to assume, that had he done so, they would have come to the same conclusion as he did or at least would have seen that this supposed US strike was in no way massive enough to even put a dent in the USSR's capabilities to mount a retaliation strike so they'd probably have notified all their commanders that they should launch the missiles in case Moscow was turned into a radioactive wasteland within the next few minutes. No WWIII here.

Actually I can understand why Soviet leadership wasn't too happy. If I was head of the Politburo or whatever and one of my subordinates got information of this magnitude I would want it as well as his analysis why it is wrong and then I'd like to be the one to make the decision because that's the point of having a hierarchy. 82.135.7.211 14:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] npov

This article could use some serious NPOV work. Dori | Talk 14:28, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

I removed a sentence that was an obvious paean, as well as the entire cold war background ("background" suggests biographical information, not the setting) and inserted a link to the Cold War for those wanting background on the geopolitical context. Chuck Adams 22:32, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It seems to be better now overall, but I still find the tone a bit overwrought somehow.

I added a context paragraph to show that this wasn't the only time something similar happened. I think most of them come down to one person trusting his own instincts, and then other people trusting his, which is actually what happened here. The tone is still a little bit unique-moment-in-history, when what is remarkable about it is that for decades two superpowers were on hair-trigger alert against each other and many times came close to that trigger, without ever firing. You can be inspired and secure with this record, or you can be alarmed. But making Petrov out to be some sort of one-time hero is almost a bit much, considering.

Also, cite perhaps for the "some consider [the $1000 award] insulting"? Why? How much money does the Association of World Citizens have, anyway? A very odd criticism. --Dhartung | Talk 20:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you consider "saving the world" to be worth a price, 1000 bucks certainly is a measly one. But since this was more of a symbolic gift going hand in hand with the recognition by the AWC, it cannot truly be considered an "insult". Doing good for Goodness' sake and not for money, so to speak. --TheOtherStephan 22:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] all-out

..."the soviet union's strategy WAS an all-out nuclear counterattack against USA AND NATO allies?! In fact, it IS the strategy of Russia (and, vice versa, the USA and NATO threatens Russia), now as before. The nightmare isn't over. An insanity one has to bear in mind. WernerE, July2005

No, but it is definently diminished 216.61.238.220 03:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] $1000 Award

Why would people consider the $1000 reward to be an insult? It's unclear. It seems to me that the article should either describe why the $1000 would be considered an insult, or omit it altogether. Therefore, I'm removing the "insult" comment. If someone would like to add it again, please explain why this would be an insult. Rmisiak 00:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I agreed with you (see above) :) but hadn't done the edit. I was wondering if there were some Petrov gripefest somewhere in the wilds of the web that it came from. I was trying to figure out the constituency -- the true Russian nationalists probably don't like him much. --Dhartung | Talk 08:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Junior Officer

In the second paragraph, Petrov is described as "junior personnel far from the chain of command." I don't think that's a good description to apply to this particular situation. For one thing, by convention the ranks major to colonel are referred to as senior officers. It's not necessary for the article to follow that convention, but I also can't see any reason why it should not. Also, it seems to me that Petrov was in the chain of command, not far from it.

What may have happened here is that the sentence describes a general category of situations in a way that doesn't fit Petrov's situation all that well. It may be that in other cases the person involved was junior and far from the chain of command. If that's the case, the sentence should probably be split into two sentences, one making the general statement and the other more specifically describing Petrov's situation.

Hm, good point, but I still disagree -- Petrov was not in the chain of command, as he did not have explicit authority to order missile assets around. He only obtained an implicity authority by virtue of the information he fed upstream. Anyway. Junior may give the wrong impression, even though I simply thought him junior to the Soviet "joint chiefs" equivalent. The word "administrative" probably describes the situation a little better. Really, I'm just opposed to the great man theory of history -- even if the "great" man is a forgotten colonel. Particularly knowing how many other near-doomsday incidents there were, there's no way I can support the hagiographic approach. Like rescuers say, "I was just doing my job". --Dhartung | Talk 19:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] YTMND link

I just removed the link <--(Apparently not)

• stanislavpetrovtribute.ytmnd.com History's Greatest Hero a high-rated Petrov tribute YTMND

which goes to the internet meme site, YTMND. While the tribute does not immediately seem to be part of a joke, I suggest that (i)Inclusion is unneeded as biographical information is already sufficiently covered, (ii) The site is poorly coded (and won't load properly in firefox), and (iii) The subtitle of the page "be greatful, bitches" is indicative of the seriousness of the tribute. Since this is the second time I have removed the link, I am moving it here for further discussion. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker 02:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, added before I read the discussion page. I believe the link should remain because the site offers some interesting information on the man and the account of the events was most fascinating. -IJ

I'm pretty sure "Be grateful, bitches" is just in response to so many people not acknowledging Petrov's role in saving the world. Most people I know who have heard of him aren't too happy that he's not being recognized as much as he should be.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.211.233.114 (talk • contribs) .

Works perfectly in Firefox. Perhaps you should learn to use it TeaDrinker. Link should stay as it will bring many people to the site (This one), and thus doing them the same is merely curtious.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.15.123.179 (talk • contribs) .

Curiously, as I noted in my post, I do use firefox and am not able to scroll down the page. I agree with 128.211.233.114 that the "be greatful bitches" is a commentary on how he is a lesser known personality. Yet it does not strike me as the opening line of a tribute I would be proud of. I don't generally think that we should use links to change site traffic (ours or others), we should focus on building a good encyclopedia. So I ask the question, what encyclopedic value does it bring to the page? --TeaDrinker 04:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Hmm... maybe you could right click, and click "View Image" to see the whole thing. It's a handy tool in firefox, if you didn't already know.

Maybe a separate "Recognition of Petrov" section can be created to illustrate the degree to which his deeds ARE known?

[edit] Attribution?

The article has the following at the bottom:

This article is based in part upon content originally by Bright Star Sound with permission and licensed under the GFDL.

Can we remove this? At the least it seems there ought to be a more principled way of citing sources / attribution. Neilc 20:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright info?

FIXME: The image currently on the page is slated for removal in two days for lack of copyright status.

[edit] Change from Cyrillic Script to Cyrillic type

Someone should change the Cyrillic version of his name from the script to standard typeface.

[edit] Disputed tag

This article takes it for granted that Petrov averted war. But this is not a given. The Russian embassy says that even if Petrov had decided to launch, the missiles would not have flown without confirmation from another source, such as radar www.brightstarsound.com/world_hero/skepticism.html. I just looked at a book, The Logic of Accidental Nuclear War, by Bruce Blair, published by the Brookings Institution. Based on an interview with a former officer in the nuclear-weapons program, Blair says Soviet policy was to only launch upon confirmation of an attack from at least two sources. If one sensing system indicated an attack, an officer could give a preliminary launch order, but a final order could only come upon confirmation from a second sensor. -- Mwalcoff 03:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Couldn't this be fixed by just adding "may have helped prevent" to the statement, as "may have" keeps the lack of an incident of actual nuclear war to provide as evidence, and "helped" includes various other sources that might have also participated. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we have to take into consideration that many press and NGO sources have honored Petrov on that basis, so wording more in line with "widely considered" or "played a key part" is probably more accurate. I find it difficult to believe that the Soviet rocket forces were so antiquated that they had no other safeguards against a false positive (then again, see Nedelin disaster...). --Dhartung | Talk 05:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Regarding the first paragraph in this topic: Bruce Blair (author of the book mentioned), in a national television interview, said of the Petrov incident, "I think that this is the closest we’ve come to accidental nuclear war" (http://www.brightstarsound.com/world_hero/insight.html). As far as the Russian UN delegation's assertion that confirmation from multiple sources would be needed before a nuclear launch could occur, that was not necessarily certain in September 1983. The high level of Soviet paranoia, coupled with disconcerting Soviet intelligence reports, conceivably could have provoked a launch based on the satellite warnings alone. Oleg D. Kalugin, a former KGB chief of foreign counterintelligence who knew ailing Soviet leader Yuri Andropov well, said, "The danger was in the Soviet leadership thinking, 'The Americans may attack, so we better attack first.'" (http://hnn.us/articles/1709.html#bombs9-5-03)

That's the sort of thing that I want to work into the article. Personally, I feel the outline of the story is well-referenced and does not need line-by-line referencing, so I'm planning to work through the wording to make sure that weasel wording and POV are excised. I don't think there's really that much in the article itself, I think it's mainly that the overall claim is disputed by Wikipediatrix without reading the referenced sources. At that point I'd like to remove the non-compliant tag because, well, it's really rude and ugly and doesn't reflect the primary issues that need resolution. --Dhartung | Talk 23:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It's difficult to know what exactly Bruce Blair was referring to on the "brightstarsound" page. There's no context to the quote. Interesting is this blog post by someone who met Blair and asked him about the Russian statement critical of the Petrov award:

"Afterwards, I asked one of the speakers, Bruce Blair, what he thought of the Russian statement. Blair, now president of the Center for Defense Information and formerly of the Brookings Institute, is a former missile control officer who became a leading scholar of nuclear command and control. He also became a key advocate of standing down nuclear forces, often called “dealerting,” by a range of measures, from taking the launch keys away from missile control officers to removing missiles from silos and submarines. Blair said that there were basically three factors involved, also mentioned in the Russian release: 1) data from early warning satellites; 2) data from ground radar; and 3) the overall assessment of the strategic situation. In 1983, the Soviet assessment of the strategic situation was dire, not surprisingly; that was when, among other things, the Reagan administration was talking freely about fighting and winning a nuclear war. Data from ground radar would come in later than satellite data, and might be missing or otherwise inconclusive or too late to stop a process underway. Blair’s comments indicate that while there is much that is not known about this incident, and while it’s inherently difficult to say given X, Y would have happened – there could be other intervening variables, nonetheless it’s not farfetched to call Petrov, as he was in the award given him at the UN, “The Man Who Averted Nuclear War.” Blair noted that Petrov was an engineer who was aware that the Russian systems were new and in need of debugging. If it had been more of a “warrior” type, primed to act reflexively...."

Blair's position here is not quite clear. It appears that he agrees with the Russians (and his own book) that the Russians would have needed to confirm the incoming missiles from another data source before launching a retaliatory strike. But he apparently believes it's "not farfetched" that, considering how freaked out the Soviets were in 1983, that things could have been different had someone other than Petrov been working that night. -- Mwalcoff 01:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we can separate the facts from the hype. I don't think Blair and the Russians are disagreeing on the facts. Blair's point is consistent with the facts, and remember that Blair is an approximate peer in professional terms, that is, not an academic or politician. When Blair's statement is hyped, however, then there is something of a disagreement, and I don't agree with the hype myself (see earlier comments I've made). In Blair's words, which are an appropriate view to document, we came closer that night than at any other time. Launch control is a complex system and there is (and shouldn't be) one single choke point. Clearly, though, at this choke point, Petrov took actions which were counter-intuitive and counter to his training and military doctrine, and those were the correct choices. When placed in context, with the hype removed, I don't think there is a great dispute. --Dhartung | Talk 02:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noncompliant

Unless User:Wikipediatrix (or someone else) explains what is noncompliant beyond the disputed tag, I will remove the noncompliant tag again in 12-24 hours. Specific issues are more helpful than a general tag. --Dhartung | Talk 18:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was obvious enough that almost none of the statements in this article are cited or sourced, but oh well, here you go: Almost none of the statements in this article are cited or sourced. Furthermore, it's filled with opinionated conversational and observational WP:OR and WP:WEASEL language like "is credited with", "Petrov's dilemma was this: if... then...", "Petrov's judgment had been sound", "incorrectly, but understandably", "Perhaps most coincidentally", etc. wikipediatrix 19:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It does help to perceive your fellow editors as human. You could have added those specific criticisms to Talk without the tag, or used a more explicit edit summary -- the second time, especially.

That said, the article was converted from a different source, and the original editor gave us a print-style end-references section, which isn't my preference now that m:cite is available. Converting the article will take some effort; can I assume that you're interested in helping with that? --Dhartung | Talk 19:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I know enough about Mr. Petrov to be qualified. I feel the article pretty much needs to be rewritten from scratch, and without the "dramatic storytelling" style it's currently written in. As for talk vs. tag, I've learned the hard way that making a suggestion for changes on talk pages rarely achieves anything, and that it takes a tag to get people discussing the edits :) You're right though, I should have at least spelled it out in the edit summary. wikipediatrix 19:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I just want to know, is it your policy that all articles with end-references are non-compliant in your view, or just this one? --Dhartung | Talk 02:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I put the disputed tag on because the article because it appears to unequivocally back the claim that Petrov averted WW III. As I mentioned above, even if Petrov had thought the threat was real, it's doubtful the Soviets would have launched missiles without confirmation from a second source. Even if there was a double failure, it's hardly certain the Soviets would have launched their own missiles in response to the threat of a few incoming ICBMs. The Soviet nuclear arsenal was designed to survive a limited first strike with enough capability to fight the enemy; launch on warning was not necessary for just a few incoming ICBMs [1]. -- Mwalcoff 22:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the fact that he was the duty officer deciding whether the data showing missile launches is undisputed. What is murkier is whether, if he endorsed the conclusion of the system that he had a hand in designing, the people above him who had no knowledge of the system would have decided to launch. It can't be ruled out. So how would you describe his role? --Dhartung | Talk 02:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Bringing back the tag after [2].--Chealer 22:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corrected Italics

Italicized Cyrillic text is difficult to read. I took it away so it is easier to read his name at the beginning. --The Outhouse Mouse 13:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting the Article?

This article seems primarily about the 1983 incident, not about Stanislav Petrov. While I do not dispute that it is the only reason why anyone knows his name, I do dispute that the entire story should be told here. If there is another article about the incident itself, please link to it. If there is not, please create one that both explains the background, what was actually setting off the alarm(if anyone knows) and other such stuff.ToggleSmith 15:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain what the basis for your objection is. Other than this incident, Petrov is unnotable, and Petrov is the central player in this incident. Instead of one article, we'd end up with an article and a permanent stub, which seems rather pointless. --Dhartung | Talk 01:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

-- Worthy I think it is worth having a page that is about Petrov, he was the link pin of the entire story, Also It puts a human side to the story, and a sad one at that, how he lives in so crapy houseing project now. this is one great story do not kill it.Max 21:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minuteman image

Some clarification about the significance of the picture of the Minuteman III missile would be nice. Sewebster 06:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the picture.--Chealer 22:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noncompliant tag

Chealer re-added the {{noncompliant}} tag, but the conversation above as to why is unclear and the article has pickled for over a week since with no change. These tags are not "fire & forget missiles", a certain expectation of activity comes with them. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 12:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

My comment implied that [3] was problematic. This edit should be reviewed and "reverted-merged" to the current version. I don't expect to have time to do this myself, so the tag should stay until someone can perform that. I am re-adding it. Please make sure that the article is consistent and free of bold [weasel-]speculations (such as "Petrov is credited with preventing World War III and the devastation of much of the Earth by nuclear weapons.") before removing it again. Thank you for noticing me about your actions.--Chealer 13:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

To my opinion, the tone of the article is sufficiently neutral and the large criticism section is included. If you do not like the article, please correct it. If you have no time, please leave others to decide about the quality of the work. Audriusa 05:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The tone of the article is definitely not neutral. At least the first part of the article has an important bias. The Skepticism section does not cure the issues of the first part. Readers may not reach that part, and even if they do, only the first paragraph reports a skeptic statement. As I said, I don't expect to have time to correct the article. Please let others decide how they use their time.--Chealer 03:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

As this appears intractable, I can only envision dispute resolution escalation as a means to resolve. One of the problems this article has is that while there may be perfectly valid objections to those who see Petrov as a hero, there are few published sources which actually criticize this viewpoint. Nevertheless, your lack of specificity is maddening. "The beatings will continue until morale improves." --Dhartung | Talk 03:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no any POV in writing that a good specialist likely prevented a catastrophe. A lot of pilots, train drivers, captains and so on did this in the past. Is this highly inconvincible and should this be necessarily criticised? How do you imagine the neutral tone? "He betrayed his country by not launching rockets in response to the knowingly wrong signal"? Audriusa 19:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Writing "Petrov is credited with preventing World War III and the devastation of much of the Earth by nuclear weapons." without specifying who gives this credit is not similar to "Petrov likely prevented a catastrophe." but more to "Petrov is credited with preventing a catastrophe". I imagine NPOV in this case like "Petrov may have avoided the devastation of the USA by nuclear weapons."--Chealer 00:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Likely yes. I have corrected the first sentences that way. Audriusa 06:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)