Talk:Continuation War/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →


I reverted the article to a version that seemed to be the one that the majority (me included) preferred. Can we talk about it instead of instantly reverting? -- Jniemenmaa 09:23, Aug 26, 2003 (UTC)

I'm worried about the interpretation of NPOV. The version by User:Graculus is troubling of several reasons, chiefly:

  • The adaption to sources which obviously have a propagandist bias of Soviet origin, although he later seems to have realized that at least one of these claims is a lie, i.e. the assertion of Finland as an ally of Nazi-Germany during the war[1]
  • The un-cooperative attitude. User:Graculus has a good command of English, no doubt about that, better than maybe all other contributors to the article. Making a major rewrite in such a way[2] that it's hard to distinguish the language improvements from the factual changes and inserted propagandist bias shows an unsufficient respect for the NPOV-efforts made by others.

User:Graculus' change can be seen in the light of his changes on the Paris Peace Treaty[3] and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact[4].

As several times before, see for instance Talk:World_War_II_Archive_4, I am concerned about the impression and credibility of the Wikipedia. It's not good when popular misconceptions are mistaken for a neutral point of view.

Soviet points of views are important, although access to truth about Stalin's government and its intentions is limited. However, WWII-propaganda can't be allowed to be repeated as facts, not even as a representation of a "Soviet point of view", unless labled as such.

I'm adding the boilerplate text on NPOV-dispute to the article.

--Ruhrjung 17:29, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The current version is a good idea - even if putting the disputed sections side by side might be a bit confusing. Rickyrab 22:27, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree that it's exactly a good idea. However, the NPOV-dispute label is bad when the conflict remains static. All of September went by without any attempts to solve the issues. Maybe this will lead somewhere. --Ruhrjung 16:12, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Great, the old account, given by the partisans of the three different, but often overlapping persuasions (Finnish chauvinism, Nazi apologism, anti-Soviet propaganda) is back as a rival version. The writers here certainly aren't of the second persuasion, but seem to be of a mix of the first and last ones.

Not only that, but we have the awful precedent of two rival versions posted on the same page. Maybe Wiki users as a whole will start becoming too lazy to handle the drudgery, personalized bickering, politicking associated with long-going disputes over articles and start opting to turn an encyclopedia into point/counter-point debate team.

I admit that I'm not going to put up much of a fight over this article; and Graculus seems to have lost interest as well. So you people might as well discard Graculus' version, post the chauvinism on its own, and keep the neutrality heading up for an indefinite period. That's not nearly as disturbing as the current version, which could create a pattern of this sort of passive accommodation. If this goes on, Wikipedia will never resemble anything close to the structure and format of an encyclopedia. 172 07:16, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Why not give some examples of this alleged propaganda?
(And what have I done to deserve not being labled as a Nazi apologist Goebbels would have been so proud of?)
--Ruhrjung 13:40, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I don't like this schizophrenic situation which has lasted too long in this page. If you don't mind, I'd like to try to solve conflicting statements so please comment if you disagree with anything I do. And please comment before editing, as it would make it easier to achieve consensus and NPOV! --Whiskey 09:50, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The article's current state is awful. It's high time for it to be fixed. I praise your ambition!

In July 1944 Viipuri was lost, wasn't it? That's a major difference to the end of the Winter War. I guess that your change is factually correct, but you've made the meaning 40 words longer. Is the difference between "approximately to the 1940 boundaries" and the exact truth really worth that, given the context that Finland recently had held large parts of East Karelia for several years?

The following paragraph, hidden in a html-comment, ought to be moved (and improved, maybe) to either the end or the introduction, as it puts the war in perspective, and is contrary to what western students would assume: Finland's survival as an independent democratic and capitalist country was made possible chiefly through Nazi-Germany's support, while the Soviet Union was allied to the United Kingdom and, for most of the war, the United States.

/ML

At the end of Winter War, Soviets had already captured parts of Viipuri, although not the Castle or city center. The difference between 1940-border and the frontline at the end of hostilities is important for two reasons: 1) Militarily the occupation of western shores of Bay of Viipuri and Lake Ladoga has opened roads to Helsinki, Lake Saimaa and middle Finland, making Finnish situation very hard to sustain. The line from Bay of Viipuri to river Vuoksi and Lake Ladoga provided the best natural line of defense which was not breached by Soviets in two wars. 2) Politically Soviet Union annexed -like she did in Winter War- more land than she was holding militarily. Typically annexing powers occupy more land militarily than they actually annex in peace treaties. On few exceptions the effect for popular feeling has been devastating, good example being Versailles Peace treaty, which created a lot of badwill in Germany. Similarily the end of Winter War and Continuation War has created a lot of badwill in Finland towards Soviet Union. - But now I'm rambling...

I'm also writing an entry on Battle of Tali-Ihantala, and I try to move some stuff from here to there and also make the text more readable. I'm still hesitant whether to include exact facts (Like Luftwaffe detachment Kuhlmey) to the text or leave them out altogether...

-Whiskey

My proposition is that you try to write the first paragraphs of each section as inviting as possible (where "section" is understood as a chunk of text under a headline of its own).

/ML


Holy potatoes, this page looks awful. It looks like not a whole lot of discussion has gone on recently to fix it, either. If I may be so bold as to make this suggestion, how about I take a crack at merging and NPOVing the two versions currently displayed? I know essentially nothing about this particular war, and I have no emotional investment in any of the countries involved, so I offer myself as a potential "blank slate" who will hopefully be able to spot subjective or controversial points in the two versions and try to incorporate them with appropriate caveats. Bryan 19:50, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That was one of my thoughts and hopes with producing the "diff". Before that, I had had your ambition, but obviously I wasn't fit. --Ruhrjung 21:47, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, it certainly can't stay as it is now. I'll start work on it tonight, and if after I'm finished it turns into an old-fashioned edit war then we should just use old-fashioned tactics to resolve the issue rather than this enormous table situation. Bryan 03:38, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
This is a lot of work. I'm going to take a break until tomorrow, now that I've done the first two sections. The next couple look trickier. Bryan 06:36, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
There, done. I should note that while I worked on this I did no fact checking of any kind; if facts were stated in one version but not the other, I tried to incorporate them into the merged version as well. I also tried to minimize the amount of "opinion"-type wording without removing any significant statements in the process. Bryan 00:56, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Well done!
You put in a number of uncertainity markers of the kind "which may explain". I guess they are unneccessary, and will disappear sooner or later, but that's no big deal. In particular if we consider how this article has been a wasted battlefield for over half-a-year now.
--Ruhrjung 01:21, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, I imagnine the two-column format must have been pretty intimidating for casual editors who just happen by. This merged version isn't intended to be a "final" thing, just something that's hopefully easier to do further work on. Thanks for the compliment. :) Bryan 01:32, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)