Talk:Stanislav Petrov

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Needs an Image

Right now the article just seems intimating with all of that text. At least put up an image such as this one http://www.brightstarsound.com/world_hero/photos/petrov_expanded.jpg to show the reader who that man is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joemanforsho (talk • contribs) 00:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Dunno what intimating means, but if you can find an unencumbered image, be bold and add it. —johndburger 01:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[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 talkcontribs 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)
I am removing the tag as likely we have reached some consensus. In any case, I think that {{noncompliant}} is not applicable here, as this tag requires all four conditions to be satisfied. The article with ten references cannot be tagged as unreferenced. The simple web search shows that this person is sufficiently widely known. Also, with a lot of references on the web, there is no any need for the original research. If the tone still seems not neutral enough, {{pov}} should be used instead. Audriusa 07:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I restored the tag for now. {{noncompliant}} does not require all four conditions to be satisfied. The article still contains "Despite having prevented a potential nuclear disaster by refusing to acknowledge the computer system's warnings, Lt. Col. Petrov had disobeyed his orders and defied military protocol by not notifying his superiors of the possible nuclear threat." while linking to http://www.worldcitizens.org/petrov.html, but http://www.worldcitizens.org/petrov2.html contains "Petrov reported the alarm to his superiors and declared it false." Above that the article contains "did not notify his superiors" citing a video, but I couldn't see such a statement in the video. Overall the article still has too few sources and a non-neutral tone.--Chealer 02:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
We're obviously getting nowhere, Chealer. Maybe you could try editing the article instead of playing schoolmarm. We might then, in fact, get somewhere. If you think it's worth your time to analyze the article sufficiently to scold, it's certainly worth your time to try to fix it. --Dhartung | Talk 05:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, we are getting somewhere. The article was much worse when Mwalcoff tagged it disputed. Nevertheless, I tend to agree with wikipediatrix that it would help to rewrite the article from scratch. Even if I would try fixing the non-compliance issues, the article would probably still need cleanup. I definitely do not have enough interest in the article to rewrite it from scratch.--Chealer 07:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Personal attack by Max removed. --Dhartung | Talk 22:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


All this bleating, just press edit. Maury 22:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Part of the issue here is attitude, Maury. To have one editor sitting up on the balcony saying "not done yet" while other editors scurry about makes working on Wikipedia too much like having a job. It's not a productive or collaborative approach. Look how long it took us to get specific problems stated. What are we supposed to do, guess? I'd really rather not. If I have an objection to an article, I fix it, or I'm at least willing to go into detail about what I think needs fixing.--Dhartung | Talk 04:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm putting the tag back. The issue mentioned in my pre-last comment about notificating superiors or not is not solved. This is a serious problem as not notifying superiors is a central element in the article.--Chealer 00:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The tag has been removed (thanks to whoever did that for me). As you have now tagged the article on at least four occasions and apparently are unable to reach any sort of consensus on how to resolve this, perhaps you should consider simply dropping the issue - after all, you have stated that you "do not have enough interest" to make the fixes you suggest, so it doesn't seem to be too much of a stretch to suggest perhaps you would be better off spending your time working on something that does capture your fancy. This constant tagging does nothing but upset other editors. Maury 20:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
How is consensus missing? I have explained a specific problem in my comment dated 02:58, 2 April 2007 and have seen no disagreement about that so far. Ensuring that Wikipedia does not supply incorrect information without warning does capture my fancy. I wonder on what you are basing your statement about the use of tagging. I believe the tag achieves its intended goal of warning readers about the issues in the article's content. I'm going to speculate that it also motivated Audriusa in improving the lead.--Chealer 06:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
That's great, and all, but while you've managed to rile up a number of editors, you have so far not bothered to simply implement the changes to fix the problems. They did a Simpsons' about this, "the fingers, that's about the money!". If you have a specific complaint, then use an appropriate tag on the appropriate section, don't tag the entire article repeatedly like an automaton. Maury 12:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
You re-tagged. You are being blocked for 3RR. Maury 12:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw that this had yet again been retagged, so, based on Chealer's comment dated 06:31, 9 April 2007 that this tagging was for the reason in his comment from 02:58, 2 April 2007, I corrected the section to reflect the dispute in fact he noted and removed the tag. Hopefully this quick and relatively minor edit will be the end of this tag war. Ashdog137 21:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but lead's first paragraph still contains "Petrov deliberately did not report what appeared to be a US attack." and Aftermath still contains "Lt. Col. Petrov had disobeyed his orders and defied military protocol by not notifying his superiors of the possible nuclear threat.". I'm restoring {{disputed}} again.--Chealer 17:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Rather than just repeatedly retagging and only pointing out one thing you don't like each time, perhaps you could instead just take the ten seconds to make those edits yourself? I'll correct these two nits you've just picked, but I'd echo the myriad of other objections to persistant retagging in the absence of an effort to correct the perceived mistakes yourself. Ashdog137 03:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that rewriting this article takes more than 10 seconds. Thanks for your edits. The article now looks factually not too bad for me. I've tagged {{story}} to warn about the tone.--Chealer 03:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Triva" needs changing perhaps

In the paragraph on War Games, it is stated that the film drew attention to the possibility of nuclear war starting due to computer error. I believe that the message was closer to warning of lax security and the danger of (even unwitting) hackers gaining control of the U.S. defense system and the impersonal nature of modern warfare. CWPappas 05:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Able Archer 83

The page on Able_Archer_83 indicates that these exercises were being performed in November of '83. It therefore seems backwards to include mention of this in history section of this article 07:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm no military historian, but is it possible the exercises' planning was well enough underway the Soviets were disquieted about it enough to add to the button jitters? Chris Rodgers 03:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US bias

I feel like the use of the word "wandered" in the Background section trivializes the responsibility of the US's involvement in US/Soviet relations. "Yeah, the plane just wandered in there." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmilligan (talk • contribs) 07:12, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Changed word choice to more neutral "entered" and removed tag. Ashdog137 07:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup tag

Is this still needed? Looks like it's made great strides toward being a viable article. Chris Rodgers 03:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Can we please give the "cleanup" tag a rest? Remember what made Wikipedia so great in the first place? It wasn't because nit-pickers dropped "cleanup" tags everywhere. If someone wanted something cleaned up, they cleaned it up or left a note in the discussion page. --Rick MILLER 21:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Surely Not

I dont buy the paragraph:

Should Petrov disregard a real attack, the Soviet Union would be devastated by nuclear weapons without any warning or chance to retaliate. Were he to report the incoming American missiles, his superiors would have launched an equally catastrophic assault against their enemies, invariably precipitating a corresponding nuclear response from the United States. Despite his dilemma, Petrov remained with his intuition and declared the system's indications a false alarm. Later, it was apparent that his instincts were right, that no missiles were approaching and that the computer detection system was malfunctioning. It was subsequently determined that the false alarms had been created by a rare alignment of sunlight on high-altitude clouds and the satellites' Molniya orbits (an error later corrected with cross-reference to a geostationary satellite).[5]

The only reference is about what Molniya orbits are (and it good for that but doesn't cover the rest). The 1 or 5 missles the system was reporting would not have wiped out the whole USSR before it could react so really if he weighed up anything it was the premature loss of 5 cities which would be destroyed anyway if it was a real attack. Nor is there any proof that his superiors would have launched a massive counter attack against 5 missles. And wouldn't soviet ground stations in eastern europe have detected the missles long before they hit their targets?

Over dramatised and missleading in my opinion. I think it needs rewriting with some sources.

CaptinJohn 09:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Besides the melodrama, it's speculative, and thus not encyclopedic. Be WP:BOLD and change it—I don't have time right now. —johndburger 14:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
There's been some substantial rewriting that's gone into this section over the course of today -- I think it's definitely getting better, though all contributions would, of course, be helpful. I recall a substantial portion of the material in this paragraph coming from the same sources as the remainder of the material in the article -- perhaps it would be good to try to do some line-by-line sourcing? I'll certainly try to help with that once I've got the time, but if some other strapping young lad(y) would like to try that in the interim, that'd be great, too. Ashdog137 18:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Effect of a few nuclear strikes

Stanislav first saw a single missile incoming. Then another five. Grand total: six. Number of nuclear weapons on each side: thousands. Number of nuclear armed submarines on both sides: hundreds. It was undoubtably a terribly difficult situation but he would have known if he was wrong the consequences would not have had an impact on the ability of the USSR to retaliate. The article as it stands ignores this point. I've added it in twice and had it removed twice - the second time with a note that "it needs to be cited"! if that's true, then more than half this article needs to be removed because it isn't cited. I want this note in the article because as it stands the article is biased into making Stanislav seem to have made a harder decision than he actually made. Toby Douglass 10:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Story tag

Ashdog137 requested to discuss the restoration of the story tag, pretending that "section has undergone substantial revision, tag no longer applies". I disagree, the section still pictures Petrov as a hero, in the same way, e.g. "Petrov trusted his intuition and declared the system's indications a false alarm." --Chealer 19:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

From the {{story}} tag's usage notes: "The decision to tag with this template should be supported by a discussion on the article's talk page citing examples of how the article inappropriately and/or excessively employs storylike elements, outside of properly quoted material. This template may also flag things that should always be avoided in the primary (non-quoted) text of a Wikipedia article: verbosity, hyperbole, irony, cliché, inner voice, and first- and second-person address. Other undesirable elements, such as expressions of limited or personal opinion, may be more precisely addressed by other templates, such as Template:NPOV language or Template:Essay-opinion."
Again, I fail to see how this tag applies, particularly since the tagged section has been undergone repeated edits and work since the initial tagging. The section tells about the events that make Petrov notable in a neutral fashion, without resorting to any of the elements listed in the tag or to expressions of opinion. The line you cite is simply a statement of fact -- perhaps you would prefer "judgment" to "intuition," but the statement is true and supported by reference.
I would simply ask that, if you decide to tag the article, you comply with the usage notes for the tag and engage in discussion here, citing specifically to problems and collaborating in finding solutions. A tag-and-run is neither in the spirit of the tag itself nor in the spirit of collaborating to improve the article and address your concerns -- after all, we can't fix what you don't tell us about.
(As an aside, though I'm not one to bear grudges, I'd appreciate a slightly more cooperative tone in collaborating on this article; I'll assume good faith on your characterization of my edit summary above in hopes that we can have civil discourse.) Ashdog137 20:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, I would prefer "judgment" to "intuition". I consider the current statement false, but not differently than people with a certain POV can consider a sentence written with a different POV as false. As for the discussion, well, sorry, but here it is. I think the section shouldn't picture Petrov as a hero. I tried fixing that.--Chealer 07:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Overall, I like your edits; I think the section reads better now. I've made another pass to try to tighten it up and remove any vestiges of POV as well. I did modify one part of your edit, in re the second wave of missiles -- Petrov seemed to be closer to a decision than merely considering that they may have been false alarms, so I changed it to "suspected" to match the later use of "suspicions" in the sentence and to indicate that he was a step closer to having decided such. Again, though, I'm happy to discuss it if you object to that phrasing.
As for the new tag, where do you think the article most needs shoring up on references? I don't have too much time to edit, but I'd be happy to see what I can find if you can direct me to the parts that you see the biggest problems with. Ashdog137 20:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Aftermath is the worst, the 2 first paragraphs having as only reference a 1998 BBC TV interview which must be hard to obtain. I put 1 {{fact}} there, but it's mostly random; the whole paragraph is important and needs a more accessible source.--Chealer 08:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Chealer due to the amount of people watching this page you should be able to note your issues on this discussion page with details of what you think needs attention. Your constant tagging this article is clearly annoying to several/many people. WikipedianYknOK 00:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead Paragraph

I've cited the claim in the lead paragraph, per the tag request, and can provide several more if need be.

I'd like to take this opportunity to remind the editors on this article that your personal feelings on what Stanislav Petrov is or is not (hero, nobody, villain, etc) are completely irrelevant. This is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source; we write articles based on the secondary-sourcework reported by reliable sources. Basically, this means we don't interpret or investigate. Our mission is balance, reliability, and lack of undue weight: this applies to the facts as reported by reliable secondary sources. It does NOT apply to YOUR personal version of "what I think" or "what ought to be". Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Articles have nothing to do with what you think or don't think. Please try and keep this in mind. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 18:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio

What's going on here? This seems to be an article about a notable subject, so it isn't good to have this blanked.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Still a few days of wait, admins are only up to 2007-10-21 violations, this one was reported on the 26. Feel free to start a temporary page; I don't expect to see this solved by anything else than starting from scratch anyway.--Chealer 20:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
It would help the admins get through notices of copyright violation if you discussed exactly what you consider to be a violation of the referenced page's copyright. The current page doesn't even share a structure, let alone copyrightable text, with the anti-nuclear puffpiece you're referencing. John Nevard 08:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I just read both the article and the supposed source of the copyrighted material. I saw very little overlap at all. It was misguided to blank the article and post the copyvio template, in my opinion. —johndburger 04:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
It's true that they are very different. I'm playing safe; AFAIK one can't say that using, say, just 1% of a copyrighted work is legal.--Chealer (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I do think the page shares a structure, but I don't know what you mean by copyrightable text.--Chealer (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
There is no similarity in structure. The page from which text was used at one point was some simpering poorly structured world peace and justice wankfest. The current page shares nothing more with it than it does with the better articles it references. While the template you have repeatedly inserted is the "Possible Copyright Infringement", this doesn't mean that it should be inserted where you think there may "[Possibly be] Copyright Infringement", it means it should be inserted where there is actual verifiable copyright violation. If you can cite an example of copyright violation in the article, I suggest you do so. This isn't an article for some beyond-minor Linux distribution copied off their front page that should probably just be deleted, this is a good, original biographical article. John Nevard (talk) 08:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confused. Please help.

In the url < http://brightstarsound.com >, what is bright star sound?

The article claims "...military secrecy and international political concerns, Petrov's actions were kept secret until 1998 when a Russian officer present at the bunker wrote a book detailing the incident."

  • What officer?
  • What book?
  • Which bunker?
  • Clarify.


[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 05:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


In the url < http://brightstarsound.com >, what is bright star sound? In the "External links" section near the bottom of the article, BrightStarSound.com is described as "a tribute website, multiple pages with photos and reprints of various articles about Petrov"
What officer? What book? In the third paragraph of the article's "Aftermath" section: "The incident involving Petrov first became known publicly in the 1990s following the publication of memoirs written by Col. Gen. Yury Votintsev, the former commander of the Soviet Air Defense's Missile Defense Units."
Which bunker? The first sentence of the article's "1983 incident" section identifies it as "Serpukhov-15." Other references and more detailed descriptions can be found on Web pages such as these:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/coldwar/shatter021099b.htm
http://www.brightstarsound.com/world_hero/weekendavisen.html
Wikipedia1 (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV

This article is clearly POV in very much in need of a re-write. The “meat” of this “article” is nothing more than anecdotal stories, certainly none of which are supported by any factual evidence. Certainly there is a “Skepticism” section, but it is little more than an aside as a requirement to mimic objectivity. As a biography, this article is clearly not objective. It's a nice anti-Soviet piece, but maybe Wikipedia should not be a propaganda mouthpiece? Proxy User (talk)

Saying there is "clearly" a problem is simply ostention. Which claims specifically do you take issue with? скоморохъ 19:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I have no intention to debate you. The article is not objective. Clean it up, or suffer that others may do it for you. Proxy User (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry pal, if you want the article to be changed according to your wishes, you're going to need consensus. Edit-warring will only earn you a block. So tell me which elements of the article you think are non-neutral and we can discuss the matter. скоморохъ 19:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Bullshit. You do NOT own this article, and if you behave as though you do, a complaint will be made. This is not a commune, facts are not decided by committee. It is improper for you to attempt to intimidate opinions you disagree with. Your attempt to own a Wikipedia article is improper. You do not have the authority to dictate content, not threaten me with “punishment”. You overstep your bounds. Proxy User (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I never claimed to own the article - my single edit to it was to revert your removal of referenced material, nor have I threatened or intimidated anyone, but feel free to complain if you wish. Please try, in the meantime, to assume good faith. The fact that no editor owns the article was precisely what I was trying to convey to you. This is a collaborative encyclopedia, and what is appropriate for conclusion is decided by a consensus of editors. I see you have erased your initial post here and replaced it with more specific objections. Your claim that the meat of the article is unsupported by factual claims is curiously at odds with the 14 references in the article - you might wish to tag references you don't feel successfully support the claims with a {{failed verification}} tag, and those unsupported claims with a {{citation needed}} tag, to lend credibility to your argument. And while you are at it, why not add "the facts" you have in mind to the allegedly inadequate Skepticism section? скоморохъ 19:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
That a story was written someplace is not enough to take that content as fact. POV references to POV stories someplace do to equate to fact. The article is biased as it states Petrov's story as fact yet is is clearly disputed by other descriptions of the events, and indeed common sense. It's a nice anti-war story, but it is not backed up by fact. Stories in the BBC do not equate to fact, and can not be taken as fact or presented as fact. Proxy User (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I see, that's an understandable perspective, but you clearly have a very limited understanding of Wikipedia's core policy of Verification. If a reliable source like the BBC writes something, in almost every case it does count as fact on Wikipedia. скоморохъ 19:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


I have no particular opinion about the subject of this article (Petrov), so I think I can be reasonably objective. Simply stating that the article is not objective without giving specific examples, and then expecting others to fall in line is not the way it's done on Wikipedia. Then trying to cut off discussion when pressed for more details ("I have no intention to debate you ... Bullshit") definitely is not the way it's done on Wikipedia. Please read WP:CON for information about consensus-building. And no one has assumed ownership of the article simply because he asks for details about what is non-objective in the article. That is a misunderstanding of WP:OWN. If anything violates WP:OWN, it is demanding that an article should be changed without giving some details about why it should be changed.
As for the content of the article, most of the information in question is factual. It paraphrases how Petrov felt about his actions and describes some facts (receiving awards, traveling to the USA). There is nothing POV in his describing his own feelings and in reporting that he received awards. The only words that might conceivably be viewed as POV are describing him as living in "relative poverty" and use of the word "honored" to describe an event. Otherwise there is nothing POV in the statements of concern. Unless the objection is to those few words, we need more detail about what is POV. --Ward3001 (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Stories in the BBC do not necessarily equate to fact, and can not be taken as fact or presented as fact by themselves. Everything2.com is not a reliable source of fact either. Worldcitizens.org is not a news organization, it is a political organization, and thus as a source, it is not reliable. Most of the other "sources" present POV opinion, and clearly so.
Look at the actual references. That there are many is irrelevant. What are the actual sources? Are the actual sources reliable and unbiased? Or is the whole thing a biased put-on? Just because it fits Wikipedia's Liberal POV doesn't make it factual.
So tell me again about how well sourced this article is? Before you jumped down my throat, did YOU actually look at the "sources"? No, I didn’t think so. Unless you can put specific objections based on pacific facts, I suggest you go "police" some place else, because if you can not add anything but pontification, you're not being useful here. Proxy User (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

So, any specific reason to keep the tag after the changes have been done? --Illythr (talk) 10:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No response in 3+ weeks, going ahead.... Listing Port (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)