This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Baltic states / European / World War II C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Baltic states military history task force European military history task force World War II task force Lithuania Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lithuania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LithuaniaWikipedia:WikiProject LithuaniaTemplate:WikiProject LithuaniaLithuania articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Latvia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latvia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latvia related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatviaWikipedia:WikiProject LatviaTemplate:WikiProject LatviaLatvia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Estonia Mid‑importance Baltic offensive is part of WikiProject Estonia, a project to maintain and expand Estonia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.EstoniaWikipedia:WikiProject EstoniaTemplate:WikiProject EstoniaEstonia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : WikiProject Estonia/Missing articles Assess : Rate each tagged article by quality and importance to the WikiProject if it has not been done. (See Category:Unassessed Estonia articles) Infobox : Add infoboxes to articles without it Maintain : Portal:Estonia Photo : Upload and/or add a photo to articles without it (See Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Estonia) Stubs : Add info to stub-articles and check for start-class.

Archives

Archive 1

Notes left at the German, Polish, Russian and WWII task force pages alerting editors to this discussion. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the American elections, but a Wikipedia discussion. Ideas are preferred to votes —Preceding unsigned comment added by mrg3105 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 6 October 2008

Mrg3105's proposal is unmanageable in its present form as some of the proposed moves are controversial; others not. For clarity and convenience, I have divided the list into four groups, as follows:

• Group 1 moves – "XX etc" > "XX Strategic Offensive" - resolved
• Group 2 moves – "XX Strategic Offensive" > "XX Offensive" - resolved
• Group 3 moves – Baltic Operations/Offensives - resolved
• Group 4 moves – Miscellaneous related housekeeping - resolved

Each group has its own sub-heading below, containing a list of the applicable articles. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

xyz Strategic Offensive

Hello Mrg3105, are we going to go through battle naming all again? Personally I'd be willing to meet you half-way and where operations are truly offensive operations, then we can have "xyz Offensive." But, really, English WP does not exist solely to preserve Soviet terminology. I rather doubt there's anything the Soviets labelled as "Tactical" anything. Or, put another way, if everything is "Strategic," then nothing is. —PētersV (talk) 05:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I would appreciate if you clarify what it is that you oppose--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support using shorter titles, without the "strategic operation", per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, you can not apply the "common name" convention to a subject that is not common in the fist place. Its counter-logical. For the rest see discussion in....

Precision guideline says (in a nutshell) "Be precise when necessary; don't title articles ambiguously when the title has other meanings.", and this would be the case here

I would suggest those expressing their opinions here put away their "I hate Soviet Union" flag, and approach this as Wikipedia editors--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. We are required to follow the spirit of policy and guidelines rather than insisting they don't apply.
2. There is nothing ambiguous about "XX Offensive" or "XX Operation".

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Spirit of policy? Lets not get metaphysical ok. Hard enough in Wikipedia with the letters moving all the time as it is. I note the "spirit" is mentioned once, but left undefined as are many concepts in Wikipedia policies
2. Well sure there is, all military operations are "operations", but not all operations are offensives.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Implying that everyone who opposes this slew of moves is somehow anti-soviet is a total failure to AGF. Some of these may indeed be correct moves but just checking a handful, I see we are talking about reducing terms that get sizable mention in things like Google Books. For example, there are 86 for Baltic Offensive while Baltic Strategic Offensive gets 6 and most of those acctually use Baltic Strategic Offensive Operation. I can sympathise with mrg in so far as he wants to make an encyclopedia that is as accurate as possible in every way. Unfortunatly I think changing the titles to these titles that are in the minority and are technically accurate acts as a barrier for the casual reader. It has been asserted on other pages that only people already versed in the eastern front will come to these pages, this I dsagree with, especially with the rise of history programming on free to air TV. We should always aim to make things easier for the ley reader, not the expert editor. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I would suggest those expressing their opinions here put away their "I hate Soviet Union" lag, and approach this as Wikipedia editors" - well, if this discussion is going to follow those kind of arguments... :( Mgr, you are already under an ArbCom restriction with regards to battleground creation and personal attacks. Please refactor your offensive remark and be more civil. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mrg3105, thankyou for collecting all the affected articles carefully. I have to say however that I agree with Narson, Piotrus and Roger Davies: my opinion is that all of the above articles should be at XX Operation or XX Offensive. 'XX Strategic Operation,' as well expressed by Roger Davies in the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Comment is needlessly complex, as well as the other four reasons that he posited. Buckshot06(prof) 18:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, it was a general statement, not an argument. However, I am honoured to know that my block record is important enough to have a place in your extensive files. Are you looking to block me on an incivility again?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Narson, it really depends how ALL articles of same nature are named.

Are they named because that is the name given to them at the time of the execution, and recorded by history?

or

The title describes the content, and corresponds to that used in sources on which the article is based?

or

Are they named because its the best name for them in the opinion of Wikipedia editors?

I don't see why Soviet names should be treated differently to any other country which has articles about military operations in Wikipedia. However, what I see is different rules being applied to the Soviet operations because Soviet command did not use a codename or a "battle" for every one of its operations as the Western Allies did (or nearly so).

In any case, look at the names of the operations. They start with geographic locations. There are three ways an article can be found in Wikipedia:

a) by Google search

b) by wikilinks in other articles

c) by direct (typed) search

A Google search is completely dependent on the willingness of the user to search. If they are interested in the subject, they are more than likely to use books published in the last 20 years. By and large these have been either by Glantz, or influenced by him since the mid-1980s. If the average English speaking user goes to a forum, they will be suggested Glantz in a list of very few authors considered authoritative on the subject of Soviet operations on the Eastern Front. Even if the user is searching for a specific name and gets it wrong, Google will come up with closest match, so where is the difficulty?

In the case of b), wikilinks, there is no way to make Dnepropetrovsk "intuitive" for an English speaker! So, the Wikipedia editors will just have to either learn how to copy and paste, ask for assistance from Russian-speaking editors and cooperate in interwiki projects and wikis, or not edit any articles that includes names they can't be bothered to spell. I am myself using the form used by Glantz which is also used by another researcher even if I disagree wit the transliteration because I can add alternative spelling redirects later. The point - having found an operation in a book, an average English reader should not have a problem with it in Wikipedia, and neither strategic nor offensive has anything to do with it

In the case of c), again, they will have had to find the geographical names somewhere outside of Wikipedia. Are they more likely to have access to books from the 1960s, or those from the 1990s to current published works? If the reader so much as Googles "Eastern Front" and "World War II", they are more than likely to come up with some titles by Glantz who uses the Soviet naming convention for the operations. However, after the first geographic location is typed into the Wikipedia search, the rest comes up, so the words "strategic offensive" need not even be typed in! The search feature is there to help intuitive searching! So why should the names of the operations be reduced?

So, again I ask, what is the problem?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Group 1 moves

Group 2 moves

Group 3 moves

Group 4 moves

Please dont revert my sources.

1) German losses are still not in this world. German Krivosheev dont exist.

2) I write "According to soviet data" and not "the Germans lost"

3) This is soviet sources and it was also soviet-german war.

4) We must believe soviet sources because german sources dont exist.

5) We can use soviet sources for german losses, because we use also amercican sources for Normandie or soviet for 90.000 prisoners in Stalingrad or soviet for 150.000 prisoners in Bagration. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(The prisoners info is normally provided by the party taking them. The rest of the casualties are counted by the army suffering them.)

Is it your idea ? Or is it the rule in wikipedia ? --Igor Piryazev (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) By today, there are accounts for almost every campaign in World War II. This one is not an exception. Just try to order "Saaremaa 1944" by Mart Laar and you'll get an overview of all available accounts there are.

2) Yes, but as you provide only this account, you leave an expression that this is the only reliable one, while it is neither the only one nor even reliable for that matter.

3) Enemies, especially when they are totalitarian states, tend to exaggerate their opponent's losses for propaganda reasons. You would not push German accounts for Soviet losses, would you? Why are you doing the opposite then?

4) See 1)

5) Once again, it is correct to trust prisoners data from the party taking them. It is common practice among the Miliary History workgroup not to use a totalitarian propaganda service's data for their enemy's losses. See this post for instance.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) This is wrong. It is true for Western front, but not for Eastern front. Find me german losses for Baltic Offensive please.

2) But it is so. Germans are guilty, because they ignore Eastern front even today.

3) Not only totalitarian states do that. I believe soviet sources because they are not incredible and german losses grow and grow. German have lyied about their losses and about soviet losses. Soviets lyied about their losses but not about german losses.

For battle of Kiev we use german sources 665.000 prisoners. Soviet Union has won this war and we must use theor losses. We use also american and british sources. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

igor:3) Not only totalitarian states do that. I believe soviet sources because they are not incredible and german losses grow and grow. German have lyied about their losses and about soviet losses. Soviets lyied about their losses but not about german losses. i think its time to talk about the intention Blablaaa (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please dont do that. I know about this war a lot of infos and I know what I say. Fact is:

german sources lye. it was already PROOVED. For example Overmans.

soviet informations CAN LYE, but is was NOT PROOVED. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It were 3.500.000 dead Germans. Then 4.000.000 and now 5.300.000. I dont know it exatly but I think it were 5.000.000 - 7.000.000 dead german soldiers aganinst Red Army. (russian sources). --Igor Piryazev (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this propaganda is kept here, should it be mentioned that modern Baltic states de facto present themselves as German allies? Just to complete the whole picture? Or should this part be just deleted from the article? 95.55.124.88 (talk) 10:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Care to cite who exactly deems the Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity as spreading propaganda? Or is it just your own research?

After the Soviet incorporation, the Baltic governments did not acquire significant forces or power to be regarded as allies of any side. Officially, they were neutral, as declared by the Estonian government and proven by the fact that the small troops loyal to the government fought botht the German and the Soviet troops during the Tallinn Offensive. The Latvian and Lithuanian governments did not even exist during the Baltic Offensive, so I am not sure what you are talking about. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always wondering about the sick soldiers in soviet union. Why are they even counted, they are sick so they are not able to fight.

The weapons leave only 2 options, wounded or killed, there are not weapon that cause sickness, gas was not used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.133.241.127 (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

109.133.241.127 (talk) 11:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]