Talk:Winter War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Winter War has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

primarily the protection of Leningrad, which was only 18 miles to the north-west of the Finnish border[edit]

Oh, dear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Winter details[edit]

I changed the conversion of celcius to fahrenheit. -104 degrees fahrenheit is in fact -75 degrees C, whereas -40C is, oddly enough, -40F. Small point in case the moderators get stressed at my editing.

Some one who knows the script, please help clean this up[edit]

Seems like the graphic table is messy quite a bit when I get in today. Any writer who knows what to do, please help. (May 17, 2007)

Soviet opportunity for full conquest?[edit]

Until a moment ago the article said, ...the strongest argument against the idea of a full Soviet conquest is that it never actually happened, even when the Soviets had the opportunity to do so. I read through the article and nowhere does it elaborate on the Soviets ever being in a position to fully conquer Finland, let alone declining such an opportunity. Judging from a perusal through the article's edit history, it seems the content attributed to the sentence's two refs originally just said historians were unclear on the Soviet Union's intentions. Someone then added - without sources - that the argument against full conquest is that it didn't happen (huh?); someone else then came along and apparently attempted to clarify this by adding - without sources - the dubious "opportunity to do so" claim while admitting the clarified claim made little sense. As it stands now, the sentence is still vague, but more detail would best be left to perhaps a new section on Soviet intentions.  Mbinebri  talk ← 19:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Military sources in Finnish state that the Finnish army was at its breaking point at March 13, and could have been able to make only a few days longer stand at their positions. The Soviets were sure to be aware of this, but for some reason they did not continue on their campaign.
What comes to the Soviet intentions, the Army was ordered to reach the Gulf of Bothnia in two-three weeks in the beginning of the war. Later on, when their first offensive was stopped by Finns the Soviet army gone through internal revisions after the bitter experience so that in February 1940 they could manage to reach their goal as mentioned.
Source: Lt. Gen. Harald Öhquist's, commander of the II Army Corps on Karelian Isthmus, personal war diaries. "Vinterkriget ur min synvinkeln. WSOY 1948."-- (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Misrepresented or incomplete citations[edit]

In comparing what is written in various places in this article to the content of the cited sources, I'm finding big discrepancies. I hope all who edit here are fully familiar with Wikipedia's cornerstone no original research policy which states in a nutshell you can't make stuff up or add your own analysis to the sources when creating text for WP articles. As 4 the info for which Trotter is cited, 'don't know at this point whether he says this on OTHER pages of his book. I will try to find it. I hope this is not systemic to the article. Rel the citation tag I added in the intro, I fully support the idea that you don't have to source-cite info in the intro that is supported in full parallel in the body. Here, however, since the body cite that this intro text relied is faulty, I added the cite tag in intro as well.

If anyone will be providing foreign language (e.g., Finnish or Russian) sources to document the text I am tagging, please provide the original text as well as English translation here per WP:Foreign sources. Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I reverted your changes as they were apparently due to a language issue. It seems you don't know what an invasion is. Fortunately, we have a helpful article on the subject. The citation requests are also rather strange - the successful Soviet offensive in February has its own section in the article, and the territorial changes are well documented and remain in force to this day. I wasn't able to readily verify what Trotter writes there, so I replaced the citation request with a quotation request. Still, please list the discrepancies you think you've found here. If you're mistaken, we can easily clear things up; if you're correct, we can fix the article right up. --illythr (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Illythr and thanks for your edits you describe here.
Actually, the tag you changed to qn is an English source. Prior to adding the tag, I READ the pages carefully, and the info in that paragraph prior to the tag I placed is simply not there--not in those words or other words. I plan to pore over Trotter some more and hopefully find the missing info in which case I'll correct the cite OR add a new one. If you find the correct source and point out the cite info (page number if it's Trotter), if you'll let me know I'll be happy to add it myself. Anyway, please do not remove tags until the info IS properly sourced; that's what that tag is for. The alternative is to remove the info, but it's preferred and only fair to give time to try fix it. I'm thinking the one in the intro needs re-tagging, but I'll double check the article to see if that info is there.
Thanks for the Wikilink to the invasion article. That is an informative and interesting piece. That would be a primary source as defined in the no original research rule. I did not think my correction was a controversial one; since you've pointed this all out, what is underscored is the requirement that secondary sources actually STATE that the SU invaded FI. Only then would we B on solid ground policy-wise. I will double-check the cited sources to see if they mention it before adding tags.
I notice in your edit summary, you request, "Please detail the reasoning behind the citation requests on the talk page..." The best detail I can provide is my avowal that the info is not there where the citation says it is (providing the cite at the end of the paragraph even INTENDED to include that info). And to quote the summative info from the top of the no original research policy--which is no substitute for a full reading of the rule: "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources themselves." And further, "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research" (WP's, not my bold) plus "No original research" (NOR) is one of three core content policies..."
Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi again, As I study the invasion article you referred me to in order to self-educate, I find no citations at all for the critical info "defined" there. As such, I'm adding tags to that per WP:No original research, and I will try to find other, reliable sources that define the word. If in fact invade means merely to breach a country's borders, then obviously you are absolutely correct in your analysis above. If not, we've got a problem. Paavo273 (talk) 03:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I linked the invasion article so that you might educate yourself on what an invasion is, as you've apparently confused it with something else (an occupation, perhaps?). Here are a few dictionary definitions, in case you feel Wikipedia is not sufficient: [1], [2], [3], [4]. I still don't see your point in this post. Are you trying to say that there was no Soviet invasion of Finland? Would this mean that this (or this) is a work of fiction? I mean, Soviet propaganda of the time certainly did deny that it was an invasion, merely an effort to push the Finnish army away from Leningrad, but why would you support this fringe point of view?
So, let's try again. What exactly do you feel is so inadequately sourced in this article that it requires a "citation needed" tag? That the Soviet Union invaded Finland[5]? That Finland was forced to cede territory as the result of the war[6]?
As for the Trotter reference, the change was made by user:Peltimikko. Might as well ask him. However, it seems the text had been there for a long time before that edit, so you are most likely correct in requesting a citation there, after all. --illythr (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi again illythr,
Thanks for all the additional info. I will study that. There are two separate issues. The "invasion" thing firstly. 'Not sure if that's covered in the cites where the term is used. If the cites use "invasion" or term(s) meaning substantially the same, then that's solved. (Мне кажестся it's both a sourcing issue and one of whether the term "invasion" corresponds to what the cite calls it. I'll admit based on what you've said it's POSSIBLE as you suggested that I may have the wrong definition of invasion, in which case problem solved. I'm looking into it including using all the info you've generously provided.
The other issue is adhering as a whole to the rigorous but reasonable no original research policy mentioned above, including where I re-placed the cite tag. I would NEVER place a tag unless I've personally read and understood the cited source first and determine for sure the info is not in the cite. And I would not generally place a cite tag if I have knowledge that the info is verifiable UNLESS it is of such magnitude or import to the article that it should be cited anyway. Otherwise only in cases where as per policy I'm CONTESTING the info.
Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
What is your definition of "invasion", then? I'm guessing that the Finnish word "maahanhyökkäys" possesses a different connotation? --illythr (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
My understanding since you ask, is an invasion would entail more actual encroachment than what occurred here. AFAICT, this is NOT a disagreement over what happened, which is well laid out in the article. The second part of THAT word "-hyökkäys" means attack. This well could be a translation issue. I am going to add request quote tags wherever invade or invasion is mentioned. There ARE other Finnish words for invasion that may be more accurate representations of the English word. IDK. One of the English synonyms for maahanhyökkäys is INCURSION. 'Guess we can all agree the SU made incursions.
Seems to me, the SU didn't accomplish what it wanted MILITARILY AFA westward movement, especially in central or northern Finland. Especially not initially, right? So to say it was waiting until it had the troops necessary to invade until it ACTUALLY DID "invade" tends to confuse.
The unsourced WP article you referred me to states invasion means "military offensive in which large parts of the armed forces of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory controlled by another such entity." It gives the examples of the German "invasion" of Poland and the Western Allied invasion of France.
I would add to that the British invasion of USA in 1812, whereby the British pretty well ran amok in the country, burned the capital, etc. but did not take over.
As you pointed out in the discussion above, OCCUPATION and INVASION are not the same; but AFAIK, invasion would typically mean occupying OR at least TRAVELLING THROUGH some substantial amount of the country. In this case, if I understand correctly, we're talking about a chunk of the Karelian Isthmus primarily, and even that only after quite a struggle.
AFAIK what ELSE the SU "invaded" in this war altogether was largely uninhabited territory much of it scrub/swamp/bog type real estate.
Under the section ===Soviet political and military offensive=== Snodgrass uses the term "offensive." 'Don't know what Raunio calls it. Paavo273 (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I already provided the dictionary definitions. "to enter (a place, such as a foreign country) in order to take control by military force" is exactly what the Soviet Union did. An incursion is pretty much a synonym (used for smaller scale or temporary raids). Whether the invading party accomplishes all or any of its goals after the entering is irrelevant - the Bay of Pigs Invasion was an utter failure, for example. --illythr (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Changes to intro[edit]

I have been away for a couple of years. What has happened to the intro? Seems it is very, very, very far from its orginal sources. I tried to revert the 2011 version. Seems the late political conflicts in Russia has confused its historical articles. "He who controls the past controls the future.". This is unacceptable. Peltimikko (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Er, the paragraph you deleted was heavily sourced. What exactly constitutes original research there? --illythr (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
IMO User:Peltimikko's wording is more neutral and more accurate. (This intro discussion also seems to involve what the SU's advancement/movement or lack thereof s/b called. I notice Peltimikko's preferred intro, like Snodgrass, uses "offensive" rather than invasion.) AFA construction of the SU leadership's intentions, it must not IMO be stated in WP's voice; it would also be more appropriately placed in the body of the article; I think there is already some discussion of it. I will look. Paavo273 (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
You know others can make changes to the article when you are not here...
Making such reverts is disruptive. If you have something specific that you don't like, discuss it here. -YMB29 (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)