User talk:Pdfpdf

Archives:
Jan-Feb07 Mar-Apr07 May-Jun07 Jul-Aug07 Sep-Oct07 Nov-Dec07
Jan-Feb08 Mar-Apr08 May-Jun08 Jul-Aug08 Sep-Oct08 Nov-Dec08
Jan-Feb09 Mar-Apr09 May-Jun09 Jul-Aug09 Sep-Oct09 Nov-Dec09

/shortcuts
/Tools and references
WP:AIV

Picture of the day

The Great Train Robbery is a 1903 American silent film made by Edwin S. Porter for the Edison Manufacturing Company. It follows a gang of outlaws who hold up and rob a steam locomotive at a station in the American West, flee across mountainous terrain, and are finally defeated by a posse of locals. The short film draws on many sources, including a robust existing tradition of Western films, recent European innovations in film technique, the play of the same name by Scott Marble, the popularity of train-themed films, and possibly real-life incidents involving outlaws such as Butch Cassidy.Film credit: Edwin S. Porter

Most recent archive: User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive14

Manchuria

"Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation" come from the Soviet General Staff. it is the operation name. If you wish, unlike other Wikipedians, you can contact Mr. Glantz himself and ask the questions. --124.183.146.14 (talk) 01:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be contributing to the quality of the article and not just reverting, and looking at the naming of this article without any prejudices, so just to further inform you on the subject.

Nick-D lies when he says there are no references for the Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation. Its just that he is not aware of any. Of course there are. I can find the references for the full name although even if you look at the bibliography used by Glantz in his original paper, you will see that even the Soviet Army was not particular to use the full name.

(As an aside, I agree that "Accusing Nick-D of lying is counter-productive and it is confrontational." It's quite simple to use non-confrontational language, but achieve the same message. e.g. "Nick-D is ill-informed when he says there are no references." The former focuses on Nick-D; the latter on the subject of interest.) Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

"I can find the references for the full name" - That would be useful. Yes please. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

As a comment on my personal opinion: I prefer to use sources other than Glantz, and then look at Glantz to see what he says. "Everybody" tends to "only" read Glantz; he's a good source, but his is not the only POV, and I find that I don't get the whole picture when I read Glantz. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

My initial point in changing the name was that same standards used for naming articles about operations conducted by the Western Allies should be used for the operations conducted by the Red Army.

You will also note that several sources call this a 'campaign', including Soviet sources, although by definition a campaign is a rather protracted undertaking, usually taking months to execute, so why? (answer below)

How was the current name arrived at? I'm surprised you missed it because you said you had read the talk pages, including I'm sure the renaming 'consensus'. It was based on this: The current article title is lousy. I suggest renaming it to 'Soviet Invasion of Manchuria'. Raul654 (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I did try to point out that the 'Manchurian' in the Soviet name referred to the Soviet Manchuria (Northern Manchuria) because Soviet Union did not recognise the Japanese puppet state of Manchuria, and therefore could not have invaded it. This is aside from the logical POV that since they were IN Manchuria already (geographically) they could not very well be invading it, could they?

Strangely, I think I understand. In my opinion, that's a good example of the sortcomings of "management by committee" ... Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

However, the most salient argument against naming the article anything with a 'war' in it remains, er...the article content! I do not understand why people argue over articles without actually reading them, or even looking at the table of contents!

There are lots of answers to that observation. Probably the simplest is: "Because it suits their personal agenda(s)." I'm sure you've heard the statement: "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story." Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

An article about a war, any war, includes sections

• 1 Background
• 2 Chronology (preceding diplomatic relationships)
• 3 Pre-war events (economic aspects of going to war and sustaining it)
• 4 Course of the war (deployment of forces)
• 5 Aftermath
• 6 Impact of the war

Before you started adding content, the article was predominantly about the military operation from its August commencement date! All the rest was included in a summary and background sections, which are surely NOT what one would expect to see in an article on a war. Clearly therefore (as my logical reasoning suggests) the article is about the military operation.

Strategic had to be included because this operation, like no other, was strategic in planning and execution. In one operation the Soviet Union intended to conduct the offensive simultaneously in China, Korea and Japan. Also it was to use airborne and amphibious forces to prosecute these plans. More importantly, and still not dealt with in the article, was the strategic relocation of forces from Europe to the Far East. In Soviet literature one of the arguments for calling the operation a campaign, is that in reality it begun secretly months earlier with the commencement of troop movements from Germany.

Agreed. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

So, if editors want to have an article on the war between Soviet Union and Japan, fine, but let it be a fully fledged article devoted to the war in general.

On the other hand, if they want to have an article on the massive operation that culminated this war, then there needs to be that article.

In trying to mix both, as usual one gets neither.

Agreed. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That the people who formed the renaming "consensus" did not consider this to me suggested they didn't care, but just wanted to prove a point to me that they could do anything, and get me blocked for good measure. Since then not one of the individuals forming the consensus had added a single new reference, sentence or even a word to the article while preventing me from doing so also. The proof is in the diffs as the saying goes.

You should know that this was the third in a series of the great Soviet operations article naming debates, on culmination of which I was prevented from editing and creating a great many articles on Soviet operations during the Second World War, which is where it stands now. (please reply here) Mrg3105 --121.218.129.105 (talk) 05:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I enjoyed reading it. Most appreciated.

I'll give it some thought before I reply. Cheers & thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

IMO Mrg3105's comment on my talk page tacitly invited me to join this discussion, so that's what I did.

Welcome! Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Accusing Nick-D of lying is counter-productive and it is confrontational.

Agreed. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Besides that I agree with most of what you wrote specially the distinction between "military operations" and "war".

I live in Brazil so this is the best definition of Strategic Offensive Operation I found:

Book: Colossus reborn: the Red Army at war : 1941-1943

Author: David M. Glantz page 82

""a system of offensive operations unified by a single Stavka concept and conducted to achieve the military-political aims of a campaign"."

So the Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation is a system of offensive operations designed to achieve military-political goals. Such article should define this system and define its goals.

IMO the conduction of the operation falls outside of the scope of such article. So the article Soviet invasion of Manchuria or Battle of Manchuria should inform that the Soviet plans and objectives are detailed in the Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation article. EconomistBR 16:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused here. Yes, I agree that "Such article should define this system and define its goals.", but I'm not sure why you're saying the actual execution of the operation falls outside the scope. The word "Operation" is in the title - if the plan is not executed, then it's just a plan, not an operation. Also, as you say, it's a system of operations, not just a system of plans. So, I guess that means I disagree? Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect EconomistBR, I call 'em as I see 'em.

Why? It doesn't achieve anything useful. It doesn't help you achieve what you want - in fact, it achieves the opposite. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I do retain my integrity. I am averse to "means justifying the ends" thinking

So, I interpret your response as

• Q1. Where does "Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation" come from? - A1. User:Mrg3105. - No supporting reference.
• Q2. Where does "Soviet invasion of Manchuria (1945)" come from? - A2. "Attrition". - No supporting reference.
• Q3. Where does "(Russian: Советско-японская война, lit. Soviet-Japanese War)" come from? - A3. ? (Not answered.)
• Q4. Why is what's stated in the article inconsistent and unreferenced? - A4. Because that's the way it happened.

Do you you agree with that summary?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

In brief: 1) Yes, 2) Lengthy discussion on the article's talk page 3) Not sure 4) Yep, and because it was subjected to a very tedious campaign of disruptive edits by Mrg Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

To the first question of supporting evidence, the change was in the first instance effected after contact with the first author to give it any sort of complete account in English, Glantz, and who's two reports the original article was based. Therefore the original article was not about a war. No further supporting evidence was ever sought by Nick or anyone else! So that's a lie, since he could have just said "I don't know". By the way, Glantz at the time was not paid to study Soviet military history, but to work on doctrinal (i.e. military) applications, and that eventually became AirLand Battle introduced in the US Army in the early 1980s. "Strategy" was a very important part of that work, but the wider diplomatic and economic considerations of the war were only peripheral to his reports.

i) Please note that the words you are quoting as Nick's are/were my words, not Nick's

Not at all. To your question *Q1. Where does "Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation" come from? - A1. User:Mrg3105. - No supporting reference. - Nick-D answered :In brief: 1) Yes, Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

ii) I asked and answered: Where does "Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation" come from? - A1. User:Mrg3105.

• You say "the change was ... effected". What/which "change" are you referring to?

The change to Soviet invasion of Manchuria was after I had successfully renamed the article Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation. You see, Buckshot and Eurocopter saw this as a precedent to me renaming/creating the other 72 Soviet strategic operation articles, and Buckshot06 expressed the opinion that the article names were too long and overly tedious to read. You will note that renaming this article excluded it from the Category:Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II, while all the articles in the category were stripped of the 'strategic'!

• You say " ... to give it any sort ... ". What/which "it" are you referring to?

"the change was ... effected" - refers to the operation

"Therefore the original article ... " - Agreed. I also think the current article isn't about the war, either. And I believe EconomistBR also thinks this - hence the latest proposal to have separate articles for the "war" and the "campaign". Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, and how are you going to do that? The decision has been made, and to reverse it you would have to get each and every person that voted the last name change to admit they were wrong.

The second question Nick answered with "Attrition", whatever that means (selection from various suggestions?).

No, "Attrition" was my word. Like you, Nick didn't think much of it either, but he was more polite. He answered: "Lengthy discussion on the article's talk page" Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

However, that's also a lie. It was suggested by Raul654 and accepted based on GoogleBooks word count. In fact the discussion wasn't that lengthy because there was no discussion! It was a pole vote, plain and simple.

I don't agree that it is "a lie". There was indeed "Lengthy discussion on the article's talk page" BEFORE "It was suggested by ... " Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You are quite wrong on this, and I have EconomistBR to confirm this as well as this diff 04:14, 30 June 2008 Mrg3105 (talk | contribs) m (moved Operation August Storm to Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation: as per talk and sources given there)

Until this move EconomistBR was one of few people consistently participating in the discussion aside from Buckshot06, Nick-D appeared from nowhere on same day. The second 'discussion' begun on the 23:42, 30 June 2008 and if you read it, you will see only lame comebacks by Nick-D with no one else participating. Nicks only line of reasoning, and his alone was that

"the operation under discussion is a part of the Soviet military history" - that's only one side of the conflict, which is also an important part of Japanese military history. The invasion of Manchuria led to the defeat of Japan's single largest field army and played a major role in the Japanese decision to surrender. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

However no one actually brought any information to reflect the Japanese side of the story then or now, and how could they? It was not a Japanese offensive, so all they could call it is The defeat of the Kwantung Army. Besides this, the article, as I said before, was not about the war, and therefore influencing the Japanese decision to surrender, but the operation, and defeat of the largest Japanese Army before surrender. Renaming the article changed the subject of its content.

But of course this is also inconsistent with other articles. To name one, in Operation Market Garden the entire article is written predominantly from the Allied point of view. Even though it has a ludicrous section titled German preparation, where as we know the senior German officers were taken completely by surprise, standing agape in their residences watching the massive airlift unfold before them. And yet no one has stepped in and said, this is about the operation and not what happened before it (vast majority of the above section content. Because in fact editorial review in Wikipedia is poor by academic standards, but the MH Project coordinators will not accept this, and continue to approve featured articles that are just poor. One such is Nick-Ds pride and joy, the Military history of Australia during World War II which fails to mention the major Allies, UK and USA!

The (1945) was added later when I pointed out that there was an invasion by the Soviet forces of the quasi-independent Manchurian state in 1929. The British diplomatic records do refer to it as such. So, another lie, since he could have looked back on the poll vote he participated in.

To question three, see question two answer. No one suggested comparison between the suggested article title and the "Japanese invasion of Manchuria" article. There is a "Sino-Soviet conflict (1929)" article about the November 1929 Soviet invasion following the Harbin incident.

p.44 The making of a Chinese city: history and historiography in Harbin, Søren Clausen, Stig Thøgersen.

Although known as a "little war" it is called a 'conflict' in Wikipedia, while the 1945 "conflict" is called an "invasion" which to me seems more than a little inconsistent. However, this is par for the course in Wikipedia Military History Project where terms are defined by voting on them rather than logic, accepted usage outside of Wikipedia and supporting evidence. Of course the 1929 conflict was an invasion because it was very limited, and economics rather military power based. This is quite different from a war even by Wikipedia's definition. Please note how the invasion is defined in Wikipedia. I simply insisted that where the offensive seeks to invade a large region, in this case three countries, it is strategic by definition. A similar argument I posed over the Operation Market Garden. This is not a trivial and pedantic demand, but defines the scope of the operations for the reader since most readers understand, thanks to use of the word in the media commentary on the financial world, that strategic means BIG.

Fair enough. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

What Nick means in his answer to question four, is that my logical arguments and evidence were disrupting what he or Buckshot06 wanted to see; he answered nothing, and eventually had other editors just vote me out.

I find Wikipedia's definition of 'disruptive' quite interesting, but in general it works best if you are an administrator or even better a project coordinator.

When I look back on the 'discussion' and ask myself, who was disruptive, well, of course those that do not contribute themselves or prevent contribution by others to the improvement of the article. My intended contributions to a host of articles have been disrupted because what I add to the articles does not fit what coordinators of the project think they should be, so they disrupted my participation by baseless accusations, and eventually an imaginary charge of sockpuppetry! "If you can't out-argue them, just get rid of them" principle is well and alive in Wikipedia. So far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia is neck-deep in bureaucratic policy management and enforcement rather than article editing, and this creates the classic "don't rock the boat" syndrome most bureaucracies suffer eventually.

Well, I don't think there's much I can do about that. It now seems to be in the realm of "fait accompli". Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You call this confrontation EconomistBR, but I call it truth. Truth can be confronting though.

"It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it." Unpleasant "truths" can be presented in a non-confronting manner, and in general, one is much less likely to achieve one's goals when using a confrontational approach. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you keep saying that, but you have not been through the preceding rigged straw polls, and in any case by this stage it was academic how nice I was going to be to anyone. There was a decision made off-Wikipedia to do as Buckshot06 wanted because although he is utterly unfit to edit on the subject of the Soviet articles in the Second World War, he is very nice in his interaction with the powers-that-be in the Military History Project. But, I have read and written an essay on 1984 early in life. Having grown up to some degree in USSR where lying was the rule in various guises from official propaganda to daily interpersonal 'white lies', I have come to despise it throughout my life. I will not be nice to people and tell them they are "mistaken" where as in fact they are lying. There is a large and obvious difference between wilful lies and honest mistakes.

Indeed it was a 'fait accmpli' even before the 'discussion' started, and I am not asking you to do anything for me. As I said before, Wikipedia is an organisation that is rotting, and as with fish, the rot starts in the head. Nick-D is one-removed from "Jimbo" now, so that tells me about his oversight, if he has any, on who and how manages the objective of this enterprise, which is to produce high quality articles. Participation should be about editing, and all other policies must be focused on the objective of editing high quality articles, not enforcement of behaviour modification policies of 'niceness'. I did not after all tell anyone to "fuck off" on first contact.

I had in the past produced very many articles, nearly none a stub. I had contributed significantly to referencing articles, including those that had nothing to do with the Eastern Front, or even Soviet Union. When I say articles, I mean articles, from scratch or rescuing. I did not expect any 'thank you' for that, but when people started to try and stop me doing so, I was offended because Wikipedia screams online "come and contribute, everyone welcome", but when you get here, you get bureaucracy and networked behind-the-scenes schemeng and arcane politics

I don't know what Nick does for a living, but I hope he is not paid for his assumptions. Mrg3105 --121.216.53.87 (talk) 00:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Well, I may not be any wiser, but I am certainly much better informed! Thanks for that. Interesting. Very interesting. Pdfpdf (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Back to the subject of the article

Whom do you refer to when you say that they offer a different picture to that of Glantz?

(I just want to clarify my use of "different" here. In these circumstances when I say "different", I mean "overlapping but also containing other information" rather that "completely different" or opposite or conflicting.)

At one level, you could say all authors offer a different picture. My comment was attempting to point out that, to me, Glantz's summaries often seem to "miss" things that add colour and depth to the picture. I'm not trying to infer that the information Glantz presents is inaccurate or "wrong", just that often there are bits of the picture missing, and when I see those bits elsewhere, it gives me greater depth of understanding.

I guess I'm saying that I don't like to restrict my information to just one source.

However, being specific, and refering to Soviet-Japanese War (1945)#Further reading and also the references, "different pictures" I enjoyed looking at were Butow, the Bart Whaley section in Despres, Slavinskii, Drea and Hayashi (Vol.13 of the special studies).

All the references I would offer to the full name are from Russian language sources.

Glantz, as a Russian Academy of Sciences fellow, now has unprecedented access to Russian and Soviet archives, and I think is the only one among specialists in the field to actually speak the language.

The Anglo-Australian who translated Slavinskii probably deserves an "honourable mention". (Geoffrey Jukes). I find Slavinskii's work very interesting. It's a shame he died "young" (In his 50s I think.)

Of course the Japanese side has to be reflected also, but I never had a chance to get there. I was going to work with other editors in Wikipedia working in the Japanese area, but that was never pursued. This would have been possible if the companion paper [1] was read by anyone other than me Mrg3105--58.165.187.31 (talk) 05:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've read it, but as you've probably already determined, my interests tend to be in the strategic level - I'm not so interested in the tactical. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

So how can I help improve the article? Mrg3105 --124.176.95.71 (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation

IMO the actual execution is the scope of the Battle that the Strategic Offensive Operation generated. Also given that a SOO is complex one would need a plan in order to conduct it.

What's the subject of an article entitled Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation?

IMO MSOO is a system of offensive operations in the planning phase. So an article describing Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation would have to also detail Soviet plans for the Hokkaido Landing Operation, even though that didn't happen: Which units would land where? Estimated strength of the defenders, objectives and so on. EconomistBR 23:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)